Since Christmas, I’ve had almost debilitating dizziness, especially if I roll over onto my left side while I’m sleeping. The disorientation and sense that the room is rapidly swirling around and around wakes me out of a sound sleep and is scary, especially when I don’t know what is causing the symptoms. I had called the first week of January for an appointment with my GP, but as it so often goes, the first available was Feb. 11, today, and I went to the office with marked hesitation. Last night, I watched a movie on Lifetime in which the female lead was suffering from a slowly-bleeding aneurysm, and I decided that would probably be my diagnosis.
When the doc came into the room, I described the symptoms, including a place behind my left ear that felt bruised from inside my skull. I prefaced my remarks with “you’re going to think I’m crazy,” but the doctor just laughed and told me he knows exactly what the problem is: a form of labyrinthitis.
Sure, okay, that’s a joke, right?
According to the doc, there are 3 little "gyroscopes" in the brain that help us to keep our balance. If one (or more) is not functioning or off-balance, we become dizzy, disoriented, and suffer from vertigo, a side condition of which is vomiting, I've discovered. There is a way to reorient these parts of the brain, and I had the first treatment today, with two more to follow by Friday.
My doc is an osteopath, which means he doesn’t go for the prescription pad first, but thinks more organically; hence, he's treating the symptoms physically before fobbing me off with endless rounds of antibiotics. Additionally, he commented that I’m about the 10th case he’s treated in the last several months. He says that often the symptoms are diagnosed as an inner ear infection, for which antibiotics are prescribed, and the patient cannot figure out why the condition doesn’t improve, often after multiple doses of antibiotics. However, I don't have any symptoms to suggest an inner ear infection, so it's probably not.
It was awful to induce deliberately the extreme vertigo, but by the third time we went through the process, it was less intense than when we started. Hopefully, by the time we complete the final treatment, the gyros will have reset and I will be symptom-free.
A side benefit is that my vision was clearer on the drive home than it’s been in weeks! I’ve had blurred vision, as well as difficulty reading, along with the vertigo. After the treatment, I can see clearly and the outlines of objects outside the windshield were clear and crisp for the first time in weeks.
By Friday, I should be totally over this and able to buy -- and read -- another batch of new books for the weekend.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Another View
The ladies of The View, who define acerbic, took some shots at Chelsea Clinton last week because she called them personally to talk about her mother’s presidential campaign. It seems that CC has a soft, feminine voice, and the ladies imitated her when discussing their phone calls. The audience laughed, the women talked about Clinton for several minutes (any publicity is good publicity), and life went on.
Today, the discussion is about HC firing her campaign manager with a snap of the fingers, as well as “defending” her daughter and the assistance she has provided to the campaign. Herein lies my problem: I don’t want my President to be perceived as a petty bitch! Firing someone on the spur of the moment is reactive, not proactive, and my president needs to be able to look at the bigger picture, not just today, and, in the words of George Dub-You, "stay the course."
Secondly, CC is not a “girl,” she’s a grown woman whose parents have been in politics throughout her lifetime. Thus, she knows the drill and if she cannot stand the heat, get the hell out of the campaign limelight. If it pisses Mama off that people make fun of her daughter, Mama needs to deal with it another way and at another time. Complaining to the media isn't working for me: it's not what I define as a "presidential" action!
When important international organizations vette future employees, they hone in on weaknesses that can be used to bribe the employee, extract info from him/her, or manipulate the individual into committing criminal acts. When there are “hot buttons” that can be pushed so the individual loses control and the more powerful person gains it, it makes a difference between winning and losing, especially for a world leader. Anyone who knows that Mama Bear has issues with Dotter Bear being attacked will go after Mama: using one's weakness against him/her is a great strategy for one's enemy to employ.
Friends have assured me that Hillary is going to be a great president, but I disagree; frankly, she is not of the caliber this country needs in its first female President. She whines, she complains, she cops the prune face when she’s pissed, she gets all teary-eyed when she’s tired or feels picked on, she fawns toward men, she reacts when she should simply ignore and move on, and she takes comments personally that are meant politically. She’s a “typical” female, and the position demands an extraordinary individual, whether female or male.
If a woman is going to become the President of the United States, she must be presidential not just in front of the cameras, but behind them. She does not have the luxury of reacting to personal situations in a personal manner, especially in the glare of the always-there media. Memorable role models for women leaders include Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth, and Indira Ghandi, as well as Eleanor Roosevelt, all of whom were “presidential” in their demeanor, rather than petty. They knew that the attacks on them would not just be political, but personal, but they did not respond to them and create headlines throughout the world that revealed thin political skin. Perhaps they were perceived as too cold and distant, but better that perception than a weepy, malleable female.
There isn’t much of a choice this election year, regardless of the political party one favors, and it is possible that history can be made by either electing the first black President or the first female President. However, we should elect the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, which are merely genetic circumstances, not qualifications for office. Electing anyone based on gender or race is a huge backward step for both equal rights and mankind.
Electing a candidate who shows before the votes are cast a lack of the personal strength necessary to represent the country in a global venue has not just the potential to be historical, but to be a bad decision.
Today, the discussion is about HC firing her campaign manager with a snap of the fingers, as well as “defending” her daughter and the assistance she has provided to the campaign. Herein lies my problem: I don’t want my President to be perceived as a petty bitch! Firing someone on the spur of the moment is reactive, not proactive, and my president needs to be able to look at the bigger picture, not just today, and, in the words of George Dub-You, "stay the course."
Secondly, CC is not a “girl,” she’s a grown woman whose parents have been in politics throughout her lifetime. Thus, she knows the drill and if she cannot stand the heat, get the hell out of the campaign limelight. If it pisses Mama off that people make fun of her daughter, Mama needs to deal with it another way and at another time. Complaining to the media isn't working for me: it's not what I define as a "presidential" action!
When important international organizations vette future employees, they hone in on weaknesses that can be used to bribe the employee, extract info from him/her, or manipulate the individual into committing criminal acts. When there are “hot buttons” that can be pushed so the individual loses control and the more powerful person gains it, it makes a difference between winning and losing, especially for a world leader. Anyone who knows that Mama Bear has issues with Dotter Bear being attacked will go after Mama: using one's weakness against him/her is a great strategy for one's enemy to employ.
Friends have assured me that Hillary is going to be a great president, but I disagree; frankly, she is not of the caliber this country needs in its first female President. She whines, she complains, she cops the prune face when she’s pissed, she gets all teary-eyed when she’s tired or feels picked on, she fawns toward men, she reacts when she should simply ignore and move on, and she takes comments personally that are meant politically. She’s a “typical” female, and the position demands an extraordinary individual, whether female or male.
If a woman is going to become the President of the United States, she must be presidential not just in front of the cameras, but behind them. She does not have the luxury of reacting to personal situations in a personal manner, especially in the glare of the always-there media. Memorable role models for women leaders include Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth, and Indira Ghandi, as well as Eleanor Roosevelt, all of whom were “presidential” in their demeanor, rather than petty. They knew that the attacks on them would not just be political, but personal, but they did not respond to them and create headlines throughout the world that revealed thin political skin. Perhaps they were perceived as too cold and distant, but better that perception than a weepy, malleable female.
There isn’t much of a choice this election year, regardless of the political party one favors, and it is possible that history can be made by either electing the first black President or the first female President. However, we should elect the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, which are merely genetic circumstances, not qualifications for office. Electing anyone based on gender or race is a huge backward step for both equal rights and mankind.
Electing a candidate who shows before the votes are cast a lack of the personal strength necessary to represent the country in a global venue has not just the potential to be historical, but to be a bad decision.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Due Unto Others ...
The county approved $40k to develop an education program for home buyers to explain the dangers of purchasing a home at a price that exceeds their ability to pay and then defaulting on the loan to get out from under it.
There used to be such a “program”: it was called truth in lending and involved ethical sellers and financial institutions that screened buyers carefully, ran the numbers, and refused to finance purchases that were iffy, at best. There were rigid guidelines for financial feasibility, and if a potential buyer did not qualify for a loan, that ended the discussion. Buyers were told to come back when they had the means to afford the property because the real estate market and/or the financial institutions would not risk their fiscal health on an individual’s promise to pay.
What happened to that program? Oh, that’s right! Homeowners no longer can handle the truth because they buy what they want, not what they need, telling egregious lies in the process, if that’s what it takes, to qualify for a loan. The lenders play deaf, dumb, and stupid to provide the financing, creating a house of cards that takes a single breath of air to bring down.
And when it comes tumbling down, someone has to make it all go away without costing the defaulter a dime. All a consumer has to say is that “no one told me” or “I didn’t know,” and it's gone. The consequences evaporate for the individual in a heartfelt second of “sorry,” but those of us paying our way end up paying for these miscreants’ malfeasance, too.
They stick it to the man without realizing that we are the man, those of us who honor our obligations, who make the best of a bad situation we didn’t create, but now are stuck with the consequences of their actions.
Case in point: the couple next door jumped on the let’s make a profit at the consumer’s expense on the home they purchased about 4 years ago. They did little to improve the property and maintained a high-occupancy rate with a constant influx of “family from Mexico” who lived with them. About a year ago, they added $100k to the purchase price of their somewhat pedestrian home and planted a For Sale sign in the front yard. Six months later, the house still waiting for a buyer, they found another home, a larger, more luxurious home, in a gated community, and moved. A continual parade of temporary residents stayed at the vacant home, clearing out last weekend when the bank took possession.
The neighbors did what thousands of other homeowners did at the same time, glutting the market with neighborhoods of over-priced “starter” homes that will not sell while committing themselves to high mortgages on another property. Paying multiple mortgages can only last for as long as there is money to pay them. For the average American, living on the edge of their present and future income, that house of credit cards can’t stand for long.
My neighbors’ home has been taken over by the bank, along with the home across the street. In addition, the rental next door has been empty for going on 6 months as one day the previous tenants moved all the furniture into the front yard, packed what they wanted into a couple of cars, and drove off. The absentee landlord knows by now that no one is paying the rent, but who knows where he is. Perhaps this is another property going into foreclosure. Several other new homes on my block are also for sale, the owners already gone, leaving the properties susceptible to vandalism, theft, and squatters.
Of course, the situation created by my neighbors means that I cannot sell my property. The situation created by my neighbors means that my home is probably no longer worth the mortgage I hold on it, in spite of the major improvements I have made to the property. The situation created by my neighbors means that when I sell, I may have to pay off my mortgage out of pocket. The situation created by my neighbors means that although I have NEVER missed a mortgage payment or walked away in default on a loan, their actions are now my consequence.
They’ve moved on; I haven’t—and now I may not be able to!
It’s a spiral of conspicuous consumption that hasn’t reached bottom yet, but it will. Just as the speculators made huge profits off the dotcom boom, took their financial gains and moved on, speculators have scored big on the inflated real estate market and taken their profits with them to another venue. Judging by the recent trends in the stock market, I’d hazard a guess that’s where all these opportunists have decided to play their games.
The average American wants to own a home, so once the pricing of real estate is reset to match the consumer’s ability to purchase it, people will again buy homes. I’m not sure, however, what we’re going to do to reset the ethics of the unethical consumer, the person who continues to lower the bar for the rest of us, who do the right thing not because we’re told to, but because it’s the right thing to do. We are the ones who have to clean up the mess, who have to pay the price—and the penalties—for the ones who shit on the system and walk away.
Instead of them “sticking it to the man,” let’s stick it to the ones who create the mess and expect the man to clean up after them!
There used to be such a “program”: it was called truth in lending and involved ethical sellers and financial institutions that screened buyers carefully, ran the numbers, and refused to finance purchases that were iffy, at best. There were rigid guidelines for financial feasibility, and if a potential buyer did not qualify for a loan, that ended the discussion. Buyers were told to come back when they had the means to afford the property because the real estate market and/or the financial institutions would not risk their fiscal health on an individual’s promise to pay.
What happened to that program? Oh, that’s right! Homeowners no longer can handle the truth because they buy what they want, not what they need, telling egregious lies in the process, if that’s what it takes, to qualify for a loan. The lenders play deaf, dumb, and stupid to provide the financing, creating a house of cards that takes a single breath of air to bring down.
And when it comes tumbling down, someone has to make it all go away without costing the defaulter a dime. All a consumer has to say is that “no one told me” or “I didn’t know,” and it's gone. The consequences evaporate for the individual in a heartfelt second of “sorry,” but those of us paying our way end up paying for these miscreants’ malfeasance, too.
They stick it to the man without realizing that we are the man, those of us who honor our obligations, who make the best of a bad situation we didn’t create, but now are stuck with the consequences of their actions.
Case in point: the couple next door jumped on the let’s make a profit at the consumer’s expense on the home they purchased about 4 years ago. They did little to improve the property and maintained a high-occupancy rate with a constant influx of “family from Mexico” who lived with them. About a year ago, they added $100k to the purchase price of their somewhat pedestrian home and planted a For Sale sign in the front yard. Six months later, the house still waiting for a buyer, they found another home, a larger, more luxurious home, in a gated community, and moved. A continual parade of temporary residents stayed at the vacant home, clearing out last weekend when the bank took possession.
The neighbors did what thousands of other homeowners did at the same time, glutting the market with neighborhoods of over-priced “starter” homes that will not sell while committing themselves to high mortgages on another property. Paying multiple mortgages can only last for as long as there is money to pay them. For the average American, living on the edge of their present and future income, that house of credit cards can’t stand for long.
My neighbors’ home has been taken over by the bank, along with the home across the street. In addition, the rental next door has been empty for going on 6 months as one day the previous tenants moved all the furniture into the front yard, packed what they wanted into a couple of cars, and drove off. The absentee landlord knows by now that no one is paying the rent, but who knows where he is. Perhaps this is another property going into foreclosure. Several other new homes on my block are also for sale, the owners already gone, leaving the properties susceptible to vandalism, theft, and squatters.
Of course, the situation created by my neighbors means that I cannot sell my property. The situation created by my neighbors means that my home is probably no longer worth the mortgage I hold on it, in spite of the major improvements I have made to the property. The situation created by my neighbors means that when I sell, I may have to pay off my mortgage out of pocket. The situation created by my neighbors means that although I have NEVER missed a mortgage payment or walked away in default on a loan, their actions are now my consequence.
They’ve moved on; I haven’t—and now I may not be able to!
It’s a spiral of conspicuous consumption that hasn’t reached bottom yet, but it will. Just as the speculators made huge profits off the dotcom boom, took their financial gains and moved on, speculators have scored big on the inflated real estate market and taken their profits with them to another venue. Judging by the recent trends in the stock market, I’d hazard a guess that’s where all these opportunists have decided to play their games.
The average American wants to own a home, so once the pricing of real estate is reset to match the consumer’s ability to purchase it, people will again buy homes. I’m not sure, however, what we’re going to do to reset the ethics of the unethical consumer, the person who continues to lower the bar for the rest of us, who do the right thing not because we’re told to, but because it’s the right thing to do. We are the ones who have to clean up the mess, who have to pay the price—and the penalties—for the ones who shit on the system and walk away.
Instead of them “sticking it to the man,” let’s stick it to the ones who create the mess and expect the man to clean up after them!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Voting as Process, not Product
Great: polling places are closing across the eastern US and the "instant results" are coming in. Talk about incentive for the far western state voters to rush to the polls! I thought there was going to be withholding of the results of eastern states until all the western states closed the polls.
Guess not. So, I either take the publicized elections results and figure my vote doesn't count, or I rush to the polls before they close so my one vote makes a difference? Somehow, I don't think either scenario is going to happen, but no one thought Eli Manning could get out of the mosh pit Sunday and complete the pass he wanted to throw to a receiver who caught it with his helmet.
I completed my absentee ballot and sent it to the county for processing the day after I received it in January. Sure, it fell apart when I opened it, but I figured that was to facilitate the counting process. Little did I know that the ballot was defective because that notice wasn’t sent out until 2 weeks after I had returned my ballot. Anyone who had not completed the ballot had to contact the registrar of voters and request a replacement ballot, and that's as likely to happen as people lining up and demanding to serve jury duty.
I also did not figure out to merely connect the two halves of the line indicating my choice with one single stroke of my black ink pen: to be sure it was easy to read, I colored in the line! Now the public is told that the ballots were going to be counted by machines that only read one firm line and only if that single line is in black ink! However, since so many people did as I did, the ballots are going to have to be hand counted or thrown out, and I think that's still illegal.
None of this was made clear in the media until today because the county is using paper ballots this year, rather than the machines, confusing the hell out of senior citizens who have finally figured out voting by machine. Someone decided that the voting machines can be compromised, as was alleged about a decade ago, so we’re back to paper ballots that are machine-scored for those voters who followed directions, and hand scored for any of us who filled in the line, rather than simply connecting it.
I can't wait to see the results of this election fiasco!
PS: It's just after 9 pm and the CA election has already been called! Wow, the paper ballots must be more efficient than I thought as the polls closed a mere hour ago. And how 'bout all those absentee ballots? They've all been scored, too?
Must be; the pundits are predicting who's going to drop out of the race, as well as how many "committed" delegates now belong to each candidate. Isn't it exciting?
Guess not. So, I either take the publicized elections results and figure my vote doesn't count, or I rush to the polls before they close so my one vote makes a difference? Somehow, I don't think either scenario is going to happen, but no one thought Eli Manning could get out of the mosh pit Sunday and complete the pass he wanted to throw to a receiver who caught it with his helmet.
I completed my absentee ballot and sent it to the county for processing the day after I received it in January. Sure, it fell apart when I opened it, but I figured that was to facilitate the counting process. Little did I know that the ballot was defective because that notice wasn’t sent out until 2 weeks after I had returned my ballot. Anyone who had not completed the ballot had to contact the registrar of voters and request a replacement ballot, and that's as likely to happen as people lining up and demanding to serve jury duty.
I also did not figure out to merely connect the two halves of the line indicating my choice with one single stroke of my black ink pen: to be sure it was easy to read, I colored in the line! Now the public is told that the ballots were going to be counted by machines that only read one firm line and only if that single line is in black ink! However, since so many people did as I did, the ballots are going to have to be hand counted or thrown out, and I think that's still illegal.
None of this was made clear in the media until today because the county is using paper ballots this year, rather than the machines, confusing the hell out of senior citizens who have finally figured out voting by machine. Someone decided that the voting machines can be compromised, as was alleged about a decade ago, so we’re back to paper ballots that are machine-scored for those voters who followed directions, and hand scored for any of us who filled in the line, rather than simply connecting it.
I can't wait to see the results of this election fiasco!
PS: It's just after 9 pm and the CA election has already been called! Wow, the paper ballots must be more efficient than I thought as the polls closed a mere hour ago. And how 'bout all those absentee ballots? They've all been scored, too?
Must be; the pundits are predicting who's going to drop out of the race, as well as how many "committed" delegates now belong to each candidate. Isn't it exciting?
Monday, February 4, 2008
My Two Cents
In CA and other “Super Tuesday” states, hundreds of thousands of absentee voters cast ballots that no longer have value as the candidates for whom they voted have withdrawn their candidacy.
It's fairly obvious that the people no longer select the candidates as the political machines make the selection by manipulating and maneuvering the system to achieve their pre-determined outcomes, but if we're going to pretend the people do have a say, all people should have the same say.
Thus, the US should have a national pre-election to select candidates to run for office. Every registered voter votes on the same day to select from the field of potentials the top 3 candidates in each recognized party, who then stand for election and campaign. Once the campaign is complete (45 days max for this process), another national election will be held and the highest vote-getter is elected President, while the runner-up becomes the vice president—regardless of party affiliation.
Of course, this would assure that we, the people, select the president and vice-president, and I'm not sure the politicians are ready for that to happen ... .
Changing gears, I admire that Adnan, the 'razzi-boy, sat through a one-on-one interview and issued the call for help for Britney. His responses were carefully neutral with one exception: he made it clear that there are people in Britney’s inner circle who do not have her best interests guiding their decision-making process. He also said that her parents are not the enemy, but the sycophants who feed off her are suspect.
The interviewer tried to insinuate that Adnan was “betraying” Britney, but I saw it as a willingness to take action when no one else would. And isn't that the goal of a new TV show? Intervention by those who care when an individual is unable to see themselves on a path to personal destruction.
His gamble paid off as Britney’s family came to her aid, removed her from the toxic environment of her BH home, and signed her into a hospital for diagnosis and treatment. The protection order against her long-time agent and alleged friend speaks volumes as her family struggles to gain control over a situation that has gone terribly wrong on so many fronts.
Finally, the Super Bowl was a good football game, with the outcome undecided until the last 30 seconds. Eli Manning is not a great quarterback, and Tom Brady played like a first-year rookie, but the Giants defense made Brady wish he had stayed home, while the Giants offense made Manning look far better than he often is.
The game highlight, of course, is Belichick leaving the field of battle before the final snap of the ball. It’s been said he’s a poor loser, but I think we can just leave it at “he’s a loser” after that decision.
It's fairly obvious that the people no longer select the candidates as the political machines make the selection by manipulating and maneuvering the system to achieve their pre-determined outcomes, but if we're going to pretend the people do have a say, all people should have the same say.
Thus, the US should have a national pre-election to select candidates to run for office. Every registered voter votes on the same day to select from the field of potentials the top 3 candidates in each recognized party, who then stand for election and campaign. Once the campaign is complete (45 days max for this process), another national election will be held and the highest vote-getter is elected President, while the runner-up becomes the vice president—regardless of party affiliation.
Of course, this would assure that we, the people, select the president and vice-president, and I'm not sure the politicians are ready for that to happen ... .
Changing gears, I admire that Adnan, the 'razzi-boy, sat through a one-on-one interview and issued the call for help for Britney. His responses were carefully neutral with one exception: he made it clear that there are people in Britney’s inner circle who do not have her best interests guiding their decision-making process. He also said that her parents are not the enemy, but the sycophants who feed off her are suspect.
The interviewer tried to insinuate that Adnan was “betraying” Britney, but I saw it as a willingness to take action when no one else would. And isn't that the goal of a new TV show? Intervention by those who care when an individual is unable to see themselves on a path to personal destruction.
His gamble paid off as Britney’s family came to her aid, removed her from the toxic environment of her BH home, and signed her into a hospital for diagnosis and treatment. The protection order against her long-time agent and alleged friend speaks volumes as her family struggles to gain control over a situation that has gone terribly wrong on so many fronts.
Finally, the Super Bowl was a good football game, with the outcome undecided until the last 30 seconds. Eli Manning is not a great quarterback, and Tom Brady played like a first-year rookie, but the Giants defense made Brady wish he had stayed home, while the Giants offense made Manning look far better than he often is.
The game highlight, of course, is Belichick leaving the field of battle before the final snap of the ball. It’s been said he’s a poor loser, but I think we can just leave it at “he’s a loser” after that decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)