Weirdest Dream lately :
I dreamed I was on the "other side" when my Dad was passing. I spoke to him and made sure he was okay. Then I woke, and knew he was gone. 30 minutes later, we got the call from the hospital saying that his blood pressure had crashed in the last 30 minutes.
Currently working on :
A BTVS related story called "Long Goodbye" which deals with a member of the Watchers Council being vamped as part of an experiment.
Also completing my nanowrimo effort.
A blog for that outspoken and aggressive member of the Buffy Bulletin Board.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Aid
Luke 21:1-4
The tragedy in the Far East has led to some criticism of the wealthier nations in the world. The Bush Administration seems to feel that the condemnation was aimed at them specifically.
I guess that's an easy assumption to make, when you run dead last in the rankings.
But then, that's just it.. It all depends on how you calculate these things.
In real dollar terms, the US gave more than any other country in foreign aid in 2002 and 2003 and 2004. Before that, since about 1992 I think, Japan was the number one contributer in real dollar terms.
Clearly, this is the method favoured by the Bush administration when it comes to working out how generous they are.
But you see, these things are relative. Which is why I cited the passage from Luke above. It's clear that America gives a lot of Foreign Aid. But do they give enough?
What percentage of its gross domestic product does the United States annually allocate as foreign aid to Third World countries? I offer my students five choices:
(A) One-tenth of one percent, (B) One percent, (C) Five percent, (D) Ten percent, and (E) Twenty-five percent.
Incredibly, about half the class chooses C, and most of the remaining half pick D and E. Two or three 'unpatriotic' students in each class pick A or B.
The correct answer is A.
- Quote taken from an economics professor, I believe. (Will look it up later)
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid. The OECD figures show that as of April 2004, none of the world’s richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product.
Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was dead last, at 0.14 percent.
The worlds richest countries have pledged to do much better. When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
Bit of a gap there, between 0.7 and 0.14
Now the guy who made the comment that got Bush and others in a tizzy, was Jan Egeland, from Norway. Of the worlds richest countries, they gave proportionately the most. They've met and exceeded their 0.7% target. Maybe he felt that entitled him to comment on others. Maybe he just felt 0.7 percent was too little for anyone, regardless.
In a recent speech, President Bush declared, "We are a compassionate country, and we are generous toward our fellow citizens." It is a favourite pitch with American politicians in both parties. But is it true?
In its Human Development Report, 2003, the UNDP measures a Human Poverty Index (HPI) for seventeen developed countries; it measures deprivations in four dimensions.
On this index of human poverty, the US ranked dead last out of seventeen countries. {United Nations Development Programme, Human development report, 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press, 2000): 248, 342.}
If we measure compassion "toward fellow citizens" in terms of income inequality (conventionally measured by the Gini index) we get the same result. The US has the largest value for the Gini index amongst developed countries. {World Bank, World development report, 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press, 2002): 236-7.}
I will compare the funds allocated to 'foreign aid,' the index by which Americans most often measure their generosity towards poor countries. The total funds allocated by the United States to 'foreign aid" in 2003 amounted to 0.11 percent (note the position of the decimal) of its gross national income. That is easily the lowest ratio for the twenty-four members of Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. {World Bank, World development report, 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press, 2002): 290.}
On the ground, matters are much worse. Nearly one-third of this aid (around 3 billion dollars a year) goes as grants (no obligation to pay back) to another developed country, Israel, to buy the most advanced weaponry in the US arsenal, from US manufacturers. That's 3 billion a year, every year. For US weapons.
So foreign aid (excluding arms money to Israel) is 0.08% of GDP
Of the remainder, hefty though the amounts are, how much is given with no strings attached? By that, I mean, how much is given in terms of actual aid and assistance, as opposed to (say) "Let us build a base here, or we cut off your aid." or "Let us refuel here or we cut off your aid" or "To hell with what your population wants, sign this or we cut off your aid".
You get the idea. I'll leave that last part for the interested reader to discover.
Next week, we'll look at how much money is spent by America attacking and bombing other countries, as opposed to helping other countries. </sarcasm> posted by Manchild at 1:30 PM
Since it was asked in a comment below, let me explain quickly what the deal is with the Sunni and the Shi'ite tribes in Iraq.
Sunni Muslims: They are mainstream traditionalists. They constitute a 90% majority of the believers worldwide, but in Iraq they are a minority. (20%)
They have learned to keep their faith within secular societies, adapting to a variety of national cultures, including the old Iraqi regime. (Which was secular, remember.) They were given disproportionate power by Saddam in the old regime. This was a shrewd move, designed to keep appease radical religious fundamentalists who would want to overthrow the secular government and replace it with a theocracy.
Bin Laden and Al'Qaeda wanted to overthrow Saddam and install a theocratic government, much as the Taliban (an offshoot puritan Sunni sect) had been installed in Afghanistan.
Shi'ite Muslims: A small minority of Islam. They make up only 10% of the muslim world. They are a minority in nearly all muslim countries, except for Iran, where they are the state religion, and Iraq where they are about 60% of the population. They split from the Sunnis over a dispute about the successor to Muhammad. They would be considered conservatives and fundamentalists. Their leaders promote a strict interpretation of the Qur'an and close adherence to its teachings.
They believe in 12 heavenly Imams (perfect teachers) who led the Shi'ites in succession. Shi'ites believe that the 12th Imam, the Mahdi (guided one), never died but went into hiding waiting for the optimum time to reappear and guide humans towards justice and peace. They would have difficulty holding and promoting such beliefs in a secular society.
It is not really fair to say that one of these sects is more militant than the other. Neither is really the "bad guy". The extremists and cult-like breakaway sects (like any Jewish sect or Christian sect) are the ones to blame.
For example, the corrupted form of Sunni Islam promoted by men like BinLaden, embraced by the Taliban and the current government in the Sudan differs from other forms of Sunni Islam in these key areas :
1) They believe in "takfir wa hijr" which means they hold it impermissible for a Muslim to live in a country not governed by Islamic law without seeking to overthrow and make it Islamic. Otherwise they should immigrate to a place which is truly Muslim. This is totally against the Qu'ran, and a relatively recent belief.
2) Any Muslim government which does not abide by Islamic law is therefore really godless. Such a government should be overthrown and its leaders killed.
Again, totally against the Qu'ran. This belief resulted in most of the violence of Islamist groups being aimed at other Muslims. This belief is descended from the Kharijites, an early Islamic sect responsible for assassinating the Imam Ali. They are considered dangerous heretics by both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims alike.
3) They insist in regarding Christians and Jews as infidels rather than "people of the book" as they are called in the Qu'ran. They are therefore willing to withdraw their protection and even persecute them. This is the reason why there has been so much violence against Christians in both the Sudan and in Egypt.
I hope that tells you a little something about Sunni's and Shi'ites. They're not the enemy. They're not the "bad guys". posted by Manchild at 9:30 AM
Some comments I read recently, coupled with stories like this one made me want to take a quick time out to run over some of the basic tenets of Islam.
I say again, a couple of points, as a matter of record. 1) I'm an atheist. 2) I was raised a Catholic. 3) I don't hate Catholics, Jews or Arabs and don't have an "agenda" to support one particular faith.
Islam teaches respect for others beliefs, and says it is wrong to proselytize i.e. promote their faith looking for converts. In the Qur'an, Allah told Muhammad that "You certainly cannot guide whomever you please; It is Allah who guides whom He will. He best knows those who accept guidance." (28:56). Muslims can explain Islam to followers of other faiths, but it is up to Allah to guide those whom he wishes to.
Islam promotes peace.
Islam forbids suicide. Despite what you might hear (such ridiculous tales of 77 virgins and the rest) the Qur'an clearly states: "Do not kill yourselves as God has been to you very merciful" (4:29). Only Allah is to take a life. Since death must be left up to Allah, physician assisted suicide is not allowed.
Islam promotes living in harmony with other races and religions.
Islam regards Abraham as the father of their religion. They worship the God of Abraham.
Islam says there have been many prophets, such as Moses, and Muslims think Jesus was one of them. (His teachings being co-opted after his followers after he ascended to Heaven.)
Islam believes both Jews and Christians have strayed from or misinterpreted the Word of God, but that basically, they all worship the same God. The God of Abraham and Moses.
Islam believes Muhammad to be THE prophet, in much the same way the Jews see Moses as being THE prophet, as well as the last prophet.
As such, the shahada (testimony) states the central belief of Islam: "There is no god but God (Allah), and Muhammad is his Prophet." So they are similar to Jews in promoting the Oneness of God, as opposed to Christian trinitarianism.
The shahada is one of 5 main pillars of faith in Islam. The others are Daily Prayer, Giving alms to the poor, Fasting, and making a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in your life.
Islam also shares the Judaeo-Christian concepts of guardian angels, the Day of Judgment, general resurrection, heaven and hell, and an eternal life for the soul.
Islam believes Jesus did not die on the cross but was taken up bodily into Paradise.
Islame believes in the existence of Satan who drives people to sin.
Islam believes that Muslims who sincerely repent and submit to God return to a state of sinlessness.
Islam also teaches that all people are considered children of Adam. Islam officially rejects racism.
Islam also teaches that Alcohol, other drugs, eating of pork, Gambling etc. should be avoided.
Ramadan is the holiest period in the Islamic year; it is held during the entire 9th lunar month of the year. This was the month in which the Qura'n was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It is a time at which almost all Muslims over the age of 12 are expected to fast from dawn till dusk.
Jihad is one of the most misunderstood words in the West. It is not a religious or holy war. It refers rather, to the internal struggle the devout must face in order to achieve their goals.
There's plenty more I could add, but I think that's enough to give a taste of it.
If you would like to know more, and do not think you could read the Qu'ran for religious reasons, I would highly recommend the book "The History of God" which covers the rise and spread of Judaeism, Christianity and Islam from an historical neutral point of view. (An impressive achievement given that the author used to be a nun.)
If you would like your faith not to be represented on the world stage by those whom you consider false practitioners, then I think it behoves you to ensure you do not fall into the same trap, regarding other faiths and creeds. posted by Manchild at 9:00 AM
Seems like the Russians are embracing the concepts of capitalism in new ways all the time. According to BBC News, Russia has announced that it will no longer ferry US astronauts to space for free. It has been doing so for two years. From 2006 the US will be expected to pay.
It should not come as any great surprise, really. With the shuttle grounded and NASA getting little to no support from the current administration, and the astonauts up there having to ration supplies, it's clear that the ISS is only linked to Earth by the Russians. You want an astranaut in space? You must pay, comrade. Rocket fuel ain't cheap you know. You want to eat while you're up there? That'll be extra. Still think you can get to Mars comrade Bush? Bwah hah hah hah....
Before anyone get's their unmentionables in a twist, they have stated that they'll wait to see if NASA meets its May deadline to get the shuttle program going again.
And they won't be asking for dollars (since Nasa is cash strapped anyway, and the dollar ain't what it used to be). So they are looking into bartering for the man hours they currently owe for other work.
America's response hasn't been made clear yet. Personally, I can't wait to see it.
File this under "Lessons refused to be learned" : You can't go it alone. posted by Manchild at 1:20 PM
When they say "Bon Noël", or "Bon Noel", is that somehow taking "Christ" out of Christmas?
Despite my fathers absence, we had a good christmas at my parents house. I flew back home late last night, and spent some time reflecting on how the week went.
My brother bought a santa claus suit, and dressed up at Midnight on Christmas Eve. It was a nice surprise, and he gave everyone a single present to open before the morning. His girlfriend was on the "naughty" list, so she got something special :)
To give an example of just how cool my brother is, he took some photo's of himself doing traditional Santa stuff. Like eating the mince pie, having the drink, and placing presents under the tree. (All with the digital camera)
Then when the neighbours children came by on Christmas Day, he told them that he had left the camera out, along with the traditional plate for Santa. And that Santa took some photo's of himself. Well, the kids were delighted to see real hard core proof of Santa's visit. I think they all wanted to do the same next year. I suspect a lot of Dads are going to have to buy Santa suits next year.
Two particular pictures were taken, which he's going to use next year on Christmas cards. One of santa with the drink in one hand (to go to those on the "nice" list) and one where he's flipping the finger (for those on the "naughty" list).
He's a funny guy, and he put a lot of effort into making things go smoothly, doing a lot of the tasks normally left for my father, such as prepping and cooking the turkey and the carving afterwards. Dad would have been proud. posted by Manchild at 1:00 PM
Now maybe you're not the sort of person who used to use the BitTorrent service for downloading. If you were, then you could have been watching The Incredibles on 5.1 audio DVD over Christmas. (A copy of the Disney DVD hit the net the week before Christmas, I am reliably informed).
For those who don't know, BitTorrent is the latest and greatest way to download large files quickly from the internet. Obviously, this system has been waylaid by individuals who trade in music, movies, and television shows. I hear that in the US, most fans of the Battlestar Galactica series have already seen the episodes, thanks to BitTorrent. (The series starts on Jan 14th in the US).
A few weeks ago, the MPAA made the fatal mistake of trying to take down all the websites which serve the "torrent" files. They had some success. The sites hosting the torrent files were not doing anything illegal really, since a torrent is not a copyrighted work. But it's hard to face legal threats against a monopoly when you're just an individual. And in the US, let's face it, Justice can be bought with a nice big cheque.
So for the moment, the traditional well-known torrent sites, like suprnova.org have gone away. And the MPAA is probably thinking "excellent" and "we did it".
Fools.
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. Specifically, the bit where making DeCSS code illegal led to the whack-a-mole days where the code sprang up EVERYWHERE, even on T-shirts, and the cease-and-desist letters couldn't keep up. Or the way shutting down Napster led to the creation of Gnutella and eDonkey and Kazaa, which meant more music is traded illegally now in a DAY than was traded by Napster in the average calander month.
Attacking the torrent sites has done only one thing. Forced the evolution of a better system. Just as Napster had a central server which could be attacked (and it's people sued) as its primary weakness, this led to Gnutella and the rest, which did not have that weakness.
In just a few weeks, we will see the launch of eXeem, which will combine the best qualities of Gnutella and other P2P technology, with BitTorrent. A series of dynamic trackers passed quickly back and forth between a virtual cloud of peers. No central point. No weak spot. And no way to stop it.
There are 5000 beta testers working with this right now. And when it goes public in about 20 weeks, give or take, the MPAA is truly fucked. posted by Manchild at 2:30 AM
I was watching this run down on BSkyB's flagship channel, where they were detailing the top 10 moments in Sci Fi.
I'm going to list them here, but I have to disagree with some of them. And after I think about it some more, I'll put my own top 10 up. But for now, here they are, and feel free to comment:
10) From "Empire Strikes Back" : Vader's reveal "Luke, I am your father"
Probably the most startling moment in the original trilogy, this was the thing which shocked the audience the most, and caused multitudes to wonder if it was true. The fact that Vader is Dutch for "Father" apparently never gave anyone the heads-up.
9) From "Blakes 7" : The ending of the finale.
Cited by JMS as the best ending to any show, ever. Like any SF effort by the BBC, its budget was around 50 cents an episode. But what made this show amazing, was the writing. I remember revisiting the show in the late 90's, and my father (who didn't like SF as a rule) telling me that this was really good. Any doubts you might have that the show was kiddy fare, is dispelled in the first episode when you discover a political dissident is framed by the administration on kiddie-porn charges, and mindwiped.
This show was all about how one man could fight the system. Except he lost! Hah! The final episode ends with the hero being killed by his eponymous best friend, and all the rebels get shot. Long live the Federation!
8) From "The Matrix" : The Bullet Time sequence
At the time, a truly revolutionary scene. Even Keanu's wooden performance couldn't detract from this amazingly fluid camera technique. It's a shame that the german version of the movie can't do justice to Trinity's wonderfully brusque "Dodge This!" instead having her say "Only a machine!"
7) From "Quatarmass And The Pit" : Opening the Pod
Again, a classic SF movie, with more emphasis on plot than effects. As such, this is the first one that I really have issues with. I don't think this belongs on the list. Granted, the way the movie takes you by surprise.. thinking it's an unexploded WW2 shell, before revealing it's true alien nature, is a cool shock to those who didn't know what they were getting. But the actual opening of the Pod, IS let down by the effects.
6) From "Planet of the Apes" : The Statue of Liberty reveal
This scene has been lampooned so often now, it's hard to remember how powerful it was when we first saw it. From the brain of Rod Serling, if memory serves, this twist ending hit the audiences hard, leaving most of them in shocked silence. Tim Burton can suck Rod Serlings big one.
5) From "Doctor Who" : The Dalek invasion of Earth
Now, I'm a fan of the Doctor. I think that show had some terrific moments in it, and when it was good, it was very very good. But this? No no no no no no. The Dalek Invasion of Earth wasn't that good a story. The reveal of the Dalek coming up from the water, was "meh!" tv. But then, I never found them scary anyway.
I guess a large part of this had to do with not seeing a lot of the early Doctor Who stories, and encountering them in novel form. The series translates better into the written word in many ways.
So no, if you had to pick a moment, the first time he regenerates is probably the one to go with. It changed the show forever, and was unique in SF, lending beautifully to the series' longevity.
4) From "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" : The communication via music scene
No one, who has seen this movie, can forget the five note tonality which represented the "let's make contact" theme. Dah dah dah -- DAH DAH. Seeing this in a stereo theatre in the 70's, when the base kicks in and rumbles you in your seat... Awesome moment.
3) From "ThunderBirds" : The opening titles.
I have nothing to say, except, whoever picked this is doing some serious drugs. Marionettes in the top 10 of SciFi?
2) From "Alien" : The Chest Bursting scene
Talk about your terrifying moments. You just know that in today's world, a moment like this would be featured in every promo and advert for the movie, because todays coke-addicted advertising execs love blowing their wad in some bizarre premature ejaculatory frenzy. Must be all that soggy biscuit playing those freaks do.
For a first time viewer of this movie, who had no idea what to expect, this was the scene that made you proud to be a man. Just knowing you'd never be pregnant, looking at your belly, knowing something was growing inside of you, and having this memory in your head... God, it was GREAT to be a man.
1) From 2001 : Hal goes mad.
Open the Pod Bay doors please Hal.
This moment, I think, is put in there for those technophobes who still think digital watches cause cancer and the betamax is trying to kill them. Again, totally fabulous movie, but this moment doesn't deserve to be here.
So there they are. I'm sure everyone has their own favourites. I'm going to have a think about mine, and put them up later. posted by Manchild at 11:30 PM
I knew the alleged democratic regime in Iraq was going to be a fictitious pipe-dream. A puppet on the end of American strings. But I've got to admit, it's nice to see them being so upfront about it...
The Sunni are a minority, though they had a lot of power under Saddam. The Shi'ites are a majority. So you would be forgiven for thinking that there might be a tendency for the Shi'ites to have a majority in the new assembly.
Washington has suggested that the results could be adjusted to benefit the Sunni minority if there was a low turnout in Sunni areas, which lead to the Shi'ites winning by an "exaggerated majority".
For some strange reason, perhaps having something to do with an understanding of Democracy, Iraq's election body has called this unacceptable. Farid Ayar said: "Who wins, wins. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be in the election."
It's nice to see that someone understands the concept of democracy. Of course, we also know that it's as easy as Apple Pie to say one thing and do another. posted by Manchild at 10:00 PM
Only in silence, the word. Only in darkness, the light
Fuck you, SciFi Channel.
I had been working on an entry about Earthsea, the mini series run on the SciFi channel during the week. And it just got to the point that I was too angry to write.
Now, I see from Aint It cool News that the author has spoken publicly about the awfulness. And she no doubt covers it better than I ever could.
So a couple of brief points is all I want to make.
"Miss Le Guin was not involved in the development of the material or the making of the film, but we've been very, very honest to the books," explains director Rob Lieberman.
I firmly believe that this statement could, in conjunction with the awfulness of the mini-series, result in real loss of sales. And that lying scum-fuck of a director should be made to pay, in court. Heavily.
The Earthsea Trilogy is a wonderful wonderful series. I still read it regularly. If you are the sort of person who reads, and enjoys a good book ... look these up. With compelling characters, some philosophy, some sense of doom, some fear, some tragedy, some loss, some friendship, you get the sense at the end that you have read one of the great true stories. A real legend. posted by Manchild at 7:00 PM
If I had any lingering doubts about the collapsing dollar, they were dispelled when I read this as the most consistant thing to come out of Bush's mouth is good ol' Texas style bullshit.
Even leaving aside that Bush's knowledge of economics is poorer than the average C student graduating High School, and his advisors are getting rich by promoting supply side economics and permanant tax cuts to the super rich, he actually goes so far as to insist that countries who are worried about the trade defecit merely need to buy more US products.
Someone needs to point out to Dubya that American manufacturing ain't what it used to be. And I'm not just talking about car plants in Flint. This year is the first time in ages that the US bread basket states have come up short. This year, America will be a net importer of food. And I don't think a rush of hyper-obeseity is to blame.
So it's time to start learning Mandarin and Cantonese. The worlds next superpower is just waiting for the current one to roll over and breath its last. And the economic indicators are that it won't be a long wait.
"Facts? You can prove anything with facts!" - Homer Simpson
Last night I went drinking with some friends, and a friend of theirs whom I was meeting for the first time. He is a major in the US Air Force. Now the Major is a very nice guy, very friendly, very funny. But I had mixed emotions about the evening by the end of the night. We had discussed various topics but obviously politics and the war were among the more lengthy topics. On some things we agreed, and on some we disagreed. It was nice to see that there was some common ground between two people of such different political beliefs. (The Major is a rational, if extreme, conservative.) Topics we agreed upon included the luxury of pacifism, and defence of the family, the Soprano's, and armour piercing bullets for deer hunting, the M4 versus the M16, shooting armadillos with nightscopes.
But on the areas where we disagreed... oh boy.
I knew neither one of us was going to convince the other to change his mind over only a few hours, so rather than try to be persuasive in making any points, I was directing my questions more towards why he thinks the way he does. And trying to understand where he was coming from.I'm not sure I was entirely successful, but I think I had never before realised just how incomprehensibly vast the difference between our idealogies actually was.
We spoke, for example, about the recent shooting of a wounded Iraqi in a mosque. The Major told us that the comments going around the troops was that the only thing the soldier had done wrong, was not shooting the journalist when he realised he was on camera.
We spoke about the involuntary service extensions, and calling up troops who'd already served their required terms. He agreed that it sucked. But then, he is also in favour of a draft. (I had thought that the common military mindset said that a volunteer army was preferable.)
We spoke about the United Nations, and agreed that it was mostly toothless, but disagreed totally as to why.
That led us onto a discussion about the Veto, Foreign Aid, and eventually, to the US war on Nicaragua involving the Sandinista's.
On the Veto, I pointed out that the US used its veto more than any other country. And that countries like Iraq are only in violation of UN Resolutions because they don't have the power to veto things they don't want to do. If America didn't have the veto, it would be in violation of more resolutions than any other country.
The Major's argument was a variation on the "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". His attitude was that the US had to have the right to veto those resolutions which are harmful to America and/or it's interests.
We disagreed on where the line should be drawn, of course. Not every proposed resolution is along the lines of America's unilateral disarmament or some other nonsense. And historically, the US has not applied it's veto along those lines. (I'll get back to that point in a minute.)
On Foreign Aid, we had different views on what aid constituted. The Major saw nothing wrong with the idea of giving Aid in exchange for favours (contracts, tax exemptions, military bases, etc...). I had the curious notion that charity should be given freely, not charged for.
But we disagreed hugely on how much aid the US actually gives. The Major had a vastly over inflated idea of how much the US gives. And he wasn't going to take my word for just how wrong he was. (Relates to above point. Getting there slowly.)
Lastly, the Nicaraguan situation. Now, I'd had a bit to drink at this point, so I wasn't prepared to swear blindly that I had my facts right. (I could have been misremembering some names and dates.) But when the Major insisted there was never a campaign against Nicaragua, I was taken aback.
Now to put the three points together, I think the Major is a very intelligent guy, who has been taught a certain history about the US and it's politics and it's policies. And that picture is consistant, so he's comfortable with it. It makes sense.
But it is incomplete. And when you look at the missing parts, in detail, that consistancy breaks down. So the Major doesn't look.
For example, when we did the Veto conversation, I mentioned how the US veto'd a resolution which said that all countries should obey international law. He was unaware of it, and maintained that either I was wrong, or it was not as simple as I made it out.
Or (not a veto) recent events where the US was refusing to spend any money to safeguard Russia's nuclear arsenal (which many thought was a more likely source of rogue nukes than Iraq.) . Again, he refused to believe it.
The common thread was that the Major beliefs, and facts in the real world, did not co-incide in all areas. And where they were at variance, his beliefs about the world took precedence over facts.
How can you get a guy like this (who supports Bush, and thinks Bush supports the troops) to realise for example that the Bush Administration cut veteran funding and veteran benefits? How do you introduce a very well indoctrinated guy, to reality? posted by Manchild at 10:00 AM
Stories like this give me hope. Just because Bush has foolishly turned his back on avenues for medical advances, doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to fall behind.
Hwang Mi-Soon, 37, had been bedridden since an accident in 1985 damaged her lower back and hips. Afterwards, she was confined to her bed or a wheelchair.
Today, she can walk again, thanks to Stem cells. She's the first person in the world to have been treated and cured in this way, but she won't be the last.
What's more, even the religious arguments against stem-cells fall short in this case, as the doctors managed to isolate the stem cells from umbilical cord blood. And while I'm not a doctor, I'm pretty certain that that blood can be sampled without killing the foetus.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the amazing doctors in South Korea who made this possible.
Ex scientia per ardua ad astra. posted by Manchild at 1:00 PM
I wrote this yesterday, but blogger is being a whorebitch again.
I'm different to most people. I don't remember where/when I was, when I heard about Kennedy's death. It's all sort of a blur. But I do remember trying to put the newspaper together, and having to write about it. (Owners and Editors face deadlines too, and this was not something you could have prepackaged and sitting around.)
I can still remember that, in a fit of idiotic hubris, I had allocated the entire second page for my own piece. All text, and no photos. And then discovering over the course of hours that I did not know as much about the man as I would have liked. I knew more, much more, about his public image.
I remember letting the minutes slide by, staring into space, as I tried to remember anything that might give a human side to the man, who was even then, becoming larger than life. A legend. A White House messiah cut down in his prime. But I didn't want to write some fawning adoration to a fake god-head, when chances were that future revelations would tarnish the mans reputation. I wanted to write something that would last. (One of the reasons I got out of that business too... Daily news was becoming ultimately disposible.). But this was different. I knew that. This news wasn't disposible. It was history in a way that few stories are. And there was a lot of white space to fill.
I used to have a sign in my office, a motto of sorts. Words to live by anyway, which I used to keep in mind every time I sat down to write. It can be loosely translated as "Don't fuck it up".
The years between then and now, have not been kind to Kennedy. But the public has. They have more or less forgiven his indiscretions. The Cuban missile crisis is regarded as his brave unblinking stare-down of the communist menace. The most common speech that people remember, is either the one that launched the space race
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"
or the one from his Inaugeral address
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country."
And these are good words to remember.
I could do a better job these days, of writing about the human side of Kennedy. His mistakes, both personal and political. Certainly, I could tear into some of the decisions that he made, or the reckless or illegal or immoral acts of his administration. But what would be the point? And on his anniversary, at that?
J.F.K. wasn't a saint. He was a man, caught in the riptide of history, fighting forces that were beyond the comprehension of normal citizens. He was victorious sometimes, and bowed when he had to be. But he wasn't the type of man to break.
Some can argue that that is why his removal was "approved" by those who hold the real power. I'm not trying to say that.
Rather, I would say that that is why he remains a good role model, and an inspiration to many.
I had often heard that the recently dead visit our dreams.
Obviously, I don't believe that. I don't think you can attribute any particular signifigance to dreams. They're just weird mental neuron firings. But that said, I wanted to use the blog to record my mental state in dealing with my fathers death.
I mentioned that I had not exhibited any real grief to any great extent. In my dreams it's different though. A few nights ago for example, I had a rather upsetting dream. I was in a bedroom that looked, for all intents and purposes, like a AOD's room from about 20 years ago. My dad and I were getting into an argument, over something I can't even remember. And it started the way these things usually did. Neither of us were shouting just yet, but each of us was projecting our voices at louder and clearer volumes. It ended with us shouting at each other, and my ultimate rejoinder was along the lines of "What do you know? You're DEAD!!" In the dream, I was quite upset.
It woke me up, as these things sometimes do. My face was dry, and I got back to sleep. And had another dream about my dad. This time, my family were gathered at a crossroads I know, and my father was coming up the hill towards us. He was walking slowly, and dressed in a smart overcoat. When he drew level to us, we knew he was going somewhere, and couldn't stay long. We were all talking at once. My Dad looked sad and nervous. And on some level I remembered he was gone, and the idea occurred to me that he was on his way to judgement. I reached up and straightened his tie, and tried to reassure him that he was a good man. When he left, we stayed at the corner watching him walk away. It was upsetting. He disappeared before he turned the corner and went out of sight.
My sleep patterns over the last few weeks have been erratic. And while I normally remember my dreams easily, there majority of recent nights, I don't remember them. But when I wake, the ever-present loss I feel, is diminished. So I think I'm dreaming about my dad nightly, even if I don't remember it.
I'm still not grieving in my waking hours. It's strange to me. I can go through periods of the day where I don't think about it or him for hours at a time. But then I see something, read something, think of something, and my first inclination is to want to tell my Dad, or to wonder what he'd think of it.
Being a huge fan of cell phone technology, I've got numbers and sim cards for almost a dozen countries. I can't remember the amount of times I could have been just walking along a street, or waiting at an airport, or something, and I'd call my Dad just to chat for a few minutes. Distance was never a factor, I used to tell him. A cell phone meant I was always just in the next room.
Now I carry him with me. And we talk and hug and fight in my dreams. posted by Manchild at 11:45 PM
Holy shit. That was good. "DS9" good.: Comment seen on talkback at Aint It Cool News
I'm not a fan of Star Trek. Haven't really watched or enjoyed an episode, with any regularity since DS9 season 2.
But having heard that Manny Coto had taken up the reins for this season of Enterprise, I wanted to give it a look. Manny has talent, and knows and respects the Trek universe. He is, in many ways, the anti-Braga.
Tonights' episode of Enterprise was stunningly good. I watched it spoiler free (always the best way, IMO) and while not entirely unpredictable, it contained enough surprises and "Oh Cool!" moments to keep me focused.
10 out of 10, and please sirs, can we have some more of this? posted by Manchild at 4:00 AM
Jim Taricani, a TV reporter with WJAR, was found guilty by a judge after a 45-minute trial and could get up to six months behind bars when he is sentenced next month.
His crime? Protecting a source. He is refusing to say who leaked him an FBI videotape of a politician taking a bribe.
So how come Robert Novak is still walking around as a free man?
Picture the scene. You're in a sports bar, watching whatever sport happens to be your poisen. (Mine happens to be football, or Soccer as Americans insist on calling it.) It is a tight game between your favourite side, and their bitter rivals. As their rivals are pounding towards their goal getting ever closer towards making a vitally important score, there is a rough tackle from your teams defense.
And it is a foul.
Immediately the whole bar (both sets of supporters) shout their outrage at that foul.
It just couldn't happen, could it?
The more likely scene is that to one team, it is a blatantly obvious foul and the player should be penalised. To the other side, it was simply a rough tackle, and the "injured" player isn't even injured, he's faking, and if anyone should penalised it should be the great big faker.
When the game is over, the winners never say "We won because we cheated" or "We won because we played roughest". At best, they might say "We kicked their asses!" but never in a way that is less than supportive of their team. "Kicking their asses!" is not something to be ashamed of.
Since the election, I've been trawling through a large amount of websites from both sides of the fence, trying to understand their mindset. My exposure to those involved in the two-party system way of things, gives me every indication that the majority of Americans treat their politics like a sport. Two opposing teams, bitter rivals; with your team consisting of noble stalwart men and the opposition consisting of cheating whining craven crawlers who bring shame to the glorious game. And after each clash, whoEVER winds up on the losing side, sees the worst in every "rough tackle". Attributes the meanest of motives to their opponents. Vows the result will be different, next time. Scores will be settled.
Sure, there are exceptions. We heard quite a lot of them in the run up to the last election. People (and even politicians) who broke with tradition and their party loyalty to move to the opposing side. But one of the reasons those moves are news worthy is that they are so rare.
It is the same attitude that underlines the rallying cry of "My country, Right or Wrong!".
American politics is just WWE wrestling, writ large. Cheering our "heroes", Booing the "villains". When the villain smacks the hero with a chair, we scream in outrage at its illegality. When the hero dives into ring to assist a tag-team partner without being tagged, we cheer.
It's ridiculous. (Especially if, like me, you think that the games and results are orchastrated by those with the real power and money, purely to keep the masses occupied and the money flowing in.)
Until the majority no longer own such slavish loyalty to any party or political figure, they will be incapable of looking at any issue objectively. And I doubt that any winning party (or its supporters) will want to change the system that put them in power. posted by Manchild at 4:00 AM
It's not just the Democrats being pissed off that they lost
For some time now, the opposition has been trying to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela. The populace had a chance to speak on the matter in a recent referendum. This was the first widespread use of electronic voting in that country. I would like to use it to illustrate a point about the calls for American electronic voting to be more closely examined, changed, or dropped.
The Venezuelan voting process used thumbprints for verification of voter identity, had heavy international monitors including the Carter Group, used open source voting machines whose code was open and reviewed by thousands of programmers months before the election, and had no less than THREE paper trails (one which was given to the Carter group, one given to the election board, the other kept by the voter for verification purposes).
The process of the electronic voting machines was highly scrutinized and available on the web for months for review by anyone who might have been interested.
Diebold did none of this. The process was highly unknown and obscure. There were no paper trails. The source code was not presented for review. When parts of the source code were leaked, they were found to be very badly written and full of security holes and bugs.
Chavez won by 18 percentage points.
This was verified by both the voting comission as well as by the Carter center.
The process was standardized and each ballot looked the same and each voter was given the same experience.
Exit polls were excellent indicators of the actual results.
The opposition were forced, reluctantly, to conclude that they had lost. The people had spoken. There was no foul play.
Bush, on the other hand, won by 2 percentage points. TWO percentage points. There were no paper trails. The voting process was NOT standardized. The exit polls matched the final results in most states, but in the swing states (the key ones) they did NOT match the final results. In those states, the exit polls were all off by anywhere from 5 to 10 per cent, and always in Bush's favour. Then all these other problems arise, slowly being recognised by the mainstream meadia.
If there had been even HALF the problems in Venezuela that the US has seen, the opposition in Venezeula would NEVER have accepted the results. They would have demanded another referendum. If 4000 votes were put for Chavez that didnt really exist, the opposition would go apeshit. If some voting machines were found to discard all the votes cast that morning, there would be cries of condemnation of the Chavez regime. As it is, the international monitors were still called upon to verify the results and that was with an EIGHTEEN PERCENTAGE POINT win.
Now why are we so sure that Chavez won? Because the system was near-perfect.
Why was it near perfect? Because the Venezuelan opposition puts enormous pressure on Chavez, and would have refused to accept the results ANY OTHER WAY. It also helped that Chavez genuinely believes he has the support of the masses, so did not resist all attempts at transparancy and security. In the end, both sides wanted the system secure, and accurate.
So yes, there are some people who say Kerry got more votes, or should have won, or whatever. At this point, it doesn't matter if they're right or not. Bush ain't leaving the White House no matter how much they might want otherwise. But the calls for proper voter reform should not be dismissed as the partisan whining of the losing side. Americas voting system is flawed. Diebold is a fucking joke. And if the mid-west is in favour of brutally exporting democracy to other nations, they might just want to consider getting on board with what a fair election actually looks like. posted by Manchild at 10:30 AM
They admit, Computers gave Bush extra votes in Ohio
I've been reluctant to start blaming Diebold for Bush's win. But in the last 2 days, there's been a couple of new developments.
First, we have CNN going ahead with the story (found here) that Bush got more votes than he should have. Of course, they downplay the seriousness of it.
The thing is, they can't explain how it happened. And they refuse to conclude that since the code which was deployed on one machine is the same code that is deployed on all machines, that the problem could have occurred elsewhere.
No, that's just one logic chain they'd rather not look at too closely.
They also make a passing reference to the problems that happened at other touch-screen voting stations around the country. But it's just that, a passing reference to a "handful" of problems. But if you read the actual story at CNN (see here) you see that they refer to over 1,100 problems.
So all of this was at least enough to reawaken my doubts about whether Diebolds known system flaws were exploited for any one candidates gain.
Then finally, Greg Palast got into the nitty gritty of it.
Now Greg Palast is a far cry from the "loony left" or tin-foil-hat-wearing-conspiracy freaks. He deals with facts. He's been called one of the most important journalists of our age, and is often used by British publications and tv, but for various reasons he is little known in the US. He's one of the only people (the only person?) that the Bush family tried to sue. They had to drop the case because Palast could prove everything he was saying was true. His investigation into Katherine Harris' exclusion lists in Florida 2000 were ground breaking, and his best selling book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" was on the New York Times best seller list for something like 6 months to a year.
Palast reckons not only that Kerry won Ohio, but he reckons he can prove it. I haven't looked at his evidence yet, so I can't say for certain if I'm going to find it convincing or not, but based on his previous work, I suspect it will be good stuff. posted by Manchild at 1:45 AM
At this point in time, it looks like Ohio is the make or break state
So it is with a heavy heart that I recall the words of Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
Okay, so maybe these are too well known to really come as a shock to some people. But then again, maybe not.
For your consideration, a man stands for election with the following platform. How many of these are you in accordance with?
Man has the right to live by his own law --
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will.
to die when and how he will:
Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he wills over the face of the earth.
Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
Man has the right to love as he will:
Man has the right to resist those who would thwart these rights.
Does it sound reasonable to you?
Over the years, I've given this list to a few people, and asked their opinions. The most critical ones have tended to focus on the apparent pro-euthanasia or pro-homosexual aspects. Also, the last one sometimes reads "kill" instead of "resist", but that too often met with disapproval.
Some even pointed out that these "rights" as it were, do not prohibit things like incest or pedophilia. To which I generally respond, well, neither does the ten commandments. Take them at face value, and in the spirit in which they are intended, and don't look for "gaps" where you can fill in some hateful acts because they are not in the spirit of the rules as they are written.
Okay?
Had a think about it?
I'll tell you what Church advocates those beliefs, which a very small sampling has shown me are generally applicable to both the left and right ends of the political spectrum.
(Highlight for answer)
The Church of Satan posted by Manchild at 11:12 PM
I have insulted a fair number of Republicans in the last few weeks, by posting and commenting repeatedly, how such findings as the Pipa report, show they have a tenuous grip on reality at best. And how this is okay, because the Bush administration vocally rejects "reality" as a mere inconvenience, not worth bothering about.
In the interests of fairness though, I have to point out the following. I received an email from a leftist friend of mine, which contained a report that said "Stupid people are more likely to vote for Bush."
Now, it's a sentiment I agree with, for various reasons, but this email claimed to be citing a report from some thinktank in South California. Does it sound plausible? Yes, especially if you're a smug and sanctimonious lefty who likes looking down on "foolish" Bush supporters. But is it true?
Well, there we have a different story.
You can google for this alleged report, and find many references to it online. Despite the fact that it was allegedly released only a few days ago. (It certainly seems to be spreading rapidly.) But so do virii-hoaxes and chain letters.
The first clue (to me) that this report was complete crap, (aside from the natural tendency to reject the idea of a Californian think tank as an obvious oxymoron) was that the doctor cited in the report was called "Louis Friend."
Has anyone on the Left who is promulgating this missive, seen "Silence of the Lambs"?
Louis Friend is a made up name. An anagram of "iron sulfide", also known as fool's gold.
Some further research failed to find any reference to this alleged Think Tank anywhere else. Maybe the article was originally written as a joke, but I found no clear cut reference to it being a joke. (Though it reads like a really bad Onion article.)
You might think "Where's the harm?", and wonder why I get so annoyed when I see stuff like this. Especially since I kind of agree with the conclusions it claims to support.
The answer is simple. Because it's bullshit. And the choice between Democrat and Republican should not be about winning by any means. There are plenty of reasons to be against Bush, and (if you must) to mock the unthinking followers of his administration. You don't have to make shit up. And if you believe a bullshit report just because it says something you agree with, well, you're no better than those who reject "reality-based" facts.
The left needs to be more sceptical. (It's the only way we'll ever get to the truth about issues like global warming.) posted by Manchild at 11:39 AM
"I think the puppet on the left represents my views"
As told by that great American prophet, Bill Hicks
Tomorrow is election day in America. And like about 80% of the rest of world, I am fervently hoping that George is kicked out. Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. For the same reason that Ahnold got elected, there is simply too much money at stake for those who hold the real power.
There is a natural knee-jerk tendency to dismiss certain types of stories (especially when found on the internet) as mere "conspiracy theories". Which is a shame, especially when this reaction prevents one from looking at evidence objectively. When it comes to electronic voting, particularly by Diebold, I think anyone who looked at the evidence knows that the potential for extreme chicanery exists, whether or not it will actually be used.
There have also been many verified stories of potential voter disenfranchisement. Greg Palast, award winning journalist, has been a major figure in bringing this to the attention of the main stream media, albeit outside the U.S.
So it should be obvious to the most objective viewers, that there are factions of Republicans who want desperately to win, and will fight any sort of dirty fight to do it. And those individuals clearly do not have as much to lose, as the segments of society (with true wealth and power) who have benefitted hugely from Bush's theocracy.
The rather depressing part, is that I'm not entirely convinced that Bush would have to steal the election. CNN's poll shows that 2/3rds of people think Kerry will win the election, even though most other major media polls show that it's too close to call.
The UK news paper, The Guardian, was one of a few non-US places which tried to bring a foreign perspective to the attention of the US voter. The responses followed a general trend: Republicans were outraged and extremely aggressive and offensive in their responses. They also displayed a remarkable ignorance of history and foreigners, relying on stereotypes, racism, and in the case of England, various references to the revolutionary war.
As unlikely as it might seem, I think it's very likely that Bush will carry enough votes to take the election. The cognitive dissonance of his followers is just a part of it. The savage enslavement to religion is a larger part. But I'm also afraid that the US is now more clearly than ever on a path towards a facist hegemony, and that that movement has too much momentum to be stopped now. posted by Manchild at 8:31 PM
Well, it's late. I'm used to having my biological time/clock all screwed up, but it's usually either by choice, or by jetlag. Not this time.
Since my dad died, I had been concerned about going to sleep. You see, vivid dreams have been a part of my life for a long time. And I was afraid of what might happen in my dreams. Not just in the dreams, but in the waking after. I guess I had heard too many horrible stories about seeing the departed in dreams and momentarily forgetting they were dead. And then the rememberance is like watching them die a second time.
Well, last night I had that dream. At some point during a conversation with my Dad in the dream, I remembered that he was dead. And hence, that I was dreaming. And I just went to pieces, in a far more brutal way than I had in the waking world. Then, as if someone threw a switch, it was over, and I was calm. Either that, or I've blacked out the rest of the histrionics. Either way, I didn't get up out of bed until about 13:30 today. Very unusual for me.
So now I'm sitting here, still getting over the flu, and wondering what it will be like to dream tonight. posted by Manchild at 1:21 AM
Paris is like an old whore. If you didn't fuck her in her prime, you've got no sentimental feelings to mask the fact that now she looks decrepit and smells of piss.
I've just returned from a weekend in Paris, with some friends and my brother and his S.O. I've been to Paris quite a few times before, but generally, I was immersing myself in the "cultural" aspects of it before. Wine tasting, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Sacre Couer, and so on. Given my life long love and devotion to La Pucelle de la Lorraine, it's no surprise that I'd have a soft spot for certain Parisian areas.
But this weekend just gone was the first time I had cause to see a more mundane side of the city. The day to day living. Not, I hasten to add, a seedy underbelly side. This is just the "not-tourist" areas I'm talking about.
A friend of mine, M, who lived in Paris for 7 years and has a French wife, is in love with the city. He simply cannot see its faults. He is well known for giving people a tour of his beloved city which includes his neighbour's (Johnny Depp's) place.
It's a stereotype that the French smell bad. But you know what? Stereotypes don't become stereotypes if there isn't a tiny bit of truth to them. Like the Irish alchoholism, English arrogance, American obesity or Germans lack of humour. Each country has it's stereotypes that it would be hard pressed to argue against. They're not universal, obviously, but they do come to mind when you see an affirming example.
So it was, that I found myself in a French shower the other morning. A shower without a door, so which ever half of the body was under the lukewarm water, the other part was exposed to the cool air of the bathroom. Not pleasant.
Since you would have to be born and raised in France to stand a chance of surviving driving in France, I was taking taxis' everywhere. Or at least, that was the plan. But picture the scene.... A taxi rank, with about 20 people queueing and taxi's come up to the rank (about 1 every 10 minutes) and talk to the guy or girl at the top of the queue, and then debate about whether or not they will take the fare. Or worse, empty cabs, just driving past with the fare sign lit, and not pulling up to the rank.
It's a good thing for them that they don't need tips to survive. They'd all be dead in a week. Actually, the tip is called "Pourboire", which means "For Drink", so at least they're honest.
So with the taxi's not really a likely candidate for transport, I was left to walking or public transport. I figured I'd be healthy, and walk. But nothing could have prepared me for the sights. Not in a first world country anyway. Within 100 yards of the hotel, I saw a man who was staring in shop windows. And while he stood, a pool of water was forming under his shoe, and running down the path. Then he'd walk on a bit, and stop, and it happened again. He was pissing in his pants, and no doubt thinking he was being quite sly about it. Not 20 minutes after that, I see a woman squatting down and taking a piss. This is at 12:30pm, on bright sunday morning, on Boulevard Housemann, one of the most well known and supposedly swankiest streets in Paris.
So now I feel like my eyes are finally opening, and I start to look (really really look) at the places around me. The buildings are old, and in a state of bad repair. Paint jobs that look like they haven't been touched up since the war. And the litter.. my god, there was filth everywhere.
The least said about the "small exclusive" club M took us too, the better.
At the end of the weekend, we're driving back to DeGaulle airport, or Lille or somewhere, and traffic is crawling along so I can see that there is a small barrier/walkway next to the road. And every 10 feet or so, there are hundreds and hundreds of ciggarette buts. It's like...pile of cigs, gap, pile of cigs, gap... and so on.
I point this out to the driver, wondering at the pattern, and who would be stupid enough to walk along a motorway with French drivers so close by. He tells me that hookers ply their trade here. I was so glad to be leaving the city behind me. Now after thinking about it in writing this, I feel like I need a shower of my own. Yuch.
That's the main reason I'm coming back online to the blog. I will be keeping a record of sorts, to examine what I'm feeling, and how I'm dealing with my grief.
I loved my Dad, as I'm sure most every kid loves their Dad. And regardless of my age, I know that to him, I was always his son, his kid, his firstborn. We had a great relationship, and in many ways, he was my best friend. He was the one person in the world that I really felt could love me unconditionally because I'd put his love to the test so much over the years.
He had been fighting cancer for about 2 years. And he had had a pacemaker installed even before that. A lifetime of drinking and smoking to excess had taken its toll, but he was a very fit man for all of that.
The treatment he had received last year was sucessful in clearing the cancer from his throat, and for a while, it looked good. But in the last 6 months he had been smoking again, and complaining of extreme nerve pain in the side of his face. All the scans remained negative but he was sent in for a swab/biopsy about 2 weeks ago.
At the time, I was still living abroad. I flew home on the weekend to see him, and he was in a bad way. He had developed pneumonia while in the hospital, and so his 2 day stay was being extended. Then he began to develop muscle shakes, spasms, halluncinations and a host of other problems.
My brother and I were not impressed with the treatment he was getting, and we were not quiet about it. I flew home the following weekend as well, and he was much improved. Friday evening, he was doing so much better. I really believed he was going to be out in a few days. Saturday evening, I was the last in our family to see him awake and talk to him. He was lucid, but still had some visual problems. He was back on his feet though. He wanted me to bring him in some DVD's to watch. Comedy and a "serious" movie. I helped him walk around a bit, and he was able to do this with minimum assistance.
Apparently what happened was that in the middle of the night, he wanted to go to the bathroom, but wanted to go on his own. He didn't ring for the nurse. And on the way, he fell and badly hurt his head. Hours later, (Sunday morning) his blood pressure crashed, and he slipped into a coma. He never came out of it.
I suppose it's normal to find fault with the hospital staff in these cases. Anger and frustration etc... But in this case, I feel justified for the following reasons: The doctor in charge of him in the ICU forgot what a biopsy was called. (He called it something else.) When I corrected him, he said "Oh yeah, sorry, the biopsy. Because the cancer is back, and it's big." He made no effort to break it to us gently or anything.
And the staff didn't seem to know enough to keep their story straight. Was he in pain? No. Was he on sedatives? No. Then we found out from someone else that he was on a morphine drip.
I can't really explain what it's like to see your Dad in a coma, but still moving his arms and legs, like he is only in a light sleep. To see his eyes and head move towards you (eyes still under the eyelids) when you speak loudly in his ear "Hi Dad!". You convince yourself that you might be able to talk him out of the coma. And then days later, you're wondering... if they hadn't pumped him full of morphine, maybe he could have struggled to consciousness on his own.
I knew that I would not be able to be at his bedside when the end came. It would have destroyed me completely. I know what my limits are. So when the call came at 3:30 am, I didn't go back to the hospital. It was just my mother and my brother. They came home around 6am to tell me that it was officially over.
Over the next few days, we were busy with all the preparations. Funeral home, cremation, mass, etc... And then the silence hit in, once all the scheduled acts were over. Now, I'm in my parents house and preparing to fly home tomorrow to get on with the rest of my life.
Considering how close I was to my Dad, and how much I loved him, and how much I will miss him... I am a little concerned at how calm or numb I am feeling. Since he died, I have cried for a total of maybe 10 minutes, (perhaps 5 groups of 2 minutes each.)
I've spoken to friends who've gone through this, and it's normal to feel numb and stunned. But I wonder if my oft-vaunted unemotional state is more pronounced than I ever knew.
Also worth bearing in mind is that I am an atheist. Or at the very least, an agnostic. I don't have the comfort of a religious myth to fall on. So you can imagine how annoyed I was to hear the priest say that our love for someone was measured in the tears we shed at their passing.
My Dad died on Thursday September 23rd, around 4:10am.
I said my last goodbyes to him on Wednesday September 22nd.
I last heard his voice on Saturday 18th September, around 9:30pm.
But life must go on, and I go forward with no regrets. I wasn't fighting with him. I know I did everything I could for him while he was alive. I never let an opportunity to tell him I loved him go by. He knew how much I loved him, and I always let him know what a great job he did as a father. I hope that if I ever have kids of my own, that I can be as good as him.
Friday, December 31, 2004
