Why I Hate Republicans

Why I Hate Republicans

http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBQSE7B2JE.html

Writers, Attack!

Writers, Attack!

This weekend, I attended the 23rd Annual SDSU Writers' Conference. The event was staged at the Double Tree Hotel in Mission Valley, from Friday night through Sunday afternoon.

All I accomplished Friday night was to arrive at the hotel, pick up my registration packet, and check on my scheduled appointment time for my meeting with a New York editor of the genre of fiction that I like to write.

I was really excited about the event. My first-ever consultation appointment! Hooray for me! The conference management had scheduled the appointment for 10:42 AM Saturday morning. And, it's not the kind of appointment you can skip or be late to. For those of you who don't know, a consultation appointment is what is referred to in the biz as a "pitch session." Upon entering the huge conference room, with tables lined up in neat rows, I met my editor and had 10 minutes to impress him with my novel synopsis.

I won't go into detail here, to protect the parties involved. But, to summarize, the meeting was a severe disappointment. It turned out that "my" editor doesn't do pitch sessions, so after that small detail was laid to rest, we spent the remaining five minutes discussing the banalities of the publishing game. No longer qualifying as a "newbie," there wasn't much I could take away from my meeting, except the disappointing feeling that either I was a fool, or the conference organizers had misled me. Neither conclusion was a happy one.

On the bright side, I had a lot of fun yesterday. First, I attended a seminar by Judy Reeves on flash fiction. What is flash fiction, and why should I care? Hahaha! Actually, given the public's short attention span these days, flash fiction is a genre worth exploring, for writers and readers.

After lunch, I attended a session by Scott Farrell on medieval arms and armor. It was such fun, Scott kept talking well over his 50-minute schedule and the conference allowed us to continue. He obviously loves talking about weapons and chivalric codes of valor. Harold brought his two boys, six and 10, and they had a great time too. Scott let them handle the weapons and put on some of the armor, which was more than I would have permitted if I had been holding the lecture.

A couple of other interesting sessions I attended were one by an agent, discussing the 10 criteria for a successful screenplay (successful being defined as one that sells). Another screenplay-related talk, by a woman whose name I can't recall, gave a brief overview of screenwriting essentials. One interesting tidbit: it used to be you would put your "inciting incident" at about page 30 of your manuscript. Now, it's down to page 15. What's next? Inciting incident in the opening credits? The prologue? The pre-release trailer?

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor

I'm not taking a side in what follows; I'm just looking at the issue from both sides.

Today, in a senseless, fiery crash, seven foster children died when their car was hit by a semi driven by a man who "just wasn't paying attention." The youngest child was 21 months old. Children in the school bus also sustained injuries. When the deceased children's grandfather heard of the calamity, he dropped dead from a heart attack on the spot.

Which leads me to ask, given the principle of Occam's Razor, which explanation of the above events is simpler, more reasonable, and thus, more believable? Either:

1. The universe is a cold, indifferent place, where random events occur without regard to human suffering.


2. The universe is ruled by a single, almighty, omniscient Being, who personally cares for every inhabitant who's ever lived, and manipulates events according to an all-good, yet inscrutable plan that often appears evil to us.

It would seem that the only religion with an answer for this sort of dilemma is Buddhism, under the tenets of which "stuff (just) happens." Or there is the possibility of the ancient gods--the Elder Gods--from Baal to Zeus, who ruled capriciously and lustfully. Anger those gods, and they smash you to a pulp. Placate them, and they just might let you live another day. With those gods, there was no straining the brain trying to interpret every event as participating in some greater good, despite its outward appearance of evil.

LOST Sites Update

LOST Sites Update

In answer to the question posted by Anonymous, the Kingcross Web site is currently unavailable, as is the Snowman site. I assume these sites are renovating content, in anticipation of later developments on the TV show.

When Kingcross is up, you need to create a password and user ID to log on. To do this, just click on "Forgot my password" and enter your e-mail address into the form. Your password and user ID will then shortly arrive via e-mail.

Meanwhile, those of us signed up at the Oceanic World Air site received the following e-mail this week:

To all OWA MilesPlus Members:

Take a break this week. You need it. No secret codes to find in this newsletter, or any other kind of hidden messages.

Now that we are really getting to know the characters in LOST (or are we?), this weeks episode ("The Hunting Party") will make us think about Michael's behaviour, among others. Was Walt really talking to Michael, or is something happening to Michael that we don't want to consider?

Walt is nearby and will return, as will Desmond and Danielle.

Oceanic World Air wants to take you on a trip around the world on Flight 213. Flight 213 is a special B777 flight leaving LAX on Monday February 13th for destinations unknown. I can tell you that there will be 9 stops on the trip, and at each stop, there will be an opportunity for someone to discover a real clue to lead the flight onward to the next destination and closer to our ultimate destination and some real answers.

Reservations are limited - but not in the way you think. Anyone is welcome to board, but you will need to be close to the destination to find the real clues. Passengers that are not able to disembark at the stop can help those who can get off to find the clues. You may use a trusted friend or associate to find the clue for you. Everyone will be able to participate and help along the way. Hopefully there will not be any incidents on the way.

Our first goal is to answer the question - "Where is Alex?"  Our first stop will be somewhere in the U.S.A.

It's time to have a little fun. Rest your weary brains until Feb 13th and enjoy our in-flight show of the week - LOST - "The Hunting Party".

Regards,

Vincent D. Madison

Director of Corporate Communications
Oceanic World Airlines

http://oceanicworldairlines.com

Codex Alito Juridicum

Codex Alito Juridicum

It appears that Judge Samuel Alito will soon be appointed, or for the Religious Right, anointed, to the Supreme Court. Women, get your abortions now! Or get your coat hangers later....

Academically, Alito is qualified for the court. Princeton is no National University. And he has fifteen years of Federal judgeship behind him. Granting his intellectual qualifications, I would have preferred--and the country would have been better served--if the judge stood up for his beliefs before the Senate.

We all know he's against abortion and doesn't believe the constitution guarantees a right to it. He clearly stated this in his 1985 application to the Reagan Administration. Even his mother recently said so. So, why deny it now? Would Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the Looney Toons of the American Family Association be so strident in his support if they did not believe he would turn the nation's civil rights clock back 100 years?

The Bush administration is one of the most incompetent, lying and corrupt administrations in the nation's history. So is Bush's Republican congress. With the conviction of Abramoff, there seems to be no end to the GOP's season of scandal. Even Pat Buchanan believes that the Elephants are on their way out of power, starting in 2006.  Yet, Roberts and Alito are 50 and 55 years of age, respectively. Long after Bush has slouched off toward well-deserved oblivion, the stink of his Supreme Court nominees will linger, like the stomach-turning stench of a clogged toilet in a gas-station men's room.

Critical Thinking Once More

Critical Thinking Once More

Last evening I attended the first session of the Critical Thinking for Technical Communicators course. The class takes place at UCSD Extension's La Jolla Campus and Bonni Graham is the instructor.

I think I will enjoy the class. Last night Bonni explained how an argument is not necessarily intended for persuasion, and how persuasion is not necessarily argumentation. Advertisements, for example, are persuasive yet do not make use of the claims, premises and conclusions of argumentation.

Her example, "Our president is a blithering idiot," illustrated how non-factual claims work. Facts are data about which two (or more) impartial observers agree.

Another point, also brought up in our eponymous textbook, was that although "all people are entitled to their opinions," not all opinions are equal. I think Bill Maher summed this up better on Real Time last year when he said "You don't have to present both sides of an argument if one of the sides is pure crap!" (That's a paraphrase, but you get the idea).

Cable News, as Bill Moyers has decried, consists mainly of talking heads who offer both sides of an issue, often falsely leading the viewer to the notion that both sides have equal merit. News degenerates into a kind of high school debate team formalism. Even worse, Bill O'Reilly frequently states that a guest, like Cindy Sheehan, is "entitled to her opinion," then cuts off her microphone and attacks her personally.

Disturbingly, I'm not even sure why a class like Critical Thinking is part of the curriculum at the University Extension level. As I looked around the crowded classroom last night, I noticed a range of people near my own age--a few in their twenties, many in their thirties and forties. They are of an age where they would have been in the Freshman composition classes I used to teach at the very same university. Have they forgotten what they once learned?

Or, more broadly, perhaps critical thinking should be required of anyone who wishes to exercise their right to vote in this country. The state of our political affairs would seem to warrant such an exigency.

Stereotypes Clichés, and Arrogance

Stereotypes, Clichés, and Arrogance

The other night, I watched a movie titled Rory O'Shea Was Here. The film is an Anglo-Irish production and centers around the lives of two disabled "lads" in Dublin who rent an apartment on their own. It's called "independent living," and is a goal of many programs in Europe and the US that help people with the disabilities lead more fulfilling lives.

I enjoyed the two characters in the film: Michael, a young man with cerebral palsy and Rory, a 21-year-old guy with Duchene MD. The characters were believable and enjoyable, up until the end, which I found rather disappointing. Rory, with an advanced case of DMD, dies during the film's final moments (sorry for the spoiler). While the scenes between the dying Rory and Michael are quite touching, I would have rather seen the movie take another course.

Yes, death is inevitable for DMD patients, but it's inevitable for us all. Our lives--the personal stories of which we each are the hero--are book-ended by two events over which most of us have little control and less knowledge: birth and death. It seems all movies about people with MD end in the inevitable sad death-and-grief scene. Why not, in the case of the Rorys of the world, concentrate more on the living that comes in between birth and death? The stories should be less maudlin and more down-to-earth. It's not that Rory's death didn't bring a tear to the eye, but the writers could have found another, less conventional way to end the film. Then again--maybe that's a task I should tackle.

Another good film is the old William Hurt movie, The Doctor. It's about an arrogant surgeon who discovers how the "other half" lives when he becomes a cancer patient. His self-assurance quickly dissipates in the face of the medical establishment's indifference to human suffering. Why so many doctors become arrogant is beyond my comprehension--after all, eventually they will themselves grow old and infirm and become patients. Medicine would seem to be a prime example of a field in which the Golden Rule should apply.

Finally, Steven Landsburg hasn't replied to my letter. Not too surprising. People like him cannot own up to their own mistakes. Humility and economists do not seem to go together well.

Do the Poor Deserve Life Support?

Do the Poor Deserve Life Support?

That is the question posed by economist Steven Landsburg in an article he posted in Slate Magazine. Below is the letter I wrote to Mr. Landsburg in reply:

Dear Mr. Landsburg,
As a ventilator user for over 23 years, I read with interest your article in Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2133518/) regarding whether or not the “poor” have a right to use a ventilator. Not surprisingly, I take exception to your claim that ventilator use is a choice which society should treat like an economic commodity analogous to buying milk.

I am a Muscular Dystrophy patient with weakened chest muscles that require me to use a ventilator to assist my breathing nearly 24 hours a day. I began using a ventilator in 1982, while attending graduate school at the University of California. After becoming ventilator dependent, I continued my education and the university awarded me a Ph.D. in English and American Literature. Since that time, I have worked for 12 years in the software industry. I currently am self-employed as a freelance writer and editor. Without the ventilator, I would not have been capable of accomplishing anything.

The (wrongful) implication of your article is that everyone who uses mechanical ventilation is a cancer patient lingering on the edge of death. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many people like me lead productive, active lives in the community—lives which would be cut short if ventilators were not made available. Do not conflate end-of-life issues with quality-of-life issues. Your article vaguely recalls (in tone if not in substance) the Terri Schiavo controversy. Yet, I must point out to you that Mrs. Schiavo did not use a ventilator.

Many ventilator users require the financial assistance of Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California, where I reside). Ventilators are expensive pieces of equipment, which private medical insurance frequently does not cover. Since Medicaid is a means-tested program, nearly every ventilator user in the country is technically “poor.” As I write this letter, I am a “poor” person breathing with a ventilator supplied through Medi-Cal. I agree with you that few healthy people would voluntarily set aside some of their income for ventilator insurance, yet most of them would spend every dime they have while lying, gasping for breath, in some sterile hospital room.  

Is breathing a commodity? Is the very air we take into our bodies a commodity? Yes, taxpayers subsidize my ventilator use. I “ask someone else to come to the rescue” to the same extent you might if your house were on fire. Have you ever heard of John Locke? I assume you have.... All members of society engage in a social contract, else social Darwinism and an “all-against-all” mentality ensue.

You claim that, with the "house-on-fire" example, society should come to your rescue because it has an interest in protecting a whole class of people--those who live in your neighborhood whose house might catch the flame from yours. But, what if your house resides on 40 isolated acres in the desert? I assume you would still expect the fire department to attempt to extinguish the blaze, though no other class of individuals was in danger. Ventilators--you say--benefit only individuals and not a whole class of ill people. What of the whole class of quadriplegics who need mechanical assistance to breathe? By your logic, doctors shouldn't bother to treat anyone with cancer, since that disease is not contagious and no one else is threatened by it.

You state that “A policy of helping everyone who needs a ventilator is a policy of spending less to help the same class of people in other ways.” Life support is not a zero-sum game. Are you arguing that I should be left to suffocate so that little Tiny Tim can receive a new crutch? Please find me evidence—somewhere—that a hospital is denying service to some patient because I use a ventilator.  

Please, also make your best effort to avoid glittering generalities in your next Slate op-ed piece. Not all ventilator users are the same. We all do, however, have one thing in common—we want to take that next breath. In this respect, we are just like everyone else.
Best regards,
David E. Clements, Ph.D.

PS: For a lighter view on the subject, please refer to my article in the San Diego Union-Tribune of 2004: “A Little Humor Is a Breath of Fresh Air”.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Today begins the year A.D. 2006. Enjoy it while you can! If the Earth has about 5 billion years left before the bloated sun envelops it within its flaming, crimson cloak, then there is one five billionth less of a lifetime for our home planet than there was 365 days ago.

Meanwhile, the weekend has been rainy. The Chargers self-destructed in a meaningless Mudbowl yesterday, losing not only a meaningless game but very possibly their starting quarterback for next year.

My parents came over last night and we watched The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I don't think they "got" it. The books were much funnier. English humor is a tricky thing to translate onto the big screen. I hope, if they do a sequel, that they hire someone who can pull it off, like Terry Gilliam.