I never took any formal driving classes when I was growing up, but we all know the standard hand positions for the steering wheel: 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock. I presume this has been studied over and over and that these studies have conclusively and without question found that these positions offer the greatest stability and control for the driver who abides by the 10 and 2 prescription.
But what isn't taught are the more practical benefits of such positions for your hands while driving. How often I have been engaged in a lengthy drive to meet people for a special occasion. Perhaps it was an interview. Perhaps it was a reunion with old friends. Perhaps it was a quixotic journey to discover why the chicken crossed the road. Either way, when I step out of that car, I want to appear fresh, not expired; huggable and lovable, maybe. Next time you're in your vehicle, take note of the location of your vents: in nearly every vehicle, the vents are strategically located to supplement the 10 and 2 hand position for those hot days when a long drive (or, I suppose nerves, if you're a nervous sweater) could produce unseemly moisture under your arms. How so? When putting your hands in the 10 and 2 position, the vents can be directed directly up the cuffs of your sleeves, cooling you right where you need it to maintain that fresh feeling and appearance until you arrive at your final destination.
What is more, the 10 and 2 position provides for optimal finger drumming during your melodious migration. This is not to be understated, as any worthwhile driving should be accompanied with a fusillade of phalanges that would make Danny Carey proud.
Let those fingers fly, and let those pits be purified...all at 10 and 2.
Currently listening to: "Hours" by TV on the Radio
Previous activity: Emailing Northwest Airlines regarding my recent flight cancellation
Next thing on the agenda: A glass of water and some reading
Monday, July 30, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Pleas(e)
1) Could someone please circulate a memo throughout the major media outlets to convince everyone to simultaneously stop covering anything related to Paris Hilton? If they all do it at the same time, no one needs to be concerned about losing out in the ratings. Would an outlet that continues to provide coverage of that vapid whore actually gain ground in the ratings? Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me if they did. That said, the news is not entertainment. That is, it is not the news' duty to provide us with what we want to watch, but with what we need in order to be informed citizens in a participatory democracy. The dissolution of the wall between the public service and the business of news, however, has led to the stag hunt (in a Rousseauian sense) that is the modern media environment, producing this constant evolution toward the lowest common denominator, nevertheless to the demise of informed citizenry.
2) Who are the stubborn idiots responsible for the Travelocity marketing campaign with the "travel gnome"? Someone got paid for that, which is almost as much of a travesty as 50 Cent and Sum 41 getting paid for what they do. The gnome is not now, nor has it ever been funny, yet it has been around for years, or so it seems. Not only is it unfunny and uninformative, but it's flat out annoying due to just how terribly it misses in its attempts at humor, to the point where I (and surely others) actively avoid the company's services as retaliation against their marketing ineptitude. Could someone please present the company with a better idea? It wouldn't be that hard. Please. I would be more than happy to grovel on my hands and knees if it were guaranteed to produce change and prevent me from having to sit through another 30 second gnome-filled spot.
3) The whole paradigm of speed enforcement is due for a shift. Granted, I may be saying this in part because I've received two speeding tickets in the last month, which is not at all a good thing, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there really is a major logical problem with the way speed is enforced: the slippery slope. Is 66mph really that much of a risk in a 60mph zone that it merits punishment, whereas 65mph is to be considered safe and not suitable for punishment? Does a police officer cruising at 75mph in a 70mph zone really have the right to punish someone else driving at 78mph in the same area, even though they are both in clear violation of the written law? I would argue that the officer does not possess the right to pass that judgment; 71mph is as guilty as 72 mph is as guilty as 73mph, etc etc. The law does not recognize gradations of guilt when it comes to speed enforcement, only gradations of punishment, and the guilty have no right to judge the guilty. It would be much more satisfactory for the state to simply acknowledge whatever speed they are willing to tolerate as a maximum, and to clearly state it in what would be a true speed limit: anyone exceeding this limit, which would be higher than current limits (since it is clear that the state is willing to tolerate a speed higher than any posted speed limit, since no one gets pulled over for exceeding present speed limits by 5mph), would be pulled over and ticketed, with exceptions only in emergencies. The clarity of the law would evoke a greater respect for law and its agents of enforcement, as guilt is no longer subjective. Removing subjectivity from guilt goes further to eliminate room for discrimination, which lessens possible tension between officer and citizen, not to mention it lends a sense of predictability to enforcement. The speeds mentioned in this email, by the way, are not at all the speeds involved in my recent violations.
4) Come see me in Chicago in the coming years. The University of Chicago is officially my final destination for medical school, after they lured me in with a very generous financial aid package and a few smiles. Of course, I'm not complaining; I like smiles.
Currently listening to: "Cemetery Gates" by Pantera
Previous activity: Filling out an application for an apartment in Hyde Park
Next thing on the agenda: Perhaps some din-din and reading
2) Who are the stubborn idiots responsible for the Travelocity marketing campaign with the "travel gnome"? Someone got paid for that, which is almost as much of a travesty as 50 Cent and Sum 41 getting paid for what they do. The gnome is not now, nor has it ever been funny, yet it has been around for years, or so it seems. Not only is it unfunny and uninformative, but it's flat out annoying due to just how terribly it misses in its attempts at humor, to the point where I (and surely others) actively avoid the company's services as retaliation against their marketing ineptitude. Could someone please present the company with a better idea? It wouldn't be that hard. Please. I would be more than happy to grovel on my hands and knees if it were guaranteed to produce change and prevent me from having to sit through another 30 second gnome-filled spot.
3) The whole paradigm of speed enforcement is due for a shift. Granted, I may be saying this in part because I've received two speeding tickets in the last month, which is not at all a good thing, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there really is a major logical problem with the way speed is enforced: the slippery slope. Is 66mph really that much of a risk in a 60mph zone that it merits punishment, whereas 65mph is to be considered safe and not suitable for punishment? Does a police officer cruising at 75mph in a 70mph zone really have the right to punish someone else driving at 78mph in the same area, even though they are both in clear violation of the written law? I would argue that the officer does not possess the right to pass that judgment; 71mph is as guilty as 72 mph is as guilty as 73mph, etc etc. The law does not recognize gradations of guilt when it comes to speed enforcement, only gradations of punishment, and the guilty have no right to judge the guilty. It would be much more satisfactory for the state to simply acknowledge whatever speed they are willing to tolerate as a maximum, and to clearly state it in what would be a true speed limit: anyone exceeding this limit, which would be higher than current limits (since it is clear that the state is willing to tolerate a speed higher than any posted speed limit, since no one gets pulled over for exceeding present speed limits by 5mph), would be pulled over and ticketed, with exceptions only in emergencies. The clarity of the law would evoke a greater respect for law and its agents of enforcement, as guilt is no longer subjective. Removing subjectivity from guilt goes further to eliminate room for discrimination, which lessens possible tension between officer and citizen, not to mention it lends a sense of predictability to enforcement. The speeds mentioned in this email, by the way, are not at all the speeds involved in my recent violations.
4) Come see me in Chicago in the coming years. The University of Chicago is officially my final destination for medical school, after they lured me in with a very generous financial aid package and a few smiles. Of course, I'm not complaining; I like smiles.
Currently listening to: "Cemetery Gates" by Pantera
Previous activity: Filling out an application for an apartment in Hyde Park
Next thing on the agenda: Perhaps some din-din and reading
Sunday, June 03, 2007
May we all be so lucky
(Ger)Trude trimmed her hedges herself on Wednesday evening, with Memorial Day a recent memory and her 90th birthday approaching. It was as if she was putting things in order, preparing for her departure. That night she went to bed for one deep and final rest. May we all be so lucky.
Trude was my Great Aunt, and, while seeing her was not an uncommon thing as a resident of the same tiny town, I can't say I knew her by anything more than her name, our relation, and the distant but unwaveringly kind and caring demeanor characterizing her and most elderly women I've known. The details of her life story remain unpopulated in the version I hold, and, as such, the funeral was not an exceptionally emotional event. Naturally, I intend that to be understood with no disrespect and with full understanding that she, for all I have known, truly was a great woman. That said, funerals are a funny thing for those of us with an outlook hosting a belief in some wonderful afterlife rewarding a good and loving life on earth, perhaps known as Heaven. If someone with such a worldview--or, otherworldlyview--cries at a funeral, or is struck with pangs of sadness, from where can those tears be said to be falling? If it is believed that the deceased did indeed live a good and loving life, then it follows that it is believed that the deceased will enjoy their just reward after death. If this is believed, then certainly those tears cannot be shed for the deceased, even if one feels that the deceased was unable to accomplish on earth all that they intended.
What, then, is left? Tears falling in response to a reflection of one's own mortality; for the reminder of the interminably ticking clock that may prevent us from achieving all that we, ourselves, are setting out to do; selfish tears shed for the hardships that may befall us due to the death of a loved one; selfless tears of concern shed for the fear of another's emotional or physical capacity to sustain themselves through the death and mourning of their loved one; or, perhaps the most compelling: tears of frustration and shame at all that we, in our pride or fear or embarrassment, allowed to go unsaid before another's ticking clock reached its final second. Looking around at a funeral, it's pointless to speculate as to what may be the genesis of anyone's tears. We would, of course, never know.
As for the final possibility enumerated, it is interesting that the feelings that merit the greatest eloquence are the same feelings that are commonly expressed in the least eloquent way imaginable. Everyone has trouble conveying how they feel to someone they truly care about. So often when we must express ourselves as powerfully, as eloquently, and as urgently as we can, we turn to writing; we write down our feelings rather than speaking them directly to whomever we must express ourselves. We don't feel the requisite level of comfort with our emotions to verbalize them to a person's face; rather, we so often seek the shield of time by expressing ourselves in a way in which we can edit our emotions: the letter. No one except the writer knows of the mistakes and moments of imperfection in its production, and only a final product that has met the satisfaction of the writer is delivered, unlike in speech where every mistake and imperfection is immediately known to the person to whom we are speaking. Everyone should train themselves to speak with greater precision and confidence--confidence, rather than false pride, fear, or embarrassment. Yet, simultaneously, perhaps in matters of the heart, the mistakes and imperfections of the spoken thought are exceedingly valuable and telling, and, therefore, worth speaking. It could go either way.
Currently listening to: "House Gone Up in Flames" by The Nightwatchman
Previous activity: Watching some C-SPAN
Next thing on the agenda: Reading the ol' book, The Man Without Qualities
Trude was my Great Aunt, and, while seeing her was not an uncommon thing as a resident of the same tiny town, I can't say I knew her by anything more than her name, our relation, and the distant but unwaveringly kind and caring demeanor characterizing her and most elderly women I've known. The details of her life story remain unpopulated in the version I hold, and, as such, the funeral was not an exceptionally emotional event. Naturally, I intend that to be understood with no disrespect and with full understanding that she, for all I have known, truly was a great woman. That said, funerals are a funny thing for those of us with an outlook hosting a belief in some wonderful afterlife rewarding a good and loving life on earth, perhaps known as Heaven. If someone with such a worldview--or, otherworldlyview--cries at a funeral, or is struck with pangs of sadness, from where can those tears be said to be falling? If it is believed that the deceased did indeed live a good and loving life, then it follows that it is believed that the deceased will enjoy their just reward after death. If this is believed, then certainly those tears cannot be shed for the deceased, even if one feels that the deceased was unable to accomplish on earth all that they intended.
What, then, is left? Tears falling in response to a reflection of one's own mortality; for the reminder of the interminably ticking clock that may prevent us from achieving all that we, ourselves, are setting out to do; selfish tears shed for the hardships that may befall us due to the death of a loved one; selfless tears of concern shed for the fear of another's emotional or physical capacity to sustain themselves through the death and mourning of their loved one; or, perhaps the most compelling: tears of frustration and shame at all that we, in our pride or fear or embarrassment, allowed to go unsaid before another's ticking clock reached its final second. Looking around at a funeral, it's pointless to speculate as to what may be the genesis of anyone's tears. We would, of course, never know.
As for the final possibility enumerated, it is interesting that the feelings that merit the greatest eloquence are the same feelings that are commonly expressed in the least eloquent way imaginable. Everyone has trouble conveying how they feel to someone they truly care about. So often when we must express ourselves as powerfully, as eloquently, and as urgently as we can, we turn to writing; we write down our feelings rather than speaking them directly to whomever we must express ourselves. We don't feel the requisite level of comfort with our emotions to verbalize them to a person's face; rather, we so often seek the shield of time by expressing ourselves in a way in which we can edit our emotions: the letter. No one except the writer knows of the mistakes and moments of imperfection in its production, and only a final product that has met the satisfaction of the writer is delivered, unlike in speech where every mistake and imperfection is immediately known to the person to whom we are speaking. Everyone should train themselves to speak with greater precision and confidence--confidence, rather than false pride, fear, or embarrassment. Yet, simultaneously, perhaps in matters of the heart, the mistakes and imperfections of the spoken thought are exceedingly valuable and telling, and, therefore, worth speaking. It could go either way.
Currently listening to: "House Gone Up in Flames" by The Nightwatchman
Previous activity: Watching some C-SPAN
Next thing on the agenda: Reading the ol' book, The Man Without Qualities
Thursday, May 31, 2007
CNN violates patient's right to privacy
While watching CNN for a moment this morning, the anchor flippantly said, "There has been a lot of debate between the patient's right to privacy versus the public's right to know," as they flash the picture and name of the man who is receiving so much media attention for being infected with a relatively rare, highly drug-resistent form of tuberculosis (TB). I should preface this post by noting two things: 1) that other news networks have likely done this same thing and I just happened to see and hear it on CNN, and 2) I'm little more than a dilettante with legal matters. Though CNN has made the information public domain, I will not be repeating it here out of principle:
...and...
With these tidbits in mind, combined with the already official release of information relevant to seeking out those who may have been exposed to the individual and thus were at risk for infection, what is the public's right to know in this case? Where is the media's justification for violating the patient's right to privacy, when the treating hospital and patient's family obviously wished to respect his right to privacy?
Such justification cannot be found in concerns for public health. Firstly, the patient is not very contagious because he was carrying only a very little amount of the bacteria in his system, according to medical officials. Secondly, all of the information necessary for finding the individuals for testing who may have been exposed to the patient has already been revealed and officials are in the process of finding and testing all the people who were at risk. Thirdly, the man is under quarantine until it can be determined that he is not a risk to the public. In other words, there is no reason to reveal the man's name, because all appropriate and necessary steps are being taken to diffuse the risk to public health, and the release of the man's identity is requisite for none of them.
Regarding the "public's right to know"
The "public's right to know," as we so often hear, has no basis in the First Amendment, nor any other clause in the Constitution, and is in relation to the right for people to access information held by the government. Rather, its basis is in a law called the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA), first signed into law in 1966 by Lyndon B. Johnson, and is relevant only to government records--federal government information, at that, though most states have passed their own freedom of information acts, which are generally less transparent and thus require state governments in general to divulge less information. Importantly, I can find no indication that the federal law--that is, the more transparent of freedom of information laws--allows for the violation of a patient's right to privacy, especially when there is no risk to public health brought about by not violating the patient's right to privacy. To the contrary, two of the nine explicitly stated exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act are these: 1) "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," and 2) "[information that is] specifically exempted from disclosure by statute provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." The former's application is obvious, while in the case of the latter, statutes do indeed exist dictating the privacy and handling of medical records. Thus, the media has misleadingly distorted the nature of the "public's right to know," in violation of its law of origin, for its own selfish benefit in reporting.
The media reported it because they are scrupleless bastards who are constantly clawing at any new morsel of information to feed into their morbidly voracious 24-hour news cycle, at the expense, in this case, of the patient's right to privacy legally recognized by this society. If there indeed had been much debate in the newsroom between this right and the "public's right to know," that debate was extremely poorly executed by a room apparently full of myopic dimwits.
Now, complicating factors? Well, the patient was essentially banned from flying, which he did anyway, and more or less snuck back into the country, tacitly admitting his knowledge of his wrong-doing. He needlessly and recklessly put a lot of people at risk, and surely must have made himself a target for those ever-litigious Americans, or a target of the government directly. I would imagine that it is only at the point of litigation that a name could or should be revealed.
Currently listening to: "Billie Jean" by Chris Cornell (Michael Jackson cover)
Previous activity: Waking up
Next thing on the agenda: Showering, dressing, eating
The Atlanta lawyer who contracted a hard-to-treat form of potentially fatal tuberculosis is ______, 31, multiple medical and law enforcement sources told CNN. Hospital officials have not identified the man and his family has refused to talk to the media. (from CNN.com)
...and...
Dr. Charles Daley, head of the infectious disease division at National Jewish
[Hospital], said the hospital has treated two other patients with what appears
to be the same strain of tuberculosis since 2000, although that strain had not
been identified and named at the time. He said the patients had improved
enough to be released. (from CNN.com)
With these tidbits in mind, combined with the already official release of information relevant to seeking out those who may have been exposed to the individual and thus were at risk for infection, what is the public's right to know in this case? Where is the media's justification for violating the patient's right to privacy, when the treating hospital and patient's family obviously wished to respect his right to privacy?
Such justification cannot be found in concerns for public health. Firstly, the patient is not very contagious because he was carrying only a very little amount of the bacteria in his system, according to medical officials. Secondly, all of the information necessary for finding the individuals for testing who may have been exposed to the patient has already been revealed and officials are in the process of finding and testing all the people who were at risk. Thirdly, the man is under quarantine until it can be determined that he is not a risk to the public. In other words, there is no reason to reveal the man's name, because all appropriate and necessary steps are being taken to diffuse the risk to public health, and the release of the man's identity is requisite for none of them.
Regarding the "public's right to know"
The "public's right to know," as we so often hear, has no basis in the First Amendment, nor any other clause in the Constitution, and is in relation to the right for people to access information held by the government. Rather, its basis is in a law called the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA), first signed into law in 1966 by Lyndon B. Johnson, and is relevant only to government records--federal government information, at that, though most states have passed their own freedom of information acts, which are generally less transparent and thus require state governments in general to divulge less information. Importantly, I can find no indication that the federal law--that is, the more transparent of freedom of information laws--allows for the violation of a patient's right to privacy, especially when there is no risk to public health brought about by not violating the patient's right to privacy. To the contrary, two of the nine explicitly stated exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act are these: 1) "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," and 2) "[information that is] specifically exempted from disclosure by statute provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." The former's application is obvious, while in the case of the latter, statutes do indeed exist dictating the privacy and handling of medical records. Thus, the media has misleadingly distorted the nature of the "public's right to know," in violation of its law of origin, for its own selfish benefit in reporting.
The media reported it because they are scrupleless bastards who are constantly clawing at any new morsel of information to feed into their morbidly voracious 24-hour news cycle, at the expense, in this case, of the patient's right to privacy legally recognized by this society. If there indeed had been much debate in the newsroom between this right and the "public's right to know," that debate was extremely poorly executed by a room apparently full of myopic dimwits.
Now, complicating factors? Well, the patient was essentially banned from flying, which he did anyway, and more or less snuck back into the country, tacitly admitting his knowledge of his wrong-doing. He needlessly and recklessly put a lot of people at risk, and surely must have made himself a target for those ever-litigious Americans, or a target of the government directly. I would imagine that it is only at the point of litigation that a name could or should be revealed.
Currently listening to: "Billie Jean" by Chris Cornell (Michael Jackson cover)
Previous activity: Waking up
Next thing on the agenda: Showering, dressing, eating
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)