At 11:30 PM on Thanksgiving Day my wife and I were standing in a line outside the local Windows store waiting for Black Friday where we were about to score a $40 case for my new Surface computer, for free. We were two of about 60 people in line and as we waited a fellow came out of the store with a bag full of T shirts to give to as many of us as possible. They bore the colored four flags Windows logo. As he worked his way up the line he repeated several times that unfortunately he mostly had only two sizes, small and Excell. I didn't get what in the world he meant, but when he got to me it turned out he did have a large and I was glad to receive it. As I did I asked him to repeat what the other sizes were. Again he said, "mostly small and Excell."
I said, "Let me look" and then I saw that sure enough, mostly what he had were Smalls and XL's.
This morning as I got dressed for my workout class I found on the top of the T shirt pile in my dresser drawer, my new Windows shirt. Its turn in the rotation had arrived and I was glad because I planned to stop by the Windows store after exercising to ask some questions about my Surface. I was fully prepared to show my new T shirt should the opportunity arise. I thought it might help make things go well. Well, I got to the store and got to my business. At a certain point we were going over the particulars of my purchase of the Surface two weeks earlier and the fellow asked me if I had got a shirt. I was ready for that. "Yes, I did get a shirt!" I said proudly, opening my coat to reveal same.
The guy looked at me kind of funny like and said, "No. What I asked was, 'Did you get Assurance - when you bought your computer?'" Assurance is the name they have for the insurance one can buy against damage to one's new play thing.
"No," I said, closing my coat.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Prostate Cancer
I've got it. I've known for about a year and a half. Here are some facts.
Most forms of PC are very slow growing.
There are a handful of ways to measure the severity or threat of PC and in my case all such measures are low.
In the last year or so the medical community has, to say the least, lost enthusiasm for a common screening test and some authorities now discourage routine testing. It is considered most likely that a person will die with the disease rather than from it.
There are several treatments options available in addition to simply monitoring the cancer.
I know a number of guys who have had success with seed implantation and I have available to me a radiologist with a lot of experience and apparent competence.
All options carry a risk of negative side effects including urinary and/or bowel incontinence, and impotency. These are of variable severity and duration. If your luck is bad you could be permanently affected.
Death from PC is painful.
If one has radioactive seed implantation and later the cancer returns, neither surgical removal of the prostate or another application of seeds is possible. I believe you just have to go down with the disease.
I am 74 years old and prideful regarding my good health.
My grandfather, (the one who didn't get hit by a streetcar while in a state of uncertain sobriety) lived into his 90's as did my father and aunt.
My mother ended her life virtually comatose for a long time with Alzheimer's.
In the light of these facts I am faced with deciding what to do, Should I get some seeds or should I just monitor the situation and see what develops? The first insight that came to me as I began to consider these choices was just how much I have been expecting, planning and wanting to live into my mid 90's. At the same time I worry about ending like my mom.
One can think of a number of reasons for delaying treatment. The more the delay, the less time after treatment for a new cancer to appear. (The cause(s) of PC is (are) apparently unknown.) The situation is full of uncertainties. I think I need some additional information even though some of it is only of a probabilistic nature. What are the chances of a recurrence of the disease if it is successfully treated? Does delaying treatment decrease the chance of success and if so how does the chance of success relate to age, tumor size, and general health? Does the probability of serious side effects increase with age? Are there better treatments on the horizon? Since I think dying from cancer is much better than lingering with dementia, if dementia is in my future, I'll be glad I have the cancer. It will save me the trouble of blowing my brains out.
Most forms of PC are very slow growing.
There are a handful of ways to measure the severity or threat of PC and in my case all such measures are low.
In the last year or so the medical community has, to say the least, lost enthusiasm for a common screening test and some authorities now discourage routine testing. It is considered most likely that a person will die with the disease rather than from it.
There are several treatments options available in addition to simply monitoring the cancer.
I know a number of guys who have had success with seed implantation and I have available to me a radiologist with a lot of experience and apparent competence.
All options carry a risk of negative side effects including urinary and/or bowel incontinence, and impotency. These are of variable severity and duration. If your luck is bad you could be permanently affected.
Death from PC is painful.
If one has radioactive seed implantation and later the cancer returns, neither surgical removal of the prostate or another application of seeds is possible. I believe you just have to go down with the disease.
I am 74 years old and prideful regarding my good health.
My grandfather, (the one who didn't get hit by a streetcar while in a state of uncertain sobriety) lived into his 90's as did my father and aunt.
My mother ended her life virtually comatose for a long time with Alzheimer's.
In the light of these facts I am faced with deciding what to do, Should I get some seeds or should I just monitor the situation and see what develops? The first insight that came to me as I began to consider these choices was just how much I have been expecting, planning and wanting to live into my mid 90's. At the same time I worry about ending like my mom.
One can think of a number of reasons for delaying treatment. The more the delay, the less time after treatment for a new cancer to appear. (The cause(s) of PC is (are) apparently unknown.) The situation is full of uncertainties. I think I need some additional information even though some of it is only of a probabilistic nature. What are the chances of a recurrence of the disease if it is successfully treated? Does delaying treatment decrease the chance of success and if so how does the chance of success relate to age, tumor size, and general health? Does the probability of serious side effects increase with age? Are there better treatments on the horizon? Since I think dying from cancer is much better than lingering with dementia, if dementia is in my future, I'll be glad I have the cancer. It will save me the trouble of blowing my brains out.
Friday, November 2, 2012
To Vote Or Buy A Lotto Ticket, That Is The Question
Well the answer is pretty obvious, you should buy a lotto ticket. Since your one vote will only matter if all the others who vote happen to add up to a tie or one vote difference in favor of the candidate you don't like, and the chances of that in a large election are virtually zero, there is no real likelihood that your vote makes any difference at all. With the electoral college system the voters in your state would have to tie AND the electoral college outcome would have to be so close that your state would matter. Apparently if you live in Ohio you have a chance for that this year. The odds against winning the super ball lotto may be long, but they can't be as long as the chance that your one vote will matter.
Oh, does this rub you the wrong way? Were you actually planning to vote? Well so was I and I still am - though it makes NO sense.
But what has me musing tonight at about 3:30 AM is that this year it seems that the campaigns have become much more cognizant of how the electoral college works, or if in fact they have always targeted the "battle ground states", this is the first time the media have covered that fact so thoroughly. Every time that we hear that it is Ohio and a few others that really matter we are being reminded of the insignificance of our own vote. In other words we are being reminded of the unhappy truth of the first paragraph over and over again. What is rational is for the campaigns to get out the vote of their candidate's constituency in those states where the outcome is uncertain and where the electoral votes are enough to effect the outcome. It is thought to be good for the country for everyone to vote so that there is a sense that the outcome really reflects the choice of the population. The election is given legitimacy. But with the new sophistication of the campaigns, or the media, whichever it is, will the rational behavior of the campaigns tend to reduce voter turn out in the future? That is really the question I'm musing over tonight.
Oh yes, and if you are reading this blog you're financial condition is probably such that you could not possibly miss a dollar a week out of you disposable income. This makes it completely rational to buy a lotto ticket though the chance of winning is disappearingly small.
Oh, does this rub you the wrong way? Were you actually planning to vote? Well so was I and I still am - though it makes NO sense.
But what has me musing tonight at about 3:30 AM is that this year it seems that the campaigns have become much more cognizant of how the electoral college works, or if in fact they have always targeted the "battle ground states", this is the first time the media have covered that fact so thoroughly. Every time that we hear that it is Ohio and a few others that really matter we are being reminded of the insignificance of our own vote. In other words we are being reminded of the unhappy truth of the first paragraph over and over again. What is rational is for the campaigns to get out the vote of their candidate's constituency in those states where the outcome is uncertain and where the electoral votes are enough to effect the outcome. It is thought to be good for the country for everyone to vote so that there is a sense that the outcome really reflects the choice of the population. The election is given legitimacy. But with the new sophistication of the campaigns, or the media, whichever it is, will the rational behavior of the campaigns tend to reduce voter turn out in the future? That is really the question I'm musing over tonight.
Oh yes, and if you are reading this blog you're financial condition is probably such that you could not possibly miss a dollar a week out of you disposable income. This makes it completely rational to buy a lotto ticket though the chance of winning is disappearingly small.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Election 2012 - part II
Well, there's another debate tonight. The prez has slipped in the polls to even or trailing. It looks sort of bleak, but does it really matter? Over the past few years the custom has evolved in the Senate for the minority party to exercise a veto by filibustering any legislation they do not want brought to the floor for a vote. They do not even have to carry out the filibuster. They only need to threaten it and nothing gets acted upon. The majority party needs sixty votes to override the tactic and such a majority seldom exists. What once was a rare tactic is now commonplace. In all the history of the Senate 1/3 of the uses of this parliamentary device have occurred in the last few years. I think we can look forward to continued gridlock irrespective of who is elected President. Nonetheless there are a couple of places where the election matters. Foreign policy is one where the office still seems to have power to direct the path of the nation. Appointment of Supreme Court Justices still matters. And the executive still can provide lax or vigorous regulation of the existing codes in finance, health care, and the environment. In particular the Dodd-Franks financial regulation bill of a couple of years ago remains unfulfilled due to lack of appointments of critical personnel. Part of the reason for the financial meltdown of 2008 was that the Bush appointed head of the Security and Exchange Commission didn't really believe in doing his job. He thought markets were self regulating. You can imagine who the former CEO of Bain Capital would appoint to carry out the regulation established by Dodd-Franks. So it does matter who gets elected.
What I would like to see in this campaign is for the President to make the case that the Democratic party has shown itself to be the best for the country historically. It is the Democrats who have given us Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, auto safety, and the most effective economic policies. He should run on the record of his party for the past 60 years as well as his own. He should do all he can to get Democrats into the House and Senate. I would like this election to be a referendum on the policies of the two parties. If the people want Republicanism, let 'em have it. They'll get what they deserve. Unfortunately their children will get it too.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
2012 Election
Just to get this out of the way, I'll be voting for Obama.
Here's a list of bad places to live in 2012. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and the rest of the "battle ground states". The sobriquet is now a cliche, but what a great descriptor it is. In all these states somebody is destroying any joy that might be found in life by blasting away at their opponents with unending and I presume inescapable political ads. In these political battles it is not a matter of damage collateral to some other target. The very targets are the innocent residents. I'm so glad to be missing it. It is nearly enough to make me like the Electoral College voting system. Thanks founding fathers.
I watched the first debate last night. According to the pundits Romney did pretty well. If going in you thought he was a halt-of-speech dope you found out differently. He's obviously a smart guy, by now well versed in his message. If you thought because Obama can write and deliver an inspiring speech, that he is a great extemporaneous speaker you must not have been listening to his unscripted talks with reporters. He speaks slowly, thoughtfully and with pauses as he carefully chooses his words. His normal speech does not flow smoothly. I think if one were to read what was said by the debaters, instead of hear it, the impression of who offered the most compelling substance would be quite different. Romney's main point, which he repeated many times, was that he wants to reduce unemployment (and just who doesn't) and in order to do so he would not increase taxes on small business owners. It is true that increasing taxes is thought by economists to tend to constrain economic activity. However by and large it is not the taxes on a relatively few business owners who, according to Romney for some reason would not engage in profitable activities because the government takes a larger share of their profits. Taxes are considered constraining because they take purchasing power out of the hands of consumers. Romney repeatedly claimed that taxes on profits resulted in less employment. He never explained why this would be so. Twice he cited a study by some association of businessmen. (Wow, what a surprise!Businessmen don't like taxes.) If a business man has an opportunity to make a profit by adding workers, wouldn't he have the incentive to do so whether his tax rate was 35% or 40%. Since with the latter rate the government is taking more of his income, maybe he has even more incentive to search hard for ways to increase his income through increased employment. I'm sorry that Obama or Lehre did not say what I have just written, but what the President did say was look at the record of the past 20 years when Democratic policies have worked better than Republican policies. Sorry, I can't recall the exact examples he gave, but his point seemed considerably more reliable to me.
Romney also said he would balance the budget by making unspecified cuts in programs and unspecified elimination of tax breaks. He said he would delete Obama care, except for the parts that he would keep. He said we need regulation of the economy, but without specifying which regulation is good and which is not.
If you look at the substance, not the style, I think the Prez did all right.
Here's a list of bad places to live in 2012. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and the rest of the "battle ground states". The sobriquet is now a cliche, but what a great descriptor it is. In all these states somebody is destroying any joy that might be found in life by blasting away at their opponents with unending and I presume inescapable political ads. In these political battles it is not a matter of damage collateral to some other target. The very targets are the innocent residents. I'm so glad to be missing it. It is nearly enough to make me like the Electoral College voting system. Thanks founding fathers.
I watched the first debate last night. According to the pundits Romney did pretty well. If going in you thought he was a halt-of-speech dope you found out differently. He's obviously a smart guy, by now well versed in his message. If you thought because Obama can write and deliver an inspiring speech, that he is a great extemporaneous speaker you must not have been listening to his unscripted talks with reporters. He speaks slowly, thoughtfully and with pauses as he carefully chooses his words. His normal speech does not flow smoothly. I think if one were to read what was said by the debaters, instead of hear it, the impression of who offered the most compelling substance would be quite different. Romney's main point, which he repeated many times, was that he wants to reduce unemployment (and just who doesn't) and in order to do so he would not increase taxes on small business owners. It is true that increasing taxes is thought by economists to tend to constrain economic activity. However by and large it is not the taxes on a relatively few business owners who, according to Romney for some reason would not engage in profitable activities because the government takes a larger share of their profits. Taxes are considered constraining because they take purchasing power out of the hands of consumers. Romney repeatedly claimed that taxes on profits resulted in less employment. He never explained why this would be so. Twice he cited a study by some association of businessmen. (Wow, what a surprise!Businessmen don't like taxes.) If a business man has an opportunity to make a profit by adding workers, wouldn't he have the incentive to do so whether his tax rate was 35% or 40%. Since with the latter rate the government is taking more of his income, maybe he has even more incentive to search hard for ways to increase his income through increased employment. I'm sorry that Obama or Lehre did not say what I have just written, but what the President did say was look at the record of the past 20 years when Democratic policies have worked better than Republican policies. Sorry, I can't recall the exact examples he gave, but his point seemed considerably more reliable to me.
Romney also said he would balance the budget by making unspecified cuts in programs and unspecified elimination of tax breaks. He said he would delete Obama care, except for the parts that he would keep. He said we need regulation of the economy, but without specifying which regulation is good and which is not.
If you look at the substance, not the style, I think the Prez did all right.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Communication
Bicycling and conversation don't mix. Typically riders travel in a line so that the person in front can hear the words of the following person reasonably well, but the lead rider has trouble casting his or her voice back to the rear. Yesterday my wife and I went on a bicycle errand. We hadn't gone far when I noticed a really flourishing stand of corn in a neighbor's garden. Here's the conversation in its entirety.
"Did you see that great corn?"
"What?"
"Great corn."
"What?"
"CORN!"
"Did you see that great corn?"
"What?"
"Great corn."
"What?"
"CORN!"
Friday, August 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)