Jane’s. Sigh.
Mine next week.
I know. Civic duty. When the jury system has a guilty or innocent person with a law that fits, cool. If it’s one of our problematic laws that doesn’t fit or shouldn’t apply, not so cool. If I happen to get a case where I can’t justify the law itself, I can’t vote guilty, no matter what.
Off-topic: http://genealogytools.com/replacing-family-tree-maker-part-1-how-to-scrub-your-data/ required reading of all 7 or 8 blogs eventually.
FTM has been a problem that way for years. The people who wrote and maintained it, and the ones who are in charge of Ancestry, are not (AFAICT) genealogists, nor are they librarians (as can be seen from their indexing of ‘The’ and ‘A’ in titles).
I’ve been resigned to doing whatever cleanup I can for a couple of years. (This includes renaming image files, because they couldn’t figure that out, either.)
BTW, I hate the ‘Evidence Explained’ references. They’re impossible to do without a written guide and examples for every single one. That’s not how it should work.
And RootsMagic announced this afternoon that they’ll be adding the ability to sync to Ancestry, in the near future.
Software Mackiev will be taking over FTM for both Mac and Windows.
Some months ago on Facebook you mentioned in passing an alternative model to the legal definition of insanity (as relates to criminal guilt); I could not find the discussion again and it’s been off-topic in every other conversation since, so I’ll take this opportunity to ask for an expansion of your idea, or some pointers to where this is discussed.
Let me preface this by saying—I’ve dealt with teens. A lot. The concept of ‘knowing’ right from wrong as a definition of sanity is a relic of the 1700’s-1800’s, when we had very little concept of how the brain works at all. You can intellectually know a thing, and still be operating temporarily on another set of impulses. Awareness is complex. We know, for instance, that some people have very poor impulse control. Some have hormonal surges that send them over the edge. Some people have brain tumors that produce all sorts of manifestations. Some people have brain injuries. Some people have manifestations of ‘voices’ and an imperfect understanding of what’s real and isn’t.
In short, I think we ought to toss that definition out, and concentrate on what the individual did, whether he was under some influence medical or chemical, and the likelihood that he will repeat the offense.
To me, there is no way of ‘paying’ for a crime that does a bit of good for the situation. If a person cannot be set in control of his life by education or medical treatment, he doesn’t belong on the street under any circumstances. No set amount of time spent socializing with economic criminals is going to improve him. He should be put somewhere he can have a relatively pleasant life, be treated medically, but never pronounced ‘cured’ and set back on the street until there is, medically, some cure for his condition.
Economic criminals have found it easier to steal than to work. For them, I think the appropriate future is not to sit in a cell with television and phones and such. I think the cure is to work at minimum wage in confinement, 9-5, until they have paid the damages twofold. If they repeat, three fold, fourfold, and so on, money to go to the victim. Light manufacture and farming, not chain gangs. Just honest work. With mandatory education classes and reading and math programs, release also contingent on scores. Eventually it might dawn on someone of reasonable intelligence that flipping burgers is more lucrative.
Thank you; this time I’ll be able to find the discussion when I want to refer to it!
I like that last idea—combining the disincentive of punishment with creating habits of productive work. I wonder whether any states have a system similar enough that they could be persuaded to experiment with this idea.
I had a long talk over the holidays with an economist friend. We talked mainly from the viewpoint of job displacement due to technology, but social and psychological factors were a major and interesting part of our discussion.
Since I just watched The Mine Wars on PBS Online–which I recommend to anyone unfamiliar with the period and issues–let me use coal mining as an example. Why do men work in such a dangerous and not especially profitable profession? Their daddy did; their granddaddy did; their great-granddaddy did; back to the early 1800s. It’s what Men do. Men don’t flip burgers or shuffle paper, they do manly work, coal mining. And it’s the only large employer in many areas.
pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/theminewars/
Imagine you grow up in a run-down central city. Why join a gang and engage in all the various criminal enterprises gangs are into? All the Men you know did. It’s manly work that earns respect from your peers, which flipping burgers or shuffling paper will not. Mentors are available. You know how to interact with gang society since you’ve had to. You don’t know how to act in other societies: not how to dress, not how to interact, not how to interview, not what your social duties are; not the social customs of the society.
It must be pleasant, dining on pheasant
Using the proper knife
I want tomatoes and mashed potatoes
Give me the simple life
People will almost invariably stay in their social comfort zone. If you want to change someone’s society, I think you have to remove access to the old society. This is essentially what the military does. Jail ends up being gang society; keep people in jails and you keep them in gangs, out of self-protection if nothing else.
For an extreme example, take a teenage offender. Send him to McMurdo Station as a go-for. Now he has exactly one society to belong to. He will learn the rules of that society. McMurdo is unique, but the situation is much the same on a cargo ship (if he gets off in China, he gets off in China), in a wilderness area…
The military is a tempting solution, but it would dilute the quality of the military. But various military-like organizations, which a gang is in a way, have existed; it’s a lot cheaper than jailing, so seems to be worth a try. We have some advantages we didn’t have before: RFID and GPS trackers for those times when the prisoners were not working in isolation.
I don’t think it’s an economic issue. I think it’s a social and psychological issue. And which is more important, extinguishing the bad behavior or retribution? I don’t think I’m arguing a false dilemma. I don’t think you can reform and punish at the same time. Negative reinforcement is the poorest of the various training methods, and inconsistent negative reinforcement is irregular reinforcement of the opposite behavior. (For example, if you don’t punish theft every time, you irregularly reward theft.) Irregular reinforcement is far more powerful than negative reinforcement.
(Eek! Logorrhea!)
It used to be in the past where a kid who got in trouble with the law was given a choice – go to jail or join the military. Those days are thankfully gone. The Department of Defense changed their policy sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s that they would no longer take recruits who had been given that “choice” by a court.
In other words, the court was foisting society’s problems on the military, expecting the military to make something out of this person. The DoD demurred, stating that it was not their responsibility to take someone with a criminal past and make them a productive part of society. I worked in a field where we routinely handled classified material, up to and including Top Secret. There is NO WAY I want someone with a shady past handling that material. It’s why they do background investigations for security clearances. So, let’s say that the DoD says this person has to be allowed to join, what jobs are they suited for? Should we put them in the engineering plant where they can destroy the engines or the propulsion gear? Put them in the galley where they can poison the food? How about disbursing, where they can steal money? Sorry, no, I didn’t join the military to be a parole officer. Does it happen in every case? No, my boot camp company commander got arrested as a kid for grand theft auto, was given a choice to either go to jail or join the military. He went on to become a quartermaster on nuclear submarines, and attained Chief Petty Officer status. Fine, but that doesn’t happen much these days, and the DoD refuses to participate.
And yes, there is evidence that the LA gangs were exerting their influence onboard Navy ships during the 1980s and 1990s. I have no idea what it’s like out there now, having been retired for almost 17 years.
I entirely agree, Joe. Not the military’s job. But that doesn’t say we can’t learn from the military.
I think you probably need the “trainees” to opt-in. So create some really annoying prison(s)–in the Alaskan wilderness, a thousand miles from anything in the Pacific, somewhere in the desert–and being a trainee is the alternative. So, they opt-in.
And you put them through boot camp. Teach them to construct a path, fill out paperwork, whatever. (You can always have several groups fill out the same paperwork and check who hasn’t agreed with the rest–or an AI.) And then they work for their terms, and some modest reward. And study, if they want.
In or out of the US, refurbish parks, fight wildfires, help with disaster relief….
Yes, this is a squishy do-gooder agenda. But it’s a lot cheaper than prisons. If you run them into the ground every day doing good works, they won’t have the energy to escape. (Besides, GPS and RFID.)
Bother. Message in the spam filter. Sorry, CJ.
Lol—you and several others. It only catches bona fide members. Never spam.
Thanks!
I agree with the notion that you have to break the gang connection. Right now prisons are actually assisting gang recruitment—law of unintended results—by making them a force for protection within the prisons. It’s nuts. Part of it is the theory that keeping the inmates within reach of family is a positive influence. In some part, yes, but if it keeps them in touch with the old life, not so much. It’s insane what we’re doing, and the individuals that get into this system are on a return track to where they were and what they were.
If I happen to get a case where I can’t justify the law itself, I can’t vote guilty, no matter what.
Also known as jury nullification. Voir dire is meant to prevent that. If you can’t vote guilty no matter what, the prosecuting attorney can dismiss you from the juror pool — if she knows.
Which is, I think, one of two places where I think American law needs revision, the other being the application of equity.
In the case of jury trials, a jury does not have a law degree, nor can the judge’s instruction impart one in an instruction. There is only one reason for all the trouble of finding a sane, responsible, common man kind of jury rather than a panel of people skilled in the law, and that is for ordinary people to hear the case and hear the law and do what common sense says is just. Law schools are fond of saying that they are not there to deliver justice; that the best they can do is deliver law. So if that lady with the sword and the scales is to be Lady Justice, not Madam Law, it’s the business of the jury, who cannot become lawyers or judges, to render justice in a simple ‘guilty’ or ‘innocent’ and then let the judge do what his ‘law’ directs.
Re Juries: I’m not sure voir dire is better than 12 random people, 10 or 11 to convict, 5 or 6 to allow retrial–yes, expensive, but more expensive?? Maybe allow a neutral party to disqualify the few total crazies.
Just for the heck of it, I went to imdb.com and looked up “12 Angry Men”. Reading the quotes from the movie makes you really wonder just how good our justice system works…..and would a modern-day judge allow a jury to do what this jury did back in 1957 (when the movie was released)?
Re: psychological & economic influences on criminality.
Learning one is an Aspie when, 1) one is well into his 60’s, and 2) said syndrome predisposes one to an analytical turn of mind, has given me a new appreciation of the oh so PC phrase “differently abled”. I speculate now the idea that we are all mentally, psychologically, intellectually (MPI) similar enough to be judged under one common standard is a complete “crock”, and that we all are as different MPI as we are physically. The assumption that we have choice and “free will” is on very shakey ground! (The claim that we must assume that to have a common basis for judging people’s actions makes no more sense.) For example, we are beginning to understand there are inherent LGBT differences. (Of which, I think we should add an S to that acronym. I’m S, but as to “why”, I can give you a much better answer why I’m an Aspie. I just am.)
Crime statistics are well known to have little correlation to severity of punishments, e.g. all the 3-strikes laws, but much more to the inevitability of apprehension. Well, there’s another strong correlation we want to ignore: to economic conditions. People in the vast middle ground make intelligent economic decisions about how they will support themselves, and when employment is good and efficient, they do that. When it isn’t, they’ll do “something else”, e.g.drug dealing. (I presume you’ve heard in the past decade or so corporations have impoverished their assets available for business development to the tune of $6 trillion in returns to the “shareholders”. No wonder we’ve had such a slow recovery.)
@Paul, 1) What does the S stand for? I’ve read arguments for adding an A for asexual people, but I can’t remember anything about an S in this context.
2) Regarding your arguments about having to take into account the MPI differences of the defendants as well as the newer ideas about how much free will people really have rather depends on the goal and setup of the justice system, I think.
If the primary aim is retributive, to punish people for making bad decisions, I agree that the degree to which people can be held responsible for those decisions matters.
On the other hand, if the aim is to keep society safe, by keeping unreformable predators away from their prey, it is much less important. Rehabilitation where possible, and where not minimizing the damage the offenders can do to society*, would be much more important in that case than what exactly ‘made the offender do it’. That would be important in deciding if (s)he can be rehabilitated, but not necessarily in judging the crime.
*Minimizing the damage does *not* automatically mean locking them up for life like the three-strikes-and-you’re-out US policy decrees. For instance, the damage drug addicts cause tends to be stealing to pay for their drugs, and (emergency) hospital costs when they get too sick. If you put the crack addicts on a methadone program and a little basic health care so they don’t have to steal and don’t deteriorate too badly healthwise you can pre-empt most of their cost to society, for a fraction of what jailing them for life costs. It’s also much better for those addicted who can’t kick their addiction to be treated like the sick human beings they are, instead of considering their criminal acts to be the be-all and end-all of their existence.
I don’t know, but I get the impression the American justice system is so caught up in the idea of retribution/revenge on the perpetrators, that a dispassionate accounting of what the costs and benefits to society as a whole are gets discounted immediately, if it would mean a slightly more humane treatment of ‘criminals’.
Straight? Obvious?
I think the point I, and perhaps CJ, make is ur whole criminal system is based on ancient, and now provably false, ideas of free will and the equivalency of all humans.
“ur” = our
Maybe obvious, but the letter I’ve mostly seen used for that is H for heterosexual, so it didn’t immediately occur to me 🙁 (thanks for the clarification; I’m feeling slightly stupid now…)
By the same token “H” is ambiguous. What I wanted to say is straight is really a category no different than LGBT, inherent. Aspies have always been with us too. It’s the idea that there’s a clearly/neatly defined human being that’s the problem.
It’s off-topic to the overall discussion, but a comment:
Whether not-so-straight people really act / think / feel / behave any differently than straight people is a whole topic in itself, and there are too many pros and cons for me to guess. Does being not-so-straight affect my relationship behavior, emotions, thinking, other behavior, differently than if I were straight? Yes, but to varying degrees, I think. Some is probably so subtle I don’t realize it. Other things, I’m more aware of how it affects me and others I relate to or how I think and act. But the key element is that orientation and attraction and gender are all on a spectrum, bell curves.
S in the context Paul used it would be likely to be understood. There are “GSA’s” in the USA, “Gay-Straight Alliances or Gay Student Associations; the former has gained ground as more inclusive. But in ads, S usually means Single.
H would confuse me. Hetero? Homo? I’d have to know it’s more often used there for Hetero, Straight. I’d guess they use Q for Queer or G for Gay?
That darn LGBT acronym. There are all sorts of others: I Intersex (biologically, physically between); Q for Queer, Q for Questioning (if someone’s not sure yet); A for asexual; — I’ve been known to add ABC, XYZ and call it alphabet soup. The real problem is, it’s a clumsy way to refer to the wide set of differences, multi-dimensional, in how people are in that regard.
—–
On-Topic, though — There are a whole range of ways people think and feel and act (behave), do) differently. Physical and mental / emotional / cognitive differences all apply. I’d agree that everyone’s a little “different” or not so “average” or “normal” by that measurement. But yes, some things do put a person as an outlier on the curve / spectrum of some kind. I’d very much agree that being handicapped (“differently abled”) or gay both make me more than a little outside the norm sometimes, more than most other people are. But that is, I think, because of how our society is structured, the preconceived notions or assumptions we have built into the culture, mostly from historical changes, or a lack of prior understanding or support by the majority. Or sometimes, I think it’s because our society has gotten away from some of its roots. But often, it never had much degree of understanding there, it was simply a difference that was noted but not well understood or supported.
I’ve kept silent on the larger discussion, more because I’m so busy than for any other reason. I’m following the discussion. It’s very interesting. On the one hand, we have juries composed of common citizens, picked to represent the average citizen’s common sense and fairness (assumed). On the other hand, we have the tendency toward punishment or retribution, and the difficulties of how to be fair to both parties, to give the person who was wronged a fair, just outcome, to compensate if possible; and how to be fair to someone who did something seen as wrong, and how to have that person compensate in a fair way, and ideally, correct the way the person does things so it won’t be repeated. But reform and treatment, and compensation, are difficult, and punishment can be harsh, long-term.
There is another aspect. If someone commits a crime, goes to prison and does the time, and then is released back into mainstream society, and is reformed and has never done the crim again, learned their lesson, is it right for that person to carry that for the remainder of his or her life, in the ability to get and keep a job and earn a living, or the respect of others? For certain things, I’d say reform is unlikely, but it can happen. For others, sure, some people don’t learn and they’d do it again. But some really do learn and change. I don’t think it’s fair to burden someone’s whole life, to take away their ability to earn a living or get and keep a good job, because they did something once, years ago. I say this because I’ve known a couple of people, one who’s an ex-con who was a young adult (and drunk and in the heat of passion) when he commited, yes, a serious crime. He’s a decent enough guy. But he’s permanently prevented from some things, economically, because ofwhat he did as an 18 to 20-something young man. The other was a juvenile offender, but reformed before his majority, and then served in the military and was honorably discharged. He was lucky to make it into a mainstream life, but that’s back in there, and affects how he deals with things now. I think that guy is great. — But most people, either juvenile offenders or adults, do not make it out of their circumstances so well. Most are trapped or pulled back into a life of crime and poverty and struggle, because too much is stacked against them, and yes, likely because there’s too much to keep them in that life or pull them back in. If you can’t get a good job, of course you’re going to have a bad time in life. — Those two guys I gave as examples are very much the exceptions to the usual outcomes. I happen to like them both, and really think the one with the rough juvenile past turned into an oustanding adult.
I am very lucky. My current economic circumstances are not good, but I’m working on it as much as I can right now. Still, I’ll likely be paying back tax debt the rest of my life. I think my current situation will improve, if I can only make enough of a difference so it doesn’t become truly worse.
But seeing this, and living “inside the loop” in a major city, in a bad economy, I’ve seen the other side of things now. (I grew up middle class, then was briefly upper-middle-class. I’m now somewhere below middle class.) I travel by cab regularly, so I hear things occasionally. It’s a colorful life! Heh. — But where I live is an older middle class neighborhood, right between an old historic district with valuable homes, and then one of the wealthiest parts of town, and then one of the poorest. So in the zip codes surrounding mine, it varies widely.
But it is not a good sign, when you see store shelves not so full or nearly empty, more often then you used to; and it’s a worse sign when you see someone outside your local grocery store, who’s being arrested for shoplifting, stealing food. And so you wonder, did that guy (or girl) really steal food just to resell it or just to steal? Or did they really need it for themselves or their family or others who depend on them? Because if they stole food out of need, well, I have a hard time calling that really wrong. They need help. There should be a better way, and resources for them and the people who need them. But I have trouble calling it wrong, if there’s a need for food and basic living supplies. I say that, also as someone who grew up around a family-run small business. So I know the damage that shoplifting or other crimes to a business can do. But still, if a person needs food and supplies for daily living, I have trouble calling that person wrong for doing it.
I’ve served on jury duty twice before. Boht times, at the end of it, I wanted the judge to tell both parties to knock it off and behave themselves. One was a case with so much nonsense thrown at it from both sides, it was hard to tell who was telling the truth. (Though I was inclined toward the alleged victim.) The other was two people at a stop light, a traffic accident. Both were behaving badly and it felt like a waste of time. Both ended up unhappy and paying their attorneys quite a lot, I imagine. All because of a relatively minor accident at a stop light. — I was surprised I got picked as a juror for that one, with my eyesight, and nenceforth, asked to be excused from jury service, because I don’t want my eyesight or lack of experience in some things to affect a case. However, there are probably many cases where my eyesight would have no bearing on the case.
I’ve also sat several times and then been sent home along with hundreds of others selected as potential jurors. So it all depends, I suppose.
Heh, a few years ago, I had to call the county court clerk’s office, because they’d called the former homeowner to serve jury duty. I explained the homeowner had moved out of the county years ago, and I was the current owner and also registered. I didn’t want the former homeowners to get in trouble for not answering jury duty summons, and I didn’t want a constable coming to get me or ask me,either. So I called and the clerk’s office straightened out their records and there was no further problem.
As I’ve been asked a time or two, “What’s it like being tall?” (I’m only 6’2″), that I had to answer “How would I know?” 😉 , I can’t answer your first question except to say my observation is that as an Aspie, my relationships with people, en masse, is qualitatively different than most (67/68ths) other people. I can enjoy a dinner party of half a dozen, but going to a meeting of the entire Guild is not so attractive, sorry to say. 🙁 (Divvy ’em up a half dozen at a time?)
Back in the BBS days, many of them used an introductory interview in which “Are you gay or straight?” was in the first handful of questions. I bailed at that point. IMO that’s not that important–I’d’ve wanted to replace it with “Are you interesting?” So yes, I agree that the–What is it? It’s not an acronym!–“thing” is no more useful than the idea that people are usefully pigeon-holed is.
Paul said: “IMO it’s not that important.”
Paul, that is…pretty wonderful. So many people consider whether a person is gay or straight to be a hugely important question.
Some want to know so they don’t misstep. Some might be interested in finding a partner (same-sex or opposite-sex). Online, I can see why people might want to know. But IMO, it’s up to the person whether they want to say anything about their orientation, etc., as that’s a private thing.
It’s amazing to me that for some people, it isn’t so important if someone is gay or straight. I suppose that’s because so many people react negatively and think it’s so important and so bad. But for me, it has always been a big deal, and I had trouble with it from my pre-teens, earliest awareness of it, onward. I wish it was simply, “Oh, OK, so what, big deal,” for me as well.
I think your attitude, that it should just be, and isn’t so important, is a great attitude, Paul. I wish people could get to the place where it as commonplace and unremarkable to be not-so-straight as it is to be straight, a whole cultural attitude that it’s as normal and unremarkable if a boy asks a boy as if he asks a girl (and vice versa, where the girls can ask too). When and if we ever get to a place where a boy can ask any boy and a girl can ask anyone she likes, boy or girl, and have it accepted as just as ordinary as people now accept a boy asking a girl he likes, then we will have made some real progress. When we get to the point, if we do, that it is as OK to be friends as a couple, and no one thinks it’s odd that two boys or two girls hang out together and no one questions whether they’re best friends or whether they are “together” or “doing it,” …or wouldn’t care if they were… then that’s when we will have made real progress towards acceptance of being LGBT (and all those other letters). — I was surprised and please to see the USA made the decision to accept gay marriage. I didn’t expect to see that in my lifetime. So perhaps we’re making progress. But as with racial prejudices, I think it will take more than a generation or two before people truly don’t care about straight versus gay.
OK, anyone else want to borrow the soapbox? ;D
IM(ns)HO, The only time it becomes my business is if I am thinking of having sexual relations with a person, or they of having one with me.
*(ns)= not so; I know myself well enough that I am aware I can be a self righteous prig…
Ditto to Tommie.
The online discussions about the “alphabet soup” have however opened my eyes to the fact that there are more flavours of gender/sexuality/etc. than the ones I thought I knew (being personally not all that interested), and that trying to be inclusive if you don’t know half the story can unintentionally hurt someone from the smaller minorities. I think there were about 8 or 9 letters to the LGBTS-string if you really wanted to include everyone who was part of that discussion (somewhere else, a year or so ago), and I’m sorry but I can’t remember all of them.
As Tommie said, it only becomes relevant if one or the other wants to have sex. Online, that’s quite irrelevant, unless it’s leading to a real-life meeting (like on a dating site).
That said, I still don’t quite get the fuss about pronouns, and I don’t really see the invented alternatives catching on. Wouldn’t it be easier to get people used to he and she just meaning “presents as male (today)” and “presents as female (today)”. If someone wears a dress, uses a female name or or looks female, for general interaction that’s enough to use “she” – I don’t care what she looks like underneath her clothes or who she’d like to sleep with!
It doesn’t quite do justice to the genderfluid people, but they too choose each day which clothes to put on, which name to use in introductions, etc.; so never mind if yesterday he presented himself differently, today I can say “She’s got my book!”.
Or is that too short-sighted of me, too language-historic focused?
Hanneke, as Tommie said, IM(ns) HO 😉 , I think you handle it beautifully, much better than many (most?) Americans. There are a lot of shades of meaning to the sexual orientation / gender expression / attraction part of human experience, and like you, I had no idea of most of the nuances or how to unravel them until both college reading and then online, when the internet came along, and wow, there are people who feel this and discuss this. I’ve also since seen a couple of good documentaries on things like intersex, as well as the gay and straight continuum.
I’ve been surprised to run across a couple of people who were transexual online, who made the transition or were in the process. This has been really an eye-opener for me, as to how they really feel. — Both were in science fiction fandom and were F-to-M. One dropped out of sight due to real life. The other is recent. — See “Jackson Bird” on YouTube. Jackson is great, and has a “Will It Waffle?” segment, as well as heavy Harry Potter fandom involvemnet, and general geeky goodness. 🙂
Me? I’m a gay male, but not trans. Growing up realizing I was gay was confusing enough for me. Growing up and realizing you’re trans must be very hard indeed. — But my first name (not Ben) is usually seen as a girl’s name. (Why my parents gave me my dad’s first name as my first name, when I go by my middle name, I will never understand, despite their reasons.) So I get a little of that puzzlement sometimes when people expect to see and hear and talk to “Ms.” BlueCatShip instead of me, Ben. Even with ID, sometimes, it throws people. So I think I understand how trans or gender-fluid people feel, a little bit. The last time it happned was with a new bank teller. If he’d just said something, I would’ve presented my photo ID (driver’s license). Instead, without asking me anything, he called over his supervisor. Never mind I’ve been a customer there for years now. Heh. Was I making a deposit / withdrawal for someone else? Well, no, I’m me, that’s me. Heh, and once I got the idea why, I would’ve shown my ID, but only if asked. It was resolved fine, but still, wow. And internally, on the way home, I’m thinking, you know, my birth certificate announces my biological gender was “normal male” at birth, among other things. Hmm, somehow, I don’t think offering to show and tell would go over well! 😀 :laughs:
(I hope they figured it out from my bank records. I also hope that new teller learns how better to deal with customers, if there’s any issue. He was polite enough, but I didn’t know why there was any issue requiring him to bring over his supervisor, and with my balance low these days, it concerned me a little. It was one of those odd things that happen that you begin to make sense of as it unfolds. But not usual.)
I don’t see a whole range of pronouns catching on either. But I do wish English had a better gender-neutral, this-is-a-person-we’re-talking-about third person singular pronoun. “One” is almost there, but to most people, it sounds a little too formal. (It’s perfectly good English, and had Saxon English and Norman French parentage.) If “one” would catch on as a neutral pronoun as it’s used in French, that would make good sense, and it would pair up with “they/them/their(s)” as neutral but still “person-hood, not an ‘it’.” — Though I’d rather have agreement on “plural you” first. (Y’all or you guys are the front runners.)
—–
It wasn’t until later reredaings of the Chanur books that I realized just how much CJ was saying, very subtly, about gender roles, with the hani and the stsho, at least, and with the stsho truly alien, not the usual binary he/she that hani (and humans, and mahendo’sat) are used to.
Oops, it’s that time again, isn’t it. In my defense, I’ve been distracted: prepping for my fourth colonoscopy this morning–why else would I have gotten up at 4AM this morning?
I can’t imagine ANYONE going through 4 colonoscopies in a morning, Paul……I mean, I had 3 in one year, plus the barium enema, but sheesh, are you being a practice patient for interns?
Actually, I’m pretty sure I know what you meant……4th colonoscopy of your life…..
They don’t want me undergoing any more colonoscopies, as my internal makeup isn’t normal, and doesn’t allow the probe to go all the way to the end…..hence, the barium enema, which was also negative.
Hope everything is all right.
Oh, glug. Well, good luck!
They called it off yesterday because I sucked on two little peppermint candies when I got hypoglycemic. So they rescheduled me for today, meaning I had to get up at 0400, and take more Miralax last night and 0400, more potty time. So this is day 3. They didn’t like the answers I gave, and I told then I wasn’t gonna do day 4–it’s Wednesday and I haven’t had solid food since Saturday–so they gave me an enema, and they still didn’t like the results. I can’t DO any better than this. They know I have diverticulosis, they diagnosed it last time! So it’s OFF, for a while.
last one I had, they didn’t include any instructions – I guess they figured I’d been through so many, that it should have been indelibly etched in my memory. Um, no…..and because I can’t handle the laxative they give me, it means I don’t get fully cleaned out. I get about half of the stuff down (8 ounces every 15 minutes) and then it settles in my stomach. Eventually, it comes out the same way it went in. That doesn’t please them, either, but then, how do they think I feel, sitting on the toilet and having to upchuck…..I don’t dare get up and turn around….
Plus, they have to give me a general anesthetic, because I can’t lie there without having major problems with kicking. It’s gotten better, since the neurologist took me off the Neurontin and the psychiatrist took me off the Zoloft. I still have episodes of RLS, though, and if I’m tired, such as no sleep the night before the procedure, it gets worse.
After snoozing through a half of a TV show last evening from the 0400 wakeup, I went to bed early, 2300, and slept to 0900. Tummy is mostly happy to be working on real food.
It was Groundhog Day, Feb 2nd, when it got cancelled and they rescheduled me for the next day, in case that escaped notice. 😉
Oh Holy Frijoles for both of you!! I’m getting Of An Age where I am starting to put my foot down about extensive regular medical testing unless there is evidence it is needed (a family history of certain types of cancer, for example.) I’m okay with it if there is a definite need, but going on a fishin’ expedition without evidence just because I’ve crossed some arbitrary threshold is not kosher.
I’m with you, chondite. I think the evidence on the value of colonoscopies is pretty equivocal. Yes, they can cut out things that look dodgy, but that has some risk and anomalies can be benign–better to just leave it. Options are high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (hs gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). In either of these, you merely used a disposable brush to gather material from your feces, put it on a strip, and mail usually two strips from different defecations to the lab.
I tend to have trouble with anesthetics, so I’ve never consented to a colonoscopy. But, as far as I know, I have no special risk factors for colon cancer.
Not for me, unfortunately. The family has a history of colon cancer & the polyps sliced out of me are pre-cancerous. Short of cutting out that section of the colon I have to have them sliced out every so often. The underlying problem is still there, of course.
In your case, I would say go for it. Likewise, if the test is indicated because of other evidence. I would prefer the least invasive version required to confirm a diagnosis; last year I did the fecal swab rather than the full-bore (!) colonoscopy because I got my back up a bit when the doctor said “You’re XX years old, it’s time for a colonoscopy!” Not because I was afraid of it (which he seemed to think), but because there weren’t any indications of problems, just ‘it’s time’.
Our testing procedures have gotten better and better over the years, but one thing to note is we are finding smaller and smaller problems earlier and earlier. This is a mixed blessing. Early treatment can be a lifesaver, but there are also the problems of ‘false positives’ and aggressive procedures for issues that might never become significant. Few doctors have a restrained reaction to “What would happen if we just monitored this finding, and if it started developing into a problem, then treat it.”
I can’t say that’s irrational with no familial history, since colon cancer is often slow-growing–the reason most people only need a colonoscopy once a decade–and perforations are a possibility they clearly warn us about. Your doctor was indeed “playing the odds”. (My doctor went the other way. I suggested it was time at 50, but he didn’t authorize it until I was over 55.) On the other hand, your path clearly isn’t preventative, and so has a somewhat higher risk. (My GI doc flatly said, “We can prevent colon cancer.” I told him I thought he was being a little bold.)
My last haemoccult was positive.
Chrondrite, I just listened to the audiobook “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health” by H. Gilbert Welch, M.D. which makes pretty much the same points you just made. Though since my dad had colon cancer twice, I have had 2 colonoscopies, and will have another in a few years. Since the last one was clean it will be a while before the next one is due. The colonoscopy is one test that seems worthwhile; I’ll pass on the full body scan though. And the Virtual Colonoscopy also images other organs and may lead to a doc wanting further tests because of something he or she sees on it.
if you refuse colonoscopies then you need to be extremely vigilant about colon cancer symptoms, particularly as you age, because colon tumors can really grow fast and the symptoms can be somewhat unclear. My husband went from having a clean screen to a 9 cm malignant tumor that nearly completely blocked his colon in a very short time. He had no family history of this. So I am going to insist on having colonoscopies very very often. No matter how much you dislike the procedure, it is, let me tell you, infinitely better than hospitalization, surgery and six months of chemotherapy.
Kokipy, I agree, however, this is with my physicians’ recommendations. They’re afraid of accidentally perforating my colon when they try to push the probe through the ascending portion (the right side of my body), because the colon does not come straight up as “normal” peoples’ colons do. Even with positioning me in various manners, it doesn’t work. Hence, the barium enema, which also was inconclusive, and they said they probably wouldn’t do that, either. I’m sure Paul isn’t all that enthusiastic about having them, and neither am I, and I realize they have benefits. The dilemma arises when the physician says, “I can’t get a probe in far enough to look into your entire colon without risking perforation. How do I know what’s in that inaccessible area?” What are the alternatives? I don’t want them having to open me up to look for malignancies every 5 years or so, and I also don’t want to risk a perforated colon. I still believe that the leakage from my mother’s colon after her emergency surgery is what killed her in the end.
I’ve tried to explain to the medical technicians at the gastroenterology clinic that the laxative they give me is ineffective and has been ineffective the last two times they gave it to me. Aside from it not going through my system, it didn’t do a very good job of cleaning me out, either. When I used the “Fleet” liquid, it worked just fine, but they claim it’s too harsh on the system. So, which is it, an incomplete cleansing and possibly missing a tumor, or a complete cleansing that might be just a little harsher? I’d opt for the complete, but then, if they won’t give it to me, what do I do? I am pretty much without choices, as this is the military health care system. As a retired military member, I have options not available to active duty, but those options are also costly, if I can even find a doctor who will do the procedure, as not all of them will accept my health insurance plan.
The alternative is a “virtual colonoscopy” done with the same computational tomographic techniques used in CAT and MRI scans. It’s “new”–not all that new–but may not be available everywhere. They’d still have to go in after any polyps, so it may not avoid anything.
I thought that Fleet was over the counter in most places.
Tommie, it is OTC, but they don’t want me using it. They give me a polyethylene glycol powder and tell me to dissolve it in 2 quarts of Country Time Lemonade, drink 8 ounces every 15 minutes until it’s gone – 1 hr, 45 minutes. The stuff sits like a lump of plaster in my stomach, although some does seem to get through and start the “reaction”. That lump in my stomach never continues through and eventually, it comes back up the way it came.
I don’t know what they’ll do next time, but then, I’m not due for at least 7 more years, now.
I’ve had both, the Fleets for the first, IIRC, this last was the gallon of PEG (Colace). Fleets tasted awful, worked, but I can’t say I had the diverticulosis back then. The gallon of PEG this time was already lemon-lime flavored, tasted OK, but didn’t work for me.
In the preliminary exam I told the GI doc about the diverticulosis, and told him it was a two day affair last time that I didn’t want to repeat–for all the good that did. 🙁
they had me put the Fleet in a glass of 7-up…..sure made a difference in the taste.
I’m not sure if I wanna remmeber that or not. I have IBS, and avoid gassed up drinks, even “sparkling wines”.
Joe, ask your doc about high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (hs gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). My internist was pretty upset I wouldn’t do the whole colonoscopy bit since he had a friend die from colon cancer, but he’s satisfied with a yearly FIT. It should detect anything in your colon. It’s non-invasive; you don’t have to fast; you don’t have to take laxatives or barium; it’s inexpensive.
(I’ve heard virtual colonoscopies don’t have the resolution yet to be definitive. I don’t know.)
Given the trouble you’re having with SOP, it seems like it’s worth talking options with your doc.
:snort: From jury duty and the legal roundabout to colonoscopies. It is oddly appropriate, at least sometimes. :snort:
You all have my deep sympathies. I had to go through helping my grandmother prep for colonoscopies two or three (or four?) times. Two times, she had big problems with it. ALL times…I would not wish that on anyone! Ugh!
Both she and my mom had had a portion of their lower colons removed, some time before my memory. My grandmother had diverticulitis. I’m not sure the reason for my mom’s case. I don’t have any problems I know of in that department, and devoutly wish to avoid ever having any.
So I greatly sympathize. Pleae take care of yourselves.
Paul, I hope your procedure went well and you don’t have to undergo another anytime soon.
I tend to agree: No mucking about with extra and expensive procedures, unless they’re really warranted.
Our health care system, mostly the insurance and personal expense side of it, are terrible for most people. There are plenty of talented and genuinely caring doctors, nurses, and techs out there who do a lot of good and want to do more. But the system has gotten so clogged with the almighty dollar and with other parties grabbing for money. I truly wish it would change for the better.
Yes, a good discussion kind of “travels” around, doesn’t it? I guess you could make a connection, though. Jury duty and colonoscopies are both PITAs….. LOL.
The prep didn’t work right because I have diverticulosis (I think that’s just having diverticuli. When they’re infected it’s -itis.) in all three sections of the colon. I intend to try again this spring–important with a parent and also IBS that could hide symptoms–but this was pretty traumatic. I could’nt have taken another day. There was a thunderstorm in my belly until the evening and it got something to occupy itself.
I don’t blame you. And yes, -osis indicates the condition, -itis is the inflammation. I’ve got slight diverticulosis, as well. I don’t recall what the condition is called that I have with my ascending colon, but it results in that section bending inward toward my centerline, creating a turn that’s too sharp for the probe to navigate. This is why they don’t recommend I get another c-scope unless there’s a real need for one.
Today was my visit with the cardiologist as a follow-up to the heart monitor I wore in November and which was inconclusive, since it showed no abnormalities, but there are still the symptoms I’m experiencing.
Electrocardiogram was normal, she did a listen to my heart at various points and didn’t detect anything out of the ordinary. Having said that, though, she did not preclude any anomalies that might be in my makeup that wouldn’t necessarily manifest themselves in either an EKG or listening.
So, next Friday morning, I have an echocardiogram. And on the 24th, I have a contrast CT scan where they’ll give me an IV and put a contrasting medium through me. They say it takes about an hour.
This is where I almost had a snit-fit at Radiology. When I walked in, it was after 3:00PM on a Friday afternoon. Now, I know that the young airman behind the counter would really rather be somewhere else than stuck behind this counter, and given his co-worker, I can understand that. I’ve never much cared for this particular person in Radiology, ever since she blurted out in front of the entire waiting room to the woman standing in front of her that she had breast cancer. You just do NOT do that, HIPAA or no HIPAA, the Department of Defense had much stricter patient privacy rules than HIPAA. Anyway, she’s telling this airman that I need to have lab work done, because I’m older than 50 years old. The instruction sheet says 65, but she tells the airman that they lowered it. They were ready to send me back to the cardiologist to order up more lab work, when I told them I had just gotten lab work done this past Monday (4 days ago…). So, she calls the lab, they say, yes, he’s okay. So, they schedule me. Fine, thank you. Now, may I have my ID card back? Thank you. As I was leaving, I thought to ask him if by chance he could tell me if the cardiologist had put in the prescriptions for me. This is when the tone of his voice changed from being Airman Helpful to Airman WhatthehelldoIlookliketoyou. I almost told him, “I’ll see you on the 24th. I hope I’m in a better mood when I come in.”, just to see his reaction. No, I didn’t “pull rank” on him, I didn’t even bother to let him know he’d just crossed my imaginary “jerk” line. I’m really sorry that it was Friday afternoon, but my appointment with the doctor was at 2:30, I was in her office for almost an hour, then went to Radiology to set up my appointment for my CT scan, as she instructed me to do. I don’t know what time Radiology closes for the day, probably 4:00PM, and it was getting close to that time, but that’s still no excuse for him to talk to me in that manner. Well, if I see him on the 24th, I probably won’t even remember today, and neither will he, but one of these days, he’s going to do that at the wrong time to the wrong patient, and he’s going to find himself in front of his boss’s desk explaining his attitude.
True, that’s not how one trains a puppy. You weren’t being kind to him. And since I too don’t think he’ll remember, wearing a ranking uniform on the 24th would do no good.
Okay, let’s see:
1. I’m retired, so I don’t wear a uniform. Nor do I announce that I’m a Chief Petty Officer, it’s on my ID card, he can read that and besides, it’s unnecessary to tell anyone. I don’t pull rank, I don’t have to.
2. I didn’t walk in there with an attitude like “Hey, get off your lazy butt and take care of me.” I’m sorry that it was Friday and he was looking to get out of there, but the Radiology clinic is open until 4:00PM, I was in there and out of there before 4:00PM, closer to 3:30PM, because I went back to the Cardiology clinic to ask them a question.
3. I’m not sure how you inferred that I was being unkind to him. I didn’t yell, I didn’t roll my eyes at them, I didn’t raise my voice. I simply asked them why they felt I needed to have lab work done again after I’d just had it done 4 days prior specifically for the cardiologist. When they realized that I had already done it, they called to get the okay from the lab. Fine, but why did he get upset when I asked him (POLITELY, Paul) if he could check, since he’s got my record on the screen in front of him.
I’m sorry, the printed word here doesn’t convey the tone of his voice, and you have only my word to go on, but I think you inferred something that I didn’t say happened.
@Joe
1) Apparently the words on your ID weren’t large enough to make an impression. Uniforms, which I believe you are still entitled to wear if you wish, are more likely to.
2) I agree, that sort of attitude on your part would have been beneath you. But there is a good reason military discipline is always enforceable. Respectfully enforced to be sure. So if “pulling rank”, in the proper way, is necessary, then it has its place, even by a retired CPO.
3) He’s expected to be on-duty until the last minute. I’m referring to the “tough love” concept. As you, yourself, said one day his slacker attitude will do him harm if it’s allowed to continue as a habit. If you had brought him back to attention to his proper duty, in the long run it would be more to his benefit. IMO.
funny, not everyone in the Air Force recognizes CPO, and that’s okay. I really don’t wear my rank any longer. I’m allowed to wear my uniform as long as I meet grooming standards, which is no beards (I have a Van Dyke), my hair usually is a bit over my ears. But, I do wear the uniform occasionally, such as to Veteran’s Day events, but it’s under my jacket, or if I go to tutoring and want to show the kids.
You’re right, I probably should have said something to him, but at the time, I figured it would just go in one ear and out the other, and he had my record in front of him….not that I would accuse him of doing anything, but “Appointment? What appointment?