*Note:
Although the above photo is not factually correct, it is
nonetheless substantively correct, according to unimpeachable
sources. (09/27/04)
I
Am Not an Alcoholic. No, Really.
James Hilston
11:19 p.m.
Recently we upgraded
our life insurance policies. Since it's been about six years since
we initially bought the policies, a new physical examination and bloodwork
were required.
A few days later,
the insurance agent called to inform me that my premium will be higher
than the original quote. Apparently there was something in the results
of the blood test that flagged me as a higher risk.
"Did they
tell you what it was exactly?" I asked.
"No. You'll
want to talk to your doctor about the results. We can have them sent
your doctor's office."
I rarely have
to visit a physician. The last time was more than 7 years ago. I take
a certain pride in weathering colds, flu, bladder infections, bow-saw
lacerations and minor injuries without intervention from the self-important
high priests of health care in the medical community. Not that I'm
completely opposed to physicians, I just don't think we should turn
to them at the first sign of post-nasal drip.
Now I had to
visit the physician to talk about whatever it was that put me in a
category of risk. Having filled out a multi-page survey a week in
advance of my visit, the physician had some questions about what I
wrote.
"You wrote
here that you only have about one drink a month?"
"Yeah. If
that."
"Hmm."
"What
the?" I said with my inner voice.
"Have you
ever had a blood transfusion?"
"No."
"You're
not on any medications?"
"No."
"Really?
None at all?"
"Right."
"Do you
take any supplements? Vitamins?"
"No, not
regularly. I probably should. My wife does, so I will on occasion,
when I see her do it."
"So how
are you feeling?"
"Fine. I
little tired. Fatigued. I have a lot of projects going on."
He wrote some
things down and said, "So you're feeling well."
He then went
on to explain what the insurance companies are looking for whenever
they evaluate a client's health.
"They look
at the blood and urine results for signs of drug abuse, alcoholism,
any kind of infection that might suggest a serious medical condition."
"Ok."
Then he said,
"In your case, your blood workup indicates that you have a liver
dysfunction and some enzymatic abnormalities" (or something like
that).
He continued
to describe the various things about my enzymes, blood, liver, blood,
enzymes, blood and stuff.
"What usually
causes this condition?" I asked.
"Usually,
it's the result of overdrinking or alcoholism."
"Then what
causes it when it's not due to alcoholism?"
"It could
be hereditary," he replied. "Sometimes the person is just
hiding their drinking."
"What can
be done to correct it?"
"Well, usually,
the patient will go ahead with additional tests, and in the meantime
he'll stop drinking and the condition goes away."
"But in
my case," I began, but as I started saying this, I realized that
this guy probably thinks I'm an alcoholic.
"We're going
to run some additional tests on your liver function and we'll go from
there, OK?"
"Ok."
How do you prove
to someone that you're not an alcoholic? The more you protest, the
more others are likely to disbelieve you.
Here's an afterthought:
The physician wrote down on a prescription pad the various tests that
he wants me to get and handed it to me. I was to take this to the
lab where my blood would be drawn. The receptionist then gave me instructions
on where to go. She said no appointment was necessary. I just walk
in.
But I had an
important freelance job to do and, given the option, I wasn't about
to take time out of my day, that particular day, to go get my blood
drawn and probably have to wait an hour for someone to stab my blood
vessels with a metal tube.
But now I realize
something: Would the physician wonder why I didn't go right away?
He'll know that I did not when he gets the results. He'll probably
think to himself, "What possible motivation could there be to
delay getting his blood drawn, unless ... ah, yes. Further proof that
this Hilston is a closet alcoholic. He's going to get on the wagon
and delay the bloodwork so the lab results will be different."
I
got that
James Hilston
4:06 p.m.
My three children
were bickering in the next room. It was nothing serious and didn't
warrant parental intervention. But at some point, I heard my 8-year-old
daughter say, "Let's settle this like children." They all
laughed raucously as my children are wont to do.
Same
ol' song and freelance
James Hilston
3:45 p.m.
Sorry about these
past few blogless days. I've been busy doing a freelance job and having
a cold. But I still have plenty to say.
So there.
The
New Atkins Diet for Journalists
James Hilston
According to
a CBS News report, the New York Times has reported that a CBS
press release will announce that Dan Rather will be the first participant
in a study of the effects of a new Atkins diet designed especially
for unbiased journalists.
CBS cites the
Times' report that reports that CBS will announce poultry
to be the primary source of protein for the new diet, particularly
from the Corvus brachyrhynchos, pictured here:
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Nonetheless,
awholenother word
11:30 a.m. entry
Anyone who knows
me fairly well recognizes that I'm afflicted with the sickness of
being a grammar wonk. This malady includes an obsession with words
and rules. Not that I'm necessarily very good at it. But I just have
some innate aversion to such things as:
- Using "impact"
as a verb when not talking about meteors or teeth.
- Using "comprise"
as a passive verb.
- Unintentional
split infinitives.
- The mispronunciation
of consummate when used as an adjective (Should be: kuhn
SUM mit, not CON sum mit).
That kind of
stuff.
Generally, I
prefer the definitions and usage of words that have been in place
in the English language for centuries. The modern proclivity for blurring
and morphing the meanings and usage of words drives me bonkers.
For example,
the word "irony" has come to mean something other than its
original meaning, and curiously, becomes its own irony (see third
definition below).
Consider the
first definition in the dictionary entry:
... a pretense
of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another, assumed in
order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit
questioning-- called also Socratic irony.
Line up a hundred
people and ask them what "irony" means. I would bet credits
to kidney beans not a single person would offer anything close to
that definition.
What about the
second definition (which implies "less favored than the first")?
Does it have any resemblance to the way the word is normally used
today? No.
... the
use of words to express something other than and esp. opposite of
the literal meaning.
That is what
people typically call "sarcasm." However, sarcasm is actually
irony (definition #2) plus insult. For example, I trip
over the rug, and the wife says, "You're so graceful." Then
I kick her in the shin. Most people don't know the real definition
of sarcasm. I only learned this a couple of years ago.
It isn't until
the third definition that we find something that fits the typical
modern application of the term
... incongruity
between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal
or expected result.
But it's the
third definition, which implies that there are two more favorable
meanings of the word.
So this is the
kind of stuff that bothers me and keeps me up at night.
However, if
someone (such as me) were to come up with a persuasive reason to change
a word's meaning or usage, or to invent a completely new word, I'm
willing to consider it (especially if it's coming from me). It just
so happens that I think I've come up with one such case.
In this case
I'm not talking about changing the meaning or usage of an existing
word. I'm talking about a whole 'nother word. Not "another
word altogether," or "a wholly other word," but a
whole 'nother word, spelt: awholenother.
I hear it all
the time, and it makese perfect sense to me. We Americans took the
word "another, " and line-jumped the word "whole"
to the inside of it. "a"-"whole"-"nother."
We all say it,
or so it seems. I don't know where it came from. I've only started
noticing it in recent years. But it seems like it's here to stay.
So why not make
it official? It wouldn't be the first time we've linked a string of
words together this way. For example:
- Nonetheless
= none + the +less
- Atonement
= at + one + ment
So my suggestion
is comprised of taking a common phrase to ironically impact our vernacular
by creating awholenother word.
I just threw
up on myself.
Floods
suck
I've
been without internet access since Friday. I'm making this update
from my work PC. For those who continue to faithfully visit this blog
(all three of you), I am very sorry. The remnants of Ivan (quite literally)
hosed the Pittsburgh area, and unfortunately, my internet problem
pales compared to the plight of those whose homes are either 3 feet
deep in mud or currently now floating somewhere down the Ohio River.
I hope I'm up and running again soon, but in the meantime, here's
a tidbit I found on a flaming libero-socialists website (www.oliverwillis.com):
REGISTER
TO VOTE
Submitted by Oliver Willis on Mon, 09/20/2004 - 9:51pm.
It's crunch time now. If you aren't registered, you can't vote.
If you click here to register to vote, you can also win $100,000.
That's right. Register to vote, possibly win $100,000.
I
notice that those of the Democrat-Liberal-Socialist ideology are trying
hardest to motivate the shiftless underachievers of society to do
something completely out of character: Act like a responsible citizen.
And for what? A cash prize!
It
comes as no surprise. That's the same rationale that motivates panhandlers
on the street, so why not use it to get them to vote?
Fantasy
Conversation With A Famous Person #106
As
punishment for his latest blunder, the CBS kahunas have ordered Dan
Rather to endure conversations with Pittsburgh-based James Hilston,
self-styled blogger and part-time genius.
James
Hilston: Hi Mr. Rather.
Dan
Rather: Let's just get this over with.
Hilston:
How ya doing?
Rather:
Hilston:
I said, how ya
Rather:
I'm fine. What do you want from me?
Hilston:
Nothing, really. Just making chit chat.
Rather:
Well, I'm not in the mood. How long is this going to take? I've
got work to do.
Hilston:
Can I call you "Dan"?
Rather:
Look, do you have a question? Something you want to "rub
in"? Let's just get to it.
Hilston:
So, Dan.
Rather:
Hilston:
How ya doing?
Rather:
<sigh>
(To
be continued, maybe)
Partial Birth or Complete Birth, It's Just a Technicality
Or
Are Complete-Birth Abortions Unconstitutional?
2:40 p.m. entry
According to
the AP today:
[A] third
federal judge [U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln,
Nebraska] ruled Wednesday that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act is unconstitutional, saying it fails to include an exception
when a woman's health is in danger.*
For those whose
deficit of moral clarity precludes their ability to parse this, the
judge's ruling basically answers the question: When is it acceptable
to kill an innocent** child?
Of course, the
enlightened among us tell us that the child really isn't innocent.
It is a parasitic intruder, a blastocyte, sucking the very life from
its hapless host.
But if Judge
Kopf is going to declare a ban on partial birth abortion unconstitutional
on the basis of concern for the mother's health, why stop there? Isn't
it also true that completely birthed children sometimes endanger the
health of their mothers?
Since there is
a ban that prohibits the killing of completely birthed children, shouldn't
this be checked for constitutionality? Does that ban include an exception
for when the mother's health is in danger? On that reasoning, the
ban on killing one's completely birthed children should be declared
unconstitutional.
Instead of punishing
women for taking charge of their own health and safety and killing
their completely birthed children, why not make an exception for them?
Consider those
heroic women, such as Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, who recognized
the danger posed to them by their children and drowned those intrusive,
disruptive, life-draining little brats.
*From AP's Kevin
O'Hanlon, September 8, 2004
**Not in the
theological sense, nit-picker!
What's
On Your Bumper Sticker?
1:30 p.m. entry
Bumper
sticker from www.theallright.com
Sometimes
you can tell a lot about a person by the kind of people who endorse
him.
— James Hilston
My political
bumper sticker says: "Whoever can beat Kerry, 2004"
The added bonus
of having Bush (or anyone besides Kerry) win in November is that the
libero-socialist lefto-democrats will continue to entertain me with
their irrational spitting and sputtering of leftist rhetoric and whining.
For example,
notice how the johns keep gurgling on and on how their patriotism
is being attacked by the Re-Publicans, yet conservatives are actually
not questioning their patriotism* (including Zell Miller, who rather
questions their judgment).
Yet political
analyst [and entertainer] Bette Midler says that Rush Limbaugh, despite
the fact that she doesn't listen to his show, isn't even American,
referring to the "level below which one must not sink" and still be
an American. "[Limbaugh] is sunk," says the political genius Midler.
*Except shock-rock
legend Alice Cooper who calls rock stars campaigning for Democrat
John Kerry "treasonous morons."
Says Alice (that's
"Mr. Cooper" to the rest of you): "When I read the list
of people who are supporting Kerry, if I wasn't [sic] already a Bush
supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don
Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."
Click here
for the link.
Double
Standard
4:00 a.m. entry
On
the Sept. 7 edition of Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes,"
Sean Hannity read to Senator Bob Graham (D, Florida) a handful of
quotes, ostensibly by President Bush, about the danger posed by Saddam
Hussein, his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the need to take
him out.
Graham
responded to those quotes by decrying how the President deceived and
misled the American people. Hannity then asked Graham if he believes
Senator John F. Kerry misled the American people. Graham paused a
beat, seemingly puzzled by the question. "Misled, how?"
Hannity
replies by saying those quotes did not actually come from George W.
Bush. They came from John Kerry.
Silence
for but a moment.
Hannity
then asked Graham why George W. Bush isn't allowed to say these things,
but Senator Kerry gets a pass.
Without
batting an eye, Graham then went on about how they trusted the president
and took him at his word regarding Hussein and WMDs. Of course, it's
OK for a senator to have been duped about WMDs, but Bush isn't afforded
such a luxury when it comes to the information he received from his
intelligence agencies. According to the Bush-haters, he wasn't duped
regarding WMDs, but rather knew full well that the WMDs didn't exist
yet launched us into war anyway.
Kerry
Got Served
10:45 a.m. entry
After
the close of the Republican National Convention last night, Kerry
and Edwards got their chance to respond in kind to the "negative
personal attacks" of the various RNC speakers. It's fascinating
that the Democrats did not use their pulpit to blast Bush and Cheney
when they had their chance. Is it because they're better, nicer people?
Of course not. It was their strategy, and it failed (read: No "bounce").
But
now, it's ON. They're frothing at the mouth, and seem
hardly able to contain themselves from blowing a gasket. Here's Kerry,
lunch in hand, trying to serve it back:
For the
past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as
commander in chief. We'll, here's my answer. I'm not going to have
my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused
to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation
into Iraq.
Um
-- yes you are, homey. Over. and over. and over. again. So
get used to it.
