Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 18th, 2009

Well, put in a call to the Dr. today.  Trying to get an answer to the question:  Is it normal for it to start out painful but bearable and then slowly get worse (pain-wise)?

Last night was hell, with the meds only helping marginally for about 2 hours.  I could wish for better.

Still, the headache part of it is way better.  It got worse last night but still better.

I wonder if he’s just going to say “Now they’re *really* dying in earnest – hang in there!”

UPDATE:

The Dr’s nurse called back.  Apparently it is different for every single person.  You can go up to four days with numbness and “feeling groovy” (not quite groovy but local numbness) and then “BAM” you get hit with the pain.

Oh, the pain.  The vicodin is only helping for about 2 hours at a time.

And yes, she did say “Now they’re really dying in earnest.”

I’ll give it until tomorrow to see if this is going to be like this, which is really undesirable, or if it gets worse.  If it gets worse I need something more for pain control.

UPDATE 2:

This may be a sign that this will be a 3-week process, not a 2-week process.  I can think of worse things – like rabid chihuahuas eating you alive starting with your toes.   Or perhaps suffering from coffee, a bran muffin, and irritable bowel syndrome while stuck in LA traffic.  Or perhaps being buried alive with Rosie O’Donnell.  Don’t mind me.  I’m just whining and I got no cheese to go with it.

****

Thanks to ever-observant co-worker  Black Lab on Amphetamines (BLA) I can relay to you a small portion of the article that Telegraph (dot co dot uk) put out… they’ve done an incredible service to mankind.

Zombies would most likely wipe out humanity if they really existed, claim scientists

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent

In their study, titled When Zombies Attack!, the researchers picked “classic” slow-moving zombies such as those in Dawn of the Dead as models and divided humanity into three: the living, zombies and the “removed” – zombies who had been killed by decapitation.

They concluded there was no point trying to cure those infected or live with them – the best thing was to destroy them as quickly as possible.

“A zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly,” they write in the book

“While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to hit hard and hit often.

“As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble.”

Co-worker Laconic Pup had this to say:

There are some strong variables to be considered:

  1. What level of damage is required to render a zombie non-threatening?  Decapitation?  Total incineration?
  2. What is the method of transmission?  (typically a bite or fluid transfer – do people that die of other causes become zombies?).  The paper claims it’s similar to swine flu, but the flu is an invisible, airborne transmitted virus.  The walking dead are a slightly different story.
  3. Have the researchers taken into account the availability of Bruce Campbell, Simon Pegg, and/or Doctor McNinja in a zombie outbreak scenario?
bruce-campbell-evil-dead

The Man from S-Mart - and His Boomstick

****
I love these people.  Sadly, they’ll be stopped by the police for creating a dangerous situation.  And the police will never quite catch the poignant and bitter twist – that the situation the people are trying to stop is the ones that the cops would stop if they were doing their jobs.  North Carolinans with guts.

The group, Angry Neighbors With Paintball Guns, posted signs at strategic locations throughout the city, warning motorists to slow down or risk being shot at with a paintball gun.

You give out enough $140 tickets, people will slow down.

****
Arthur C. Brooks over at the WSJ has a great op/ed.  He gets it.  If congress and our president have any brains worth using in their heads, they’ll pay attention to what he’s saying.  I’m attaching part of his article here – go read the rest of it because… damn, did the man call it correctly!!

Many on the left attribute the public’s growing disapproval to right-wing scheming. An op-ed in USA Today on Aug. 10 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the town-hall protests are part of an “ugly campaign” and are “un-American.” A few days earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charged “sabotage.”

Blaming a cabal of conspirators—a time-honored technique for leaders on the wrong side of public opinion—is paranoid and self-defeating. More importantly, it betrays a tin ear to the culture of most Americans—an independent, optimistic culture that is mistrustful of government nannying and intolerant of policies that mortgage our future.

Consider the evidence. Despite the vote in November, it is clear that when Americans are not in an abject panic, we dislike government fiscal promiscuity. The president’s sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration’s free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president’s economic policies was, literally, “spending too much.” In second place was the worry that the president is “leading the nation toward socialism” through government takeovers and bailouts.

What exactly is our problem with government spending? It is not just that we think it is wasteful and ineffective (although most recognize this to be true). Americans actually think the government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life.

Many on the left attribute the public’s growing disapproval to right-wing scheming. An op-ed in USA Today on Aug. 10 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the town-hall protests are part of an “ugly campaign” and are “un-American.” A few days earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charged “sabotage.”

Blaming a cabal of conspirators—a time-honored technique for leaders on the wrong side of public opinion—is paranoid and self-defeating. More importantly, it betrays a tin ear to the culture of most Americans—an independent, optimistic culture that is mistrustful of government nannying and intolerant of policies that mortgage our future.

Consider the evidence. Despite the vote in November, it is clear that when Americans are not in an abject panic, we dislike government fiscal promiscuity. The president’s sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration’s free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president’s economic policies was, literally, “spending too much.” In second place was the worry that the president is “leading the nation toward socialism” through government takeovers and bailouts.

What exactly is our problem with government spending? It is not just that we think it is wasteful and ineffective (although most recognize this to be true). Americans actually think the government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life.

Read Full Post »