17 February, 2000

Mmmm, Four Stitches

Sorry I've been away, but I have a good excuse, see.

The other day I was making some sort of cable for a coworker. Whilst stripping the shielding off a cable to get at the wires and terminate the end, my nice sharp strippin' scissors went and gouged my finger really good. Blood immediately came leaking out, so after crying out "Ouch!" I shoved my finger in my mouth and gave it a good suck.

"Mmmm, that's awfully juicy," I thought. I took it over to the kitchen for a better look. Quite a bleeder, and the cut was deep, lose skin all around.

"Ahh, that's nothing," said one coworker.

"Would you like a ride to the Emergency Room," said another.

I hesitated.

"You have insurance." Mmmm,
four stitches ...

Yeah, better safe than sorry, I thought to myself. Now I know where El Camino Hospital is. After waiting awhile in the ER, they took me in, cleaned the wound, gave me a tetanus shot, and stitched me up. The local anesthesia was interesting - two injections on either side of the base of the finger, making the whole thing numb. "That's where the nerves go," observed my good Samaritan coworker, who has in past years had run-ins aplenty at the local ER. He and the staff recognized each other.

So, this past week, not much for typing. I had the stitches out on Tuesday, but as the wound isn't that healed I'm still not that much into typing. It's the middle finger of my left hand, see, and that's me typing hand. I alternate between trying to use it with the bandage at its end, making it klunky to maneuver, and just skipping out on it all together, which makes my hand cramp up because, well, keeping the middle finger curled safely out of the way aint something those muscles are practiced at.

For a few days I typed with my right. That is frustratingly slow, and a burden for a hand that's not used to doing that. And in casual correspondence I just let the typos flow, like some guy who talks with a lisp because he bit his tongue.

Been crazy days at work. The public knows we're shipping our service first half of this year, so Engineering plays its games, and the IS Department plays our own. We're moving offices next month, which is pretty insane for me, but it'll be worth it once we're there, and Jed's done lots of leg work on handling the telephones, and Ops has been taking care of getting us network connectivity. That just leaves me to make sure everything works, but procurement is half the battle. The nasty half that I like to avoid, most days.

Prop 22: Oppression Masked in Protection

Joe Doyle felt like sharing this with tuna. I shall share it with you:

        Here are two commentaries particularly poignant in light of CA Prop 22, and its likely passage:

Posted to a newsgroup by Jason Zych (UIUC CS TA): "This past evening, some TV station ran a program called "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?". I've seen a few commercials for it in the past few weeks; you may have as well. The basic idea is that a bunch of gold-digging women compete in a beauty-pageant-like contest and the winner gets to marry some secret millionaire guy who is apparently such a loser that despite all his money he is incapable of attracting the attention of a shallow gold-digger on his own. The lucky female gold-digger and the millionaire john, who are basically total strangers to each other, are (were) then married at the end of the program.

The question posed about this program was, where the heck is the "family values" crowd now? One would think that, as far as a "defense of marriage" goes, certainly the institution of marriage is being mocked and degraded by such a tacky, loveless event as this TV program, and for all the energy the "family values" folks put into keeping two people from having even basic rights like partner visitation in the hospital if they happen to be of the same sex, you'd think they'd be willing to direct at least a small amount of energy to combat the public display, on television, of marriage as a loveless farce that amounts to nothing more than legalized prostitution.

I thought it was an excellent point. And -- though I might be proved wrong -- I fully expect the "family values" crowd to remain silent on the issue of this TV program. "


Paul Watts' followup: "Most excellent point. But yes, I think it takes a belief in the sanctity of marriage. Since there will be no outcry of this show, it only goes to show that the "defense of marriage" crowd isn't about protecting the sanctity of anything--it's all about denying the rights of gays. It's oppression masked in protection."

It stuns me how much bigotry this country can still muster. I think Gay Rights is going to make an interesting Civil Rights struggle. I know which side I'll be marching on.

California is interesting; I've received a sample ballot and a pretty impressive-looking "voter information pamphlet" from the Secretary of State. I gather it is a collection of various campaigns' propaganda, all collated together for thoughtful digestion. I think I'll resort to that as I finish Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama".

31 January << 2000 >> 16 January

This document last modified <dannyman@dannyland.org>