Monday, August 29, 2005
MEET ELIOT
Eliot was born at exactly 2pm on Tuesday, July 19th. My wife was in labor for 20 hours before our doctor felt a c-section was in order. My wife recovered very quickly.
Eliot was 8lbs 11oz and 21 inches long at birth. Although he is completely healthy and happy in most respects, like his mother, he was born with congenital cataracts. We were very fortunate with our selection of doctors and hospitals, however. Our pediatrician was able to spot a problem immediately (rare) and, knowing what she did not know, contacted one of the top pediatric ophthalmologists in the area who, on Wednesday immediately diagnosed Eliot and was able to schedule him for surgery on Thursday. So at two days old, Eliot had his first surgery and his cataracts were removed. He needed a follow-up operation a month later to remove additional scar tissue. He will be wearing some pretty thick glasses for the first two years (as you can see) and then he will be able to receive lens implants which will hopefully bring his vision as close as possible to 20/20.
|
Eliot was born at exactly 2pm on Tuesday, July 19th. My wife was in labor for 20 hours before our doctor felt a c-section was in order. My wife recovered very quickly.
Eliot was 8lbs 11oz and 21 inches long at birth. Although he is completely healthy and happy in most respects, like his mother, he was born with congenital cataracts. We were very fortunate with our selection of doctors and hospitals, however. Our pediatrician was able to spot a problem immediately (rare) and, knowing what she did not know, contacted one of the top pediatric ophthalmologists in the area who, on Wednesday immediately diagnosed Eliot and was able to schedule him for surgery on Thursday. So at two days old, Eliot had his first surgery and his cataracts were removed. He needed a follow-up operation a month later to remove additional scar tissue. He will be wearing some pretty thick glasses for the first two years (as you can see) and then he will be able to receive lens implants which will hopefully bring his vision as close as possible to 20/20.
|
Friday, August 26, 2005
I SEND LETTERS
Through Jesse at Pandagon, I stumbled onto this foul bit of attempted sarcasm by David Limbaugh.
Here is my reply:
I'm glad that you admit that you have no idea how to interpret legitimate protest (of course I recognize your sorry attempt at irony). Maybe you can start looking at all of the reasons we went to war and make a similar list of why our involvement in Iraq might be wrong as well. As citizens, we have every right, and, according to some of our founding fathers, duty to criticize the president for his failure to do anything correctly in this war. What has gone right when Iraqis now pine for the days of Saddam? What has gone right when we spend billions of dollars paying mercenary corporations while our children have no health care or decent education? What has gone right when the "democratic" republic we have created is run by Islamic fundamentalists with ties to Iran? Please explain all of this in you next column with the same glib smugness that you use to criticize people who legitimately feel that their country has been taken down a dark path by greedy men with little conscience about what they have done.
Oh, and by the way, the horrors of Abu Graib, where, amoung other mistreatments of human beings that we, as a civilized nation, used to decry in others, such as Saddam and the Chinese, male children were raped in front of their weeping mothers, is something that no American should be a part of. How can you even suggest that these so-called "isolated incidents" are acceptible in any form? Do you have no morals, sir? Are you some kind of soulless monster who believes that any kind of torture is acceptible? We are not our enemies. We are supposed to be better. I guess you do not believe this.
|
Through Jesse at Pandagon, I stumbled onto this foul bit of attempted sarcasm by David Limbaugh.
Here is my reply:
I'm glad that you admit that you have no idea how to interpret legitimate protest (of course I recognize your sorry attempt at irony). Maybe you can start looking at all of the reasons we went to war and make a similar list of why our involvement in Iraq might be wrong as well. As citizens, we have every right, and, according to some of our founding fathers, duty to criticize the president for his failure to do anything correctly in this war. What has gone right when Iraqis now pine for the days of Saddam? What has gone right when we spend billions of dollars paying mercenary corporations while our children have no health care or decent education? What has gone right when the "democratic" republic we have created is run by Islamic fundamentalists with ties to Iran? Please explain all of this in you next column with the same glib smugness that you use to criticize people who legitimately feel that their country has been taken down a dark path by greedy men with little conscience about what they have done.
Oh, and by the way, the horrors of Abu Graib, where, amoung other mistreatments of human beings that we, as a civilized nation, used to decry in others, such as Saddam and the Chinese, male children were raped in front of their weeping mothers, is something that no American should be a part of. How can you even suggest that these so-called "isolated incidents" are acceptible in any form? Do you have no morals, sir? Are you some kind of soulless monster who believes that any kind of torture is acceptible? We are not our enemies. We are supposed to be better. I guess you do not believe this.
|
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
PAT ROBERTSON, THE FUNDAMENTALIST GODFATHER OR A POOR EXCUSE FOR NATHAN THURM
Seriously, maybe Pat just wants to make Chavez an offer he can't refuse.
or maybe he's just taking on the persona of Martin Short's chain smoking lawyer...
Of course he didn't say to assassinate him. Why would you think he said that? He's not being defensive. Why do you think he's being defensive?
If he said something like that, Jesus might get mad at him for violating the commandments he wants displayed in all public places. The ones that say not to kill other people.
Then again, laughing boy really isn't a Christian now, is he? He's just a weight loss powder huckster, a soulless religio-maniac who exerts some weird laughing mind control on his mindless minions.
|
Seriously, maybe Pat just wants to make Chavez an offer he can't refuse.
or maybe he's just taking on the persona of Martin Short's chain smoking lawyer...
Of course he didn't say to assassinate him. Why would you think he said that? He's not being defensive. Why do you think he's being defensive?
If he said something like that, Jesus might get mad at him for violating the commandments he wants displayed in all public places. The ones that say not to kill other people.
Then again, laughing boy really isn't a Christian now, is he? He's just a weight loss powder huckster, a soulless religio-maniac who exerts some weird laughing mind control on his mindless minions.
|
