So, browsing through my triathlon blog I found this jem. It's in there, if I remember, because it predates this one. Guess I'm gonna have to scour it for other gems.
From May 2006:
So Amy sent out an e-mail yesterday to a bunch of people asking how they relieve stress, for some story she's working on. She said be creative. I said does creative = truthful, and she said "of course not." So I started writing, only to later find out she wanted brevity. I'm not so much with the brevity so, long story short (ironically), she's not using it. Which means I can post it here.
(fictional work to follow)
Being a trauma surgeon can be very stressful. I'm presented with emergent cases and many, many times I am the only thing between those critically-injured peoples' lives and deaths. In any given night I may see gaping head injuries, gunshot victims with sucking chest wounds, little kids who've been mauled by pit bulls, impalements, amputations and everything else you can imagine. And some things you can't.
And the thing is, the patients aren't people to me. They are just injuries. I focus on their vital signs and what's bleeding, and that's about it. My only concern is to stabilize them and fix what's broken, torn or severed. It sounds harsh at best and inhuman at worst, but trust me--it's the only way to do my job. If I get caught up in them as people, then I'm distracted. And if I'm distracted, well, game over. So I never hear their stories. Oh sure, I sometimes hear about how they got to be in the condition in which they are presented: the drive-by shooting, the fall from a ladder or the car accident. But I don't hear about their families, their jobs or their problems. I don't get to hear those stories.
Nor do I want to. Those stories, the things that make them who they are simply don't factor into the equation I must solve in order to fix them. But I save their lives regardless. When I do, it's intensely rewarding. I'm the hero, almost Godlike, at least in their eyes.
Sometimes--too many times--however, they don't make it. Their injuries are just too severe, they'd lost too much blood before they got to my OR. For whatever reason, sometimes they just die. And when they die we have the unimaginable task of telling their families.
And that's when it becomes real. That's when, all of a sudden, their lives mean something to me. Gone is the surgical field, replaced by this group of people, pleading with their eyes and their words to give tehm any semblance of good news. BUt when ther eisn't any, there's this pat speech I use, along the lines of "Your son/daughter/wife/husband was critically injured. He was brought to the ER where we did everything we could to stabilize him/her. But his/her heart stopped and despite our best efforts, he/she died. I'm very sorry."
And I've delivered that speech to those shocked, disbelieving family members so many times it has become rote. Inside, I'm distant as I repeat it, dissasociated. I do it with apparent compassion, but in reality it's cold and unfeeling. Because, unlike other doctors, I have no relationship with these people, apart from their now-dead loved ones. I've never met them before this moment, yet I am required to deliver this horrific news. And it's hard. You have no idea how hard.
People in my profession deal with this stress in many different ways. A lot of us play golf, run, paint, play music. Usually to obsessive levels. Some of us find solace in religion. Some of us drink too much, or seek out the companionship of similarly nameless, faceless souls. Just to feel their warmth; to embrace something living.
But not me. I guess you could say I follow a different path. Not often, but once in a while, when all of that stress mounts to the breaking point, I relieve it by going downtown, late at night. And savagely murdering homeless people.
I think Amy sort of regrets sending me that e-mail.
Showing posts with label i have too much time on my hands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label i have too much time on my hands. Show all posts
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Friday, November 16, 2007
Make that a long-winded pot-stirrer
"Nice column this week, Jim."
"Thanks...kinda short."
"Yeah, that's good, too."
Tom Grant can talk your ear off, and that's a good thing, I think. I learn a lot from the guy every time I get to sit down with him. But when he's on deadline, the conversations are always to the point. So that's how it went down when I stopped by the office last night. Sometimes, you get the most out of the fewest words.
Yesterday, prior to that conversation, I submitted a grand total of 411 words for LotB, easily my shortest column in the 20 weeks that I've been writing it. Usually, I throw down a good thousand words and have to literally back away from the keyboard to keep it that short. So either there's a lot to write about, I have a lot to say, or I just haven't learned the sentiment expressed above.
And it's funny. Talking to me, at first glance at least, you'd never get that i had a lot to say. My MO, I guess, is to sit back and watch, to take it all in. My thinking is the less time you spend with your mouth open, the more you learn. Listening is a gift I've been blessed with, apparently, although Amy may differ (I'm really am *always* listening, baby).
By being a good listener (at least in my own estimation), I end up having a lot to say, when I get around to saying it. That's why I like blogging, I guess. It's a great chance to take five or 10 minutes and just get it all out. Blogging's kind of like beer to me--the switch for the floodgates of thought, and it comes without the associated hangover and belly, as added bonuses. And in this format, there aren't any editor-imposed limitations or restrictions. I can take my time setting up a punch line or developing a story. I don't feel like I have to strip out all of the adjectives just to make a particular word count.
But I suppose being a bit more concise is a lesson I could learn. I'm lucky in the sense that I write for a weekly, where I definitely get more column inches then I would in different formats. But there's always a limit. If I were to submit the 2000 or more words that I could easily write every week, Tom would quickly find someone else with a lot less to say. It's hard, though. Constantly I find myself feeling stilted by the constraints of the paper. How can anyone possibly get their thoughts down, and more than that, across to readers in so few words? It's learned skill, no doubt, and one I'm working on.
But until then, I'll always have you, my beautiful blog.
"Thanks...kinda short."
"Yeah, that's good, too."
Tom Grant can talk your ear off, and that's a good thing, I think. I learn a lot from the guy every time I get to sit down with him. But when he's on deadline, the conversations are always to the point. So that's how it went down when I stopped by the office last night. Sometimes, you get the most out of the fewest words.
Yesterday, prior to that conversation, I submitted a grand total of 411 words for LotB, easily my shortest column in the 20 weeks that I've been writing it. Usually, I throw down a good thousand words and have to literally back away from the keyboard to keep it that short. So either there's a lot to write about, I have a lot to say, or I just haven't learned the sentiment expressed above.
And it's funny. Talking to me, at first glance at least, you'd never get that i had a lot to say. My MO, I guess, is to sit back and watch, to take it all in. My thinking is the less time you spend with your mouth open, the more you learn. Listening is a gift I've been blessed with, apparently, although Amy may differ (I'm really am *always* listening, baby).
By being a good listener (at least in my own estimation), I end up having a lot to say, when I get around to saying it. That's why I like blogging, I guess. It's a great chance to take five or 10 minutes and just get it all out. Blogging's kind of like beer to me--the switch for the floodgates of thought, and it comes without the associated hangover and belly, as added bonuses. And in this format, there aren't any editor-imposed limitations or restrictions. I can take my time setting up a punch line or developing a story. I don't feel like I have to strip out all of the adjectives just to make a particular word count.
But I suppose being a bit more concise is a lesson I could learn. I'm lucky in the sense that I write for a weekly, where I definitely get more column inches then I would in different formats. But there's always a limit. If I were to submit the 2000 or more words that I could easily write every week, Tom would quickly find someone else with a lot less to say. It's hard, though. Constantly I find myself feeling stilted by the constraints of the paper. How can anyone possibly get their thoughts down, and more than that, across to readers in so few words? It's learned skill, no doubt, and one I'm working on.
But until then, I'll always have you, my beautiful blog.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The answer is 42
Every day (I think) CNN has a reader poll where they ask stuff like "Should Britney get to keep her kids?" or "Does Dick Cheney eat babies for breakfast, or just as an occasional snack?" But today, they ask this:
"Do you think self-doubt limits your ability to live life to its fullest?"
That's some pretty heavy shit. Probably some cnn staffer is contemplating offing themselves, but wanted to do some research first. That's always prudent, I find.
"Do you think self-doubt limits your ability to live life to its fullest?"
That's some pretty heavy shit. Probably some cnn staffer is contemplating offing themselves, but wanted to do some research first. That's always prudent, I find.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Petraeus: Surge working
Well duh, of course it is. This week Gen. David Petraeus has been painting a rosy picture for congress of progress in Iraq, despite all contrary evidence. Think about it. Here is this guy, in charge of Bush's surge, reporting out on his "progress." Have you ever had to tell your boss how you were doing on a project? Have you ever said "look...this clearly isn't working out. I'm pretty sure I've fucked it all up." Of course not. You'd try your damnedest to spin it so you look good, right? Of course you would.
Yet we're supposed to bank on his report as some credible measure of how things are really going in Iraq. If only there were some other report we could look at to get a more, well, unbiased assessment. Say the government had some independent office that, well, accounted for things. You know, generally speaking. What? There is? No way!
The GAO, a week before Petraeus offered up his rainbows-and-unicorns report, published their own report. The General Accountability Office is a branch of congress whose mission it is to audit, evaluate and investigate programs for which taxpayer money is spent. Like the war in Iraq, cause I think some taxpayer money is spent there. It's head, the Comptroller General, is a non-partisan presidential appointee, ratified by congress. The current CG is David M. Walker, a Clinton appointee. Yeah, I can almost hear your hackles rising. "Clinton? Non-partisan my ass!" But he was ratified by a republican congress, so there.
So last week the GAO submitted its report on progress made by the surge, titled "Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks." Contrast just the title of the report with the statement by Petraeus saying significant progress has been made. The GAO report looked at all of the benchmarks set in place 9 months ago when the surge started, benchmarks derived from promises made by the Iraqi government. Remember that the impetus for the surge was to quell violence to allow for the government to establish itself; without a thriving government, the surge isn't succeeding.
Of the 18 benchmarks, only three were met. four were "partially met" and 11 were not met. Knowing that, how can any reasonable person say the surge is working? If my daughter brought home a report card with three As, four Cs and 11 Fs, well, I wouldn't exactly be on TV telling the American people she's doing great.
So why is Bush buying Petraeus' pretty picture? Cause he helped paint it, probably. Remember that "surprise" visit he made to Iraq last week? I'm pretty sure his agenda wasn't all about troop morale. You can bet he had closed-door meetings with Petraeus on how to best spin the report. And no doubt that spin plan included enlisting the Bush propaganda machine--Fox News. A couple of days ago, Petraeus appeared on Fox with his shill, Britt Hume. Glenn Greenwald wrote about it over on salon.com and covered it nicely. Don't think for a second that it wasn't very carefully orchestrated.
But wait, you say, how can you impugn the character of this lauded 4-Star General? Petraeus has an, as far as we know, unsullied record of being a first-class officer. But you also know, of course, that Bush chooses his people veeeery carefully. His predecessor as Commander of Multi-national Forces, George Casey, was sacked because he didn't agree with Bush's surge.
"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term," Casey said at the time. In other words, more US troops means the Iraqi government drags it feet.
But in the Bush administration, if you're not loyal (meaning willing to bend over and take whatever the POTUS commands of you without dissent), you're out. And so Casey was out.
And so Bush was looking for a surge fan and a loyal Bushie, and apparently found one in Petraeus. He implemented Bush's surge and now nine months later all evidence suggests he's failing. But we're supposed to believe everything is fine and if we stay the course, we win! Despite the GAO's assessment that Casey's assertion before the surge was correct.
And it's interesting. Recently, Bush stated that it was a mistake to withdraw from Vietnam, because of the damage it did to America's credibility. And that's incredibly telling. Essentially, it means that the lives of American soldiers are less valuable than the country's--and by extension the President's--saving face. More than 58,000 Americans died in that war, and Bush is saying that it wasn't enough. Well, Mr. Bush, only 3,774 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far, so I guess we have plenty more to go, huh?
Bush apparently believes that no matter what, we will succeed in Iraq. But what if we don't? After more than four years, we're no closer now than we were than to winning this war. So what? We just keep going, keep sacrificing people until 10,000 are dead and the military is just crippled? It's like continuing to drive your car after the red oil light comes on--insanity. Insanity with a pretty high cost.
So, bottom line--can we trust Petraeus' report?
Of course we can.
Yet we're supposed to bank on his report as some credible measure of how things are really going in Iraq. If only there were some other report we could look at to get a more, well, unbiased assessment. Say the government had some independent office that, well, accounted for things. You know, generally speaking. What? There is? No way!
The GAO, a week before Petraeus offered up his rainbows-and-unicorns report, published their own report. The General Accountability Office is a branch of congress whose mission it is to audit, evaluate and investigate programs for which taxpayer money is spent. Like the war in Iraq, cause I think some taxpayer money is spent there. It's head, the Comptroller General, is a non-partisan presidential appointee, ratified by congress. The current CG is David M. Walker, a Clinton appointee. Yeah, I can almost hear your hackles rising. "Clinton? Non-partisan my ass!" But he was ratified by a republican congress, so there.
So last week the GAO submitted its report on progress made by the surge, titled "Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks." Contrast just the title of the report with the statement by Petraeus saying significant progress has been made. The GAO report looked at all of the benchmarks set in place 9 months ago when the surge started, benchmarks derived from promises made by the Iraqi government. Remember that the impetus for the surge was to quell violence to allow for the government to establish itself; without a thriving government, the surge isn't succeeding.
Of the 18 benchmarks, only three were met. four were "partially met" and 11 were not met. Knowing that, how can any reasonable person say the surge is working? If my daughter brought home a report card with three As, four Cs and 11 Fs, well, I wouldn't exactly be on TV telling the American people she's doing great.
So why is Bush buying Petraeus' pretty picture? Cause he helped paint it, probably. Remember that "surprise" visit he made to Iraq last week? I'm pretty sure his agenda wasn't all about troop morale. You can bet he had closed-door meetings with Petraeus on how to best spin the report. And no doubt that spin plan included enlisting the Bush propaganda machine--Fox News. A couple of days ago, Petraeus appeared on Fox with his shill, Britt Hume. Glenn Greenwald wrote about it over on salon.com and covered it nicely. Don't think for a second that it wasn't very carefully orchestrated.
But wait, you say, how can you impugn the character of this lauded 4-Star General? Petraeus has an, as far as we know, unsullied record of being a first-class officer. But you also know, of course, that Bush chooses his people veeeery carefully. His predecessor as Commander of Multi-national Forces, George Casey, was sacked because he didn't agree with Bush's surge.
"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term," Casey said at the time. In other words, more US troops means the Iraqi government drags it feet.
But in the Bush administration, if you're not loyal (meaning willing to bend over and take whatever the POTUS commands of you without dissent), you're out. And so Casey was out.
And so Bush was looking for a surge fan and a loyal Bushie, and apparently found one in Petraeus. He implemented Bush's surge and now nine months later all evidence suggests he's failing. But we're supposed to believe everything is fine and if we stay the course, we win! Despite the GAO's assessment that Casey's assertion before the surge was correct.
And it's interesting. Recently, Bush stated that it was a mistake to withdraw from Vietnam, because of the damage it did to America's credibility. And that's incredibly telling. Essentially, it means that the lives of American soldiers are less valuable than the country's--and by extension the President's--saving face. More than 58,000 Americans died in that war, and Bush is saying that it wasn't enough. Well, Mr. Bush, only 3,774 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far, so I guess we have plenty more to go, huh?
Bush apparently believes that no matter what, we will succeed in Iraq. But what if we don't? After more than four years, we're no closer now than we were than to winning this war. So what? We just keep going, keep sacrificing people until 10,000 are dead and the military is just crippled? It's like continuing to drive your car after the red oil light comes on--insanity. Insanity with a pretty high cost.
So, bottom line--can we trust Petraeus' report?
Of course we can.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
"Discontinue use...
...if you have urges to gamble or f*ck compulsively" the drug commercial might as well have said last night. "Wha?" I thought as I looked up from my magazine last night to see an ad for a drug called "Mirapex". So I thought I must have misheard, so I googled "drug side effects" and "gambling" this morning, seriously thinking I'd find nothing but "Jim is crazy", but sure enough, I heard correctly:
"One of the side effects of Mirapex has been the development of compulsive gambling in people who have not had a problem with gambling before taking the drug. For example, a retired government intelligence worker lost thousands of dollars in slot machines before he discovered that gambling was a Mirapex side effect and stopped taking the drug. A 68-year-old man lost more than $200,000 before his medication was adjusted. A 41-year-old lost more than $5,000 in Internet gambling.
Gambling is only one of the pleasure/reward-seeking activities that can increase in patients taking Mirapex. Other obsessive behaviors include:
- Excessive shopping
- Overeating
- Hypersexuality "
Sounds like a party. I wonder how hard it is to fake Parkinson's.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Chuck Norris facts
Over on my triathlon website, about every couple of months or so, someone will invariably post "Chuck Norris Facts." I know you've seen them. There are entire websites devoted to them. There are t-shirts and coffee mugs out there with clever things like "Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter" or "Chuck Norris counted to infinity, twice."
God how I hate them. So whenever that jackass posts that thread, I rebut. And thus, here are the real Chuck Norris facts (unabridged):
"The only statistic Chuck Norris cares about is that with a 99.9% confidence interval, there is a 100% probability that Chuck Norris is a crying little girl who, when 24 comes on, has to hide in his closet with his favorite Teletubby plushie repeating "everything will be alright" over and over until the show is over, when he then has to change his underpants."
"Chuck Norris is Jack Bauer's makeup artist. But he's not allowed to look at Mr. Bauer in the eye, lest he wet his pants. Again."
"I thought Jack Bauer killed Chuck Norris by making his wee, girly heart explode by looking in his general direction?"
"Chuck Norris is a whiny little girl who once stayed in his dark room for a week because his shadow startled him when he turned his light on in the morning."
"I know another Chuck that would spend the entire swim cutoff crying on the beach because the water was too wet. Just like his pants."
"Chuck Norris' pick up line is "look, I didn't piss my self today. Uh...nevermind."
"Chuck Norris merely saw its shadow once and simultaneously vomited and wet his pants."
"Chuck Norris thinks 'cinco de mayo' is how hispanics order five servings of mayonnaise."
"Chuck Norris:Crying like a little girl::Jack Bauer: Killing terrorists"
"Jack Bauer challenged the President to a 'who has the most testicles' contest. Jack Bauer won by 5, and then pulled the Presidents 2 testicles off, slowly and with malice, and fed them to him. Chuck Norris, of course, has fewer testicles than Lance Armstrong."
"Chuck Norris has Herpes. He gets outbreaks on his wang and around his eyes, because when he churns his butter, he has to continuously wipe the tears from his eyes so he can see what he's doing."
"Chuck Norris Triathlon:
Cry for 30 minutes.
Get dope slapped by Girl Scouts.
Cry some more."
"What '5000' means to Chuck Norris:
Times he's lost a fight.
Nights he's cried himself to sleep on his pillow.
Bruises he gets just thinking about Jack Bauer.
Anti-defamation lawsuits he's filed against me (Chuck Norris can't fight, so he prefers to litigate).
Times he's crossed the street to avoid confrontations with "scary homeless people."
Letters he's received from the Wold Martial Arts Council pleading with him to take up arm wrestling, because they're tired of him giving them a bad name.
Doses of Prozac he's taken just to get through the day.
Doping tests he's failed due to elevated estrogen levels.
Employment tests he's failed to become a mall security guard.
Auditions he's been to for "Cabaret." (Chuck Norris dances surprisingly well, but unfortunately sings about 4 octaves too high for any of the male roles).
Slaps he's received from little school girls.
Times he's vomited at the thought of going outside alone."
"Little known fact: Chuck Norris was the one thing McGyver could do absolutely nothing with, because crying little girls are absolutely useless when you need to get yourself out of a jam."
"Jack Bauer killed 4 crying little girls today before breakfast. All of them were Chuck Norris."
"Everyone knows fluvial geomorphology kicks glacial geomorphology's ass. Chuck Norris doesn't know that glacial geomorphology is restricted by geography, whereas erosion from water can happen anywhere!"
"Chuck Norris has two cats, Fluffy and Mr. Puddin' Paws, or Puddin' for short. Puddin' got his name because whenever Chuck Norris makes pudding (and he makes it a lot--Chuck loves his pudding!), Puddin' sticks his feet in the bowl trying to lick the leftovers. Then, he runs all over Chuck Norris' house leaving little chocolaty kitty prints all over the place. Mr. Puddin' Paws is a little scamp. Fluffy routinely kicks Chuck Norris' ass."
"I told this joke to Chuck Norris once:
Chuck Norris walks in to a bar and orders a Zima. The bartender asks him for ID, but Chuck Norris says "I don't need ID, I'm Chuck Norris." The bartender says "I'm sorry, Mr. Norris, but I thought you were a crying little girl because of your red eyes and the tear stains on your collar." Chuck Norris says in reply "That's OK...it happens all the time." The bartender apologizes again and offers to buy him a whisky. Chuck Norris then says "thanks, but could I get it with some diet Sprite and a straw. And of do you have any of those little umbrellas?" The bartender, horrified, bitch-slaps Chuck Norris, who cries some more and sulks out of the bar.
Chuck Norris didn't get it."
"Chuck Norris thinks 'bird flu' is a new martial art, and that it involves ninja feather tickling."
"Chuck Norris doesn't trust chickens. He thinks it's their souless black eyes. Chuck Norris would rather starve than face down a chicken and then have to spend another year in therapy to get him back to his happy place (Chuck Norris' happy place is Bed, Bath and Beyond. So many useful gadgets)."
"Chuck Norris believes in intelligent design."
"Chuck Norris tried referring to himself in the third person, but he ultimately found it confusing and went back to calling himself Jenny. Chuck Norris looks prettiest in floral print sundresses. They hide his belly."
"Chuck Norris gets confused by complete sentences. They give him a headache, and make him want to kick things. But then Chuck Norris remembers what his mother told him: 'sugar and spice make everything nice, and if you misbehave I'm going to lock you in the closet for your birthday again.' And threats make him stutter."
"Luckily, Vin Deisel's little skirt is still plenty big enough for Chuck Norris to hide behind."
"In college, Chuck Norris tried out for girl's field hockey, but had to quit because he annoyed his teammates every time he shouted "owie" after getting hit in the shin by the ball."
"Chuck Norris likes Def Leppard, too. He also likes strawberry ice cream, sharing his feelings and crocheting intricate doilies."
"Sticks and stones don't break Chuck Norris' bones, but words make him curl up in the fetal position and shiver."
"When he's naked, Chuck Norris looks like an 11-year-old girl. With a full beard."
"If I see Chuck Norris pushing a stroller or riding his tricylce, I'll be sure and wave. You know, slowly, so he'll understand me."
"Chuck Norris only scares tiny babies, and that's only because he tries to steal their bottles, because Chuck Norris has only recently been weened from the teet."
"Chuck Norris gigggles like a schoolgirl when he hears the word "teet." When he listens to "Hash Pipe" by Weezer, he wets his pink panties every time."
"Chuck Norris drinks virgin Cosmopolitans. But only a couple, because they make him tipsy."
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
