Each injection happens at a 4 minute interval. Every other 20 minutes of the run, you have about 3.5 minutes of free time before another injection. The alternate 20 minutes does not allow for the free time, despite still being at 4 minute intervals.
Problem: How do you use the bathroom?
Solution: Injection, mix, strip gloves, sprint down hallway, wash hands (you've been working with material from a bottle with skull & crossbones and fish with x's over their eyes after all) use bathroom, wash hands, sprint down hallway, put on gloves, add injection.
Whoever thinks chemistry is sedentary has never needed to pee during an hours long run of tests.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Monday, October 03, 2011
Homeless Veterans
Tonight I learned that someone I care for will likely die very soon.
A wonderful man who was always encouraging and caring and cheering to me is a homeless veteran with a drinking problem. See, in Korea some armour ran over his leg, he wouldn't let them take it, so it has to be rebroken and rebroken constantly. He drinks because he is in constant pain. He lives in a ramshackle tent just off of the interstate.
A week ago on his way home to his tent, he was attacked and beaten badly. A week letter, incredibly drunk and in incredible pain he fell and was rushed back to the ER. He was very badly bruised and his liver is failing.
He's a special and generous man scarred by a terrible war and it's killing him. There is nothing I can do for him and it hurts that he hurts and that the world is so uncaring and callous that it has abandoned him. He's 2000 miles away nearly and I can't tell him goodbye in person or how much I appreciated him. I have a good friend who is trying to be there for him, went to see him in the hospital. I am grateful for that at least, but he is one of a million faceless homeless veterans to everyone else.
A wonderful man who was always encouraging and caring and cheering to me is a homeless veteran with a drinking problem. See, in Korea some armour ran over his leg, he wouldn't let them take it, so it has to be rebroken and rebroken constantly. He drinks because he is in constant pain. He lives in a ramshackle tent just off of the interstate.
A week ago on his way home to his tent, he was attacked and beaten badly. A week letter, incredibly drunk and in incredible pain he fell and was rushed back to the ER. He was very badly bruised and his liver is failing.
He's a special and generous man scarred by a terrible war and it's killing him. There is nothing I can do for him and it hurts that he hurts and that the world is so uncaring and callous that it has abandoned him. He's 2000 miles away nearly and I can't tell him goodbye in person or how much I appreciated him. I have a good friend who is trying to be there for him, went to see him in the hospital. I am grateful for that at least, but he is one of a million faceless homeless veterans to everyone else.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Walking by the Lights
I love to walk through trees and under streetlights at night. There is something poetic and beautiful that speaks to me. I am a certain part of myself that I don't normally have time for as I walk along the sidewalk in a sweet gloom. But I don't have time to relish the feeling. I am midway between one emergency blue light and the next and there was a weird boy in the library and there are parked dark cars which may not be empty and there is a man walking over there.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
On Julian Assange
Julian Assange gets credit and adulation from people around the world. He's a champion of free speech, of freedom of information and the press. He is credited with helping to bring about the Arab Spring. Some people find him subversive and dangerous to governments and those who work for them. He's done things I can personally appreciate like releasing things the "church" of Scientology would really prefer he didn't. He's been awarded by an organization I care very much for- Amnesty International for reporting on extrajudicial killings in Kenya.
He's just been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize though and I cannot help but find it offensive. He is currently UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT. They've moved the decision and court stuff on all that till later and that's wrong enough on it's own. But it seems unconscionable to even nominate him, let alone name him the winner. You can argue is he a cyber terrorist or isn't he, if his actions are well motivated or not. I don't care what side someone comes down on those issues, though I tend to come down very hard against censorship. But if there are genuine questions of this nature and they haven't been answered.. Nobel Prize, you should be ashamed. You want to give him this so badly? shortlist him so badly? Wait until he's been cleared.
All in all, I may share some of his beliefs and understand why he is lauded for many of his actions. But I don't forgive certain things and any form of sexual assault is one of those certain things. It's a larger than life version of "but he's such a great person!" or "he's really good at such and such" or "he feels really badly about that now and is totally different." People do that too easily even to the everyday rapist. When it comes to someone like Julian Asange, even the communities who would normally come down against someone accused of what he has been are willing to give him a pass. Look! He's so amazing. Who cares what he did to those women. Those women must be liars! They are just part of a conspiracy! I don't know, maybe all of that is true. But Sweden is not a country to engage in that sort of nonsense, and the UK courts would have dismissed the extradition out of hand were that true. He's not been proven guilty, but these women haven't had their day in court. Don't give the man a medal until you're sure?
He's just been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize though and I cannot help but find it offensive. He is currently UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT. They've moved the decision and court stuff on all that till later and that's wrong enough on it's own. But it seems unconscionable to even nominate him, let alone name him the winner. You can argue is he a cyber terrorist or isn't he, if his actions are well motivated or not. I don't care what side someone comes down on those issues, though I tend to come down very hard against censorship. But if there are genuine questions of this nature and they haven't been answered.. Nobel Prize, you should be ashamed. You want to give him this so badly? shortlist him so badly? Wait until he's been cleared.
All in all, I may share some of his beliefs and understand why he is lauded for many of his actions. But I don't forgive certain things and any form of sexual assault is one of those certain things. It's a larger than life version of "but he's such a great person!" or "he's really good at such and such" or "he feels really badly about that now and is totally different." People do that too easily even to the everyday rapist. When it comes to someone like Julian Asange, even the communities who would normally come down against someone accused of what he has been are willing to give him a pass. Look! He's so amazing. Who cares what he did to those women. Those women must be liars! They are just part of a conspiracy! I don't know, maybe all of that is true. But Sweden is not a country to engage in that sort of nonsense, and the UK courts would have dismissed the extradition out of hand were that true. He's not been proven guilty, but these women haven't had their day in court. Don't give the man a medal until you're sure?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Understanding Human Change
Growing up I understood that thirsty, hot people in the desert would see mirages. I understood these mirages to be delusions of the poor person wandering about. They'd see an oasis, a mountain lake... And it's true! The heat, particularly out someplace like an ancient salt lake just ripples over a landscape barren of form to navigate by. Things do seem to shimmer in the air. You add a little bit of dehydration, a bit of over exposure with all that light of course you're likely to see some things.
But mirages aren't specifically those delusions or our eyes just playing tricks on us. 100 years ago you could see entire alpine mountain scenes shimmering in the desert. This wasn't a hallucination- it was a reflection. When the air quality decreased, when pollution increased that reality disappeared. I wasn't born in a desert, so my only understanding of them growing up came from movies or books that generally described lost or fleeing adventurers. Here in New Mexico those reflections could be seen as recently as the 1960s. When I read about this and understood my mistaken idea about where those images in the deserts came from, I was confused. How can an understanding of something change so much only a couple of decades from my lifetime? These could still be seen in my Mother and my Grandmothers lifetimes.
Humans alter the environment. They also alter how they perceive that environment. In a way I almost wish I didn't know about the reflections. Deserts were only recently recognized here in the USA as something more than land that needs to be fixed and reclaimed. Now I know more of what's been lost. And so awesome a thing. From miles away to see a reflection of a landscape totally different. It's an outdoor movie I'll never see and a meaning for a word I have no basis to understand.
But mirages aren't specifically those delusions or our eyes just playing tricks on us. 100 years ago you could see entire alpine mountain scenes shimmering in the desert. This wasn't a hallucination- it was a reflection. When the air quality decreased, when pollution increased that reality disappeared. I wasn't born in a desert, so my only understanding of them growing up came from movies or books that generally described lost or fleeing adventurers. Here in New Mexico those reflections could be seen as recently as the 1960s. When I read about this and understood my mistaken idea about where those images in the deserts came from, I was confused. How can an understanding of something change so much only a couple of decades from my lifetime? These could still be seen in my Mother and my Grandmothers lifetimes.
Humans alter the environment. They also alter how they perceive that environment. In a way I almost wish I didn't know about the reflections. Deserts were only recently recognized here in the USA as something more than land that needs to be fixed and reclaimed. Now I know more of what's been lost. And so awesome a thing. From miles away to see a reflection of a landscape totally different. It's an outdoor movie I'll never see and a meaning for a word I have no basis to understand.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Romance & Security
There is something peculiar about many fantasy/futuristic/alternate universe romances. A large portion of them create entire worlds, specific species, or portions of societies that are protective of women in the extreme. Maybe an initial understanding of the phenomenon is that women are being pigeonholed into very patriarchal societies. That they belong sequestered away from the rest of the world lest they come to harm. That women are dainty little misses who can't face reality or caring for themselves.
Some of them are certainly that way, and they do make you want to tear your hair out. Christine Feehan, Lucy Monroe, Lora Leigh... and on and on. Part of that could just be fetish, which I'm down for. But the larger portion seems to be different. Works like those of Mima, Kresley Cole and Nalini Singh also create those worlds, but they don't seem to envision them for the purpose of setting up women as weaker. It's almost like female authors find domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and so on to be of such concern that in the majority of the romance novels in these genres explicitly create safe spaces for women. The trend seems even more pronounced in the more erotic categories (though the paranormal/futuristic genres are generally more sexually explicit than their more traditional counterparts) and is reflected quite often in the tamer historical and contemporary romances. It is something that is emphasized in mainstream and fetish works.
I wonder if it is because we as women feel so unsafe? That though violence against women is rarely prioritized by governments, championed by the public, or listed in polls as the most pressing concern -- that it is. Romance novels reflect a lot about how women perceive themselves and their position in the world. There are beautiful women who can exceed all expectations, extra curvy women who can be found beautiful, women who can make a difference and earn respect for themselves, women who can orgasm every time or be interested in sex after a bad day, who can be badass mercenaries with tender hearts... on and on. In romance women are both what they want to be, and what they are. Nowhere is patriarchy and misogyny more enshrined or more reviled. And the enduring theme outside of all the romance is safety. Somewhere out there is a champion to protect them, a society that finds violence against women so repugnant that the consequences are beyond severe, or a genetic modification in men that prevents taking someone against their will.. Fiction is fiction, but we read it because it's giving us something we want or need.
Statistically speaking, One in four women in the USA will have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. Three in four will know someone who has. The health related costs of intimate partner violence is in the billions. One in Five women will admit to having been raped within their lifetimes. One in twelve women will have been stalked and 78% of stalking victims are women. And 70% of women trafficked worldwide are trafficked into the sex industry. 80% of trafficked victims are women and girls.
Those numbers sound horrible and shocking because they are, but they aren't new or even dramatically shocking to most people. They've heard some of them, or could imagine them to be true. 55% of all the paperbacks sold in the USA in 2004 were romances. I guess it's nice to read your soft porn and feel safe at the same time since the real world is fraught with genuine terrors. I didn't realize how much I relied on that sense of protection and safety I found when reading them until I thought about it. Maybe other women feel the same way.
Some of them are certainly that way, and they do make you want to tear your hair out. Christine Feehan, Lucy Monroe, Lora Leigh... and on and on. Part of that could just be fetish, which I'm down for. But the larger portion seems to be different. Works like those of Mima, Kresley Cole and Nalini Singh also create those worlds, but they don't seem to envision them for the purpose of setting up women as weaker. It's almost like female authors find domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and so on to be of such concern that in the majority of the romance novels in these genres explicitly create safe spaces for women. The trend seems even more pronounced in the more erotic categories (though the paranormal/futuristic genres are generally more sexually explicit than their more traditional counterparts) and is reflected quite often in the tamer historical and contemporary romances. It is something that is emphasized in mainstream and fetish works.
I wonder if it is because we as women feel so unsafe? That though violence against women is rarely prioritized by governments, championed by the public, or listed in polls as the most pressing concern -- that it is. Romance novels reflect a lot about how women perceive themselves and their position in the world. There are beautiful women who can exceed all expectations, extra curvy women who can be found beautiful, women who can make a difference and earn respect for themselves, women who can orgasm every time or be interested in sex after a bad day, who can be badass mercenaries with tender hearts... on and on. In romance women are both what they want to be, and what they are. Nowhere is patriarchy and misogyny more enshrined or more reviled. And the enduring theme outside of all the romance is safety. Somewhere out there is a champion to protect them, a society that finds violence against women so repugnant that the consequences are beyond severe, or a genetic modification in men that prevents taking someone against their will.. Fiction is fiction, but we read it because it's giving us something we want or need.
Statistically speaking, One in four women in the USA will have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. Three in four will know someone who has. The health related costs of intimate partner violence is in the billions. One in Five women will admit to having been raped within their lifetimes. One in twelve women will have been stalked and 78% of stalking victims are women. And 70% of women trafficked worldwide are trafficked into the sex industry. 80% of trafficked victims are women and girls.
Those numbers sound horrible and shocking because they are, but they aren't new or even dramatically shocking to most people. They've heard some of them, or could imagine them to be true. 55% of all the paperbacks sold in the USA in 2004 were romances. I guess it's nice to read your soft porn and feel safe at the same time since the real world is fraught with genuine terrors. I didn't realize how much I relied on that sense of protection and safety I found when reading them until I thought about it. Maybe other women feel the same way.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Where period and modern Romance help us understand changes in religion
God-talk just isn't an interesting way to frame our questions. It's past time to say we need much larger ways of framing our "ultimate concerns." If we observe the deeply random nature of our lives and our world/universe, we're saying that we can make plans or wishes, but they have no effect except psychologically in our heads, and sociologically/anthropologically in two other ways of speaking about human nature, the human condition, and the nature of our best shot at reality. But to translate this into religious jargon, we're stuck with, "Sometimes God favors us, sometimes not." That's inadequate because it's assigning attributes to a concept. And God has evolved from an ancient "Being" to a modern concept. Now we need to leave jargon behind and invite people and disciplines to the ongoing discussion on the condition that they just speak in ordinary language: plain talk.
Otherwise, the "Yes or No" problem will have us standing there forever, tugging this Big Red Switch toward Yes or No -- without realizing that the Switch isn't connected to anything in our world: it's a linguistic ornament.
I read this in the comments section of this abominable article and I found it really powerful. I don't think it would occur to a lot of believers that someone could conceive of not understanding the world without their gods framework. My sister pointed out that most believers would balk at the "that's inadequate because it's assigning attributes to a concept. and God has evolved from an ancient Being to a modern concept" bit.
Modern religion likes to imagine that several hundred years ago people approached their faith in a similar fashion.
Hilariously, I can illustrate this with romance novels.
In Jennette Greens "The Commanders' Desire" faith in god is touched upon several times in the story. It dictates strictures of society, and evokes very poignant moments for the characters in times of strife. In her modern inspirational romance however... the christian character is a shallow annoying person who thinks in bible verses and has to pray and repent because she doesn't want a short husband.
ie... in days of yore, faith just was like farming. it happened.
Today, you have to work really hard to be pious and shit. The basic concerns of religion have evolved and it makes for really annoying romances. For serious. Do not read them. Jennette Green is a skilled writer (somewhat rare for the genre) but inspirational is a misnomer. There is more genuineness in smut shorts.
persuasion
A few days ago I wished a woman Happy Christmas. I work in customer service, so I say a great number of salutatory things as a day progresses. I mix it up as the day wears on because I get bored saying the same thing over and over and over... This woman just happened on the Happy Christmas. She told me that she was glad that I had said Christmas, and she gets terribly offended when people wish her Happy Holidays.
As a nonbeliever.. I don't profess a faith and certainly don't prefer the Christian persuasion. I wanted very badly to point out to her that it's damned unfair for me to have to cater to her faith, when she certainly (by dint of being offended by holidays) isn't willing to cater to my lack. I don't mind wishing people a Happy Christmas/Hanukkah,Diwali, Ramadan, and so on. I'm totally cool with hoping you get the most out of things that are important to you.
A lady in the grocery store stopped me to tell me how glad she was it was morning, and that just x number of years ago she couldn't walk or speak. I told her I was impressed with her personal diligence, and commented on the incredible effort she must have made to attain speech and mobility again. She told me no, it was all god. She was determined that her misfortune, and then her incredible perseverance should persuade me.
I don't like to be persuaded. Let me explain. I've been to the sort of churches where everything from light to sound to structure of service is tweaked to make a human mind more receptive to very specific sorts of experiences. I understand very clearly the pressures that believers put on non believers until they succumb. If you have to tell me something in an excellently modulated voice with lighting and effects to back you.. if you're relying on making an emotional connection... or calling on my sense of family or duty and and and... I step back.
I recently began reading a book called "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" and I can't seem to get out of the third chapter. Most reads explaining atheism and whys are straightforward. (and sometimes incendiary) This book tries to persuade. Slowly but surely, the book works to make the reader doubt themselves before ever tackling the actual questions. I'm uncomfortable reading it. Their points on personal experience and cognitive dissonance are not incorrect. I was stuck in the trappings of religion for a brief few years and what brought me out of it was not persuasion. It was literally realizing that the default nothing was an option, and that there was logic and reason. My religious wrangling ended the moment I was able to lay my genuine ethical struggles to rest. The point though, is that religion persuades. It has to because it is built upon an ever changing house of cards reaching out to an ever changing potential flock. In todays world, religion does not rule as it once did and persuasion is all it has.
I find the case for non belief most compelling. I do not find it persuasive. Persuasion relies less on fact and more on convincing. Just like religion.
side note: my second favorite Jane Austen novel is Persuasion!
As a nonbeliever.. I don't profess a faith and certainly don't prefer the Christian persuasion. I wanted very badly to point out to her that it's damned unfair for me to have to cater to her faith, when she certainly (by dint of being offended by holidays) isn't willing to cater to my lack. I don't mind wishing people a Happy Christmas/Hanukkah,Diwali, Ramadan, and so on. I'm totally cool with hoping you get the most out of things that are important to you.
A lady in the grocery store stopped me to tell me how glad she was it was morning, and that just x number of years ago she couldn't walk or speak. I told her I was impressed with her personal diligence, and commented on the incredible effort she must have made to attain speech and mobility again. She told me no, it was all god. She was determined that her misfortune, and then her incredible perseverance should persuade me.
I don't like to be persuaded. Let me explain. I've been to the sort of churches where everything from light to sound to structure of service is tweaked to make a human mind more receptive to very specific sorts of experiences. I understand very clearly the pressures that believers put on non believers until they succumb. If you have to tell me something in an excellently modulated voice with lighting and effects to back you.. if you're relying on making an emotional connection... or calling on my sense of family or duty and and and... I step back.
I recently began reading a book called "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" and I can't seem to get out of the third chapter. Most reads explaining atheism and whys are straightforward. (and sometimes incendiary) This book tries to persuade. Slowly but surely, the book works to make the reader doubt themselves before ever tackling the actual questions. I'm uncomfortable reading it. Their points on personal experience and cognitive dissonance are not incorrect. I was stuck in the trappings of religion for a brief few years and what brought me out of it was not persuasion. It was literally realizing that the default nothing was an option, and that there was logic and reason. My religious wrangling ended the moment I was able to lay my genuine ethical struggles to rest. The point though, is that religion persuades. It has to because it is built upon an ever changing house of cards reaching out to an ever changing potential flock. In todays world, religion does not rule as it once did and persuasion is all it has.
I find the case for non belief most compelling. I do not find it persuasive. Persuasion relies less on fact and more on convincing. Just like religion.
side note: my second favorite Jane Austen novel is Persuasion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)