atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6994: I've had enough, thanks

So, yesterday I went to see a dentist.

I called five offices and couldn't get an answer. The first one I called was the guy here in the Fungal Vale that I used before, but he's apparently out of business. Second was the guy I went to in 2014 when that crown came loose; he's out of town until next week. Third was a close relative of his, and got the "our office hours are."

Fine. It was a bit before their office hours; I waited twenty minutes and called again. Same message. Called three other places and got the same kinds of messages.

Finally, after some time had elapsed while I worked on things at work, I called the "close relative" guy, and got a person, that got me into the chair by 11:30.

...and he couldn't find any cause for the pain. It didn't really hurt just then, and nothing he poked, prodded, or scraped prompted a reaction. Best guess is that the sheath surrounding the root of a tooth, that sits between tooth and jaw, got inflamed. He didn't want to take any action, and I didn't blame him at all for it; everything he said was perfectly logical to me.

So I went home and had lunch, and was back at work after an hour and fifteen minutes had elapsed. Since I'd gotten to work fifteen minutes early (dropped Maki at the vet for grooming) I'd lost exactly nothing.

And as I sat at my desk, that same area of my mouth--upper left--started hurting even though I had been careful not to chew on the left side while eating. I took some generic tylenol and the pain went away, kind of, but holding liquid on that side of my mouth was the only way to get rid of it.

And this morning, I woke up with one tooth in particular hurting when I touched it with my tongue. I didn't even need to bite down on it; merely touching it hurt--but it's on the lower jaw. Worse, unless I'm mistaken it's a tooth that's had a root canal.

Ibuprofen (1g, 5 200mg tablets) took care of 90% of the pain from it, indicating that the problem is indeed inflammation. But I can't keep taking that much ibu; I need my kidneys.

*sigh*

So, Monday, I expect I'll be going back to the dentist. This is dicks.

* * *

It's treated with eye drops! Can't they prescribe them while the patients are waiting for the follow-up appointment?

Glaucoma patients in England are going blind waiting for follow-up appointments.
Research has shown that as many as 22 glaucoma patients a month suffer severe or permanent sight loss because their follow-up appointments do not take place quickly enough.

One 34-year-old woman lost her sight after 13 months of delayed appointments.
Glaucoma is why they say you need to get your eyes checked every year. The test for it is incredibly simple and takes seconds. The treatment is medicated eye drops, administered daily. My grandmother had it. Unless I'm misremembering, Mom did too. It doesn't cost a lot to treat. If you're wrong and the patient doesn't have glaucoma, it doesn't hurt to treat it. At the very least, the effect of taking the medication when you don't have glaucoma is a lot less severe than blindness, which inevitably results if you do have it and it's not treated.

Now tell me again about how compassionate socialized medicine is.

* * *

I'm amazed that the 9th Circuit said this. "That the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes."

It's about global warming, of course, and the kids wanted the court to force the other branches of government to outlaw fossil fuels etc. Well, the courts do not have the power to tell the other branches of government what to do. "Checks and balances", remember?

The simple fact that our economy runs on fossil fuels, an outright ban on them would kill tens of millions of people, and do absolutely nothing to fix the perceived problem, notwithstanding.

The first half of this graphic tells the tale:



The United States is one of the least-polluting countries in the world; furthermore it scores third in carbon emissions, behind China and India. Making America stop using fossil fuels is about like patching the hole in your roof during a light rain while the overflowing river fills your basement.

...except that metaphor is flawed. Bonus points for those who know why.

Our economy cannot function without fossil fuels. Perhaps if we were allowed to build nuclear power plants we could, but the same people that are backing these kids are the ones who kept that from happening. Nuclear power is (was?) the best hope we had for clean and cheap power, and the luddites managed to quash it pretty effectively.

But solar panels and windmills cannot provide industrial quantities of power on a continuous and controllable basis. In order to make it even remotely economically viable, the government must subsidize the shit out of it, and once the subsidies end, the systems are abandoned.

The production and transport of food rely heavily on fossil fuels. There is literally no way to do it without them, not unless you want people to be forced to grow their own food--and if you do that, you can't have those big dense Democrat cities you love so much and in which you wish to force everyone to live. In fact, the cities themselves become impossible without fossil fuels, because the stuff to keep their populations alive don't appear out of nowhere.

And you cannot make fossil fuels "carbon neutral". It's impossible.

I can just barely see how a city could run on electricity, without using fossil fuels. Electric trains, electric buses (they do that in Russia) and other electrically-powered transportation systems do while you're in the city. Heating and cooling--electric. Mandate that cars be electric and have charging stations everywhere for them.

But where does the electricity come from?

It takes a stunning amount of power to run our economy. Even if we assume that 90% of our population moves to cities, leaving 10% in the country to run farms etc--even if we let that 10% use fossil fuels everywhere but inside the megacities--the cities themselves will consume more power than wind and solar can provide. So you either have rolling blackouts (bad idea in a city where people need electricity to live) or you build nuclear plants.

Of course--the elites don't give a rat's ass about the suffering of the proles. That suffering is a feature for them, not a bug. "If you wanted to be comfortable in your home all the time, you should have gone to Yale. Ohh ho ho ho ho ho!"

* * *

Why are we learning this in 2020 instead of 2006? 5,000 chemical weapons--exactly the type of weapon of mass destruction that we went into Iraq for--were found in Iraq. They found a stockpile of 2,400 rockets with chemical warheads in 2006, and the people who found them were ordered to say nothing about them.

Somehow, the Bush administration determined that "old, pre-1991" munitions did not fit their desired narrative, and so kept mum about it. Seems to me that "although they were older ones, we did find chemical munitions" trumps "we didn't find anything" when our stated reason for going in was "Saddam Hussein is actively manufacturing chemical weapons."

Of course, Bush is a member of the stupid (moderate) wing of the GOP, so it's not all that surprising. "How else can we lose today?" is their catchphrase.

* * *

The fact that Democrats are hypocrites is not in doubt. No one uttered a peep when Obama had old Moammar killed. And Libya hadn't been a problem for the US since Reagan had Tripoli bombed in the 1980s; Suleimani was actively planning attacks on American assets and had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers.

The Libya thing was really a poser for me; I still don't really understand what the theory was behind ousting Qaddafi.

* * *

What the actual fuck is this shit? Take a look at this Stalinist headline and tell me if you think that question is an overreaction:
Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?
The basic germ of the idea here is that anyone who votes for a Republican is racist, and therefore their votes should not be counted.

That's the nub of it: if you're not voting the correct way, your vote should not count.

So, you do understand why I said "Stalinist", there, don't you? Because in the USSR, elections came down to one or two approved candidates, and the man who'd been picked for the job by the elites was always the one who won the election. The election of officials was never actually up to the proles; their votes were cast merely to lend a veneer of democracy to the totalitarian state.

Now, in the wake of Trump's election over Hillary, the Democrat-media complex has decided that you're too stupid and racist be allowed to decide who your leaders should be, so they're agitating for ways to disqualify voters who think otherwise.

Stalinist.

* * *

"InstantInk" is one reason why I don't buy any HP products any longer. It's something they came up in the wake of my decision not to buy HP stuff, but it's symptomatic of the corporate nonsense that prompted my decision in 2007.

That happened because I got a new computer, with a new OS, and I had to ashcan my perfectly good HP scanner because HP was no longer writing drivers for anything but the most current products in their lineup. When I learned that, I decided never to buy another HP product ever again.

The fact that they charge you $5 a month in order for you to be able to use the printer you bought from them does not surprise me. It does convince me that I made the right choice in 2007.

* * *

I know my normal temperature is 97.6°. That always worked for Mom when I was a kid and wanted to skip school; she'd take my temperature, see it was under 98.6, and declare me fit. But for me, 98.6 is a degree of fever. Whee!

* * *

The conventional word is "anti-hero" but I dislike that. The movie Joker is, in classic terms, a tragedy--you know how it has to turn out, and there's no way for the protagonist to avoid his fate. The other characters mentioned in that list are also "doomed heroes", tragic figures to a man--and it's hard to write a good one.

* * *

How about astronauts being launched in a privately-owned reusable spacecraft? How's that for "21st century"?

Sounds good to me!
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments