I'm certainly not going to write anything here that many others haven't written or aren't writing or won't write, but I'm going to write it anyway.

Yesterday when I heard about Michael Jackson's passing, I wrote on my Facebook account "Michael Jackson dead. Future generations of young boys breath collective sigh of relief. More details as they become available." A little dark, perhaps, but humorous to me.

Later I read a thread from some co-workers, first wondering about the 'fake outpouring of love' for Michael Jackson, and later observing that he was never convicted, we'll never know the truth, a lot of the outpouring is sincere, and more.

Obviously, I can't prove MJ did some of the things of which he was accused. That being said, a presumption of innocence applies to government ... there is no requirement that individuals presume innocence. I'm free to believe whatever good and bad I want in people. In the case of Michael Jackson, I think I have good reasons to believe him guilty of inappropriate contact with young boys. I could be wrong, but at this point it certainly doesn't matter.

That being said, I agree that much if not most of the outpouring of love is sincere. People are generally forgiving, and don't want to speak ill of the dead. Heck, the only reason I made the "sigh of relief" comment on my wall was because it was funny. Dark, but funny.

As I've read and heard from others: we lost Michael Jackson years ago. Hopefully he can find a peace now that he obviously didn't have in life. Regardless of what I or others think of his guilt or innocence regarding accusations, his talent and professional legacy will live on.

People aren't just one dimensional. Michael Jackson had flaws, and he had gifts. We don't have to forget one to appreciate the other.

I was reading a  post on Slashdot about a guy who got fired from his television network job for sending a private email from a private account to a member of parliament expressing a dissenting opinion about some proposed legislation. He sent it to his MP, who forwarded it to the sponsoring minister, who forwarded it to his employer, who fired him for expressing strong differences with the company's strategy.

The post went on to explain:

French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar.

To which I immediately thought Really?!? Maybe Americans from 2007 might find it unfamiliar. It's all too familiar territory, and only getting worse everyday.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is being released to home video on Tuesday, May 5, 2009.

It's being released in Blu-ray Disc format, which will turn into an HD-DVD Disc after a few months, then later still a DVD, then a LaserDisc, then a VideoDisc, then a VHS tape, followed by Betamax, and finally an 8mm reel before finally disappearing from existence altogether.

Many people believe the Swine Flu outbreak of 1976 was a hoax. Others believe it was overreaction. Some think the government did the only thing they could.

Many people are critical of the government response because the swine flu vaccine is believed to have killed 25 people, whereas the swine flu (if that's what it really was!) only killed 1 person. That's 2400% more people who died from the vaccine than the disease! How can any rational person possibly think it wasn't a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the government and the pharmaceutical companies? This (or variations thereof) appeals to the intuition of a lot of people.

Unfortunately, intuition is not logic. Think about it this way: 40 million people got the vaccine. The death rate in 1976 was 8.8 people per 1000. So, (if I'm thinking this through correctly) assuming a random distribution (which is probably not a good assumption, but let's go with it for the moment), approximately 352,000 people out of that 40 million died in 1976. The 25 who died from the vaccine were less than 0.008% of the people who died, and less than 0.0000625% of the total people vaccinated ... those numbers are both less than the margin of error of any statistical analysis I've ever seen.

Plus, not all 25 people died within a year of that. At least one woman died in 1982, five or six years after the fact. So the real annual increase is somewhat less.

Plus plus, from what I've read, a disproportionate number of elderly people got the vaccinations, a group of people at much higher risk to the disease as well as complications from the vaccine.

Do any of these numbers make the deaths any less tragic? Of course not. However, it is possible that the 40 million who were vaccinated (over 18% of the country at the time) eliminated many potential infection vectors. It's also possible that it made no difference. We'll never know.

Me? I think the government probably overreacted. I also think they were damned if they did go ahead with vaccinations and no one died of swine flu (even though that is the intent of the vaccine!) and damned if they didn't go ahead and there was a massive outbreak.

Many people (the well intentioned as well as those who just want to make a name for themselves) fail to take into account (unintentionally or otherwise) that there is a mortality rate associated with everything. Vaccinations have a mortality rate, which is generally quite a bit lower than the mortality rate of the disease it is designed to prevent.

In the interests of full disclosure:

1. I am a registered Republican.
2. I've never voted for a Democrat candidate for the presidency.
3. In the last two presidential elections, I've not cast a vote for the Republican candidate.
   1. In 2004, I cast a vote for the Constitution Party candidate (I can't remember his name at this point) in protest of the out of control spending, because I knew there was no way my vote in little Utah was going to give a single electoral vote for John Kerry; had I been in a liberal state at the time, I would have probably held my nose and voted for George W. Bush.
   2. In 2008, I cast a vote for the Constitution Party candidate (Chuck Baldwin) because I liked my options in 2008 even less than in 2004. Again, I might have forced myself to vote for John McCain if in a liberal state, but in Utah, it didn't make a difference.
4. More than ever, I do not consider myself Republican (and never have I considered myself Democrat), but always conservative.

Okay, with that being said, you might think I'd be singing Rush Limbaugh's praises. I like and agree with much of what he has to say, though on a 'good' day I might listen to him for 30 minutes total (including news & commercials, so more like 5 minutes of actual show content; at least that's how it feels). Most days I don't listen to him at all.

Rush has had a few problems ... multiple divorces (me too), drug problems (I can't relate to that, but I feel sorrow for those who are addicted), New York state auditing his taxes every freakin' year despite his having not lived in New York for over a decade. Of course, a multi-million annual income can help one get over these things.

This morning I was listening to him as I was driving to work, and he was talking about some event he spoke at in Los Angeles and said how he's not political and he only says what he believes (I'm admittedly paraphrasing as I don't have a transcript, just my memory). I call bovine excrement on this!

1. He is obviously political. And that is not a bad thing! But for him to claim he's not political is ridiculous!
2. Only says what he believes? This is the same man who said, after the Republican party lost control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections:

But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. ... Now, I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it.

I really don't have a problem with that either. He's entitled to his opinion and to promote those he feels are the better choice. I voted for two men that I knew had zero chance of winning an election, and would have voted for different candidates as a matter of pragmatism in other circumstances. The difference is I admit I'm doing it, and I did so on the air back when I was doing my talk show during the 2004 elections. I'm not trying to claim otherwise.

Rush plainly admitted he didn't believe a bunch of candidates deserved his support in 2006, but he gave them that support anyway, making excuses for them, because they were the lesser of the evils. My words, not his. In 2009, he'd have you believe that politics doesn't enter his mind, he's just saying what he believes. I don't know, maybe he means "anymore" when he makes the claim. Some how I doubt it.

Rush, I've loved your show before, and I enjoy it when I am able to listen to it now. But don't sit there on the air claiming you only say what you believe. It's obviously, patently false. You only hurt your own credibility, which is low enough in the eyes of your detractors, and you don't need need to provide them honest ammo to use against you!

I was discussing artificial sweeteners with my sister. She had a reaction once to aspartame that shook her up (understandably) and thus avoids artificial sweeteners ever since.

That being said, I know there are a lot of kooks out there (many of which listened to the radio station I once worked at) who have never seen a single person suffering negative effects from an artificial sweetener. These same people will insist everyone who touches the stuff is going to die Die DIE! Or even better, that artificial sweeteners were deliberately engineered to make the populace docile and easily controlled! Note that it doesn't matter which artificial sweetener is referenced. There is a group out there actively trying to smear it.

Anyway, the topic came up with my sister specifically in regard to sucralose. There is a group of people out there that think it is the worst thing you can put in your body. My sister didn't say that, I've just read some of their crap online.

The biggest argument I've seen against sucralose is that it contains chlorine, and chlorine is a poison! Never mind the fact that it is one half of sodium chloride, which is essential. The process of replacing one part of the sugar with chlorine in the sucralose process changes it, making it a stable, safe-for-consumption product.

Note: I will add the disclaimer "safe-for-consumption as far as we know". Times change, new research can come forward and change what we know. Kind of like how eggs are healthy one day, unhealthy the next, and ok the third. :) On the other hand, I certainly don't think it is harmful to avoid artificial sweeteners, so more power to you!

My sister has been told that, because she does other things that aren't good for you, she shouldn't sweat the artificial sweeteners. That's like saying because diabetics can't avoid 100% of sugar, they shouldn't bother reducing their sugar intake!

That being said, here is a funny story: My first job in high school was as a telemarketer for a fund raising operation. One day I was going to a vending machine to get something to drink and offered to pick up something for anyone else. A girl working in the office, who smoked, said she would like something, but was adamant that it not contain saccharin, as saccharin causes cancer. I couldn't keep from laughing, which caused her to blush and stammer some rationalization.

Frankly, I agree with her that saccharin should not be consumed, but it has nothing to do with the cancer causing potential (which they've backed off on in recent years). I just think saccharin tastes like crap and doesn't belong anywhere near my taste buds.

I'd like to meet the person who tasted saccharin and thought "this is like sugar" and give them a swift kick in a painful anatomical location. I think salt is a better sugar substitute!

I'm starting to work on a role playing game, and I thought I'd do a little research online first. I Googled "how to create a role playing game" and the first link that came up was  How to Make Your Own Role-playing Game (Cheap). I'm going to quote the first paragraph:

I've spent too much money on "justifiable" expenses for working on games. I've bought art for $100; I've gone to CompUSA and bought Adobe Acrobat; and I should have paid an incredible amount on Adobe Pagemaker, Photoshop, and Microsoft Word. (Luckily, I have a CD-R and flexible morals, but both of those come with a cost, too.)

I literally laughed out loud when I read the last couple sentences, as I found it a really funny way of saying he pirated the software (my words, not his, obviously).

I was about to tell my wife why I had laughed out loud when I read the author's name, which made it all the funnier to me: Clinton R. Nixon. What better name could you give a person with flexible morals, really?

Now back to research...

Edit: Someone posed the question "What does the R stand for?" I suggested baRack, but I could be wrong...

As a little tyke, I was really susceptible to ear & throat infections. One thing they did to help was remove my tonsils when I was around 5 years old. As long as I was getting mine out, they took out my sister's, too. This was back in the day that a tonsillectomy was good for what ailed you. I think they were still routinely using leeches as well. Regardless, I had far far fewer throat problems afterward (once healed from the tonsillectomy, that is).

Fast forward about 9 years. I developed a really bad case of strep throat. My dad took me to the ER, the doctor identified it as strep, and asked if I'd had my tonsils out. I thought "Isn't it obvious?" but answered "Yes, why?" He said there had been some regrowth of the tonsil tissue, but that it wasn't anything like normal healthy tonsil size. Interesting.

Over the next 16 or so years, my rate of strep infection gradually went up. From once a year, to twice, to thrice, and so on. Finally as I was approaching 30, I had an 8 week window where I came down with 4 separate infections. I'd take the antibiotics as prescribed, but in less than a week after getting "better" I'd be right back to the doctors office. I got really good at self diagnosis of strep vs a regular sore throat.

Several times over the years I had asked doctors if having another tonsillectomy might help, and the idea was always dismissed out of hand. I finally asked the latest doctor, who also dismissed it. I then recounted the above to him, he looked at my throat again, said "You've really had these out before?" and gave me a referral to an ear/nose/throat specialist after I said yes.

That specialist took one look at my tonsils, horribly scarred from previous surgery & years of repeated infection, said "you poor guy", scheduled a surgery, and wrote me a refillable prescription for antibiotics so I wouldn't have to come in every time I had a recurrence. I think I had to use it twice before surgery (a few months out).

I've had maybe two infections in the 10+ years since that second surgery, and they've never been as bad as before.

Anyway, the point I had originally intended to make. While at BYU, I had one of those infections and went to the health center for treatment. I just *knew* I had strep. A quick strep test came back negative. I told the doctor I was pretty sure I had strep, and he was kinda rude about telling me he was the doctor and knew what strep was, but it successfully bullied me into second guessing myself. I waited through two more weeks of continual and building pain before I finally went to UVRMC's ER. The ER doctor took a culture (rather than the quick test) but gave me antibiotics on the spot and said my self diagnosis was pretty good. He also indicated that there are things that can interfere with the quick test that I may have done in trying to self treat before going to the doctor originally (throat spray or some such, it's been a long time). From this I learned doctors are not perfect and the value of a second opinion.

Sometime later (but before the second tonsillectomy) I had to go in for yet another infection. They did the quick test and it came back negative. The ER doctor prescribed antibiotics anyway because:

1. A visual inspection showed it obviously to be an infection.
2. There are bacteria that are just as bad or worse than strep that wouldn't show in a quick strep test.
3. Even if it was viral, that often creates an opportunity for bacteria to take hold that they wouldn't normally have in an otherwise healthy person, and antibiotics can help stave that off.

In conclusion, I understand that antibiotics are not a universal cure all and can't help a range of problems. However, you live with your body 24/7, and the doctor doesn't (especially not a health center or ER doctor you don't see regularly). You may not have a medical degree, but you know what is normal and abnormal to a large extent with yourself. If you go to a doctor and think the diagnosis is off, don't be afraid to push back (politely, of course) and/or seek a second opinion. You might be wrong ultimately, but you might inspire the busy doctor to look a little deeper than he otherwise would have and come to a different conclusion with additional facts.

Anytime someone at work says "step one" (generally in an attempt to describe some process), someone inevitably will respond "cut a hole in the box". If this does not make sense, I can only say two things:

1. Have you been hiding under a rock for the last two years?
2. Search Google for  Junk In A Box, but be warned: I think it's funny, but if you are easily offended, stop now.

Anyway, we were laughing about this at work the other day when someone made the observation that it would be funny to combine the Junk In A Box video with Rick Astley. I was only too happy to oblige.

So if you're curious about what I mashed up, you can see it on  my YouTube channel.

I'm only creating this blog post to have a place to put a few images I've used in various places on the web. I'm trying to clean up the back-links to my site and expect I'll link to them externally.