Elsa's Live Journal

Health care and the long drive

elsaf — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:53:55 GMT

No, I didn't get sick on my drive back from Chicago today, but I did spend some time thinking about health care.

I heard two bits on the radio that got me going. The first was on some unidentified station over in western Michigan. It was some unidentified conservative Congress person. I wasn't in range of the station long enough to hear who was talking or even what station it was. But I did hear enough to get where the speaker was coming from.

He said (I'm paraphrasing) that the problem with universal health care is that there aren't enough doctors and hospitals to accommodate the 50 million uninsured people in the United States suddenly entering the system. He said that back when Harry Truman was trying to get universal health care, he included a provision to help educate new doctors and increase the number of doctors in the system. That isn't being done now.

"I'm afraid if we let the Democrats push through Cap and Trade, Health Care and Immigration Reform, we'll never be able to roll this stuff back," he said. "But I think that I and my Republican colleagues can stop it."

That was radio interview No. 1.

The second one was on NPR when I was about halfway across the state. The NPR piece was on increased wait times for doctor visits under the current system. The average person waits four weeks for a specialist appointment, and one week for a primary physician visit. The upshot of the piece was that reduced Medicare payments (under the current system) have caused shortages of practitioners in some specialties and in primary care (family practice and general practice). An unidentified Congress person (most likely a Democrat) said that measures were being added to the health care reform bill to make primary care and the scarce specialties more attractive to students coming out of medical school to deal with the shortages.

My reaction to the first interview was some disgust that the conservative seemed completely OK with 50 million people being locked out of the medical system, because that way, he has shorter wait times to see a doctor.

I wanted to ask him (and I'll never get a chance, because I don't know who he was), why he hadn't tried to offer an amendment to help students go to medical school and increase the number of doctors. It seems to me that the choice between "spend a little (very little in proportion to everything else) to have more doctors," and "let 50 million people face financial ruin or death because they don't have access to affordable health care" is pretty much a no-brainer.

Look at the cost. Let's say the average primary care physician sees four people an hour for eight hours a day, five days a week. (That's probably not accurate, but just an "out of my butt" estimate.) Let's say the average person (with insurance) sees a doctor four times a year. To add 50 million people to the system, you're going to need about 25,000 doctors. But let's be really wild and double that number. If we passed a bill that gave out 50,000 $100,000 scholarships to medical school, it would cost $5 billion. In comparison to the money we've doled out for bailouts in the past year, that's chump change. And since there aren't 50,000 extra spaces in medical schools for next fall, we'll need to roll this out over several years. So, we're looking at $1 billion a year for five years.

Is this such a big problem?

My reaction to the second interview is to point to my plan as laid out above. We need more doctors and nurses (we need a similar scholarship program for nursing school -- and some work rules to make a career in nursing more attractive than it is right now). So, lets include provisions in the health care reform bill to get more doctors and nurses into the field and see that they are paid fairly for their work.

If the American health care system can't handle Americans, it needs to be reformed so it can. It simply isn't acceptable to lock out 50 million people to keep from inconveniencing the other 250 million. I've got news for you, the other 250 million are already inconvenienced.

Affordable health care for everyone isn't a boondoggle. It's just common sense.

Why I support health care reform

elsaf — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:18:58 GMT

I know... there are several people on my friends list who are saying right now "Because you're a liberal... duh..."

Well, yes, I am. My basic philosophy is that we're here to contribute to the common good. That's the kernel. I have a more picturesque way of describing it that's all about being a cog in the great cosmic machine. We turn on our own axis, but impart our energy to the cogs around us that we mesh with. Success in life is measured by how much energy you can contribute to keep all the gears around you going, and from one to the next, ultimately to the whole universe.

But that's neither here nor there. I support universal health care, not because I'm a liberal, but because I think it's the most efficient way to approach the problem of keeping people healthy. Yes, government subsidized and managed health care would be more efficient than leaving our health in the hands of market forces.

That's not just talk. The sad truth is, countries with socialized health care have, in general, better outcomes than we do with our business-managed health care.

That's right, folks. Our system, the most expensive per patient in the world, is way down there in the pack when it comes to quality. If you've been following the debate, you've probably seen the numbers. We lag in life expectancy, infant mortality, and any number of other statistical measures of health care success.

Why? The direct answer is, because our health care is so expensive, a lot of people avoid having to use it. So they don't see a doctor until they are in an acute stage of illness. They need more care at that point and their prognosis is poorer.

But I have a more general answer. There are some things that don't mesh well with free-market economics.

That's right. The "invisible hand of the market" may be a good way to run a retail business, but for some services, it just mucks things up.

Take, for example, water. We all need it. Without it, we'll be dead within days. So, do you want to be at the mercy of an entrepreneur when you're thirsty? Will that glass of water suddenly be $5,000 because you need it so badly?

To avoid that, and to spread the large cost of building a water and sewer system, we trust our need for water to the government.

There are two things about water that make it logical to entrust it's distribution to the government:
1. Building a water system is very expensive
2. Having water is not optional. If the price gets too high, we can't really say, "Forget it. I'll go back to having water when the price comes down or someone else offers it at a better price."

Those two principals apply to health care, as well. Building hospitals, training doctors and nurses, developing life saving drugs and treatments is very expensive. And at one time or another, we all need health care.

But why will government manage health care better than the private insurance companies?

Government and business do not work on the same principles. To be successful in business, you want to take in as much money as possible and give in return just as much goods and services as will keep your customers coming back -- not a bit more.

To be successful in government, the mandate is to give out as much goods and services as you possibly can, while taking in as little money as you can get by on. That's what will get people to vote for you.

It's the opposite.

So, logically, who's going to give us the most health care for our dollar? The insurance company whose responsibility is to its shareholders, to get as much money in premiums as possible, and pay out as little in claims as possible? Or the government, which is going to try to give out as much service as possible without raising taxes, which displeases the people it is responsible to: the voters.

There's an argument out there that the government screws up everything. $6,000 toilet seats! $300 bolts!

Yet, if you want to know how the government will run health care, just look at the health care systems it already runs, like Medicare. The truth is, surveys show that people on Medicare are more satisfied with the service they are getting that people covered by private insurance.

Also, people in Britain, Canada and France are much more satisfied with their health care system than people are in the United States. You hear of isolated cases where Canadians came to the U.S. because they had to wait too long at home. But I'm hearing from my Canadian friends that they are pretty pissed about the slander against their health care system -- something they think is pretty damn good.

You know which health care system generally gets called "best in the world?" France. Yup, those baguette eating Frogs have a government-run health care system second to none. So, can you really argue that the French are much better at government than we are?

But lets put all that aside for a moment. If we get government run health care, who will benefit the most?

The answer is: Business

Right now, our businesses have to compete on the world stage. But they're being held back by the ever expanding cost of providing health insurance for their employees. Japanese companies don't have that cost. We need to level the playing field.

You know who else will benefit? Small businesses. Right now, small businesses can seldom afford health insurance for the employees or even the boss.

You know who else will benefit? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US.

Look at me. I don't have any children. I've never had any children, and considering my age, I'll never have any children. Yet, I cheerfully pay my school taxes. Why? Because society at large benefits from educating our children. I don't have to have a child sitting in school to benefit from the public school system.

I think health care works pretty much the same way.

I'd rather have people appointed by people I elected managing my health care than an insurance company I have no power over whatsoever. I'll sleep better knowing that every pregnant woman has access to prenatal care, even though I'm never going to be pregnant. I'll work with a lighter heart knowing that my continued medical care for my heart condition is not dependent on staying at my job.

The most amazing thing about the health care battle is that we're waging it now, not thirty or forty years ago. We are lagging behind the industrialized world!

Health care reform will:
1. Boost the economy. We can stop pounding money down a rat hole.
2. Help business
3. Make us healthier
4. Save money

So, let's stop playing games and get the job done!

Thank you, Sen. McCain

elsaf — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:31:54 GMT

John McCain just gave the best speech of his campaign. No, not because he was conceding and that means my guy won. This speech was the John McCain we used to know. He spoke from the heart and was generous in defeat praising Sen. Obama.

If John McCain had spoken like this throughout the campaign, rather than sinking into the smears and small-minded attacks that characterized this election cycle, we might have seen a different outcome.

In the end, inspiration trumps fear every time. This time, John McCain, you were an inspiration.

To paraphrase an old quote, nothing so much suited him in this campaign as the leaving of it.

I voted, have you?

elsaf — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:21:07 GMT

I'm feeling extremely fortunate. I keep reading about people waiting hours to vote. I was in and out in 15 minutes. Than includes the time I spent in the booth pouring over a pretty long list of judges, college trustees, two state proposals (I voted "yes" for medical marijuana and stem cell research), and two city proposals.

In short, it was a beautiful day to walk the three blocks to my polling place. I stood in line for about a minute. (I was three people back at the greeter's desk.) I got my ballot and a voting booth opened up as I walked up. And I walked home.

Could there possibly be an easier, pleasanter way to save the world?

Proof that I'm not a "Bradley effect" voter.

A beautiful fall day for a stroll to my polling place. Notice everybody is wearing T-shirts and no jackets.

The nice greeter lady who directed people between the two precincts at our polling place.

There may not have been a line to wait in, but there was a brisk turnout. Note, every booth was full as I left. I was the 433rd voter at about noon today. That's about twice the usual all-day turnout in my precinct.

Canine politics

elsaf — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:36:52 GMT

I read over on my Obama community that one of the other members had a dog who got excited and danced around every time she asked it, "Do you want to vote for Barack Obama?"

Just a few minutes ago, I tried it with my two dogs, gentle, laid-back Floyd the lab/pointer mix, and tightly wound, hyperactive Ollie the Jack Russell terrier.

First I asked Floyd:

"Floyd, do you want to vote for Barack Obama?"

He just looked back at me with that quizzical look: "What on earth are you talking about, mommy?"

Then I turned to Ollie:

"Ollie, do you want to vote for Barack Obama?"

Ollie started jumping up and down -- as Jack Russells often do.

Then, apparently, Ollie decided that Floyd wasn't backing the right candidate, so he ran over and got in Floyd's face. Floyd just sat there and looked miserable.

So, I have to conclude that the canine members of my household have split their vote -- and not the way I expected. I would have pegged self-interested little Ollie for a Republican -- if dogs had party affiliations. And I would have thought gentle, responsible, altruistic Floyd would have been a Democrat.

I can only assume that Floyd has been overly influenced by McCain's history as a war hero and prisoner of war. Floyd came from the humane society, so he knows what it's like to be in prison. Ollie, on the other hand, who is pure-bred, and has never been without a home and family, is an elitist. He's backing Obama along beside Warren Buffett and all those Hollywood liberals.

Anyway, I'm off to vote now.

Racism

elsaf — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:43:57 GMT

I think the recent racism kerfuffle on my FL is dying down now. But, as the waters calm, I feel the need to illuminate a single concept.

What is racism?

The simple view would be that racism is one group believing that they are better than another group or groups. The Nazis put forward the idea that the Aryan race (which was a fantasy, BTW) was the "master race," i.e., superior to all others. The Nazis were racists.

But that's not really what's going on. It's the rationalization, not the underlying belief.

Nazism grew out of the economic and cultural chaos that followed World War I in Europe. In Germany, the currency collapsed and middle class Germans, people who's lives had been secure and moderately wealthy, suddenly found themselves in poverty. They found themselves staring down hunger and homelessness. They needed a reason to understand their suddenly reduced circumstances. Since they perceived the banking sector to be controlled by Jews, it was obvious (to many) that Jews were to blame for their plight. Never mind that the vast majority of the Jews who were victims of the Holocaust were ordinary, middle class people -- not bankers by a long shot. Once the "find someone to blame" ball gets rolling, logic doesn't enter into it.

(Note: Everything has its roots: Why were Jews perceived to control banking? Because in the middle ages, the Biblical ban on lending money meant that Christians couldn't be bankers.)

(Note 2: Hmmm... the currency collapsed in Germany after WWI... does that sound familiar to anyone reading today's headlines?)

Anyway, my point is that racism is never about thinking you're better than someone else. Racism is about thinking that someone else is responsible for your lack of success, declining fortunes, whatever isn't right about your life.

The Ku Klux Klan grew out of the turmoil after the American Civil War. Southern culture collapsed. Who better to blame than all those former slaves who are suddenly free -- putting pressure on the formerly white-dominated economic system? A rational assessment of slavery in the United States would tell you that it had all but run its course by the time the Civil War began. The economic system was already shifting away from slavery. The industrial revolution took care of that. However, in the southern states after the Civil War there was suddenly a large population of unemployed former farm workers (black slaves) to be absorbed. This meant economic chaos, and one of the almost inevitable side effects of economic chaos is racism.

There is a huge difference between celebrating and being proud of your own heritage and racism. Racism is offensive. Cultural pride is not.

Culture pride expresses itself in wanting to share the good things about your heritage with others. I express my pride in my heritage by cooking family recipes, by bragging about my 82-year-old aunt who flies an airplane, by looking up my genealogy, by learning about the culture of my Jewish ancestors and my Christian ancestors.

Racism expresses itself by enumerating the outrages visited upon the racist by the "others."

Every ethnic, religious, like-minded group can find some outrage in its history. That's why anybody can be a racist if they want to go that route.

Racism is NOT exclusively a white institution. It never has been. That's the primary logical fallacy in the piece that set off this storm. Nobody is saying that only white people can be racists. Because that foundation premise is false the rest of the argument becomes specious. Yes, there are black racists, and Jewish racists, and even Hispanic racists. That doesn't make racism OK.

Racism is counterproductive. It may make the person who is out of work and wondering how they're going to put food on the table and make the mortgage payments feel better to blame his plight on "all those illegal immigrants, or "N-g-rs," or "the Jews." But it isn't going to put food on his table or help make the mortgage payment.

The conditions that spark racism can be overcome. But that requires that we put our instinctive fear of "others," aside and work together to alleviate the conditions that are buggering us up.

The basic fallacy of racism is that "races" somehow act as one -- saying "Jews," are responsible for the financial collapse of Europe after WWI, rather than looking the actions of individuals.

The differences between individuals within any racial/ethnic/philosophical group is greater than the aggregate differences between those groups. Or, to put it more simply: We're all responsible for who we are. Our ethnic background may influence us, but the choices we make define us.

Racism is on the rise today. That's not surprising considering the state of the world.

But this I know, the challenges of the 21st century will not be overcome by dividing ourselves into camps based on race, religion, or any other trivial sorting method.

In this century we must overcome global climate change or become extinct as a species -- a species that includes all the races. We must find a way to distribute the planet's resources equitably, that includes petroleum, food, water and air. In a world that is no longer divided by geography, we must find a way for all the different cultures to co-exist and flourish -- without vying for supremacy.

If the human race is going to make it out of the 21st century, we're going to have to overcome our instinctive fear of the "other," and our need to hoard resources (a vestige of our tribal "hunter and gatherer" past). The mandate for our future, if we're going to have a future, has to be "work together." That doesn't mean we have to discard our heritage. It never did. That's a false dichotomy.

It means we have to look at the people around us as individuals, not faceless members of a "race" or a religion. We have to stop looking for someone to blame for our problems, and look instead for solutions to our problems.

Remove "blame" from the equation, and racism isn't going to be the answer.

(For the benefit of anyone who just read this and said "Huh? What kerfuffle?" Here's a link to the "Snopes" reprint of the piece that set this off.)

Crypticness

elsaf — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:58:50 GMT

This won't mean much unless you saw my comment on Rusty-Halo's wordpress blog. But it's a Doctor Who spoiler from "Forest of the Dead"

I loved the episode, but hate the "villains just go away because they see it's the Doctor" thing. If that's all it took he could have got rid of them at the beginning of Silence in the Library and saved a lot of time.

Another step

elsaf — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:47:05 GMT

They took Mom off the ventilator this morning and she's breathing on her own. Yay!

I really want to thank everyone who has sent supportive replies, but I probably won't be doing individual replies for the next few days. I'm very much in "run back and forth to the hospital" mode right now.

But thanks, everybody. It means a lot.

A little Tuesday morning politics

elsaf — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:33 GMT

Cross posted at DailyKos.com

Remember the racism flap after Bill Clinton said Obama's anti-war stance was a fairytale? (I'm still trying to figure out when "fairytale" became a racist term.) How about when Geraldine Ferraro said Obama was lucky to be black?

With a woman and a black man the only Democratic candidates left in the presidential race, accusations of race and gender baiting are unavoidable. Not every accusation makes sense. But please, as Obama supporters, don't fool yourselves that you can't offend.

I'm a solid Obama supporter, and I have been appalled at some of the tactics of the Clinton campaign in recent weeks. However, I'm also finding myself uncomfortable at some of the rhetoric coming from my side of the conflict these days.

Ifdemographics were all that counted, I'd be a Clinton supporter. I fit solidly into her most solid demographic -- I'm a 50-something, white woman. I defended the Clintons passionately through the Republican smears of the '90s. And up until Feb. 5, I was on the fence -- almost as much behind Sen. Clinton as I was Obama.

No more. I live in a swing state (Michigan), so I'll have no choice to vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee (no way am I going to help McCain take the White House), but I will do so, if I have to, with my nose firmly held.

But that doesn't mean I'm deaf and blind to some of the tactics our side has taken up in response to Clinton's attacks.

In short, if Obama supporters want to damage their candidate's chances to pick up members of Clinton's core demographic -- white women-- all they need to do is keep up the misogynist attacks.

Of course we need to criticize Sen. Clinton. That's how the game is played. But we need to be certain that our criticisms aren't as misogynistic as Ferraro's "He's only winning because he's black," statement is racist.

What am I talking about? A prime example is: "If Hillary's experience as first lady counts, then Laura Bush should be running." Implication: All first ladies are the same -- airheaded women.

Come on people, all first ladies are NOT equal. All they have in common is their gender.

Think for a moment about Edith Wilson. When her husband, Woodrow Wilson, suffered a stroke in 1919, she became what many people call the"secret president," or even the "first woman president." Many historians say that's an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say she began acting as his chief of staff (still a first for a woman). She controlled his calendar, and attempted to protect him from most of the stress of his office. Edith Wilson did an extraordinary thing against the prevailing culture of her time. She became a great deal more than the "White House hostess," which was all she was expected to do.

Truth be told, in the 20th Century first ladies have been a lot more than "White House hostess." Rosalyn Carter took on diplomatic duties in South America and to this day is co-chair of the Carter Center, and is actively involved in fighting for human rights around the globe. Betty Ford was a hero to many women in the 1970s for her candid talk about sex, drugs and mental illness. Since she left the White House (I was never a fan when she was there), Nancy Reagan has won my respect for her passionate support of stem cell research. Eleanor Roosevelt showed my mother's generation just what a woman could achieve if she set her mind to it.

So, when you denigrate Hillary Clinton's experience because she was "just first lady," you are belittling ALL women.

It is impossible to know to what extent she was involved in policy and crisis management while she was first lady. Her involvement was undoubtedly greater than serving tea and cookies. It was probably less than managing the War Room during a global crisis.

It's not necessary to leave off all criticism of Sen. Clinton. She deserves a great deal of criticism. But just as their side has to be careful to never couch their criticism of Obama in racist terms, we have to be careful not to criticize Clinton in misogynist terms.

Even Karl Rove knows this.

The Clinton campaign has settled on "experience" as their central theme because they know that pushing back puts us in danger of looking misogynist. The response to her experiential claims has to be specific to Clinton, it can NEVER be "that was just woman stuff."

How can it be specific to Clinton? Simple, we have to accept her experience, but point out that it has not led her to the correct answers at pivotal moments.

For example: Hillary Clinton's experience in the White House did not help her avoid the terrible mistake of voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Her White House experience during the conflict in Bosnia did not help her reject the current president's push for more hostilities with Iran. Experience is easy -- judgment is hard won.

Another example: When then first lady Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to bring universal health care to the American people, she failed -- even though she enjoyed the advantage of a House and Senate Democratic majority when her husband took office. Why should we believes he'll do any better now? Experience is a lot more valuable when it's successful experience.

My point is this: Every time one of us calls Sen. Clinton a "bitch"we make it harder for her supporters to come to our side when Sen. Obama wins the nomination. Every time we denigrate her service as first lady, it's the same.

We need to play to win, for sure. But let's not be so short sighted that we poison our own well as we're doing it. Frankly, I think the Clinton campaign thrives on misogynist attacks. We need to stop giving them more fuel to keep their campaign going.

Baaaa... or maybe, WHOOOOO

elsaf — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:29:32 GMT

Gacked from pfeifferpack

Your Score: Owl

You scored 17 Ego, 12 Anxiety, and 13 Agency!

"Correct me if I am wrong," he said, "but am I right in
supposing that it is a very Blusterous day outside?"

"Very," said Piglet, who was quietly thawing his ears,
and wishing that he was safely back in his own house.

"I thought so," said O-wl. "It was on just such a
blusterous day as this that my Uncle Robert, a portrait of whom
you see upon the wall on your right, Piglet, while returning in
the late forenoon from a-- What's that?"

You scored as Owl!

ABOUT OWL: Owl is considered highly educated because he can spell his own name (WOL) and he can even spell Tuesday... although he doesn't always get it right. Owl is a good sort, really, although he can be a bit of a stuffed shirt, and he tends to overlook the smaller details in life - like the fact that his bellpull is actually someone's tail.

WHAT THIS SAYS ABOUT YOU: You are confident and you feel capable of dealing with whatever life throws at you. You know that you can handle just about everything... mostly because you know how to delegate the job of actually handling things to the people around you. You aren't one of those Bisy Backsons, who rush around trying to do everything at once. You prefer to stay at home and reflect on life, rather than go out and live it.

Sometimes, you know, you need to stop waiting for things to come to you and go out and get them. You need to go enjoy the weather, smell the fresh air, and pay attention to the little people in your life. They may not be as great as you... but maybe they could use your help.

Link: The Deep and Meaningful Winnie-The-Pooh Character Test written by wolfcaroling on OkCupid, home of the The Dating Persona Test
View My Profile(wolfcaroling)

Patriotism

elsaf — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:49:23 GMT

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

-- John F. Kennedy

OK, I'm writing this because I'm annoyed by the "flag lapel pin" non-controversy. Really... NON-controversy. If this is the best the opposition can come up with, Barack Obama is a shoo-in.

Obama doesn't wear a flag pin. So MSNBC and CNN start asking "Is he patriotic enough to be president?"

Stupid question.

There is no greater act of patriotism than to put yourself out there in public, suffer the political attacks and smears, give up all your privacy, separate yourself from your family, work day and night for more than a year -- to run for president. This applies as completely to John McCain and Hillary Clinton as it does to Barack Obama. Unpatriotic people don't give everything they have to try to make this country better.

All political ideas are not equal. All candidates are not equal. Some candidates, if they become our leaders, will lead us into disaster. But anyone who cares enough about America to make the enormous sacrifices that a presidential candidate makes deserves to be called a patriot.

John F. Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." That's the truth about democracy -- it is not a spectator sport. Wearing the right "team gear" does not make you patriotic. Registering to vote and going to the polls to cast your ballot makes you patriotic. Standing up for your rights under the Constitution makes you patriotic. Bringing more people into the political process makes you patriotic.

So, let's not be fooled by arguments that not wearing a pin on your lapel has any significance. It's a distraction.

Patriotism is determined by what you do, not what you wear.

Snow!

elsaf — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:57:24 GMT

Pretty... but I've got to get outside and shovel it now.

"Hey! My yard's all covered up in this yucky snow!"

"I shake and more flakes just keep falling on me. MAKE IT STOP, MOMMY!"

ETA: Shoveling is done. There are two ways to get the snow off the walk. 1. Me and my shovel. 2. Kids come to the door. Today it was me and my shovel.

New camera

elsaf — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:20:08 GMT

I got myself a new camera (on eBay) this week. It arrived yesterday afternoon.

I've been using a Kodak Easy Share camera for the past year. I think I'll still use it for some things. It has many nice features. However, it's always been inadequate for closeup photography. I've been frustrated with it as I tried to take pictures of the flowers in my garden, because it won't focus closer than about three feet.

I chose this new camera because it has a very good macro function. It focuses down to .75 inches. I didn't buy it for its 12x optical zoom with image stabilization, though I've already found that feature nice.

This is the remote control for my TV taken with light from the window, from a distance of about an inch and a half. The ISO is set to 1000, and there is very little "noise" in the picture (graininess you see in pictures taken with high-speed film, or in low light with a digital camera).

Here's my boy Ollie, back lit, from a distance of about 8 feet. The zoom is at about the middle of its range.

Here's the Ollster from about the same distance, front lit with natural light from the window. There's a little bit of noise in the shadow areas, but it's quite acceptable.

This is at ISO 80 (which will produce little or no noise), at the high end of the zoom range. It's a little suncatcher I have hanging in the tree next to my patio, taken from about 15 feet away. The image is sharp with no "motion blur," which it would have had without the image stabilization.

This was about 20 feet away. It's my birdfeeder.

This is just because I wanted to take pictures, but didn't have a lot to take pictures of. To quote Frank Zappa: "Don't you eat that yellow snow..."

This next one wasn't taken with my new camera. I was over at Mom's this morning and she spotted this guy on the wire watching the birds at the feeder:

That's a Cooper's Hawk. That's taken with Mom's Kodak camera. I'm going to take my new camera when I go back over there this afternoon, in hopes that he makes another appearance.

Cooper's hawks were nearly wiped out by DDT in the 1950s and early '60s. They've made a comeback, a lot of them in urban areas. They eat other birds.

ETA: I meant to tell what kind of camera it was, but forgot! Here it is. A Sony Cybershot DSC-H2. (I didn't pay a third of what Amazon is charging. Mine was used on eBay, though it's in like-new condition and came with all the original accessories and documentation.)

Winter is back

elsaf — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:50:05 GMT

What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, I was heralding the first sign of spring -- crocus shoots. Today ...

It rained most of the day -- nasty, cold, just short of freezing rain. Then, late in the afternoon, the rain turned to snow, and it kept coming down. There were four inches of heavy, wet snow on the ground before it was finished.

Here's my arbor. It was covered in yellow climbing roses until mid-October.

And here are my bird feeders:

I did my shoveling after dark. (I'm home from work this evening because I had to do something for my mother that lasted into the evening.) But it's done, and I'm not totally wiped out -- surprising because I only got out of the hospital a week and a day ago. But I am on the mend and my energy is coming back. We had a very light snow a couple of days before I went into the hospital, and I thought I was totally exhausted after I shoveled it -- and it was nothing compared to this.

I'm going to take that as a good sign for my recovery.

Spring is coming

elsaf — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:39:40 GMT

The rain today melted all the snow off my flower beds. It's supposed to turn cold again tonight, but it doesn't matter. It's still early February, and winter weather in Michigan generally persists through March (and sometimes into April), but it doesn't matter. I may have to drive home tonight in freezing rain on slick roads, but it doesn't matter.

The crocus I planted last fall are poking little green shoots through the ground out into the light. That's right, on Feb. 5, with at least six more weeks of winter on tap, something is growing.

Spring is coming, people. We're going to make it through the winter, just like we have every winter before.

Spring is coming. You heard it here first.

Offered just because it's cool

elsaf — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:13:02 GMT

Full disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter, at the moment. I'm not totally committed -- that is, if Clinton gets the nomination I will switch over to her with very little problem. I think they both have strengths. But that's not what I wanted to talk about right now.

Most people have probably already seen this, but I'm going to link to it just because I think it's the best political video I've ever seen -- for ANY candidate. I'm told it has even been posted on Republican blogs (along with "Why can't our candidate do something like this?" comments).

It doesn't change anything, but it does demonstrate the one area that Obama excels at: Inspiration.

So, if you haven't seen the new Obama vid (which, BTW, his campaign had nothing to do with), click here.

If you're not an Obama supporter, you might still want to see it, just to marvel at a REALLY fantastic artistic achievement.

Animated films

elsaf — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:29:49 GMT

I've seen several mainstream animated films recently that surprised me with their dramatic quality.

In 2006, I saw several animated films that convinced me that the leaps in animation technology were leaving storytelling behind. In particular, "Robots," which was really mediocre, and "Madagascar," which had some good ideas, but ran out of steam more than concluded. [I'm of the opinion that "Madagascar" would have been much better if they'd focused on the penguins.]

I saw "Shrek III" over the holidays, and while it wasn't horrible, it it wasn't up to the level of the first two Shrek films.

But then, on New Year's Eve, we rented "Cars." "Cars" came out just a little after "Robots." I remember seeing a trailer for it when we went to "Robots." The trailer didn't particularly engage my interest. It looked rather juvenile, as I remember.

After seeing it, though, I've got to say that the trailer really doesn't do it justice. "Cars," is a fairly mature, fully fleshed out comedy/drama. The characters are clearly realized, and the plot isn't entirely predictable. The gags are well crafted -- set up carefully, but not obviously, and played out for maximum impact.

It's a reworking, BTW, of the Michael J. Fox film "Doc Hollywood," if you can believe that.

Anyway, I give "Cars," at least a 9/10.

Another film I've seen recently was "Ratatouille," which was on the hospital video system. This is one I've been wanting to see, and once again, I was surprised at the dramatic depth they got out of the animated medium. This film did an outstanding job of melding the voice performances to the drawn characters. The film creates a just slightly surreal universe, where the rats can't actually talk to the humans, but the main character can communicate -- and has human intelligence. I mention this, because after you accept the intelligence of the rodents, the story works very hard to be "real-world" believable. (Just as "Cars" works very hard to be realistic, if you can accept that people are cars.) I thought the artwork of Ratatouille was the best I've seen lately.

The other film I saw was "The Ant Bully" which was not quite on the same level, but still amusing.

"Ratatouille," was different from most other "big" animated films I've seen lately. Peter O'Toole (playing Ego, the restaurant critic) was the only major star in the cast. Most animated films these days use a cast of big names: Paul Newman, Cliff Ratzenberger, Cameron Diaz, Nicholas Cage, etc. I can see why the stars would want to do it. It's really easy work for them. They go in for a day or two and record and that's it. No stunts, no costumes, not much work. But, I wonder why the producers want to use them. I have a hard time recognizing their voices! (I recognized Paul Newman in Cars, but none of the other voice performers.) "Ratatouille" was just as enjoyable without big name voices. (O'Toole was only in two scenes -- it was more of a cameo than a star turn.)

I can only conclude that the major value of the stars to these films is in the advertising campaigns.

Back home

elsaf — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:11:48 GMT

I got home from the hospital yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon. But I didn't get back on the computer until this morning, because I'm sliding back into normal activities gradually. I don't want to sit here at the computer too long at a stretch.

So, here's a little more fleshed out story of my medical apocalypse. It's a lot easier to type here on my full-sized keyboard than it was on the little tiny screen of my PDA.

So, last Thursday, I had been at work less than a half hour. I was sitting at my desk, when suddenly I could feel my heart racing, and I got really dizzy. I asked a co-worker to take me to the nearest emergency room (I could have asked them to call 911 and get me an ambulance, and I wouldn't have been out of line, but I really hate to make that sort of spectacle of myself -- any my insurance would have charged me $150 for the ride.)

The hospital was about 10 minutes ride and I was still able to walk and talk when I got there. After a very short wait, I was seen and immediately stripped to the waist and covered with EKG stickies.

I was having V-Tac, ventricular tachycardia, where the bottom half of the heart beats out of rhythm with the top, and my pulse was zooming back and forth between around 70 and more than 200. After I was on the gurney and hooked up to the heart monitor, I stopped being scared -- even though it took several hours for them to regulate my heart rate with drugs. I was in the hands of people who knew what they were doing, and it was all up to them, not me. So I just lay there and watched the ceiling.

They got my heart calmed down, and then I was sent upstairs to a room at about 1 a.m. I didn't sleep much that first night, not because I was anxious, because they came in and did something to me every time I started to doze off. There were blood pressures and blood draws, and a nurse who wanted to check my blood sugar for reasons I couldn't figure out. (I refused the blood sugar tests at first, but they kept nagging at me and by the middle of the first full day they were sticking me before every meal and before bed.) They also wanted to give me heparin shots (anti-coagulant to avoid blood clots) in the stomach, which I resisted at first, but gave in on as they kept nagging me about it -- I ended up with TONS of little bruises from subcutaneous injections).

Anyway, not a whole lot happened on Friday. I saw a cardiologist who said they didn't know why my heart was going nuts. I saw an electrophysiologist (specialist in the electrical workings of the heart) who said he didn't know why my heart was going nuts, but it might be "catacholase induced tachycardia." In simple words, my own enzymes were driving my heart crazy.

Saturday was a little more exciting. I had a nuclear stress test (they inject radioactive goop into your heart then X-ray you before and after exercise), and an echocardiogram (ultra sound of my heart). There was a problem with my IV and the tech accidentally spilled some of the radioactive goop. She went and got another needle-full and got it in on the second try. Then, they went nuts with cordoning off the little spot of floor where the goop splattered. (The little thing that they inject through blew off when she was trying to put it in, because it was the wrong type for her needle -- a drop or two got on the blanket I had across my lap, but most of it went on the floor.) I mean they set up a fence around it and put up DANGER! RADIATION! signs. I'm sure it's just the protocol, even though the stuff isn't all that dangerous -- but it made me feel strange that they're freaking over a little puddle on the floor when they'd just injected the same stuff INTO MY HEART!

Anyway, I acquitted myself well in the stress test -- I stayed on the treadmill for five full minutes at quite a bit faster than I'm accustomed to walking. But the test was "equivocal," that is, they couldn't really tell anything from it, most likely because of my ... ahem ... ample bust. They said the pictures weren't clear enough.

However, the echocardiogram showed that my heart function was good.

Along the way (alternating good news with bad) they told me that the monitors had been showing me with frequent irregular heartbeats while I was at rest and sleeping. They were brief, and I wasn't feeling them, but they were happening all the same.

At this point, I was scheduled for a cardiac catheterization, the procedure where they feed a little tube into an artery at your groin, up to the heart, inject iodine dye, and take very clear, detailed pictures of your heart. It couldn't happen until Monday, because they don't do them over the weekend. If they had found a blockage, they could have performed balloon angioplasty (insert a little balloon to crush the blockage). I'm happy to report, there were no blockages and I got a clear bill to go home Tuesday -- with some restrictions on activity until the end of the week.

The anticipation of the catheterization was much worse than the reality. It really wasn't bad at all. The table was a little uncomfortable (plastic tubes to hold my arms still that sort of cut in, and weren't really comfy). But the procedure was just lying still for about 25 minutes while they worked on me. No pain, no icky feelings as the tube moved through, a little bit of flush when they put in the dye (not uncomfortable at all -- it was a little chilly in the room and it actually sort of felt good). Then, I had to lie perfectly still, only able to turn my head side to side (no raising it), and raise the opposite knee. There hadn't been any pain from the procedure, but those next four hours were pretty hard to take. I stiffen up when I don't move, and after four hours, my back was killing me.

Now, let me say, the vast majority of the nurses, assistants, aids, orderlies, and doctors were really great. They work 12-hour shifts and they work HARD. Nobody should ever take hospital staff for granted. These people deserve a lot more credit then they generally get.

But unfortunately, the night after my procedure (which was supposed to happen at 7 a.m., and actually happened at 6:30 p.m.) I got the only nurse I had any problem with for my whole stay. She was having some sort of problem -- she was sick, or over tired, or having a breakdown, I don't know. But she couldn't figure out how to use the automatic blood pressure machine -- it took her five or six tries to get a BP. Then she had to take a little drop of blood for a sugar test. This is done with a little device that snaps the lancet down into your finger -- very shallow -- and doesn't really hurt at all. She jerked the device when she went to snap it, and slashed my finger. Worse: She said "Look what YOU did!" Then, she hadn't programmed the glucose meter and couldn't get a reading from it. (Another nurse came and did it later.)

Then finally, when my patience was drawing very thin, I asked her if I could get a couple of ibuprophen (Motrin -- over the counter) for my back pain. She said she'd have to call the doctor. She came back later and said the doctor said no. I asked her if I could have ANY painkiller. She said "No."

I could accept that -- I've got a heart problem. I may have to restrict what OTC meds I take. OK... I went to sleep. I woke up around 5 a.m. when another nurse came to take my BP. From conversations I heard in the hall, the original nurse (who would have been on for another two hours), had been sent home. I just mentioned off hand that I wished I could have a painkiller -- but I understood that they didn't want to give it to me. The new nurse looked surprised. She went and got my chart. "It says right here you can have darvocet if you ask for it." She gave me two, and I conked out until about 8:30 a.m. When I woke up, my back pain was gone.

I only have one more story about my hospital stay, and it's not about me. My roommate the Sunday night had a psychotic episode. She was a 99-year-old woman. Her son was in the room with her most of the afternoon, and they chatted about old times, and she sounded pretty lucid. But after he left, as the evening went on she started talking crazy. She didn't know where she was, and kept asking me to lock the front and back door. I told her several times that we were in a hospital and we couldn't lock any doors. Next, she started trying to get out of bed. This was not possible, because she was hooked up to a Foley, stomach tube, IV and heart monitor. I called the nurses about five times as this started to happen. (I could have jumped up and tried to keep her in, but I don't think it was my place at all. Leave restraining patients to people who are trained for it.) Finally, several staff (a nurse, an assistant, an orderly) stayed with her and called her son to come back. He came as quickly as he cook (about 30 minutes later) and he couldn't calm her down. By this point, she was convinced that she had been kidnapped and the hospital staff were trying to kill her. She was screaming, and saying "I can't believe I would find myself amongst people like this who would watch a murder being committed and not do anything." (A pretty long complicated thought for someone having a total freakout.) After her son came and she didn't calm down, they decided to take her down and have a CAT scan to see if she'd had a stroke. When they tried to get her on the gurney, she started screaming, to her son, "KILL THEM! KILL THEM!"

As soon as she was out of the room, the nurse came over to me and told me that they were taking her to a private room after the CAT scan, so I'd be able to sleep.

So, that's the story of my hospital stay. I'm home now, and I expect to be back to full activity by Friday. I get my dogs back tomorrow morning (I miss my boys!). I go back to work Sunday night.

Thanks so much to everyone who sent wishes while I was laid up. It meant alot to me. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't reply individually. I've sat her at the computer about as long as I can right now. Even if I don't reply, please know that I really appreciated the thoughts and healing vibes.

State of me

elsaf — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:54:41 GMT

Today is my third day of lying in a hospital bed. I'll be brief because I'm writing this on my PDA, and it's tedious.

I had a seriously irregular heartbeat at work on Thursday. It was V-tac, the bad kind. My heart has been regulated with drugs,and I'm waiting for test results to find out whether I have to have a cathaterization.

Not on LJ much, because it's hard on the PDA.

I'll be back.

Tomorrow is spinning day

elsaf — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:42:39 GMT

I realize a good deal of this post will make very little sense to many on my friends list. But if you have any interest in hand spinning at all, there might be a tidbit here. I'm posting to brag on a neat piece of equipment I've got.

What I've got is a new hand spindle. You wouldn't think that would be terribly exciting. A spindle is as simple a piece of equipment as you can possibly have. You can make a functional spindle with an apple, a pencil and a screw type cup hook. (Force the pencil through the apple from stem to bottom, screw the cup hook into the eraser of the pencil.)

I've used wooden spindles and a pretty neat spindle made out of an old CD with a dowel through the middle. (The only reason you don't see more of these, is that it takes a pretty hard to find rubber bushing to secure the dowel through the CD.)

Last week, I ordered a spindle on eBay. I mostly wanted it because of its looks. The spoked whorl just looked kind of neat. It arrived today, and I immediately tried it out.

Wow! It actually works better than any of the spindles I already had on hand. Why?

This is the new spindle. It has a 12-inch shaft (OOooOOO), and ...

... a notch on the whorl to catch the yarn. This isn't actually needed until the spindle starts getting full of yarn. When the spindle is relatively empty, the angle of the yarn passing over the whorl will keep it in place. But as the spindle gets full, the angle passing over the whorl gets flatter and flatter. When that angle is flat, the yarn often slips and you end up with tangles in the yarn and less twist than you want.

Here's one of my older spindles, which has the more common 9-inch shaft. (It's mostly empty. The yarn on there is what I use for a leader.) It holds a lot less yarn, and as it fills up, you have less and less space for your hand to spin it. The 12-inch shaft gives you plenty of space to hold onto it, even when it's full of yarn.

BTW, the yarn on the new spindle is a gorgeous "Golden Hibuscus" 70% Merino wool, 30% Tussah silk from roving I got from AlpacaDirect.com. They have a beautiful selection of roving and yarns (like the garnet colored baby alpaca and silk blend yarn I got).

The neat spindle is called the "Little Joe" from this eBay merchant. I'm looking at the Mother Marion Kick Spindle now. I haven't decided to buy it yet, but I'm definately thinking about it.

Thanks!

elsaf — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:22:25 GMT

Someone gifted me with a virtual snow globe this morning. I suspect it has to do with More Joy Day, and I shall now endeavor to find a bit of joy to spread out in the real world sometime today.

It's me...

elsaf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:26:56 GMT

Haven't posted much lately.

Work is settling down -- for the moment. It's January, and that's a quiet time in our business. Very few people take vacation in January, so we're at full staff. So, I don't foresee much overtime in the next few weeks.

The weather is weirder than you know what. I had my patio door open most of the afternoon yesterday to let the dogs go in and out as they pleased. But it's supposed to start getting cold again tonight. (Not quite warm enough for open doors today, but still quite warm.)

I'm watching closely to see what happens in New Hampshire today. I think Obama is pretty much assured of a win, but unlike many, I don't think it's over yet. Clinton is too well funded to drop out before Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), and Edwards' supporters are way to committed to accept him dropping out before then. Edwards doesn't have a win in his future anywhere (IMHO). He's going to be trading seconds and thirds with Clinton until one, the other or both of them drop out. But both he or Clinton could gain traction if Obama makes a huge gaffe. (Though, the careful nature of Obama's campaigning makes me think that's unlikely.)

It's not that I don't like Edwards' message. He saying a lot of the right things. But I don't think he's going to make it to the White House. His supporters cling to him with evangelical fervor. But I don't think he's picking up many new ones.

I'm still uncommitted. I admit I'm leaning toward Obama, more because I have problems with Clinton and Edwards than because I think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Any of the three would make a president a hundred times better than Bush. So, there will be no weeping on my part, no matter who gets the nomination.

Over on the Republican side, the candidates are certainly funnier than the Democrats this time around. You've got Huckabee, who doesn't have a prayer -- despite his win in Iowa. You've got Ron Paul, recycling Lyndon LaRouche's agenda. You've got Mr. "I got New York taxpayers to pay for my nookie but hey, 9-11!" Giuliani. You've got Mr. "What do I believe today" Romney. You've got Fred Thompson, if an aide remembers to wake him up. And finally, McCain -- whose campaign has imploded twice already.

I think the two big reveals in New Hampshire are going to be "McCain or Romney" on the GOP side, and "Clinton or Edwards for second place" on the Dem side.

Sadly, I could be getting revved up for the Michigan primary, which is next week, but the incompetent Democratic party organization in this state has made certain the Michigan voters will have no part in choosing the Democratic candidate. Asshats! By trying to move up our primary so we could be first (like third graders), they got us shut out. Clinton and Kucinich are the only Democrats on the ballot here. Kucinich is the only Dem campaigning in the state. And while I like the guy -- he's not presidential material.

We really need to scrap the current primary system in favor of regional primaries that are held in rotation, with each region getting it's turn to go first. I think five batches of primaries (still administered on the state level, but held on set dates), two weeks apart, beginning in mid to late February, would be much more reasonable.

I watched The Daily Show last night. I think Jon Stewart was working very hard NOT to put on a great show last night. He's in complete sympathy with the writers (as am I) and I don't think he's really interested in hitting it out of the park solo. He's still a very funny guy, though, even when he doesn't have a stable of highly-talented writers supporting him. I really felt for him when he was all but BEGGING the WGA to come and make a separate deal with him, like they did with Letterman. Frankly, I think the WGA is being foolish if it doesn't.

ETA: Well, what do you know about that -- Clinton takes it. Close to be sure, but most of the conventional wisdom was handing it to Obama before the polls opened. Some pundits are saying that the nasty reaction to her near tears yesterday set up a backlash that put her over the top.

I'm still leaning Obama, but this certainly puts Clinton back in the running.

Baaaaa...

elsaf — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:09:16 GMT

What Elsa Means

You are friendly, charming, and warm. You get along with almost everyone.
You work hard not to rock the boat. Your easy going attitude brings people together.
At times, you can be a little flaky and irresponsible. But for the important things, you pull it together.

Gacked from redeem147

You are relaxed, chill, and very likely to go with the flow.
You are light hearted and accepting. You don't get worked up easily.
Well adjusted and incredibly happy, many people wonder what your secret to life is.

You are the total package - suave, sexy, smart, and strong.
You have the whole world under your spell, and you can influence almost everyone you know.
You don't always resist your urges to crush the weak. Just remember, they don't have as much going for them as you do.

You are usually the best at everything ... you strive for perfection.
You are confident, authoritative, and aggressive.
You have the classic "Type A" personality.

What's Your Name's Hidden Meaning?

All I can say is ... I wish...

Comcast follies

elsaf — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:06:47 GMT

I don't have Comcast cable and Internet, but my mother does. (I have Yahoo DSL and Dish Network satellite.) Yesterday, I replaced her cable modem with an RCA (DCW615R) wireless modem that I bought on eBay. This is allowed by Comcast -- you have the option of providing your own equipment.

In the course of installing and registering the new equipment with Comcast, I talked to three technicians. Two were knowledgable and helpful. One of those two actually went above and beyond to help me. The third one was a nasty piece of work -- or non-work, as the case may be. As far as I can tell, his entire raison d'etre was to find a way to avoid giving me any assistance what-so-ever.

The afternoon began with an infuriating battle with Comcast's phone system just trying to get to a tech in the first place.

But let me back up a little. I decided to do this last week when Mom's cable modem (Comcast-owned equipment) got flakey. It was requiring daily rebooting. Since Mom can't identify the modem, let alone replace it, it meant I had to go over to her house every time she wanted to use her computer. Something had to give. I decided to simplify her setup -- put in one device in the place of the modem and router, and move the connection from the upstairs bedroom to a spot downstairs nearer to her computer. (The existing connection was set up when the only computer in the house was Dad's -- upstairs. That computer is no longer in use.) I started out by trying to find out what was compatible with Comcast, but discovered that the link to the list of approved modems on their website was broken. However, I did find a reference to "DOCSIS" modems, so I went in search of DOCSIS wireless modems and found a large number of very affordable RCA DCW615Rs on eBay. I mean affordable enough that I was willing to take a chance on whether it was compatible. (I paid $16 including shipping.) Naturally, I suspected there might be a reason there were so many, so cheap, but it was worth a gamble.

As it happened, when I finally got through to the tech (the system hung up on me twice and kept telling me "Invalid choice, please try again" while I was on hold and hadn't made any choices at all) , my RCA modem was on the approved list. So far, so good. Tech one, stayed on the phone with me while I hooked up the modem, and took the serial number and MAC address, and got me a signal lock. Then she found that my modem had been in service on a Comcast account previously, and wasn't going to work right until she cleared it off the other account and got rid of the address conflict. She promised to call me back in 15 or so minutes, and asked me not to do anything to it in the meantime (because it needed to be in a certain mode for the registration process). I waited -- after 35 minutes with no callback, I called Comcast again.

This is when the random call answering equipment dumped me on Chris -- the evil preventer of tech support. Chris started out by pulling up my account on the computer system.

Chris: Who am I speaking with?

Me: My name is Elsa ...

Chris: There is no Elsa listed on this account. Can you verify the address for me?

Me: The address is: ...

Chris: There is no Elsa listed on this account.

Me: The account is in the name of Charles .... He's dead. I'm his daughter.

Chris: We can't make any changes unless you get your name put on the account.

Me: I've been managing this account for something like 10 years. Nobody has ever asked this before. (I have made numerous tech support calls on Mom and Dad's behalf, since I speak tech.)

Chris: You have to get your name put on the account.

Me: I've been paying this bill for years.

Chris: We'll accept payment from anyone.

Me: OK, whatever. Put my name on the account, but please, is the modem registered yet?

Chris: We have to have your father's death certificate to put your name on the account.

Me: What? I have to present a death certificate to get tech support?

Chris: You can fax it to us.

Me: I don't have a fax machine.

Chris: You can bring it to our office.

Me: Your office is not convenient to me.

Chris: (Silence)

Me: (I wait a good minute for him to say something.)

Chris: (Silence)

Me: Well?

Chris: We have to have a death certificate.

Me: SLAMS THE PHONE DOWN.

(Pretty obvious to me, that all he was doing was getting me off the phone so he wouldn't actually have to help me.)

At this point, my Mom's house has no Internet service at all. I've got to get something done. So, I call back, and this time the random phone answering equipment drops me in the lap of tech No. 3, who pulls up my account and says "Oh, it looks like your modem is all registered and ready to go." She then stayed on the line with me until I got my laptop connected to it with an ethernet cable and got online. No more talk of a death certificate.

Naturally, the Comcast techs were not going to help me set up the new wireless network. I didn't expect them to. They sell a wireless home networking package and they'd much rather I used theirs and we paid $99 for installation and an extra $10 a month. I don't see why we should have to pay extra for no more service than we've had all along, so, I set about trying to get the WiFi working. This is something I'm pretty good at.

I won't bore you with all the details, but after quite a bit of futzing, I got my laptop connected through WiFi, and got throughput from the Internet. Well and good.

But here's where my tech question comes in:

As of when I had to leave for work yesterday, I hadn't got Mom's computer (a floor away, but with a reasonably strong signal registering) online. The modem refuses to give it an IP address. Mom's computer just keeps cycling through "Trying to obtain IP address" then "Limited or no connectivity." (I had 65-85% on signal strength, and there is no problem in locking on -- I just can't get an IP address.) I can't do what I did with my laptop because that finally connected by magic. (I was just looking at it and suddenly it connected -- I hadn't done anything. This was after more than an hour of trying to get it to connect.)

The modem has no DHCP list link. In the access control section, it gives me no list of connected devices (even when my laptop was connected). By assigning my mother's computer a static IP address, I could get it to connect to the cable modem (over wireless) and bring up the management page, but it won't give me any Internet connection. In order to get an Internet connection, the IP address has to be dynamic (my laptop was in dynamic IP mode when I finally connected).

I currently have the system in "open" (no WEP) mode. I'll set WEP after I get a stable connection.

I'm about to head out to pick up a cable splitter so I can move the new modem downstairs. I'm then going to work on this until I make it work.

Anybody have any advice?

A separate post for...

elsaf — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:08:31 GMT

Text Generator - Glitter Text - Counters - YourGen.com