![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thumb-twiddle time...
Sep. 12th, 2001 01:03 pmI don't know what the deal is, but late yesterday afternoon I was instructed not to report to the Execute Package this morning, as JSC would not be open. I went on down to the client's office around 9 am anyway, just be close by should JSC open its doors. Around 11:15, I gave up waiting and came home.
I'm following doctor's orders and sucking down liquids after donating a pint yesterday. Yesterday's pre-donation screening, by the way, was way more extensive than my first experience giving blood, back when I was in boot camp.
Then, I recall, the basic two questions we were asked were: "Have you ever had hepatitis?" and "Have you been tattooed in the past year?" Answering "no" to both earned you a cot for the time it took to donate the blood. Yesterday, they asked about a half dozen questions to try to identify AIDS risk factors, and then a slew of others that were intended to screen for things such as mad cow disease. I then lay down to donate maybe my fifth or sixth pint of blood overall, certainly the first in many moons.
* * *
Like many others, I've been reading what other have to say about the news of the day, both here on LJ and around the net. Some observations:
On the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" option: This line of thinking (or of action) is ill-considered. The people in New York and Washington were victims of a criminal act, no matter what kind of pretty political duds anyone tries to put on it.
On the "our country deserved it" argument: Funny how rapists often posit the same kind of reasoning to justify criminal assaults against their victims. Victims of violent crimes - and especially victims chosen at random - never deserve what happens to them.
On the "one more excuse to pile dirt on Bush" opportunity: I read one rant that accused Bush of hiding in an underground bunker while death and destruction rained down upon the citizenry from the sky. This is an extreme case, I think, of someone who simply hates Bush, and who finds a justification for that hatred in everything the man does. I suspect, had Bush flown directly to D.C., the same writer would have taken "W" to task for a grandstanding gesture that recklessly exposed the country's Chief Executive to needless risk.
Sure, I know, the same kind of yahoos were plentiful back when Clinton was in power, but it's disturbing, nonetheless. I know it's too much to ask, but might it not be a better idea to criticize - if necessary - after the President orders some action taken?
On that note, I shall do my best to stay away from this subject from now on.
Cheers...
I'm following doctor's orders and sucking down liquids after donating a pint yesterday. Yesterday's pre-donation screening, by the way, was way more extensive than my first experience giving blood, back when I was in boot camp.
Then, I recall, the basic two questions we were asked were: "Have you ever had hepatitis?" and "Have you been tattooed in the past year?" Answering "no" to both earned you a cot for the time it took to donate the blood. Yesterday, they asked about a half dozen questions to try to identify AIDS risk factors, and then a slew of others that were intended to screen for things such as mad cow disease. I then lay down to donate maybe my fifth or sixth pint of blood overall, certainly the first in many moons.
Like many others, I've been reading what other have to say about the news of the day, both here on LJ and around the net. Some observations:
On the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" option: This line of thinking (or of action) is ill-considered. The people in New York and Washington were victims of a criminal act, no matter what kind of pretty political duds anyone tries to put on it.
On the "our country deserved it" argument: Funny how rapists often posit the same kind of reasoning to justify criminal assaults against their victims. Victims of violent crimes - and especially victims chosen at random - never deserve what happens to them.
On the "one more excuse to pile dirt on Bush" opportunity: I read one rant that accused Bush of hiding in an underground bunker while death and destruction rained down upon the citizenry from the sky. This is an extreme case, I think, of someone who simply hates Bush, and who finds a justification for that hatred in everything the man does. I suspect, had Bush flown directly to D.C., the same writer would have taken "W" to task for a grandstanding gesture that recklessly exposed the country's Chief Executive to needless risk.
Sure, I know, the same kind of yahoos were plentiful back when Clinton was in power, but it's disturbing, nonetheless. I know it's too much to ask, but might it not be a better idea to criticize - if necessary - after the President orders some action taken?
On that note, I shall do my best to stay away from this subject from now on.
Cheers...
