« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted an interesting article about the nature of academic library job searches.
I don't know what I find most interesting about the article: the "oh, snap" quality of it or the idea that it's an applicant's market in the academic world. That's not what I've heard, although I am, admittedly, not personally familiar with it.
It has been a scary few weeks. In June, my dad had a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA). TIAs can be a precursor to a big honkin' stroke. When I first heard this, I started doing a little research on TIAs and found that more than a third of people who have a TIA will have a stroke.
I calmed down a little bit after his doctor in Illinois proclaimed that a wait-and-see approach was in order, but then my dad got a second opinion from an acquaintance of his who is an internationally renowned stroke guy. My dad worked for 25 years at Abbott Labs and for a good portion of that time he worked on stroke med studies. He still has a lot of contacts in the field and Dr. Higashida was one of them. Dr. Higashida told my dad that he thought the condition was more severe and that a procedure was in order. So my parents scheduled the trip out to UCSF.
My dad's work at Abbott was a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, he knew the signs and symptoms and was able to get medical help right away. He also knew a specialist in whom he had great confidence. On the other hand, my dad knew all too well what a massive stroke would do to him. Add to this the fact that his mother died of a stroke (a subject we never mentioned over the last month) and he was a bit of a nervous wreck.
At any rate, he had his stent procedure on Monday, spent Tuesday in a regular hospital room, and was released on Wednesday. As I said to a friend, let's snake a thread from your leg to your brain, insert a foreign object in your one good vertebral artery, and send you home less than 48 hours later. Amazing!
Or, as I said to another friend, after the dramatic and tense lead-up to the procedure, seeing my dad sitting on my sofa 2 days later, looking perfectly normal, I quoted from Buffy:
In addition to his good luck in knowing Dr. Higashida and being able to afford a trip to UCSF, the other stroke of luck (no pun intended) is, of course, that I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. So, my parents stayed at my place before and after the procedure.
After the recap, I get to the meat of this post. In the days leading up to the planned procedure (which had definite scary risks), I tried to keep a positive outlook, but it wasn't always easy. My dad is only 69. Despite the fact that I only have one remaining grandparent, my grandfather on my mother's side, that dude is going to be 90 this November. So, obviously, my dad should have another good 10-15 years in him, minimum. It’s strange how the age of "old" shifts as you get closer to it.
My dad is a great man, with a sharp wit, good sense of humor, intelligence, and infinite patience (I imagine my mom snickering now). Doubtless, he is one of the best men I have ever met.
I still ask him for advice on just about anything of importance. Just recently, I asked him about a questionable stock tip I got, and we decided to both buy a few shares and see what happened. (At the time, shares were only 14 cents each so this wasn't a truly crazy idea.)
We have a very good relationship, which I feel very lucky about given some father relationships I've been witness to. He is a friend and I enjoy his company. I like him. Above all, I am a daddy's girl, and I am not ready to lose my daddy.
Due to our own unique way of avoiding our emotional displays, I can't say these things directly to him. So, I write this post. The virtual equivalent of going to opposite ends of the house to compose ourselves.
Well here's a terrifying bit of proposed legislation. I wonder why I haven't seen anything about this on the blogs and news sources I monitor. Thanks to beSpacific for pointing it out. There's so much about it to dislike, but calling it the We the People Act (HR 5739) turns my stomach.
It's entirely possible that I'm missing something here, but this confuses me. The proposed legislation states that
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
It goes on to say:
The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts-- (1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States;
The way I read this is that, no state law that deals with the listed issues can be heard by a Federal court even if the law is directly contrary to the U.S. Constitution or other Federal statute, that no state law can be deemed as being Federally unconstitutional. Am I missing something here?
The proposed legislation also seeks to undo any related Federal judicial decision to date.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.
I can't even imagine how far reaching this could be or how far back the clock would turn.