}

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Weekend Diversion: Dancing to the music


Most people who watch pop music videos don’t give much thought to them beyond whether they like them or not, and a large part of that will be based on the song itself. Most of the time, probably, we may not even know who is behind a music video, but when it comes to choreography, many hit videos in recent years have been choreographed by New Zealander Parris Goebel. This week’s post is about some of those.

Parris is from Manurewa in Auckland, and got her start in Hip Hop dance here in Auckland, first forming the group ReQuest, which still exists, along with the related group The Royal Family, all based at her Auckland dance studio, The Palace Dance Studio.

The video up top is brand new: It was released on July 19. In fact, this is among the newest songs I’ve ever shared (maybe the newest?). It’s by Sam Smith and it’s called “How Do You Sleep?”, and it was written by Smith, with Savan Kotecha, Max Martin and also Ilya, who produced the song. The video was directed by Grant Singer, and the choreography is bt Parris Goebel, of course.

Sam Smith doesn’t usually dance in his videos, so this is pretty unique for him. I think it works well, especially the quasi-biblical tableaux (or maybe tableaux vivants is more accurate). I can’t share any information on the song’s chart performance because there isn’t any yet. I’m sure there will be.

I first made Sam Smith the subject of a Weekend Diversion post in December 2014, and again the following February. Since then, I included him in a Weekend Diversion post about Calvin Harris (second video). My first post to mention him, though, was just an ordinary post one week before Christmas, 2014.

Next up, Justin Bieber’s 1015 song, “Sorry”:



Okay, last week I said that I thought Justin Bieber was underrated, but that’s not why I’m sharing this. It’s actually because the choreography in this video is pretty typical, in my opinion, of Goebel’s work. You can see some similar themes used in all these videos.

One thing I especially liked about the YouTube version of this song is that the video description includes something most music videos don’t, namely, complete credits:
Director: Parris Goebel Producer: Justin Bieber, Scott "Scooter" Braun and Parris Goebel Animator: John Hwang Production Company: SB Films and Taktix Films Choreographer: Parris Goebel Dancers: The Ladies of ReQuest & The Royal Family Dance Crews from The Palace Dance Studio, NZ
The song itself was popular: It hit Number 2 in Australia (7x Platinum), Number 1 in Canada (7x Platinum), and in New Zealand (5x Platinum), and the UK (4x Platinum), and in the USA (8x Platinum).

Finally, “Touch”, a 2017 single by British girl group, Little Mix:



Little Mix was the winner of the eighth season of the UK’s The X Factor in 2011. I’ve heard of them, but the name is burned into my mind mostly because they’ve turned up to the answer for a lot of questions on the original (UK) version of the game show, The Chase (and I’m actually not joking about that).

At any rate, the song hit Number 13 in Australia (2x Platinum), 57 in Canada (Platinum), 22 in New Zealand (Gold), and Number 4 in the UK (2x Platinum). It doesn’t appear to have charted in the USA (only three of their singles have charted there).

• • •

I chose these particular songs because the fact that Parris Goebel was involved is publicly acknowledged, where some others she’s been involved with haven’t necessarily done so. Parris has posted a YouTube Playlist of the all the songs she’s worked on. Some of those songs weren’t singles, and some, well, they aren’t exactly my cup of tea. Nevertheless, I do think these particular videos give a taste of her work over the past five years.

So, this week was actually about people behind some videos, in this case, a Kiwi that most Americans may not have heard of before. That’s a nice thing in itself, and is bit of break from just sharing songs/videos I like. Think of it as a little mix. Sorry. Maybe I need sleep?

50 years ago: TV from the moon


Today is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. I remember very little of the broadcast, since I was ten at the time, and it was 9:56pm out time when Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon. But I do remember watching it on our black and white television, and I know other family members were with me, but I can’t be sure who: I was transfixed by the pictures on the TV. Much of the world was, too.

I grew up in the space age, and watched the space launches from as far back as I can remember, starting with Project Mercury. I even had a toy Project Gemini Titan II rocket and capsule (the capsule, which survived longer than the rocket, was red plastic). I also had a plastic model kit to make replicas of the Apollo 11 craft, LEM which was meant to sit a bit of plastic resembling, more or less, the lunar surface, and the Command Module “orbiting” on a plastic arc.

So, I have a long history with the space programme, and have always been fascinated by it, so it made perfect sense that I’d watch the live broadcast. I can’t remember for sure, but we may have watched the entire broadcast of Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon.

The Tweet above is from Neil deGrasse Tyson and talks about the Apollo 11 insignia, which was designed by Michael Collins. Tyson later acknowledged that Apollo XIII’s insignia. But the lack of a flag was deliberate, as was the olive branch. If only the promise had been fulfilled.

The space programme and the moon missions were very important for science and to advance our species, however, the promise of peaceful cooperation among all nations was never going to happen then, and it’s no more likely now. That’s the great tragedy of the space programme: It didn’t usher in an era of peace.

Still, the Apollo 11 trip to the moon was a magnificent achievement, an event that suddenly advanced humanity farther than it had ever been before—both figuratively and literally. And it was something that people all over the world got to watch together. Maybe we were temporarily joined after all.

50 years ago, like much of the world, I was transfixed by the live TV pictures from the moon. I would love to feel that way again, but even more, I’d love for the world to feel that way again.

Friday, July 19, 2019

A house divided


Abraham Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.” The United States is now deeply divided, not on a single issue like the slavery that Lincoln was talking about in 1858, but by something beyond issues, beyond ideology, something much worse: Group identity, sometimes called tribalism. The USA is no longer one country, nor even a union of 50 separate republics. Instead, it’s now a mishmash of “Follow Friday” Tweeps and Facebook Blocked lists, it’s MAGAs on one side and The Resistance on the other. It is a house divided, and that cannot stand.

In the video above, CNN’s Michael Smerconish bemoans the absence of any source of unity in the USA, how even things that were once apolitical are now seen only through “partisan” eyes. He’s right about the loss of opportunities for unity, but it’s not because people are partisan, as he seems to think: It’s because they’re part of different group identities.

Ezra Klein recently wrote about this on Vox, and about how what people don’t understand about the current regime and its supporters is that this has nothing to do with conservatism—ideology—it has do with one thing only: winning. The only thing that matters to them is that they’re marching together, and beating “the Left” as they go.

Because we don’t understand the motivations of the Right, we should all do as Sonali Kolhatkar recently did on Truth Dig, and ask: “Are We Underestimating Trump Yet Again?”. The current occupant of the White House’s campaign team know what it has to do to motivate its base, which is part of the motivation for him stoking the fires of racism, as he did this past week. The Left simply doesn’t understand that base, as Klein suggested. But Kolhatkar seems to think that it’s about some sort of ideology:
“…progressives and liberals have to accept the ugly fact that a sizable portion of America’s population is susceptible to [the current occupant’s] propaganda because they back the president’s xenophobic, anti-immigrant, racist, sexist, homophobic, corporatist, war-mongering agenda—even if they don’t publicly articulate it.”
Do they really? Michael Herriot clearly thinks so, at least in part, but maybe only by default. Writing on The Root, he says (in a piece with one of the site’s common enough confrontational headlines), “White People Want Trump”. He has two points worth looking at. First, that if there is such a thing as an amorphous but unified bloc of voters called “Black Voters”, then surely there must also be one called “White Voters”. The important thing about that is it’s stupid to reduce all people of one race into little more than automatons who all vote alike. I’ve frequently commented on this blog about how there’s no such thing as a unified bloc of voters— Black Voters, LGBT+ Voters, Female Voters, whatever—so I think that point cannot be stressed enough.

His other main point is that to White Voters, as a bloc, race trumps, so to speak, nearly everything else. While he’s at pains to acknowledge that not all White Voters feel that way (extending a rhetorical courtesy that most pundits don’t extend to Black Voters or Hispanic Voters…), he nevertheless provides strong evidence supporting his thesis:
In a June 12 national survey of registered voters, Quinnipiac University pollsters matched Donald Trump against the top Democratic presidential candidates: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Cory Booker. News outlets across the country including CNN, Newsweek and the Washington Post have reported on the results—namely, that Donald Trump loses against every single one of the candidates by a relatively large margin. But relatively few have mentioned that regardless of the presidential final round matchup, one thing remains true: White people are going to vote for Trump.

Among white registered voters, Trump beat Biden by one percentage point (46 to 47) which is within the margin of error. But Trump won the white vote by six to ten points when matched up every other Democratic presidential candidate. The Quinnipiac poll is not an outlier. In a Politico/Morning Consult poll, Trump again landed within the margin of error when white voters were asked to choose between him and Joe Biden. But he won the white vote with every other Democratic contender even though the majority of them disapprove of the job he is doing as president. A poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov from June 9-11 shows that white voters would vote for Donald Trump versus a generic Democratic candidate by a margin of 10 points.
What this suggests is that White Voters are divided along group identity lines, not by ideology. To some White Voters, apparently, race matters more than ideology. When combined with the fact that conservative voters outnumber liberal voters, it points to why Joe Biden polls the best against the current occupant. It also may explain his popularity among Democratic voters who have been polled, even though Democratic activists have a high proportion of women and black people and, well, activists, most of whom are further to the Left and often anti-Biden. This doesn’t mean that a plurality of polled Democrats are rightwing or even necessarily centrist, but that they want a candidate to defeat the current occupant.

The evidence obviously seems to underscore the notion that the “best” candidate to defeat the current occupant of the White House is Joe Biden, and those arguing that have been saying that he has the greatest potential appeal to some of the White Voters that voted for the Republican in 2016. Are they right? The reality is, no one knows.

The obvious counter argument is that someone completely different from the Republican candidate—a woman, a person of colour, a younger person, or even a gay man—would create a point of difference, preventing the contest from ending up being between—let’s be honest—two white male senior citizens. This is a potentially risky strategy, though, because it relies on mobilising voters who often stay home—especially young voters those on the Leftward side of Left (or any group that feels in any way excluded by the nominee’s campaign). Even so, are these advocates right? Again, no one knows.

Somewhere between the two arguments is the fact that many of the White suburbanites who voted for the Republican nominee in 2016 were appalled by the current occupant’s behaviour once in office and voted for Democrats in the 2018 Midterms. This could be the most important bit of information because many of those White suburban voters may be conservative on some issues, but many still voted Republican in 2016, not because they agreed with that candidate, but, rather, because they couldn’t stand Hillary Clinton. Those same voters don’t always respond well to racist appeals, unlike the Republican Party’s base. We don’t have enough information to work out whether they’re sexist, though: They might be, and would vote against any female candidate, or it could be that they simply couldn’t stand that female candidate.

So, it could be that the best Democratic nominee is the one that can best appeal to White suburban voters, without losing or turning off traditional Democratic voters. Or, it could be Democrats need a candidate who’s completely different than the current occupant, while not driving White suburban voters away. The problem is that the two viewpoints have little common ground. Group identity again.

There’s a bigger picture here that’s easy to miss: Group identity isn’t the absolute motivator that some think it is, and that means that the American house isn’t quite as divided as it often seems. Yes, the Republican base is more or less monolithic, but not every voter who backed the Republican 2016 is part of that base. Peel enough of those non-base voters away, without losing any of the Democratic base in the process, and the current regime will be ended.

The USA is at a crossroads. It can continue down its current path, likely leading to cataclysm, or it can change course and begin to repair the damage. But the American house is bitterly divided that it’s unlikely there can be any common ground between the two main warring houses, so only one side can prevail. We know the Right is committed to that goal, and will stop at nothing to win. Is the Left anywhere even remotely close to being that committed?

Those of us who want to defeat the current regime really need to do some deep soul searching on this. The only thing that we should focus on is defeating this regime—it’s the only thing that matters. It’s why so many of us say, “I’m voting Blue, no matter who”, because we know that whoever the Democratic nominee is, that person may well not be our “ideal” candidate. In blunt and harsh terms, we need to get over ourselves and vote for the good of the country.

Let me be clear: I’m NOT suggesting that we should all get behind Biden. I’m also NOT suggesting that we should vote for someone completely different. At this point I don’t personally have a first choice (or second, or third, or…). What I am saying is that we have to be realistic about the electoral challenges we face, including the apparent reluctance of large numbers of White Voters to look beyond their own race, but also the fact that some clearly can and do look beyond race (if the candidate is acceptable), and that there are votes we can win from the Republicans.

The house that is the USA is deeply divided, and only one side can win. But the divisions are more complicated than a simple binary, and therein lies an opportunity. The current regime promises to do even more of the awful stuff it’s already been doing. In stark contrast, the Democratic side is the only hope for restoring the country and rule of law, while beginning to undo the damage the current regime has done.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. But if most of the residents of that house work together, they can repair the house, restore its strength, and keep it from collapsing. That is our challenge, that’s our hope, and it must be our mission.

Let’s ensure the house remains standing.

Tip o' the Hat to fellow expat Wendy, who pointed me in the direction of the Smerconish video.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

The better midpoint

Auckland temperatures this evening.
A couple weeks ago we hit the midpoint of 2019, which is some sort of thing. Maybe not important, necessarily, but a marker of time all the same. In this part of the world we’re about to hit another midpoint, one that matters quite a lot to some of us: Tonight we pass the midpoint of winter.

As I’ve mentioned many times, in this part of the world the beginning os the seasons are taken as being on the first day of the month of their start, and not on the equinoxes or solstices that happen some three weeks later. Because our system makes the dates a known thing without variation, it’s easy to calculate what the midpoint of a season is, and the midpoint of winter is midnight tonight.

We know this because June, July, and August have a combined total of 92 days, and that means that the midpoint is 46 days—July 16 (the 30 days of June plus the first 16 of July). And once we pass midnight, we’re officially in the second half of winter.

This winter has been pretty mild, all things considered. It was unusually dry (and often extremely mild) during the first part, and it’s only been in the past couple weeks that we’ve had out typical rainy weather (and more storms are predicted for tonight). But, a few chilly mornings notwithstanding, it hasn’t been terribly cold so far. This evening we hit a low (screenshot of the weather App on my phone at right) of 10 degrees (which is 50F). It feels a bit colder than that due to how damp it is after days and days of rain, however, other winters have been far worse.

Even so, I’ll be glad when winter’s over because I like the warm months. This is actually an odd thing: After more than 23 years here I’ve fully acclimatised to winter here, feeling really cold in Auckland when the temperatures are what in Chicago I may have thought were warm. On the other hand, I like the heat of summer, and while Kiwis are complaining about how “hot” it is, I think the temperature is perfect. What makes this even more odd is that I know Auckland summers are considerably cooler than Chicago summers, and I wouldn’t mind them being warmer.

So I’ve thought lately that maybe it has nothing to do with acclimatisation to Auckland, and it’s just that I don’t tolerate cool temperatures as much as I used to. I’ve always been told that older people feel the cold more—maybe I’m just old before my time? Dunno, but I’m certainly cold before my time.

So here we are, poised to enter the second half of winter. I know it’s entirely possible that the weather—and temperatures—could very well get much worse before the it all gets better, but even if it does become worse, at least we’re slowly moving back toward the warmer months. For me, that makes it easier to endure.

Tonight we hit the point where there are only 46 days left in winter. That midpoint matters quite a lot to one of us.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Weekend Diversion: Rescued songs


Some of these “Weekend Diversion” posts have been harder to put together than others. They all require research, of course, but the whole process became more complicated earlier this month when the free-to-air music video channel that introduced me to many of the songs I shared went off air. As I said yesterday, though, I’ve since found a solution to help me keep up with new music. It’s also allowed me to finish this post (which I’d barely begun), and to do a post I’d only had in my head when the TV channel disappeared.

So, this is the first of those posts that I almost abandoned, but now can finish.

The first song today is the video up above, only one that I’d written down and done some research on. It’s called “I Don't Belong In This Club”, a 2019 single by US pop band Why Don’t We and US rapper and songwriter Macklemore.

I liked the sound of this song—though it was one of the few where I needed to read the lyrics to know what they were singing. Even so, I especially liked Macklemore’s opening rap, especially the “Mackle—who?!” part.

The song reached Number 80 in Australia, and Number 25 in New Zealand. It didn’t chart in any of the other countries I write about. This was Why Don’t We’s first single to chart in Australia and New Zealand.

Next up: Ed Sheeran & Justin Bieber “I Don't Care”:



I knew both of the artists in this song, but I hadn’t written down the name of the song. So, that Top 40 list came in handy for me, though I could have found it since I knew the artists. I’ve done that before.

In any case, I like the sound of the song—and it’s just coincidence that it has a similar story to the song up above. I’ve been a fan of Ed Sheeran for years, and I also think that Justin Bieber is underrated by those who can’t accept that artists change, so they continue to mock him for his earlier pop songs, or the fanaticism of his young female fans, or because of all of that. He’s certainly grown up; some of his critics need to do the same. Yeah, yeah, I know—”meow!”

Anyway, the song was actually the fourth time that Sheeran and Bieber collaborated, and Sheeran co-wrote Bieber’s hit, "Love Yourself”. “I Don’t Care” hit Number One in Australia, 2 in Canada 2x Platinum), 2 in New Zealand (Platinum), Number One in the UK (Platinum), and 2 the USA. This week, the song is currently Number 4 in New Zealand, and was Number 3 last week (it was always possible for me to include chart information for songs currently charting in New Zealand, but the source I now use for researching new music makes that much easier to do…).

Finally this week, “Let Me Down Slowly” by Alec Benjamin:



“Let Me Down Slowly” is by American singer and songwriter Alec Benjamin. It was originally released last year, but I never saw the video above until earlier this year. I thought that maybe I’d just missed it last year, however, there’s more to it, something I learned when researching this post.

The video above was the original video, which was released on June 4 of last year. However, in February of this year a new video was released (video below) to go with a re-released version that came out January 7, 2019. The new version was a duet with Canadian singer Alessia Cara. This is the version currently on the charts in New Zealand (31 this week), but for some reason the defunct music video channel only played the older version. I have no idea why that is, but I’d never have known all this if I hadn’t had to expand my research for this post. A benefit of the change, maybe?

I think the new video is much better than the original, and I might have included it sooner if the channel had played the new one. That’s why I’ve done something I don’t normally do: I’ve included two versions of videos of the same song.

I noticed the song at all because Alec Benjamin has an unusual voice; to me, he sounds much younger than he is (he’s 25), and at first I didn’t think it fit him, but I got used to it. It’s one of those songs that grew on my over time.

I always include chart performance, when available, but this time it comes with a caveat: I don’t know if the numbers refer to the original release or the new version. In any case, it hit Number 56 in Australia (Platinum), 49 in Canada (Platinum), 23 in New Zealand (Platinum), 31 in the UK (Silver), and 79 in the USA (Platinum). So far, it’s his only charted single.

Here’s the music video of the newer version:



I said in last week’s “Weekend Diversion” post that “I have one or two of these posts to go, and by then I should know what I’ll do with these posts in the future.” This was one  of the posts I was talking about, and the new research source made it possible.

So, I got curious about something

There’s a small word that infuriates some people, but it’s also quite common: The word so has become ubiquitous, and not just for its normal function as a conjunction. Lately, it seems some speakers use it a lot. So, what’s that all about?

I recently listened to a podcast and the interview subject began every answer with so. Since then, I’ve become aware of how often people do that. Not surprising, probably, I noticed that most of the people who do that don’t answer questions as part of the normal lives. However, even politicians, who ought to be good at being interviewed, do it a lot, too.

The word is usually referred to as a coordinating_conjunction, that is, words that, as Wikipedia puts it, “join, or coordinate, two or more items (such as words, main clauses, or sentences) of equal syntactic importance.” They point out that the words can be remembered as the acronym FANBOYS: For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, and So.

That’s what the word is, but doesn’t even touch on why it ends up in as a “sentence opener”. Wikipedia says that the use of so as a sentence opener is VERY old, dating back (at least) to Chaucer in the 14th Century. They also list several theories as to why the word is used this way, each with its own merits:

As a coordinating conjunctive to refer backwards to something previously mentioned. This is common enough, and one I use the most. In my case, I could substitute something like “to sum up” at the start of a sentence, though that’s more stilted than my natural speech pattern.

As a discourse marker. This is the usage I hear the most often, and is rhetorically similar to people saying “you know”—that is, it doesn’t change the meaning of anything being said, but provides a verbal link. I sometimes use it this way in spoken speech, but very rarely in anything written.

To signal that the following words are chosen for their relevance to the listener. This usage infuriates some people. For example, back in 2014 Fast Company published a piece called “How A Popular Two-Letter Word Is Undermining Your Credibility” by Hunter Thurman. In it, he declares that using the word to open a sentence “insults your audience”, it “undermines your credibility”, and that it “demonstrates that you’re not 100% comfortable with what you’re saying”. So, that seems a bit harsh.

To provide a small amount of extra thinking time. To me, this seems like the best explanation most of the time. It’s very similar to a discourse marker, but completely devoid of any actual meaning. This usage is actually most similar to saying “um”—a mere sound, giving the speaker a brief time to get their thoughts in order, to remember the answer to a question, and so on. This can be as annoying as when people say “um” a lot, but it’s pretty harmless.

All of that explains what the word so is and how it’s used, however, none of that really answers why people seem to be using it more these days. Back in 2015, npr offered a possible explanation:
So, why the recent hue and cry about those sentences beginning with "so"? In part, you could blame the quirk of perception I think of as the Andy Rooney effect, where you suddenly become keenly aware of a common word that's always been part of the conversational wallpaper. Somebody says, "Have you noticed how everybody's saying 'OK' before they hang up the phone?" and all at once the word starts jumping out at you, even though people have been using it that way forever.
The npr piece talks about other explanations for the origins of the current usage, and ways in which it’s typically used.

Overall, I tend to agree that it’s not really new or used being used more extensively now than in the past, and that we just sometimes notice things more frequently than we used to—like I did when an interviewee on a podcast began every answer with so.

So, to sum up, I now know a lot more about so than I need to, but my curiosity has been satisfied. Isn’t that one of the main reasons for having the Internet?

So, that’s it for this look at so.

So is also the name of a hit 1986 album by Peter Gabriel. The album cover is up above.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Updating again

Time doesn’t stop for anyone or anything—including blogs. The subjects of posts on this blog have their own changes, most of which go unnoticed, not the least because most aren’t all that important. Still, there are regular readers who are along for this ride, and for them it may be useful to know when something has changed so the story this blog paints makes sense.

Back in 2015, I began a series of posts to give those sorts of updates, mainly to posts about my life and things I’ve been doing. I figured that posts about stuff in the news are easy enough for readers to check on, if they want to, but that’s not true, or as easy, for some posts. The Update states were meant to take care of that kind of post.

I have no idea why, but I stopped doing that after only four posts, the last in May, 2016. As it happen, there are two updates to that post: The first item is something that I stopped using not all that long after writing about it, going back to hair dye. The second item talks about things that haven’t changed much since then, except that I now also use Apple’s Reminders App because it sends alerts to my phone and watch.

But this post is actually about updates to much more recent posts.

Let the music play

About a week and a half ago, I wrote about the loss of our free-to-air video music channel (near the end; the link goes directly to that part). At that time, I had no idea where I’d find out about new music, let alone the videos for the songs. I have part one of a solution for that.

I had a hunch and clicked on the link for “Official NZ Music Charts” in the “In New Zealand…” section of the righthand sidebar (near the bottom). There they have a number of official Top 40 pop music charts, along with—and this was my hunch—a Spotify Playlist of the songs for that week (in this case, the Top 40). This gives me a chance to listen to the most popular songs in New Zealand—with the occasional ad, usually for Spotify Premium).

In some ways, this is a huge improvement because I hear songs that wouldn’t be played on the old music video channel. The web page often has direct links to the video for the song, but I can also double check myself (if I like it well enough) when I know what the song is called and who it’s by—two things that aren’t always obvious to me. In the past, I usually noticed the video if I liked the song, although sometimes it was the other way around. In that sense, this method isn’t all that different.

On the other hand, I don’t think I’ll be doing this every week, because it’s a lot of extra work to listen, and then search for the video, and then decide if I like it enough to share (and, generally speaking, that often took several views in “the old days”). Even so, I can see opportunities to mix it up a bit when I prepare one of those posts.

In any case, the next Weekend Diversion post will have one of the leftover videos I mentioned in that post a week and a half ago, plus others I didn’t write down before the video channel shut down. Whew!

Still teatotalling

Back in June, I talked about how I was teatotalling to try to reduce the risk liver damage, which one of my prescription drugs, amiodarone, can cause. It turns out that I basically stopped having it after that post, but for a simple reason: Calories.

People don’t drink wine or other alcoholic beverages just for the taste, even if that’s one reason. If we’re truly honest, most people drink it—at least in part—because of the pleasant effects that come from it. However, those drinks are also empty calories, providing little or no nutritive value. The alcohol-removed wine I tried is the same—empty calories—but without the payoff of real wine. I never really thought about the empty calories before, and it took this substitution for me to do so. I’ll still have it for social occasions, of course, but I’m now aware of the empty calories as I never really was before, and so, I’ll have less of it.

Meanwhile, the café nearest to our house has now added the brand to their offering. That means that if we go there, I can have a glass of that while others have their real wine. I like that.

• • •

As I said in my last Update post more than three years ago, “That's it for this update. Maybe the next one will be sooner—or, not…” So far it’s been “not”, but maybe that’s just changed?

Friday, July 12, 2019

Hope and optimism these days

This is obvious to anyone who really stops to think about it, but hope and optimism are different things. They’re closely linked to each other, and sometimes they’re spoken of as near synonyms, but they’re still different. These days it’s more obvious than ever.

In basic definitions, hope is merely “a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen,” while optimism is “hopefulness and confidence about the future or the success of something.” Optimism is implicitly based on hope, but one can have hope without necessarily feeling optimistic that “a particular thing” will actually happen. The difference is that word confidence: Those with optimism think “a particular thing” probably will happen, while someone with hope but no optimism may not expect it to actually happen, even though they wish it will.

This trip though lexicography gives us a way of looking at how people can approach the same thing from very different reactions, even while desiring the same thing—like in politics, for example, and the future one may be facing.

In the United States, the difference between those with hope alone and those with optimism couldn’t be more stark or consequential. But it’s also more complicated than it may seem.

The supporters of the current regime controlling the White House are loudly optimistic about what their guy will do, regardless of the fact that the evidence contradicts that belief and, in fact, shows more betrayal than fulfilment of promises. To those fervent believers, no facts can possibly change their mind.

On the other side, there are those who are pessimistic about the future. They see the current occupant of the White House “joking” about remaining in office for “10 or 14 years” (as he did just today), and they hear him constantly attack the free press as “the enemy of the people” and “fake news” because it won’t be a sycophantic propaganda voice for him. They see him idolising brutal dictators. They see him defying the rule of law and the US Constitution. And, because of all that, there are those who have no optimism that the USA even can get out of the mess it’s in.

In between them are people who don’t support the current regime—and the majority of Americans don’t, of course—but who are nevertheless optimistic about a return to the norms of government and the rule of law. Such people are clear-eyed about all the bad stuff the current regime is doing, but they remain optimistic that the republic will overcome all that and move back toward normality.

What gets forgotten in talking about these divisions is that even the pessimists can remain thoroughly hopeful about the future, and, just like the optimists opposing the regime, they desire that the republic will overcome all the bad the current regime is doing. The difference is that the optimists have confidence that the USA will inevitably move back toward normality, while the pessimists are afraid that it can’t.

At this point, we have no way of knowing who will be proven right, however, the omens and portents clearly aren’t good, no matter how much people truly want them to be. All we know for certain is that there are two opposite possibilities: Things MAY get better, or it all MAY get very much worse. That means, then, that opponents of the current regime who are pessimistic may actually turn out to have been hopeless about the future and may be cynical, despairing, or despondent—or realistic. At the same time, the optimists who oppose the regime could be feeling not optimism, but delusion, self-deception, and/or fantasy. Or, they could be sensible.

Between now and the 2020 US elections, it’ll become clearer which future—return to normality or collapse—the USA is headed toward. Until then, there will be no shortage of opinions on which view is most “realistic” (a word too often used to dismiss those with opposing views).

In the meantime, sure, it’s obvious that hope and optimism are different things, and that people can look at the same situation and have very different reactions. Hope? Optimism? These days the difference is more obvious than ever.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Managing vampire visit options

The thing about chronic health issues is that they require management. Sometimes it’s really easy, other times it’s more challenging, but whatever the case may be, some sort of attention is needed. Yesterday I added a new option for some management I’ll need to do for the next few months.

The one thing I’m expected to do frequently over the next few months (aside form not missing a dose of my prescriptions) is to have blood tests. I need to have them every six weeks to three months, because the tests are sort of an early warning system for any problems the amiodarone may cause, like organ damage. Considering how worried I am about organ damage, I’ll be going about every six weeks.

Yesterday I went for my first round of tests since leaving hospital, and because of that I’ve added another set of vampires.

I went to Pukekohe to do my normal grocery shopping, and decided I’d give the vampires there another try. I’d gone there in March 2018, but left without getting the tests done (as I mentioned briefly in a post at the time). This time I went there in early afternoon, and there was no one waiting, so I got to go straight to the procedure room. I asked what times were worst, and the phlebotomist said between 11 and 1 or 1:30, which was the timeframe I was there that one time. Now I know.

It turns out that the test order form I was given in hospital is good indefinitely, since they specified I’ll need repeated tests. They photocopied the form to send with the samples, and gave the original back to me for next time. I had no idea they do that, and it was a huge relief: I was imagining having to go the doctor every few weeks to get a new order for tests. That could get pretty expensive. The way things are done makes so much more sense, but it’s something I never knew about until now.

The last tests I had done didn’t show up on my doctor’s web portal for the better part of a week after my blood was drawn, so I don’t know when these results will be ready. I also don’t necessarily know that I’ll be able to work out whether the test results are good or bad. But that’s something for another day.

If the tests turn up problems, they’ll need to change the drug (I suppose they might make the procedure urgent; I have no idea). I’ve given some thought to this, and if they need to change the drug, I think they should go back to the atenolol I used to be on. I wasn’t as profoundly tired on that drug as I am on this one (in that regard, this drug is more like the metroprolol I used to be on). On the other hand, my mind is clearer than it was on the atenolol (and my memory is slightly better).

There’s a part of me that thinks I should ask them to look at switching me, anyway, because if I’m going to feel so tired regardless of what drug I’m on, why not be on one that doesn’t risk damaging my organs? So far, this one has kept my heart rhythm stable, but I didn’t have an afib incident the entire time I was on atenolol, either, so maybe it does the job, too. Dunno—I’m no expert, obviously, but I do know my body and how it reacts to the drugs doctors have put me on. That’s what I bring to the discussion. But, who knows? Maybe I’ll get an appointment for the ablation evaluation sooner rather than later.

I was a bit late getting this test done: It should have been six weeks after I started the new drug routine, and that would have been July 5. But I was busy with work and couldn’t spare the time, and the first couple days of this week I couldn’t quite muster the energy to go do it (that chronic tiredness in action). But, now it’s done, and I wait to see what it says.

On the whole, I’m actually doing pretty well, which is the point, of course. Yesterday I added a new option for the health management I’ll need to do for the next few months. It’s always good to have options, even when choosing the vampires to vist.

Important note: This post mentions my own personal health journey. My experiences are my own, and shouldn’t be taken as indicative for anyone else. Similarly, other people may have completely different reactions to the same medications I take—better or worse. I share my experiences because others may have the same or similar experiences, and I want them to know that they’re not alone. But, as always, discuss your situation and how you’re feeling openly, honestly, and clearly with your own doctor, and always feel free to seek a second opinion from another doctor.