Anyhow, last night, I was finally able to get things back in order. After one failed attempt to find a good Java decompiler, I sat down a couple of nights ago and quickly found one that was promising. It even integrated right into eclipse.

The long and short of it is, The Shtick Image Editor is back in production.

While doing some indexing as part of the FamilySearch Indexing project recently, I came across the following name: Williã

To me it was a no-brainer that the name was William, but I suspect most people might have been inclined to mistake the tilde for a stray mark. However, the mark was no stray. The name Williã occurred 3 times on the image I was indexing, each time with a tilde over the a. The reason why I knew what it meant was because of the two years I spent in Portugal. Over there, (as well as in Brazil and other Portuguese speaking countries) the tilde is a very common mark. It is used as an accent mark which nasalizes a vowel/diphthong.

Since I was in Portugal, I had the opportunity to visit a lot of the old castles and read the old inscriptions, where I learned that the tilde was once a very common shorthand for indicating that a nasal consonant (m/n) was to follow. So, instead of writing "verano" (as you might find in modern Spanish), they would write "verão", but the pronunciation would have been the same as if they had opted to write "verano". I don't know how they pronounced it, but I always imagine the 'n' being very distinct. (I have recently noted that in French, the 'n' is still written, but is often very indistinct and has the effect of nasalizing the preceding vowel sound, having much the same effect as the current Portuguese tilde accent mark.) In such inscriptions you would often find this abbreviation used almost anywhere where there might be an 'm' or 'n'. However, nowadays the Portuguese only use the tilde in specific words and it is not considered a short-hand... that's just how the word is spelled.

I always thought of this as a purely Portuguese convention, so I was surprised to see the convention so clearly manifest in Essex during the late 1500's.

I was reminded of another similar short-hand that I'd come across a year or two ago in US census records of the mid-1800's. (was it Arkansas?) In this case I was trying to search for a Helen Cason who for a long time had been dodging me. I finally found a likely candidate in the 1880 census living as a niece of one John LeBass. So working with this, I set out to see how John LeBass might connect to the Cason Family. In my searching I came across what at first appeared to be a John Labop. However, the match was too good in other respects and what I quickly realized was that I was seeing an example of an old convention for writing the 'S', especially as part of a double-s. To be precise, there once used nto be two forms of the lower-case 's'. One was the form we are all accustomed to using today, but the other looked almost exactly like an lower-case 'f', so much so, in fact, that I've always had an extremely hard time telling the two apart. I was mainly accustomed to seeing the style in much older documents, but here it was. The funny f-looking 's' was used in different ways by different writers, but it would seem that the Germans eventually settled on using the f-looking 's' as the first 's' whenever two were required. This is the origin of the essetz, which is a funny combination of the two characters that looks like a capital 'B' with an open bottom: ß.

Anyhow, as it turned out, both the Cason's and the LeBass's had married into the Frost family. John's wife Volumnia Frost was the half-sister of Helen's mother, Mary Frost, and Helen had gone to live with her aunt and uncle after the apparent death of her own mother and father. The orthography, however, was the icing on the cake for me.

The main point I see after analyzing the law, is that it doesn't match what anybody is telling us about it. We are told that Proposition 17 is creating a discount that was never there before, or, from other sources, that the discount is being newly allowed to have continuity from insurer to insurer. None of these claims seem to be true. (Though I could not find a good legal analysis by anybody making such claims, which I would find immensely helpful.)

For my part, I have done my own analysis of both the proposition, as well as the Attorney General's analysis of the proposition.

My analysis:

Analysis

The actual law itself is short and the real meat is in sections 4 and 5 of the text, which respectively add verbage to, and remove verbage from, the Insurance Code. So effectively, what we have is a rewording of existing law. Here are the changes:

Discount: While the difference may seem trivial, the old law provided that insurers could use continuity of coverage as an optional rating factor, whereas the new law refers to a continuity discount. Rating factors were explicitly tied to how an insurer may price their insurance offerings, and the effect is to allow a discount for continuous coverage. The reason I mention this, is that there may be some legal definition I am not aware of that makes this subtle change of verbage more significant than I would superficially guess. (See: Proposed 1861.024(a) in Section 4 of the text and compare with the text struck out in Section 5.)

Continuity Discount for Children: Children, under proposition 17 would be able to claim a continuity discount on the basis of their parents' eligibility for a discount.

Proof of Coverage: Proof of Coverage from a prior insurer is now explicitly mentioned as being a basis upon which one can claim continuous coverage. (However, it is not altogether clear that this is not redundant, or that this was not implicit under previous legislation. In fact, it does seem implicit at the very least, but it is hard to say what precedent had been set by judges interpreting the old wording.)

Discount Eligibility: Proof of Coverage from a prior insurer is now explicitly mentioned as being a basis upon which one can claim continuous coverage. (However, it is not altogether clear that this is not redundant, or that this was not implicit under previous legislation. In fact, it does seem implicit at the very least, but it is hard to say what precedent had been set by judges interpreting the old wording.)

Maintenance of Eligibility for Veterans: Under the current law, eligibility for continuity discounts can be maintained by veterans serving overseas for a period of up to two years. Under Proposition 17 the discounts for this class of individuals would be maintained indefinitely.

Maintenance of Eligibility Generally: Under the current law, a laps in coverage of more than 90 days is required to cause one to lose one's eligibility for continuity discounts. Under Proposition 17 the same period of time is required, unless one's coverage lapses due to non-payment of premium. Also, under the new law, an insurer is explicitly allowed to offer further grace periods for lapses in coverage.

Overall, the effect seems fairly positive. If it weren't for the apparent corruption that seems to surround this proposition, it might seem like a good idea. (Though, I'd be curious on the demographics of those who lapse due to non-payment in comparison with those who spend more than 2 years serving overseas in the military, and on that note, I would want to carefully consider the merits of dropping eligibility for non-payment of fees.) However, everyone seems to be lying about this proposition, and I'm no lawyer, so instinctively I would take a conservative approach and vote no.

Critique of the Attorney General's Analysis

The Attorney General's analysis is given below (an unordered list has been replaced with an ordered list to facilitate citation):

ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

1. Changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company, and notwithstanding the ban on using the absence of prior insurance for purposes of pricing.
2. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.
3. Establishes that lapses in coverage due to nonpayment of premiums may prevent a driver from qualifying for the discount.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.

First off, we have the title. Based on my analysis, the new law does nothing to change the basic ability of insurers to base their prices upon a driver's history of insurance coverage. Technically, the new law makes the allowance, but that is only because the old law will not exist anymore. The proposition itself, however, does not have this effect. (Insurers will apparently be able to base their rates on continuous coverage whether this proposition passes or not.)

Now to the first listed "effect". The current law already allowed continuous coverage discounts "notwithstanding the ban". In fact, the old verbage was an exception directly attached to the ban. What Proposition 17 does is strike the exception to the ban and rewrite it in a separate portion of the code.

The second listed effect is interesting. It is not at all clear, in comparison with the old law, that there is anything more going on here than the same old continuous coverage rating factor, which, of course, would lead to drivers without continuous coverage being charged more. It appears that the Attorney General is once again analyzing the effect as if the old law didn't exist to begin with.

The third point, along with the fiscal analysis, seem to be the only valid points made.

Overall, it seems to me that the Attorney General is trying to bias voters to support this proposition, which makes me want to do the opposite.

As a voter, I was wondering if you could offer me some brief thoughts on what the rule of law means to you, and what responsibility you see individual citizens as having in promoting their own welfare, and the welfare of society, and what kinds of limitations you see to that responsibility.

I had at first considered crafting a letter that asked about thoughts on specific current events, but I had my doubts that such a question would be well received, so I crafted this letter instead, with a question that is fairly obtuse, but which I felt might reveal something about the candidates' ways of thinking about the relationship between the people and the law.

I have thus far received 6 responses, and will update this blog entry if I receive any more. The responses I have received follow, in the order received:

Randy Hammock

Thank you for your email. You ask a complex and excellent philosophical question. I can try to give you a direct answer, to the extent I understand your somewhat broad question.

The rule of law is the foundation upon which our society is built. As a current judicial officer, it is my job to fairly apply the law, not to create it. Laws are to be created by the legislative branch, and they are to be applied by the judicial branch.

Each citizen has a responsibilty to understand and to obey the law. Unjust laws may be challenged by a citizen by utilizing the legal process, and not by simple anarchy.

Despite its flaws, our legal system works, and I take pride in being a part of it.

Bill Margolin

Thank you so very much for your inquiry. Please review my statements on my website www.margolin4judge.com. I have essays written on that website in reference to some of my thoughts. In direct reply to your question-An average person in our community, cares as much about safety and children and law and order as any prosecutor might. Having been an attorney for over (20) twenty years my experience in promoting the rule of law for my clients is something I have vast experience in. The rule of law and the welfare of the society, is not just criminal law but all of the federal, state and local laws and rules. As a judge my job is to interpret and enforse these laws. I look forward to doing that once elected to the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Without the watchdog civil and criminal attorneys, chaos is the rule of law. Civil attorneys provide protection from those that would seek to interfere with the laws and rules that protect us all and keep us safe from negligence and fraud. Criminal Attorneys attempt to dole out justice to keep the streets and our society safe from crime only. We all do our part as citizens to follow the law. The enforcement of the laws are up to the Judge and Jury and attorneys representing us all.

Please vote on June 8.

Thank you for your interest in me and my campaign for judge.

Elizabeth A. Moreno

As a judge I am ethically bound to follow legal precedent, which includes the U.S. Constitution and that any changes to the U.S. constitution come in the form of amendments and are a matter for the legislative branch. It is individuals citizens responsibility to affect changes in the law through the legislative branch. Changes in the law through the legislative branch or the majority of the votes cast by citizens should not be contrary to but subject to the parameters of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. I consider the U. S. Constitution and its subsequent amendments an important document.

Valerie Salkin

Thank you for contacting me. You are actually the second person to ask me that question in the past week. I feel very strongly that judges should not be legislating from the bench. Although I support the right of individuals to attempt to change laws they believe are unjust or outdated (through advocacy and the legislative process), I don't believe that judges, particularly at the trial court level, should be doing so from the bench.

Our government has three distinct branches for a reason. When judges attempt to manipulate laws to reach a particular outcome, their efforts can undermine the structures that we have in place to ensure we reside in a just and equitable society. I have publicly stated that if I am elected, I will follow existing law and precedent, even if a situation arises where I don't agree with it. I would be pleased to have your support and I thank you for caring enough to ask the question.

C. Edward Mack

Thank you so much for your inquiry and interest in the judicial election.
The rule of law is the foundation of our society. It springs directly from our Constitution. Sometimes the rule of law needs adjustments by the legislative branch or by citizen propositions. When laws are unjust and the legislative bodies refuse to act, it is the duty of the citizens to take action. This is the responsibility of every individual citizen. Only when the majority of citizens vote to initiate laws which are clearly contra to our founding Constitution should the p[owers that be take action to try to limit their actions.

I hope this was helpful.

Mark K. Ameli

I apologize for the long delay in responding to your E-Mail. Aside from the tremendously busy schedule, your question was very profound and required some thinking on my part. We all should take responsibility for our own welfare and the welfare of our family. As a part of my community service I have been involved in gang violence prevention and I have studied cultural issues which contribute to gang violence. If all the citizens took more responsibility for their family and their children, we would have much fewer gang members and a lot less gang violence. Therefore, I do believe that personal responsibility is of utmost importance.

Taking responsibility for the welfare of one's society, is a more difficult issue. I was reading somewhere that if you want to find yourself, you should lose yourself in the service to others. I believe that if we serve our community, we will serve ourselves better and we will be happier as a community. This service may take different forms. Some serve through charity and others through civil service. Regardless of your inclination, you may serve your community in many different ways.

I do believe that regardless of what we do, it will have to be done within the framework of the laws of our country and I will ascertain that such laws are complied with to their fullest extent in my courtroom.

Thank you for your question.

Much as I did in my last voter guide, I'll begin with a summary of my recommendations, for simplicity, and then continue with some review of the candidates and measures. With as much as there is to cover, I'm going to leave out partisan races, as well as the county assessor. My review of candidates will be bullet-pointed facts and source materials.

After having gone through this for this year, I think that I may want to move this to a wiki format some time in the future, and recruit others to help me. It is hard to research this many issues in a timely manner with as busy as I am. With a wiki, my research could be updated as I went, making much of the information available sooner.

The official California Voter Information Guide can be found at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

Summary of Recommendations

State Propositions/Measures

• 13 - Yes
• 14 - No
• 15 - No
• 16 - No
• 17 - No

Judicial Offices

• 28 - Edward J. Nison
• 35 - Soussan (Suzanne) Bruguera
• 73 - Laura A. Matz
• 107 - R. Stephen Bolinger
• 117 - Pattricia M. Vienna
• 131 - Maren Elizabeth Nelson

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Analysis

State Propositions/Measures

Proposition 13: LIMITS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT.

Keeping taxes low is almost always going to receive my approval, but in this case we also remove a dangerous disincentive to upgrade property for the sake of earthquake safety. Safety and fiscal conservatism. Two great reasons to vote yes.

Proposition 14: ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

Personally, I think it is an incredibly hard thing to get people to vote for a good candidate already, the way things are. I'm becoming more and more convinced that an open primary can only make the situation worse. My personal philosophy when voting for candidates, is to eliminate from consideration all those candidates who are completely unacceptable, and then select someone to vote from among those that are left, possibly taking into consideration who might be carrying more of the vote (since, ideally, I would like a decent candidate to win, or to at least be as prominent as possible to send the bad candidates a message). However, coming up on this primary, I recently heard some Republicans decrying how there were no good candidates. I commented that this seemed patently absurd considering how many candidates there were. However, I was responded that those other candidates had no chance of winning.

The standard practice then, even in primaries, seems to be to pick from the "top two" candidates whether they're suitable or not. Using simple math, I deduce that proposition 14 will magnify the effect that people already complain about, of having no good candidates. I also deduce that proposition 14 could have no other effect than to protect a class of elitist politicians from competition.

Analysis:
Prop 14: 1 election where people squabble over 2 to 3 candidates followed by an election with 2 out of the 2 or 3 earlier candidates.
Net Result: 2 to 3 total seriously considered candidate.
Now: A single fractured election where parties internally squabble over 2 to 3 candidates per party followed by a general election where everyone collectively squabbles over 2 to 3 out of the many earlier considered candidates.
Net Result: (2 to 3) * # of Parties total seriously considered candidates.
In most cases, only Republican and Democrat candidates can be really considered to be seriously considered, as their candidates will almost always be the ones seriously considered in the end, but even still, our worst case scenario is 4 seriously considered candidates, whereas the best prop 14 can offer is 3 seriously considered candidates.

In the later form, more candidates get the benefit of real voter consideration, which I think is a real gain for voters and really gives their individual votes the most effect.

This analysis might suggest that the best way to get a good people's candidate is to break the election down into a tournament form. However, this would probably be prohibitively expensive with current ballot procedures. As long as we have a primary and a general election, we should at least take advantage of it to improve the competitiveness in favor of generating more fit candidates.

Proposition 15: CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT.

I don't think funding political advertising is the state's business. I think candidates have the right to raise money and spend it, and I think we all have the right to donate or not to.

Proposition 16: IMPOSES NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS.

I believe in the Republican system, and I think it unwise to make the government have to come to us to ask for every little thing. Democracy, true Democracy, is a bureaucratic nightmare. I say we leave this particular item in the hands of our elected officials.

Proposition 17: ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER'S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.

This is a difficult proposition to decide. On the one hand, I favor deregulation, but on the other hand, I think that true deregulation would involve eliminating the insurance requirement which imposes an artificial demand on the market. I'm not saying that I'm in favor of eliminating the requirement. (Auto insurance seems a somewhat reasonable requirement given the responsibility we have to those whose property we might harm while we are on the road. This is in contrast with medical insurance where issues do not effect the life, liberty, or property of others, and hence, are of a private nature.) Rather, I am pointing out that the market is inherently artificial and that since it is a market created by government, it does not seem to me unreasonable that the government should impose some limited regulation. In this case, my thinking reflects some thoughts I had regarding proposition 13, which I favored, partially, because it eliminated a barrier to safety. In this case, I think that we generally want the uninsured to become insured, and that allowing auto companies to discriminate against the uninsured will necessarily create a barrier to entry into the market. Although that barrier might be reasonable, I think it is well worth it to avoid creating the barrier in order to enable people to transition into being more responsible.

Judicial Offices

• Judgepedia: California judicial elections, 2010
• Los Angeles County Bar Association
• Metropolitan News Endorsements

Office 28

• Metropolitan News - Eight Seek Open Seat in Largest Field of Candidates This Year

• Left Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.electmarkameli.com

• Left Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.chrisgarcia2010.com
• MET news: poor appraisal; questions honesty.

• Democrat
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.hammock4judge.com

• Democrat
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• electcmack@aol.com

• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.morenoforjudge.com
• MET news: better history of composure than Nisson

• Ambiguous Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.nison4judge.com
• MET news: better endorsements than Moreno, I favor his highlighting of victims rights

• LACBA Rating: Not Qualified
• ken@kendallreed.com
• MET news: poor appraisal but very little said of substance

• politically conservative
• LACBA Rating: Not Qualified
• MET news: poor reputation

Office 35

• LACBA Rating: Well Qualified
• reelectjudgebruguera@cox.net

• LACBA Rating: Not Qualified
• Dougster5@Hotmail.Com

Office 73

• LACBA Rating: Qualified

• LACBA Rating: Well Qualified
• reelectjudgematz.com

Office 107

• LACBA Rating: Well Qualified
• www.stevebolinger.com

• Left Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Well Qualified
• www.reyesforjudge.com

• Left Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.valeriesalkin.com

Office 117

• Left Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Not Qualified
• www.griegoforjudge.com (no contact information)

• A fan of Clarence Darrow
• LACBA Rating: Qualified
• www.margolin4judge.com

• Left Endorsements
• LACBA Rating: Well Qualified
• www.schneiderforjudge.com

• LACBA Rating: Not Qualified
• www.viennaforjudge.com
• MET news: good review

Office 131

• LACBA Rating: Not Qualified
• http://smartvoter.org/vote/jim_baklayan

• LACBA Rating: Exceptionally Well Qualified
• http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/la/vote/nelson_m/

Superintendent of Public Instruction

• Democrat
• http://www.gloriaromero.org/

• Right Endorsements
• www.lydiagutierrezforsuperintendent2010.com

• Apparent Conservative, Right Endorsements
• 2010 Campaign Facebook Page
• Old Campaign Website
• 2008 Campaign on Smartvoter

• 2010 Campaign Website
• Daily Censored article praising Leonard as a progressive tax-and-spend focused candidate.

• Evident Fiscal Conservative
• 2010 Campaign Website

• Evident Conservative Philosophy
• 2010 Campaign Website
• 2010 Campaign Facebook Page

• Ambiguous/Moderate
• 2010 Campaign Website

• Left Endorsements
• 2010 Campaign Website

• Ambiguous/Moderate
• 2010 Campaign Website

• Apparent Conservative Philosophy
• Smart Voter

• Conservative Endorsements
• 2010 Campaign Website

• Left Endorsements
• 2010 Campaign Website

Compared to Bellflower Medical Center, the staff at St. Francis was much more friendly. They didn't forget to bring Cassey her meals, and they let Cassey have her baby as a rule, not just when she asked for the baby. The Bellflower staff kept Jasher separated from Cassey for long periods of time, and instead of bringing the baby to the mother to eat, they would sometimes bottle-feed, which was most alarming after the trouble we had getting Ephraim to breast-feed. (We couldn't get him to breast-feed, which, fortunately, is a difficulty we have not had since.) When I had questions, the St. Francis staff were willing (and obligated by policy) to answer.

The downsides are, that they charge for parking (I and my wife could get parking validated, but they weren't very forthcoming with that detail), and they had this odd and discomfiting policy whereby only hospital staff are allowed with the patient while they prepare her and her room for delivery. To me, that is a fundamental failure to see to the safety and comfort of the patient. Like having a lawyer in court, we should all have the right to an advocate at the hospital.

The hospital is one of many places where we would hope that people have our best interests in mind, but this is not always the case. It is, in fact, very often not the case. School guidance counseling is another similar scenario, but the level of vulnerability isn't the same. I'm not saying guidance counselors, nurses, and doctors are all evil. However, they do not really work for us like we would like them to. They work for schools, hospital, insurance companies, etc. They have enrollment quotas, hospitals, principles, insurance companies, malpractice insurers, and a host of other interests which can very often take precedence over our paltry best interests.

The day Cassey had the Baby, a pediatrician attached to the hospital came to visit and announced that he would be our baby's pediatrician proceeded to presumptuously talk about care our child would be receiving from him in the future. This being our third child, of course, we already had a pediatrician, and the overall impression I was left with was that this guy was hard up for patients. As soon as he left, my mother-in-law expressed the same feeling I had, that this guy was angling for a new patient. Little did we know how underhanded he would be.

Just like our stay at the Bellflower Medical Center, the doctor wouldn't let Cassey go the next day. I vaguely recall that our first doctor, back when Ephraim was born, gave us the option of leaving or staying another day. We left, which seems more and more wise, the more kids I have. Whatever you do, get out of in-patient care as quick as you can, and stay out as long as you can help it. It's like being in prison, except, without the stigma. (Disclaimer: I've never been in prison. I merely make the comparison on the basis of the suspension of basic rights. It would be nice if hospitals gave patients access to libraries, and other such facilities. Nevertheless, I think I'd feel safer in the hospital.) (Disclaimer: I've never been in in-patient care within the scope of my memory. I've only observed it.)

This is an issue with the doctor, however, who apparently had too little respect for the autonomy of his patients.

The situation took an unexpected turn for the worse early on day 3, when Math was a little less than 46 hours old. At that time, he was taken to have blood drawn for an unassuming test. Later that day, our nurse came in and told us that she would have to take the baby, right then and there, for double phototherapy by order of the pediatrician. The baby would have to stay overnight and could be released the next morning pending the results of a follow-up blood test.

Now, I already don't trust the pediatrician. But aside from that, I had parents coming over that evening, a priesthood lesson to take care of the next day, a wife producing milk who wants to keep producing it (who has already had trouble getting one child to breast-feed), a baby who slated to have to undergo some uncomfortable isolation, and no guarantee that things would be better the next morning. I'm also concerned that the doctors and the hospital are inconveniencing us for the sake of milking our insurance company.

The nurse assured us that we would be able to visit every two hours to breast-feed the baby. That, however, was not very comforting, and turned out to be one of those vicious half-truths. (We began hearing a lot of those.)

So, I started asking questions. I started with this one: Why did my baby need phototherapy?

We were responded that the blood test had shown that the baby was jaundiced and that jaundice was dangerous and could cause brain damage.

I noted that Math did not look very jaundiced. I also noted in the back of my mind that Jasher was jaundiced, and nothing like this had happened. Our pediatrician had asked us to make sure he got some sun, and that was it. (Now that I know more, I understand that Jasher's case didn't necessarily relate to Math's case, but nevertheless, I distrusted the doctor and the cases did relate well enough for me to know that the nurse's simplistic explanation wasn't sufficient.)

The nurse responded that the level was too high for sunlight to be an effective treatment. She also noted that I didn't look happy, as she walked out of the room with my baby.

At that point I began pacing, and thinking. I didn't know much about jaundice and I didn't have access to the Internet, so I started by reading a flyer the hospital had given us on the subject. Jaundice is caused by a buildup of bilirubin in the blood. Jaundice is normal in newborns. In fact, most newborns become jaundiced. Our livers normally process the bilirubin in our blood, but in newborns, it takes some time for the livers to get into full gear, and bilirubin levels will rise.

At this point I was stuck, so I paced some more and started writing down questions. What bilirubin level did my baby have? What's normal? What's dangerous? How does the bilirubin level fluctuate in a normal baby? Et cetera.

After stewing with these questions for a while, I requested to speak with my wife's nurse again. All I discovered was that the level was 9.0 as of about 5am that morning (46 hours old) and that it was 5.1 as of the day before. She didn't know the units of the numbers, and she didn't know anything about normal or dangerous. She suggested that the doctor may have been concerned about the sharp transition from 5.1 to 9.0. (The shifting story, obviating her ignorance, made me feel no better at all.) Our nurse also suggested that I speak with the nurses in the nursery where the baby was taken, as they should be able to answer my questions.

My next step was to call my Dad. I was fortunate to get them before they left to come visit us. My Dad obligingly got on the computer and found some very useful information and charts which he described to me in sufficient detail for me to discover that the units were probably mg/dL (though micromols/liter were also attested). I also learned that 9.0mg/dL is not very dangerous and that from two separate sources, was not considered cause for recommending phototherapy at 48 hours, even in the event of low birth-weight such as 2000g (as one might find in the case of a premature birth). Math, for his part, weighed about 3200g at birth.

My Mom took over the phone call and the computer over my Dad's protest and informed me that she felt I was making a big fuss over nothing, that it wasn't worth the fight, that I didn't really know the doctor wasn't right, etc.. I don't think I exactly won her over to my side, but she ended up trying to be helpful. (Thanks again Dad for the facts and figures.) The fact was, I wasn't exactly sure of myself yet, but what I was learning was giving me more questions to ask, and that if the answers were what I expected, I would be fighting the doctor in whatever way I could. If we let our doctors lie to us, steal from us, and generally walk all over us, it's not just a matter of each individual battle, but we end up losing a war over our rights as patients. That's more or less what I told my Mom, in summary. (She has her own battle she's fighting, though the consequences are somewhat more serious in her case.)

So, if the units were according to the apparent standard, my baby was well within the safe zone, but my doctor was recommending some pointless, yet expensive treatments, probably to pad his own wallet. (In hindsight, I wonder if he expected to scare us into working with him to get further pointless expensive treatment in a sort of doctor-induced hypochondria.)

Having gotten what information I could from the Internet, I was left with nothing to do, apparently, except wait for the nurses to take my wife over to feed the baby.

While I waited, I figured I'd start loading up the car in preparation for my wife's departure, so I grabbed a few bags and headed out.

On the way back, I succumbed to the temptation to go over to the nursery where Math was being held hostage, so that I could get the rest of my questions answered. When I got to the building where Math was being kept, I was directed to a phone I could use to contact a nurse in the room where the babies were in phototherapy.

I told the nurse I had some questions about the blood test results, and she indicated that Cassey's nurse should have been able to answer those questions.

When I informed her that I had asked that nurse, but that she hadn't known the units of the numbers, the nurse I was speaking to told me that there were no units.

I told her that all numbers have units (which isn't true, strictly speaking, but true enough for just about all meaningful numbers, and certainly applicable to the numbers we were discussing), so she asked me if I'd googled it (which I thought was interesting, considering I had, but that doing so was not easy from the hospital).

I informed her that I had and that the standard seemed to be mg/dL, but I found micromols/Liter to be another standard unit, and wanted to clarify which it was.

Well, this left the nurse with some research to do, so she told me she'd look into it and offered to let me come in to see Math, who hadn't gone under the lights yet. So I jumped at the opportunity. It meant coming around through a hall to a room where I was to wash my hands and put on a smock.

When I arrived, I found a nurse bottle-feeding Math, which he probably needed, but also means they weren't very serious about giving the mother the opportunity to feed the baby. (As it turns out, it takes their transportation people at least 30 minutes to get a patient from one building to the next. Cassey's nurse, of course, knew that, and knew that it would be practically impossible to keep up breast-feeding while the baby was in phototherapy.) I told them that Cassey was coming (before I left Cassey in her room, they had made noise about bringing her over), but they ended up having to call to get things started.

Another interesting thing I saw when I arrived, was another father who was asking questions about his baby, apparently worried for the baby's health. The nurses told him that they couldn't tell him what a normal bilirubin level was, but they cited the high 20's to 30 as being the level at which brain damage might be an issue, and they assured him that before his baby got anywhere near there, they would be taking further measures to protect his baby. I was left wondering what his baby's bilirubin level was. I was later to find that baby under the lights with his eye protection off of his eyes. The nurses quickly righted the situation when I pointed it out, and I didn't make a fuss about it, (the baby's eyes were closed... when I saw them) as I understand that accidents happen. Babies wiggle, and the hospital staff isn't omniscient. However, I was left to wonder at the arrogance of doctors and nurses who defend taking a healthy child away from intelligent and loving parents. (Shall we trade low-level jaundice for blindness?)

Anyhow, when I settled the matter that the units were the same as I expected, I noted for the nurse that 9.0 was a very normal and low-risk bilirubin level for a 48-hour old baby. She conceded the point, but continued to argue that since there was a risk (even if so low), wouldn't it be better to get the therapy and reduce the risk rather than have to come back in later? I told her that it was decidedly not better. I was also told that I could not refuse consent for treatment, or remove the child against medical advice. I was told that the doctor would be called, but there was no way the baby was going home that day.

I had been given Math to hold and was holding him for most of my conversation with this nurse. Cassey took so long that I felt obliged to continue with his bottle feeding. Unfortunately he wasn't very hungry when Cassey got there, but he did eat a little more.

The doctor called while Cassey was feeding Math and I had the opportunity to speak with him. I told him that 9.0 was a very normal and healthy level of bilirubin for a healthy baby at 48 hours old, which he conceded to. I also told him that I wanted my baby discharged, as I didn't see that there was any call for phototherapy in Math's case. The doctor seemed a bit taken aback and tentatively agreed that we could have the baby discharged on the condition that we bring in the baby the next day to have another blood sample taken. I begrudgingly agreed to that and he asked to speak with a nurse, who read the test results back to the doctor and informed me that the doctor would let us take the baby on the condition that we come in for another blood test and refrain from breast-feeding until the blood test results were in. This, of course, was unacceptable, but not so unacceptable as the alternative, so I suggested to Cassey that we agree, but that I wouldn't hold her to the no breast-feeding stipulation. A lie, of course, but the doctor has already been dishonest to us, and we had no other recourse as parents. I generally consider this a matter of the security of my child, and I conider it no sin to defend him by strategem.

So, we secured Math's release and then left to get Cassey discharged. That took a couple of hours (even though the doctor was "on his way"), and then finally we got Math and got out of there.

The blood test the next day was uneventful. The doctor tried to get us to stay at the hospital to wait for the results, but we wouldn't.

The bilirubin level turned out to be an unalarming 11.0. (Once again, about 40th percentile for a baby at that stage.)

The doctor tried to set up another appointment with us, but we informed him that we would be seeing our own pediatrician. (Our own pediatrician confirmed that the bilirubin levels cited above were unalarming.)

Al in all, it was a lot of work, but I really don't think that a parent should ever do less. In my case, I really expect nothing more than that the doctor was trying to squeeze some money out of the insurance company. However, there are also more sinister possibilities. The bottom line is that while the state apparently eschews trusting parents in favor of doctors and nurses, we, as parents, are still ultimately responsible for our children, and there's no reason why we should be trusting total strangers with our children. Further, whenever, someone tries to get between you and your kids, can't show good cause, and is apparently being deceitful, you have reason to be suspicious of their motives. Get your kids as far away from them as possible because they're probably up to no good, whatever that no good may be.

The witch took all her data with her.

I back up my code every once in a while, so I didn't lose much there (though I'd just created a new UML component that I think is now gone), however, family photos will be hard to replace. (Mom, we'll be looking into getting a copy of that CD we sent you for your Birthday, and anything else of that nature we might have sent.)

Anyhow, the old computers were not faring too well, but I just got my bonus at work, so we got a new computer for under $500, which arrived Saturday. I also picked up an external hard drive which I will be using to do regular backups. (I'll be keeping it disconnected and unplugged between backups in order to minimize the chance that an issue will be able to affect both hard drives.)

The new computer, oddly enough, came with Windows Vista, but that's just fine because that's what I had before, and I was quite pleased with it.

My old desktop was highly unstable, so it will be retiring.

Cassey's desktop picked up a virus last week, so I formatted and installed Ubuntu, which was trickier than usual. The Ubuntu install CD was complaining that it couldn't find a medium with a live filesystem. I finally realized that the CD-ROM drive I was using, was set to secondary slave, but that there was no secondary master. Windows hadn't been complaining, but it's not exactly a kosher configuration, so I figured Linux might have been having trouble with it. Once I got the drive switched to secondary master, things worked fine.

I've begun the process of restoring my code and setting up the new machine to do what I need it to do. However, we're also having Internet connectivity issues. We had these issues before, but it seems to have gotten worse. I think our recent rainstorm might have exacerbated an issue. The problem seems to be somewhere between my router and my ISP.

The front yard is getting prepared for grass and flower planting, and the back yard is being made suitable for Ephraim's upcoming birthday.

I've planted tomato, bell pepper, jalapeno, and onion seeds and I'm starting to see some sprouts, but I plan on waiting until after Ephraim's birthday to put them in the ground. If all turns out well, we'll have most of what we need for salsa canning this summer.

A week ago, Cassey said she thought there was a cat in our attic.

I said "no way, it's just a cat on the roof".

I clearly wasn't keeping in mind the second law of marriage, which is, "the wife is always right". Sure enough, it wasn't long before I got a call from my wife while I was at work. Something in the attic had meowed at her and scampered away when she opened the hatch to peek in.

I'd never been in my attic before. I had many ponderings on the subject. I was certain the insulation was awful, and I was curious as to the state of the wiring and plumbing.

We have two attic hatches, one in the addition at the back and one in the original portion of the house, which is in the front. (Cassey's experience occurred in the addition.) I began my investigation last night by opening up the hatches and shining the flashlight around to see if I could get the attention of the cat (if it was still around). Nothing seemed to happen, so I followed this up by walking around the house looking for likely holes. However, all the vents were in good condition (and rather small for a cat), and nothing else seemed unusual.

After making these initial investigations, the real work began this morning. I rigged up something to allow me to climb up to the attic access hatches, and began in the front, as this was the easiest to get into. I discovered that the front did not provide access to the back and the insulation looked like lumpy gray foam. I expect it is ancient fiberglass. It doesn't seem to have been sprayed down. I didn't spend much time since the lack of connection to the back meant the problem I was investigating had nothing to do with the front attic.

The hatch in the back was harder to get into since it was smaller and located in a relatively open space. The tight access made me more nervous, so I decided to put a lamp up in the attic to provide a little more light. I also took a flashlight. (Cassey later sent up gloves and a camera to document my adventures.)

The first thing I noticed was that birds had evidently been there. There were droppings and feathers concentrated in a few different places. The second thing I noticed was that the insulation was awful... except for one spot where fiberglass insulation sheet had been piled up together. In fact, two packages were still largely intact.

It looked like someone went up there intending to put down some insulation, but never got around to really doing the job.

I'm gonna have to fix this situation. (Probably in the fall.)

The main portion of the attic did not evince any way for a cat or bird to enter. However, behind the pile of insulation was an offshoot which led out to the original roof. So, after shoving some fiberglass aside, I worked my way back to the eaves of the original house. Where I found some light streaming in from under the eaves of the original roof, where it connected with the new roof.

The lighting issues aren't apparent in the photo, but you can see how there could be a gap hiding under the eaves there.

I was able to find the hole from the outside of the house as well once I knew where to look.

I'm not sure how best to patch up this hole, but I expect I'll find some solution during the week.

My favorite part is that I have reason to hope to significantly improve the comfort level in this house before next winter.

What Is a Wiki

A wiki is a kind of content management system for a website. As such it is a system which is designed to manage web pages (often referred to as articles).

A wiki generally allows some (often all) users to edit the content of pages in their browser real-time. User discussions are also typically facilitated for the purpose of enabling collaboration. (Not simply to allow them to express opinions passively.) As such, a wiki is a collaborative endeavor which is designed to leverage the experience of individuals who do not manage the wiki. (Sometimes management tasks can even be delegated to interested parties.) This is the primary and definitive feature of a wiki.

A wiki is typically organized with a predominantly flat structure. Though, a superficial substructure can form based on the way pages relate to one another. This organization means that related pages will be interconnected and the substructure is typically organic. It also means that you don't typically have to go find the page about "termites", because there's probably only one place for it to be.

A wiki facilitates interlinking of content pages. For intra-wiki linking, you typically don't have to remember much more than the name of the page in order to connect to it.

The Strengths of a Wiki

Since wiki's allow real-time in-browser page editing by a variety of users, content can evolve rapidly. Small articles can be created when little is known because there's no expectation that you have to "finish it now", or even that you have to finish it yourself. The expertise of a variety of individuals with diverse experience on a given topic can easily be leveraged.

Due to all the topically relevant interlinking, wiki's typically rank well with Google.

The flat structure is particularly handy when the pages to be managed can be named in fairly obvious ways, the content is topical in nature, and the domains of interest don't intersect too much. That is, wiki's are great for managing reference material.

Some Examples of Good Wiki Themes

Some Examples that Don't Work

A meeting minutes repository: Since information in minutes is typically not topical in nature, interlinking becomes extremely non-intuitive if even practical at all (if even desirable). Page naming is probably best accomplished with a date and meeting title, which generally tells you little about the page's contents. All organizing and sorting must be done manually. In comparison, a simple file system's tree structure will usually automatically sort files chronologically, especially if named chronologically. A file system also provides the freedom to use whatever editor or file format one chooses, which is almost always easier than writing wiki markup. The one advantage a wiki might provide is the easy inclusion of auxiliary materials. A simple file system might even be easier for that purpose. Since minutes are typically not expected to be improved upon and revised, and since this is typically not desirable, minutes storage takes no advantage of the Wiki's primary and definitive feature.

A lessons learned repository: Lessons learned documentation suffers from almost exactly the same pitfalls. In short, a wiki is ill-advised for the storage of largely stand-alone and static documents. These may be included as source media, but they do not make good primary content for a wiki. A wiki would merely add a lot of overhead to the management of such a repository while providing hardly any benefit at all.