Five Stages of Grief: Sanders Edition

1. Denial: "Clinton only won by having someone purge 'whole blocks of Sanders supporters' in an area that voted 60% for her, at a number that is less than half of her lead and thus made no difference!"
2. Anger: "How long are we expected to put up with this cheating?"
3. Bargaining: "Sanders needs to stay in through the convention because that way, at least our views get heard."
4. Depression: "If Clinton is the nominee, I'm staying home!"
5. Acceptance: "HOLY MOTHER OF CATS, TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED!"

Can we please skip to stage 5?

CONSPIRACY: OMG CLINTON STOLE NEW YORK WITH A VOTER PURGE!!!11!!1!!!!!1!!

Yay! We're back to conspiracy theories! Last night, Clinton won New York by a 16% margin; however, in New York City, many Democratic voters were "wrongly" purged from the rolls, disenfranchising them. Sanders supporters were quick to assign blame to Hillary Clinton, with accusations that she won New York by cheating through this voter purge.

I say "wrongly" purged (in scare quotes) because the linked article states why people were purged, including having moved away or having failed to vote in the last two elections plus having failed to respond to mailers required to continue registration at that address. Anecdotal evidence cites entire buildings or blocks that were purged (which could only be correct if the building or block were torn down). However, in order to actually prove that on the day of the election, you would have to verify voting status with every person in that building or block (which obviously hasn't happened), or you would have to analyze the purge data to look for that, something that staff wouldn't have had time to do on election day. 

Clearly, a fancy prison uniform.

These things are all proven, according to blatantly pro-Sanders Salon.com. They also claim that the voters in question had not been notified, but the election official quoted in the first link claimed that they should have received and not responded to several mailers after having failed to vote in the last two elections. If that is the case, these voters weren't even disenfranchised; they were rightly purged due to lack of activity, per traditional rules to eliminate fraudulent voting, including the dead vote.

In addition, people have claimed that "seemingly all purged voters" were Sanders supporters, based on anecdotal evidence likely gathered in a pro-Sanders subreddit, just like the 6/6 coin tosses for Clinton claim that was eventually determined to be 6/7 for Sanders. Because selection bias is totally not a thing.

Therefore, Clinton won only because she is a cheater, cheater, pumpkin pantsuit wearer.

What Premises Are Required for This to Be True?

1. Clinton was polling (IIRC) 13% higher than Sanders for New York. Such polls typically have a margin of error between 3% and 6%. Clinton won the state by 16%, 3% higher than the polls indicated. Despite being within the expected margin of error, despite being consistent with the poll results, and despite the expected margin of error not remotely approaching a tie, this 3% is somehow very important. (Sadly, since the election, the pre-election polls are very hard to find.)
   
   UPDATE: I found a poll prediction from 538, including work by Nate Silver himself. They predicted a Clinton win by 15%, with a 6% margin of error. So basically, the election result was pretty much dead-on to the prediction of "the country's most accurate poll predictor."
   Implausible.
2. Clinton won NYC but lost other counties in the state. The area with the largest purge that is in question is Brooklyn, a county that voted for Clinton at 60%. In order for this to have been a cheat in Clinton's favor, we must assume that the purged voters would not vote in line with general statistics for the county. Implausible.
3. It would have to have been a selective purge of Sanders supporters. Unlikely.
4. The purges started in November, so to selectively purge Sanders voters would require knowing who the Sanders voters were back when Sanders was considered a candidate good enough to last a couple more months, "but he should really pack it in because Clinton is obviously the only Dem with a chance." Implausible and this changes 3 to implausible too.
5. Plus, to motivate this kind of selective purge would have required believing that Sanders was a viable threat to Clinton, with a reasonable chance of winning New York-- again, back in November. Implausible and now 3 might as well be impossible.
6. Since the allegations include that whole buildings and even whole blocks were purged, in order for this to be a selective purge of only Sanders voters, every voter in those buildings and blocks would have to be Sanders supporters, unlike the other buildings and blocks in the area. Hilariously, absurdly implausible.

Let's Do Math!

Number of people purged: 125,000

Number of people that Clinton won by: 300,000

For the sake of argument, let's assume that every purged voter would have voted for Sanders. That gives Sanders 41% of the margin of victory, and thus he still loses. Clinton is ahead 175,000. If literally every purged voter voted for Sanders...

Clinton still wins by 50,000 votes.

When your conspiracy theory gets debunked by Fortune Magazine, you need to give it up.

Update (midnightish)!

Having now read approximately a gazillion articles by Sanders supporters about the problem, I have discovered proof-- proof!-- that these voters were wrongly purged! You see, many of them were purged because they hadn't voted in over four years, which is totally unfair because some people only vote in Presidential elections! (The last one was 3.5 years ago, so they didn't vote in that either.) This is according to pro-Sanders blog site, USUncut.

To add to the confusion, approximately 126,000 voters in Brooklyn were purged from voter rolls between October and April, many for no reason other than the fact that they hadn’t voted in four years or more (most Americans only vote every four years), and tens of thousands of others for simply moving.

It is voter fraud to vote in a district in which you do not live, unless the law allows you to choose a polling station for convenience. Thus, it is correct to purge voters who moved out of the district. It is also correct to purge voters who are dead or moved but without having mail bounce back to the office that tracks voters to purge, which is why there is a four year rule. And yet somehow, someone managed to purge only Sanders supporters who hadn't voted in over four years. Clinton supporters were obviously left intact despite this process being done by computer.

So basically, they're suing because they were rightfully purged, which is "disenfranchisement." Meanwhile, Clinton supporters are terrible people if these nonsensical claims make us laugh.

RIP Prince.

I Made You a Thing: Darth Trump Edition

Credit Where Credit is Male: Did Sanders "Change Clinton?"

It's a well-known phenomenon among professional women: we say something in a group setting and it is ignored or dismissed, then a guy says the same thing and is celebrated for what he said. I remember this happening to me in the first grade (although instead of just being dismissed I was routinely chastised for "pretending to be smart"). Then my guy crush would repeat what I said and be celebrated for it, which he thought of as "helping." So when I say "women," I am using the term very loosely.

Men Stealing Credit

In the sciences, there are well-documented cases of women making a discovery or doing all of the work, then men getting the credit-- even by using materials stolen from the woman. Then there are the rare cases of women being given the credit by the men who could have stolen the idea, explicitly stating that she deserved the credit, but modern men still try to deny credit to the women.* When academic papers are published by a group that contains a woman, third parties give female contributors less credit than male ones.

This happens in the business world as well. I have not personally had credit stolen from me in a meeting, although I have backed up other women who were initially dismissed. I have had credit stolen while I wasn't present to object. In the business world, it goes like this: there are several people in a meeting. A woman makes a suggestion and gets brushed off. Later, a man makes the same suggestion and is told what a great idea it is, getting credit for the woman's idea.

People debate whether hedging language is responsible for women's ideas not being taken seriously in meetings, but I am routinely dismissed in meetings when I don't use hedging language, so it is not the sole problem. There are people who argue that men don't mean to steal women's ideas, but men deliberately steal other men's ideas. Why wouldn't those men steal the ideas of a dismissed woman? We're low hanging fruit. No one would even believe us if we objected.

Then there are less obvious cases.

Primary 2016: Solutions to Class Issues

During this election cycle, Sanders has gained popularity by drumbeating about classism, restoring the middle class, and improving upward mobility. He has scant plans for achieving this, but his plans boil down to: higher taxes on the very rich; public works projects; raising the minimum wage to $15; and free college. These are fairly popular ideas in progressive circles (I like them!), but in the opinions of many (including me), these are not enough because they do not address the unique problems faced in the job market by women, racial minorities, and especially minority women. (Plus, not all -isms are job-market-related.)

Many young white dudes have lectured me that Sanders would help Black women more than Clinton would because he supports a $15 minimum wage while she proposes a $12 minimum wage. Black women have a higher tendency to be working for minimum wage, therefore, Black women are "voting against their own interests" if they prefer Clinton to Sanders. This argument only holds water if we assume premises that Black women only work for minimum wage, that Black women can only consider one issue when voting, and that their one allowed issue shall be chosen by random white dudes on the Internet. Cringe.

You don't go to college
to become a welder.

There's an expectation built into this argument that black women should be working for minimum wage, as though they have upward mobility that for some reason, they choose to ignore (unlike poor white men, who are denied upward mobility). That Black women make up an inordinate percentage of minimum wage workers implies that there are disparities in hiring and promotion that could also be addressed, whether through child-care programs, job training programs, anti-discrimination programs, or other potential solutions.

Not every person wants to go to college, not every job has training offered in college, not every college degree is job training, and college is not a job training program that will help people support themselves and their families shortly after starting it. While free college is a good solution to some economic mobility problems, it is not a good single solution to all problems that keep poor people poor at minimum wage. It's a good solution for lower middle class and poor white guys who want jobs that require college. For everyone else, it is an incomplete solution if it's a solution at all.

Clinton Makes a Proposal

That's half a bra, right?

For Black women who don't work minimum wage jobs but get paid less than their white female peers (who get paid less than their white male peers), an extra $3 of minimum wage does nothing to fix their pay inequality. A minimum wage increase also doesn't eliminate hiring discrimination, raise and promotion discrimination, or other issues that cause Black women to fall behind in income compared to the people who were their peers 10 years ago. Those issues apply at all pay levels and to most minorities, including white women. A minimum wage increase doesn't provide child care or job training. It doesn't even provide time for job training or a consistent work schedule to allow for course enrollment. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to lack of upward mobility.

To address some of these problems, as well as educational deficits, Clinton designed a child care/early education program, which she incorporated into her platform in June 2015. (This is an issue that Clinton has long supported and fought for.) Sanders has voted in favor of women on women's issues, but has repeatedly downplayed them as a "distraction*2." He added child-care to his platform more than a month after Clinton added hers.

No one claims that Sanders copied Clinton or that Clinton "changed Sanders" because he added a child-care platform. And I'm ok with that, because when someone decides to do something, they should get credit for that. He wants a child care/early education program for the poor. Good for him! So do I!

Sanders and Clinton Make Slightly Different Proposals

While Clinton has long fought for women, children, and racial minorities, she has fought alongside others on class issues as well. Clinton's platform included a minimum wage increase to $12 as early as June 2015 and she has stated that she would not veto a $15 minimum wage. However, she has supported minimum wage increases since she was First Lady (evidence from 1996 here) and she supported increases as a Congresswoman in 2007.

However, Sanders and his supporters cite minimum wage as an area where Sanders "caused Clinton to change her stance," "making Clinton a better candidate." He has repeatedly made this claim, and did so again during the April 24th Democratic debate. In response to Clinton saying that she wouldn't veto a $15 minimum wage, his caustic indignance gave the impression that Clinton did not previously support a minimum wage increase at all. He framed this unwillingness to veto as a change in stance from her proposed, lower minimum wage, which it is not. "I propose this" is not the same as "I fail to oppose that."

Sanders "Changes Clinton's Stance"

The common refrain is that Sanders' successful candidacy is why Clinton "changed her stance" on class issues, which is why she might now become President. There are a few problems with this narrative (for some sarcastic definition of few):

• She hasn't changed her stances on class issues. The premise is an attempt to refuse Clinton credit for decades of her work.
  
• She has emphasized class issues more than she did initially because voters were responding to Sanders on class issues. She changed her speeches to suit voters. That's what politicians do. They don't change their speeches to suit their opponent.
• The media admit that Sanders "changed emphasis," but they claim that he did so to suit voters, not because Clinton made him. This is a double standard. (Explored in detail below.)
• This narrative was started by Sanders as a way to credit himself with Clinton's success, and was repeated by Sanders supporters (including mainstream media Sanders supporters) as though it were fair and accurate, without verification.
• This, in turn, ignores that Clinton was consistently more successful than Sanders before she "changed her stance," and with the exception of low-minority states, still is. 
  
• It gives Sanders credit for increasing Clinton's success, during a period when her success was decreasing.
• It gives credit for someone's decision making to someone uninvolved in the decision.
• It gives credit for someone's actions to someone uninvolved in those actions.
• It gives credit for a woman's success to a man, even though that man is less successful and she was a success before he was there.
• It is in line with the common phenomenon of men taking credit for a woman's work or ideas.
• It is in line with the common phenomenon of a third party crediting a man for a woman's work or ideas.
• Sanders' take on child care came after Clinton's take on it, yet no one claims that Sanders changed his platform because of Clinton. This is yet another double standard.
  
• And "Sanders is why Clinton might become President?" Really? If it weren't for Sanders, she would already have the delegates to win the primary. Her career and experience aren't why she might become President? She came in as the projected winner but Sanders is why she might win? Standing up to Sanders is somehow "better experience" than standing up to a series of stacked Congressional committees designed to harass her and destroy her chance at becoming President-- from which she walked away unscathed and with celebratory memes? This most qualified candidate running could not become President on her own merits and can only achieve things because a man helped? I see.

In typical media fashion, Sanders claimed something about Clinton and the media simply repeated it en masse as though it were true. After all, if you say something good about Sanders or bad about Clinton, it gets posted to reddit for page click generation and that means ad money.

Sanders "Makes Clinton Flop Like a Fish"

Despite Clinton's previous experience running for President, Clinton's success is being attributed to Sanders "making her a better candidate."

Clinton has also responded to Sanders by clarifying other kinds of issues that will be central to her presidency. In her effort to distinguish herself from the senator, she has spoken much more about other issue areas that she would address, including the central questions of racial and gender inequality.

Clinton has been focused on racial and gender inequality for over 30 years-- even longer than Sanders has been in Congress. She has always run on a platform of race and gender issues. She is probably the most qualified person in the country to lead the nation on gender issues. Her activism on women's issues is world renowned. She started her campaign by focusing on these issues; Sanders only added these issues to his platform after he got complaints from potential voters that his policies didn't address them. Again, Clinton actually did it first but gets no credit for "changing Sanders;" instead the second person to do it gets credit for "changing" the first person to what she was already doing.

For some reason, Sanders said that he "forced" Clinton to do in this election what she has been doing for decades and people accepted that as fact. Sanders "made her a better candidate" by being present while she did exactly what she was doing before he was present. It's like these CNN "experts" (professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University) are completely unaware of Clinton's history in public affairs, and that's why they talk about how awesome Sanders is and recite his talking points as though they are literal facts. Check out the "Anti-Bernie Bias" at CNN!

According to that that CNN "expert," Sanders also forced Clinton to be pragmatic, just like she has been for a long time. I mean, she ran on a pragmatism platform in 2008. I suppose that Sanders has also achieved time travel, in which case, I may reconsider my support.

(But not actually.)

OK, Maybe They Both Flop, But Only If Sanders Gets Credit

In this hilarious double-standard, an article agreed with the Sanders' camp's assertion that Clinton changed stances because of Sanders, then claimed that Sanders too changed what he emphasized about his stances because of Clinton.

But the change shouldn’t have been too shocking, since Clinton has matched Sanders’ positions on a whole host of issues during the unexpectedly hard-fought Democratic contest between them — a tactic that has implications for the former secretary of state as she attempts to move past Sanders and position herself for the general election. ... To be fair, Sanders has also been forced to shift emphasis on certain policies by his opponent, particularly to court black and Latino voters, more natural constituencies for Clinton.

Image and data by motocat

"The change" referred to in the first sentence is that she stated a stance on a topic on which she had not previously been asked for a stance. A "previous stance" was credited to her, but it was stated just prior to the debate by a spokesman, who had actually dodged the question. "Stating a stance on a new issue" is "changing a stance because of Sanders." (I just had to repeat that because excuse you?) Anyway, look at the wording in that comparison; it is not parallel but it is treated as parallel. Clinton changed stances and likewise, Sanders changed emphasis. There's even a double standard in the wording for what should be the same action, just to make Sanders' undue credit seem significant.

As for "Clinton has matched Sanders’ positions on a whole host of issues during the unexpectedly hard-fought Democratic contest between them:" contrary to what Sanders likes to claim, they are both progressive and always have been. They have extremely similar votes in the Senate, where Clinton was the 11th most liberal Senator. They have run on similar platforms in the past, just not against each other. They already agreed on most topics and have for years, but now Clinton has those ideas in the vicinity of Sanders, therefore, he gets the credit for "changing" her stances to what they were before.

To be fair, Sanders has also been forced to shift emphasis on certain policies by his opponent, particularly to court black and Latino voters, more natural constituencies for Clinton.

He added those policies after activists confronted him about their absence. That's not "shifting emphasis." This claim also credits Clinton as a form of transparent lip service, then credits Sanders with the decision to pander to voters. Again, Clinton is claimed to have changed stances for at most changing emphasis, which is credited to Sanders; Sanders adds stances and has that called "changing emphasis," which is credited to him.

Sanders gets credit for every stance in the primary! He wins! Rahhhhhhhh!

Mainstream news outlets are quoting Sanders' campaign staff and treating everything that they say as reasonable, even when it is obviously absurd.

[Jeff Weaver] added, with a chuckle, “Look, she’d make a great vice president. We’re willing to give her more credit than Obama did. We’re willing to consider her for vice president. We’ll give her serious consideration. We’ll even interview her." (Oct 2015)

First he pushed the idea that Clinton is "a far right liberal, practically a Republican." Now he's pushing that Sanders has pushed Clinton far left, while she is simultaneously "practically a Republican" because jazzhands. And when there's little mainstream coverage of statistics that debunk this "Democrat In Name Only" nonsense, there's something wrong with the media.

This is what Google Bombing looks like.

In fact, when the media calls a Democrat a "Democrat in Name Only" and "part of the Democrat Party Establishment," to contrast her with the person who joined the party to run under the Democratic ticket less than a year ago and who dodges questions on his party affiliation, something very fishy is going on.

OK, Maybe Clinton Flops Like a Dead Fish

It's not really flip-flopping if nothing has changed. Rudimentary critical thinking tests should be given to all reporters, like, right now. Please. I'm begging!

The Curse of the Haunted Flip Flop

Clinton has shown in the past that when presented with new information, she will reevaluate her stance and change it if appropriate. This is what I call "being a good decision maker." The other options are "obstinately refusing to learn new things" or "doubling down because you can't admit to being wrong." However, to people who celebrate lack of learning or "steadfastness in decision making," what I call "being a good decision maker" is called "flip-flopping" and it is apparently a bad thing.

For the sake of argument, let's examine this "Sanders changed Clinton" chant by premising that Clinton flip-flopped on issues, as claimed by the Sanders campaign and the Rampaging Internet Horde. We know that she changes her mind when presented with new information, but she also could be "flip-flopping to pander to voters and doesn't mean what she says." However, this is never claimed by the Sanders campaign. Why? Because if the reason that she changed her mind is that she's a panderer, Sanders can't be credited with the change.

So how could Sanders "change Clinton" on her stances? Easy. By giving her information that she didn't have before, which she incorporated into her stances. This is the best case scenario under which Sanders could be credited with "changing" Clinton.

So if we assume that that's true, Sanders is taking credit for Clinton being the good decision maker that she has proven herself to be for decades*3, while he attacks her as unqualified*4 because of her bad decision making. Her basic personality, which I'm nearly certain existed prior to this primary, is credited to Sanders.

Because Otherwise, a Woman Would Credit for Her Work

The part of Sanders in this election will apparently be played by Christopher Lloyd.


* In this case, people typically claim that she couldn't have written the first computer program since there were no computer languages yet, something which is technically true because she invented computer programming-- but only if you also pretend that math is not a programming language. 

*2 He has done this at least twice in the last six months on the campaign trail, as well as having done so repeatedly over the last decade. While he has walked back his most recent iteration of using the word "distraction" to denote "women's issues," his repeated use of this language, his "agree-to-disagree" stance on abortion rights, and his failure to incorporate more than a few women's issues into his campaign denote that he actually believes that women's issues are a distraction. This is in line with Marxism, which treats class as the one form of oppression, that when fixed will magically solve racism, sexism, religionism, etc. It is also in line with Brocialism, which treats class as the only oppression that matters because it applies to able-bodied, straight, masculine white dudes like Brocialists.

*3 For those now fuming because they occasionally disagree with Clinton, "good" is different than "perfect," and I defined "good decision maker" as one who changes their mind when presented with new information. There is no such thing as a perfect decision maker. 

*4 While Sanders has walked back this recent attack also, stating that she is "resume qualified" to be President, this is not a new claim from the Sanders camp. For months, Sanders supporters have been claiming that having a vagina isn't a job qualification and they would support a woman "if she were qualified, which Clinton is not." That's why I wrote this. They've even told me that they would vote for a qualified woman "like Warren," but can't support an unqualified woman like Clinton. Clinton is far better qualified than Warren or Sanders. You don't get to change the definition of "qualified" to "agrees with me" and expect other people to accept that definition. And no, they wouldn't vote for Warren over Sanders; they'd be reciting Sanders' gendered attacks against Warren just like they're reciting his gendered attacks against Clinton. Because that's what happens when women run for office, especially against Sanders.

Let's Ask Science: Is It Sexist for Sanders to Interrupt Clinton? Part 2

CNN featured a guest article today reviewing the debating skills of the candidates based on last night's debate, which the author determined that Clinton "won," partly due to her responses but also due to poor responses by Sanders. This is the first item for which he deducts points:

She still interrupts too much. No improvement there.

She interrupts 1/3 as much as Sanders, which is too much, but Sanders' interruption rate is not mentioned, presumably because it's fine when he does it. The article also lists a time that Sanders tried to interrupt, without mentioning the attempt.

Per Wonkette:

the only time the candidates stopped doing Interrupting Cow to EACH OTHER was when they would lock arms and do it AT THE ANCHORS IN UNISON.

Sanders also falsely accused Clinton of not answering the question on four occasions, while repeatedly refusing to answer the questions.

Interrupting: only bad when the lady does it.*

*Unless you are a feminist website, in which case you don't use a gendered view of interruption.

Allergy Update-- April's Not Fooling

The February run of cortisone was a rousing success (pun intended). The brain fog lifted and I no longer felt tired all the time. I was able to accomplish much more. On top of that, my "chapped Eustachian tubes" completely cleared up* and music is so beautiful again. I swear that I digested food better. One day, I took a shower and didn't put cortisone on my face, and I didn't realize it until the next day when I was about to go outside. I am usually reminded (via itchiness) to put on layer 1 (prescription cream) within 30 minutes and layer 2 (prescription moisturizer) within 60; then I itch for few more hours. On top of that, my thyroid started working again, proving that my immune system is the problem there too.

My point is, it was lovely and I hope to continue using it in the future, even though I'm aware of the side-effects. (I'm hoping that an additional diagnosis or two will push me into a semi-permanent cortisone zone. Who needs a rampaging blind Godzilla immune system? A rampaging blind Godzuki immune system is more my speed. Also, bones? Who needs bones?) My urgent care doctor even found the one that seemed to have the least corn and I think he must be right! Those pills were tiny for their dose.

No one needs you, Bones.

I thought that was Bad Allergy Season starting back then but I was wrong. I hadn't survived Bad Allergy Season on cortisone. I headed into Bad Allergy Season in late March.

I'm currently in Baton Rouge, home of many trees and bushes that want to kill me, this year's number 15 worst allergy city. There's a ligustrum hedge outside Whole Foods. Cars are bright green with Oak spew.

I can't go outside during the day. I try to not go out at night either. We keep the doors and windows closed. Even with that, I'm exhausted. I can't think. I have 6 blog posts in progress and I can't even work on them; I can't even read news online. My skin is swollen and it tingles everywhere. I'm cold all the time. On Wednesday, while on cortisone, I had the worst asthma attack of my life-- the first one where I felt panicked because I couldn't breathe. But Thursday was the last day of cortisone and I need to get back on it ASAP.

Left: EoE; Right: normal.

While all of those issues are important and need to be handled, there's a bigger problem that my throat has been swollen since last night. It's "minor" swelling in that it doesn't constrict my airway and thus isn't life threatening. My allergist wants me tested for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). And true to EoE symptoms, I'm not eating.

When my throat is swollen, pills and food get stuck in it. This is probably contributory to my "neurotic chewing," a process by which I liquify food before I eat it. I even chew pudding and plain yogurt; I know that there's nothing in there to be chewed but I have to verify. As for pills, it's not just large pills that get stuck on the way down. Small pills, especially ones with corners, also get stuck, so if I have to take a pill that I cut in half first, it's more likely to get stuck than if I hadn't cut it in half. Also, they're pokey. There's something about having something sharpish stuck in my throat when it's swollen and pre-irritated that I really dislike. Silly me.

Swallowing seems like more trouble than it's worth. I was able to eat ice cream last night but today I can't even motivate myself to do that. There's yogurt in the fridge. There's fresh, soft, cold fruit that I'm not allergic to. I'm not interested. Dishing out ice cream seems like it would be strenuous.

So I'm just sitting on the couch, watching a cheesy Hart to Hart movie marathon, with the current iteration taking place in San Francisco. I want to be back in San Francisco. I want to be well. I want to go back to the way that my life is supposed to be. I want to be able to go outside and maybe even eat out. I want to think again and be useful. I would happily deal with the long term side effects of cortisone if it meant that I could consistently think and eat and be useful.

I want to be able to eat the delivery food that's going to show up soon but it won't happen. I'll be lucky if I manage ice cream today even though it's yummy and soothing.

I'll just be sitting here, gargling Benadryl and shooting cortisone spray into my throat, wishing that my life could be normal. And wishing that I was capable of finishing those blog posts because I have things to say.

* Thanks entire Kaiser SF Ear Nose and Throat department for backing the ENT that said that instead of cortisone, I should stop all allergy medicines to induce post nasal drip. Since I couldn't do that without dying (not of the sinus infection that I'd have after 3 days), I'd just have to hope it cleared up-- even though they knew that not fixing it would keep me from using my CPAP. And even though I said "saliva doesn't help my chapped lips. Why would post nasal drip help my chapped throat? There's liquid in my Eustachian tubes that's clearly not helping. How is more liquid going to help?" Twelve years and it turns out that I was right all along. I don't think this is how cortisone rage is supposed to work, but CORTISONE RAGE anyway.