Getting To The Root Of An Extraction, Or Learning Buddhist Non-Attachment To A Tooth

Some of you might know that I have been undergoing several major bits of dental work lately: root canal, cavities, crown, and today an extraction. Essentially, I am paying the cost for my dissipated youth in terms of dental care. I am more machine now, than man, twisted and dental. Etc., etc.

Here I am on the other side . . . of the extraction. As you can see by the subject line, I'm feeling perky enough to make puns in the title. Or maybe that's just the local anesthetic talking, as the upper left 25% of my face is still feeling somewhat frozen. It was an interesting sensation, but it is starting to thaw, and my eye is no longer twitching, which was really just at the very beginning. Kind of entertaining, actually, and I think it made me very good company while Jeff drove me home. This started out as an email to Marina and my mom, but it was amusing me so much even as I typed that I decided turn it into a blog entry.

The whole process was pretty painless. Dr. Scharf had a terrific chairside manner, gave me encouragement all along, and it was done in about half an hour. Although I have to admit, the sight of a defibrillator in the room gave me pause.

The anticipation--or rather dread--in the hour or so before the appointment was worse than the extraction itself. Funny how that works, isn't it?

It is interesting, the change in perspective one gets when one falls in love. Growing up, I neglected to take the proper care of my teeth, despite my parents' best efforts. Then in college, and after college, I always seemed to put it off. Pure vanity, on my part. I knew that there were probably problems, but I didn't want it confirmed. Why would I want to know that I was less than perfect, and that it was my fault?

It's easy to be a bit cowardly about this stuff when you're the only one involved. Once I found Marina, though, and once I knew I wanted to marry her, then it wasn't just about me anymore, was it? That gave me the motivation to bite the bullet, so to speak, and start taking care of these problems. An investment in the future.

So for that, as with everything, thank you, Marina.

From The Papers: An Amateur's Reaction To Politics

So, the Chronicle this morning carried an article stating that interim Mayor Ed Lee is most likely going to announce that he will, in fact, run for a full term. This comes on the heels of a very visible 'Run, Ed, Run' campaign--think 'Run Lola Run' but without the funky German techno-soundtrack, although both Lola and Ed have distinctive hair, Lola on top of her head, and Ed on his upper lip.

The reason for the campaign is that when Ed Lee accepted the position of interim mayor when Gavin Newsom emigrated to Sacramento as Lt. Governor, he said he would not run for the full term. This apparently helped secure him some support on the Board of Supervisors, several of whom are now planning to run themselves.

Let's assume that the promise not to run was sincere at the time, and not an example of the old bait-and-switch. The fact that he has changed his mind is controversial. Or at least it is controversial among those who are running for mayor against him. Supervisor David Chiu is quoted as saying, "Our successes this year have been based on trust, and many San Franciscans share the widespread disappointment that Ed Lee has broken his promise to our city."

Widespread disappointment? I want names of those disappointed. I have not seen anybody worrying, wailing, or gnashing their teeth over this. I like a lot of what I know about David Chiu, but this seems like sour grapes to me.

So he changed his mind. Who cares? He still has to run. He still has to be elected, and the reports I have seen during his interim stint show that he has been productive and beneficial to the city. How dare he want to continue if he thinks he can do good work? I'm more bothered by the fact that the 'Run, Ed, Run' campaign was apparently run by people with links to former Mayor Willie Brown and Rose Pak, the head of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce excludes practitioners of the Falun Gong from cultural events. I didn't directly experience Willie Brown as mayor, but his column in the Chronicle strikes me as smug and self-aggrandizing. Lee says he has no involvement with the 'Run, Ed, Run' group.

The promise not to run seems irrelevant to me. It reminds me of a somewhat petty dispute among friends of mine one time, where Female Friend A made Female Friend B promise not to date Male Friend C, even though Male Friend C would have driven Female Friend A crazy if they had ever dated, which they never did. Female Friend B made such a promise, but later did date Male Friend C for a time. Outrage? Hardly. Maybe Female Friend B shouldn't have made such a promise, because things change, such as with Ed Lee's perspective on the mayoral race. But Female Friend A shouldn't have asked her to make that promise, because that promise is silly.

For people to get their feathers ruffled over Ed Lee deciding to run after all is a waste of time and energy. There are more important matters. Let the voters decide if Ed Lee should be mayor, or if one of the other candidates can present themselves as a better option.

Random Comforts

Debt limit crisis, more casualties in Afghanistan, economic worries, China criticizing our economic sensibilities. There's a lot to feel unsettled about today. None of which I can solve by snapping my fingers, so instead, I'll write some things that make me happy today:

1) Getting up early on a foggy Sunday. In particular, a Sunday when I don't have to work on Monday. Sometimes I enjoy sleeping in on the weekend, but today I was revved up to start the day. I washed some dishes, bought doughnuts and the paper, brewed coffee, scrambled some eggs, and settled down to breakfast before 8:30. By nine, I had written a blog entry that I enjoyed. By ten, I had started laundry. A nice morning.

2) George R. R. Martin finally getting the book done. I'm working my way slowly through A Dance With Dragons, enjoying every minute after a wait of five years. At this rate, HBO might have to stretch out some of the books to keep Game of Thrones going without hiatus before the final two books come out, but it would be totally worth it.

3) Not working on Monday. Sure, I have to have a tooth extracted at 1:30, but I will have the morning to myself, and it is always a strangely cozy feel to go get coffee and a bagel and watch other people hurrying off to work.

That's enough to go on for now.

Hackers: Information Freedom Fighters Or Destructive Egotists?

Freedom of Information: free access to it, the ability to disseminate it for free. It's a basic concept, sometimes irregularly applied, sometimes controversial, but at the heart of what makes this country, and democracy in all forms, worth appreciating despite myriad blemishes.

This question is complicated in the Internet Age, with the rise to prominence of organizations like Wikileaks, LulzSec, and Anonymous. The latter is a hacker coalition that, it is reported in today's paper, hacked into US police websites and posted data, with the intent to 'embarrass, discredit and incriminate police officers across the US."

Are there probably some bits of corruption in law enforcement, some officers who maybe shouldn't be in a position of power, some things that public should know? Certainly, just as there are corrupt hackers, identity thieves, people in corporations who do bad things. Just as there are hackers who are benevolent, who are dedicated to countering identity thieves and helping stop viruses; just as there are law enforcement officers who are committed to doing the right thing.

Where secrecy reigns, such as in Syria, where communication with the town of Hama is being limited, and where an American I know who was teaching in Syria had his activities monitored, a despotic government is killing innocent people. This is where Twitter and Facebook and other media served a good purpose in the Arab Spring; it is harder for governments to get away with bad things when the rest of the world is watching. This is why Wikileaks and other hacker groups who can get access to information despite obstacles can be strong defenders of the principle of freedom of information.

But there is a fine line between being a freedom fighter and just being an asshole. This group Anonymous apparently posted police data regarding ongoing investigations. This could impact law enforcement's ability to do what they are supposed to do, i.e., enforcing the law, serving and protecting, etc. Say what you will about the corruption of law enforcement, that does not justify throwing extra obstacles in their path. That logic just doesn't work: they aren't out to protect us, there are some bad apples in the barrel, so let's mess up their ability to work to protect us.

So maybe, you would argue, this was unintentional. They were just so devoted to the principle of freedom of information that they didn't sift through the data first to judge what should and should not be posted. Maybe. But they also posted five credit card numbers they used to make 'involuntary donations.' They stole money from the police. Guess who pays those credit card bills for the police?

This is essentially the same issue as I found with last month's protest at a BART station. In that protest, I'm sure the bulk of the protesters were sincere in wanting to draw attention to the issue of police violence. It takes courage to speak up when you see abuses of power. However, as I said before, there was collateral damage to the lives of ordinary people that could have been avoided, and I would suspect that many of the protesters were in it for the surge of adrenaline, for feeling like they could make a lot of noise and yell at people and just cause a disruption.

With an issue like Freedom of Information, there must be some selectivity. Regardless of notions of what constitutes national security--a notoriously vague notion rife with conflicting special interest--there is the question of individual privacy, which is a value just as much at the heart of our strength. Is that a contradiction, trying to balance the value of privacy with the value of free information? As Walt Whitman would say, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes."

There is a key distinction between whether you can do something and whether you should. Principles are subject to context; if you are going to say you are trying to eradicate corruption, don't do it while damaging the people you say you are protecting. Otherwise, it becomes clear that you are just an asshole showing off what you can do.