You have an MD and board certification in otolaryngology. You do not have an AuD, a CCC-A, an MS-Aud, certification by the ABAud, or any other audiological certification.

So when I tell you that I am a cochlear implant candidate; that my SRTs are 90 dB and above; and that I can't understand you very well when you have your back to me, perhaps you should assume that my clear speech and my receptive capabilities are due to a progressive loss; good lip reading; and a clearly defined context within which our conversation is contained. As opposed to, y'know, asking when I last saw an audiologist (duh - the candidacy thing, remember?), if I'm sure I have a severe to profound hearing loss, and whether I can understand speech with my hearing aids out.

You may not have the certifications I mentioned above, but you should at least know that much if you're going to be an ENT (and lecture on the topic at Harvard med school).

Our Attorney General is a lunatic.

Summary of the CSPAN clip:
Gonzalez: The Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus.
Specter: WTF? The Constitution says you can't suspend it except in case of invasion or rebellion. That's pretty much the same thing, yeah?
Gonzalez: No, no, it says you can't suspend it. It doesn't say anyone has it to begin with.

Shorter version:
"I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you, really! I'm totally an inch away from you. Ok, now I'm almost touching you, but it's not actually you, it's your clothes. I'm still not touching you!"

Only thing missing is the inevitable *SMACK* that ends the whole situation.

The 'Because Slashing Your Tires Would Be Counterproductive' Act of 2007

A BILL

To amend Chapter 89 of the General Laws of Massachusetts to provide that the obstruction of accessible routes shall carry a civil penalty.

Section 1: SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the "Dude, If I Had a Nickel for Every Time ... Act of 2007".


Section 2: FINDINGS
The Massachusetts Legislature finds the following:

1. Coming up to a crosswalk and finding that it is blocked by a motor vehicle is irritating.
2. Crossing the street and discovering that the crosswalk on that side is blocked, but the light has changed, is dangerous.
3. People are idiots.
   

Section 3: OBSTRUCTION OF PATHWAYS
The Massachusetts General Law (Chapter 89) is amended by inserting after section 11 the following new section:

(a) Prohibited acts:
It shall be illegal for any motor vehicle to park or otherwise stop a car for any period of time in such a way that it obstructs a curb cut, ramp, handicapped parking place, elevator, or the ramp or lift of a motor vehicle adapted for the use of disabled persons. Building entrances shall also be covered by this part, when they are the only accessible entrance to said building within 200ft, or when the other accessible entrances within that range are similarly blocked. (Note: under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a temporarily broken or otherwise unusable entrance is not considered accessible.)

(b) Penalties:

1. An attended vehicle shall be subject to a fine of not less that 25 and not more than 100 dollars, at the discretion of the ticketing official.
2. An unattended vehicle shall be subject to a minimum fine of 125 or the fine for parking in a handicapped accessible parking place, whichever is greater.
3. The ticketing official may, at their discretion, require a court appearance by a repeat offender. In such a case, the fine shall be determined by the judge, not to exceed 1000 dollars.
4. Whining and excuses raise the fine by $10, not to exceed the maximum allowable fine.
5. All fines collected through the enforcement of this Act shall be placed in a fund described in (c).
   

(c) Accessibility Comes Concomitant to Enhanced Spending and Support (ACCESS) Fund

1. Monies collected as described in (b) shall placed in the ACCESS Fund, to be administered by the Massachusetts Office on Disabilities.
2. At least 50% of the contents of the ACCESS Fund shall be used to provide for better accessibility in Massachusetts. The remainder may be used to publicize this act and the motivations for it.
3. Included in (2) are infrastructure modifications, tax credits for private entities that improve accessibility, training, and services (including interpreting and other aid services).
   

Section 4: This Act shall go into effect January 1, 2008.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Babylon 5, Season 4, Episode 2
Delenn: "If he's dead ... then my soul will join him, even if I cannot. As I promised him long ago, I will see him again in the place where no Shadows fall."

1984, by George Orwell:
“There are a couple of minutes before you need go,” said O'Brien. “We shall meet again — if we do meet again—”
Winston looked up at him. “In the place where there is no darkness?” he said hesitantly.
O'Brien nodded without appearance of surprise. “In the place where there is no darkness,” he said, as though he had recognized the allusion. [This is a reference to a dream Winston has earlier in the book, I believe.]


I wonder if the parallel is intentional. Obviously Delenn is quite a different character from O'Brien, but within the context of the Earth Alliance/Babylon 5 rebellion plot arc, I think there are several allusions to 1984 in the series. This allusion - if it is one - would be outside of that context.

The Hypocritic Oath.

The lab I'm working in is such a cool place. Mmm, and Uno's deep dish at large meetings. Then I discovered the piece de resistance: we have a foldout couch in the lab (there's a bunch of ... enhanced ... furniture here, since one of the themes of the lab is tech integrated into daily life, so it's not that out of place).

I don't know whether to laugh or be horrified at the idea that people occasionally crash here.

I saw a new audiologist yesterday - one who specializes in cochlear implants. We did testing of a different sort - normally, my audiograms have been based on pure tones, with and without noise, and what's called a "closed set" - a set of words that you know in advance and have to repeat back. Although we did that briefly, we also did some more detailed testing with my hearing aids on - identifying individual words as well as sentences, with and without noise, but with no context. I believe it's called the HINT.

With no background noise, I score about 30%. Since I lip read probably 30% of what I 'hear', the rest is made up for with context, bluffing, and repetition - that's a big difference. Bringing the volume up to about 60 dB, which is where I hear pure tones with my aids, I get closer to 70%, which is pretty decent. This means that I'd probably score 70+% on that same test with an implant, which would be a big improvement, and means I'm a cochlear candidate; FDA guidelines say 30%, and the implantation center I'm talking to has 50% as their recommendation for getting an implant.

The whole infection thing still needs to be discussed, but I don't think that will be an issue. Assuming all goes well, I'll get an MRI and possibly a CT scan of my skull and inner ear, do more audiologic testing (to determine which side to implant - the implantation destroys the hearing on that side, so this is important), and then we're looking at surgery in late May. About 10 days later, I could be hooked up for the first time. My history of hearing is pretty optimal for an implant - I'm used to sound, so I don't have to relearn that, and I don't have to learn to hear and learn (spoken) English at the same time. There may be a period where I can't comprehend speech with the implant alone, although I will be able to wear my hearing aid on the other side, and that period could be anywhere from a few days to a couple of months. They recommend weekly auditory therapy for a few months after implantation, but that could even be done back at school.

The two big companies that manufacture implants are Cochlear, which makes the Nucleus Freedom, and Advanced Bionics, which makes the Harmony 120 (there's a third company, Med-El, but they're mostly used in Europe, and the center I'm talking to doesn't work with them right now). From what I've read, they're pretty equivalent; either one is a safe choice. So the decision depends mostly on features. Going through the brochures and DVDs now, it looks like both companies are focusing mostly on people with no experience of hearing loss - seniors and parents of very young children - so there's a lot of emphasis on the whole "hearing again" and "rejoining society" thing. Almost makes me understand why some Deafies find the whole thing so offensive ... almost. And of course, marketing is marketing - but I think I have a bookmark around here somewhere with a fairly neutral comparison of the two companies' products, and I have some acquaintances with implants who I can ask for information. Either way, this will be very interesting.