Eccentric Flower talk:201102/Very Little Surplus

Jette:

The minute I saw "migraine" I felt so, so sorry for you. At this point I have to accept them as part of my life like a chronic disease; I have no clear and avoidable triggers (except the ones I'm already avoiding, like red wine and caffeine). At least you've found three, so that's good.

Ibuprofen is a good choice for migraines because it doesn't cause rebound headaches. Or so my doctor tells me. She also says you can take up to four at once for a migraine, and the idea is that this also helps prevent more migraines. The gel caps are nice because they work fairly quickly. You do want to take them with food to avoid other problems later.

-- 16:57, 8 February 2011 (GMT)

Columbina:

I find that when I recognize the symptoms of one coming, a preemptive dose of ibuprofen will reduce their severity or even stave it off entirely. However, I feel guilty every time I do this.

-- 17:14, 8 February 2011 (GMT)

Joy:

I had a dream about you a couple of nights ago. I wish I remembered any of the details - all I know is that you were in it, and whatever it was about made me feel happy for your friendship when I woke up.

BTW, I will be in town for a conference late July. Hoping to take guppy and the kids to a CT grandparent vacation at the same time, and maybe head up to Boston with wife to combine the conference and so fun. I'll let you know.

-- 17:24, 8 February 2011 (GMT)

Bunny42:

I so wish I could bring myself to mess with Twitter. It's obvious I'm missing things by being a Luddite.

Dunno what I'd do without Advil Gel Caps. I try not to use them too often, but there are times when nothing else will do, for me, anyway. I've never tried Aleve, because if it doesn't happen to work, I'll have to wait 8 hours before taking it again or trying something else.

You should be allowed to prop up a sheet of pasteboard or something, to block the glare until the snow melts. Seems to me they'd rather have you working at your best, than object to blocking the glare temporarily.

-- 23:03, 8 February 2011 (GMT)

ProfRobert:

Bunny, Aleve is interesting. I get much more of a quick fix from ibuprofen, but naproxen is good if you can wait a day for it to build up in your bloodstream. The chiropractor I saw a few years ago for my back recommended it over ibuprofen. So I use that for headaches or snow-shovelling soreness, but naproxen for a pulled back or neck muscle.

-- 02:23, 9 February 2011 (GMT)

ProfRobert:

Didn't realize the VRA article was so short. Here's my take: Preclearance is patently constitutional. Congress's power to regulate under the 15th Amendment is plenary, and I would imagine, subject only to the rational basis test. It's black-letter rule of construction that later amendments trump earlier ones. Thus, the 10th Amendment is irrelevant for 15th Amendment jurisprudence purposes. If that weren't true, then for example, courts would have to try to harmonize the 18th and 21st Amendments (which respectively created and eliminated Prohibition). The Supreme Court has used this analysis to state that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause abrogates the 11th Amendment's prohibition on damage actions against states in federal court -- if Congress explicitly says so in a specific piece of legislation.

The remedy, if one be needed, for any unnecesssary overreaching in the VRA is for Congress to amend it.

(An aside: The doctrine regarding the effects of later constitutional amendments on earlier ones can produce some potentially odd results. For example, the 21st Amendment gives states to power basically to do whatever they want when it comes to regulating the sale of alcohol. Arguably, that grant of power supersedes the states' obligations under the 14th Amendment, so theoretically, you could see a state declare it illegal to sell alcohol to specific races! I doubt this is ever going to come up, but it is an interesting thought experiment.)

-- 17:17, 9 February 2011 (GMT)

Columbina:

I felt the doctrine about later amendments trumping earlier ones was clearly established as well; I just mentioned that to draw you in, because what I REALLY want is your opinion on whether altering the VRA in the way that some of these states want is desirable, and whether they're being whiners (or want to secretly resume discriminatory policies), or whether the oversight has indeed become onerous as they claim. (Obviously I'm just asking for speculation, since neither of us has real data on conditions in the field, as it were.)

-- 17:40, 9 February 2011 (GMT)

Jette:

Rereading this, it occurs to me that "very little surplus" is the biggest problem Chip and I have, both singly and together. By the time we finish a day of office work plus hours of volunteer or freelance work, "fun" becomes a mythical concept.

I feel guilty when I take the Advil for too many days running but apparently it is not really a problem if you take them with food.

-- 17:42, 9 February 2011 (GMT)

ProfRobert:

Whether it's politically desirable, I simply don't know. I don't know what life is like in those districts, and I don't know what the cost of obtaining preclearance is. The comments on the article about gerrymandering are off point: The Constitution doesn't prohibit voting discrimination on the basis of party affliation; it prohibits it on the basis of racial discrimination. So the fact that other states gerrymander for party is irrelevant to whether some states gerrymander for race.

-- 17:56, 9 February 2011 (GMT)