On A Platter

Two weeks ago, I received an email from the two faculty members who are in charge of my current academic class block (we call them committees, for some reason). They're nice people, but the first few lines of the email set the tone for the course:

Dear Year II Students,

Welcome to the 2006 Nervous System Section of the Nervous System/Mind Committee. This memo may help you navigate the course, and most importantly, focus the use of your valuable time most efficiently.

If you don’t read any of this memo, please understand the following:
• Neuroanatomy is time consuming. Very time consuming. Respect that.
• There is only one exam. If you don’t keep up, your butt will be handed to you on a platter. Did we mention that you are expected to know neuroanatomy on the exam?
• (etc., etc., etc.)

The email continued for a couple pages, but those first few lines really captured the essence of what I'm feeling now: this stuff is hard. Really hard.

Today, after three hours of class and two hours of anatomy dissection lab, I studied straight for 12 hours (exluding some minimal driving time). I read several chapters of a textbook, a few dozen pages of class syllabus, and a few pages of a condensed review book, plus used a "virtual glossary" to understand the 3-dimensional nature of certain brain structures. And a few dozen horizontal, corontal, and sagittal "sections" of brain, mostly on CT or MRI. And I am still having a freakishly hard time understanding the acoustic and vestibular systems.

And, believe it or not, after thinking hard for 95% of my waking hours today, it's hard to concentrate on anything at 2:25am.

Tomorrow is Thursday. Then Friday. Then a three-day weekend.

And the unfortunate part? A three-day weekend just means an extra day to hopefully understand this stuff.

Enough is enough. I'm going to bed.

Mood: semiconscious
Song: "I Want You to Want Me" by Cheap Trick (live version)

Olbermann hits it out of the park

Inspiration. I've been studying for nearly 12 hours straight, and I can barely keep my eyes open. But moments ago I found inspiration.

Keith Olbermann's commentary on Countdown tonight was spectacular. Olbermann spoke about Donald Rumsfeld's comments yesterday to an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City. In short, Rumsfeld stated that anyone who disagreed with the administration on Iraq (more than half of US citizens, mind you) suffered from "moral and intellectual confusion" and was willing to appease "a new type of fascism," clearly referring to the appeasement policies of the Chamberlain government toward Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Olbermann's comments tonight highlight so many things I despise about this administration...maybe I'm just thankful to hear them finally expressed by someone in the media. It's refreshing to hear someone comment clearly on a issue that you feel strongly about, especially when you're well past the point of being able to think.

I'll post the commentary below. You can also find the transcript at MSNBC, but the best idea is to watch the video at Crooks and Liars.

Without much further ado...

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

News from the Rothenberg Political Report

I like what I'm reading:

The national mood remains bleak for Republicans. President George W. Bush’s job performance ratings are terrible, and the public still gives Congress low marks. A majority of Americans continue to tell pollsters that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

That’s a recipe for a GOP disaster, and there is no reason to believe that things will change dramatically between now and Election Day to improve Republican prospects.

At the district level, voters are more critical of Republican incumbents – and supportive of even unknown Democratic candidates – than they usually are at this point in the election cycle. GOP candidates are running behind where they would be in anything approaching a “neutral” year. While some firming of the Republican base is likely over the next ten weeks, that alone may not be enough for the party to retain the House.

Strong fund raising by the DCCC should mean that some Democratic candidates won’t face the huge financial discrepancy that they have in the past, though RNC money should boost the Republican ground game nationally.

To hold the House, Republicans must retain at least a handful of districts that now appear likely to go Democratic, probably by discrediting Democratic challengers and open seat hopefuls. Unlike previous cycles, when the burden was on Democrats to create upsets, the onus is now on the GOP to save at least a handful of seats before Election Day.

Therefore, we are raising our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 8-12 seats to 15-20 seats, which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats – and a majority – in the next House.

With this in mind, I can resume studying neuroanatomy in peace.

For Ze

Scrubbing Bubbles.

They work hard so you don't have to.

(This post is for The Show with Ze Frank. If you don't know what I'm talking about, get with the program!)

I am Neuroanatomy.

Or at least for the next 4 to 6 weeks I am.

I'm cutting out many activities that aren't essential. I'll keep the gym workouts and the Stone Oven trips -- the former for sanity and the latter for studying -- but many other things will have to disappear for a while.

And here we go...

Read Between the Lines

Ralph Horwitz, the dean of my med school, announced yesterday he would resign on September 15th. In December, he will begin a new role as the chair of the department of medicine at Stanford.

Students were decidedly unhappy, especially the first year students who began only weeks ago. I don't blame them -- Dean Horwitz started some pretty major changes here at Case, especially in the curriculum, and many of them started only recently. It's natural for people to feel uncomfortable when a leader makes big promises...and then departs when they're only partially complete. Change is uncomfortable, and change without a leader is even more uncomfortable.

Case has been hit full of drama in the last few months, including the resignation of university president Edward Hundert following increasing deficits (up to $40 million) in the university budget and a vote of no-confidence by the faculty. Horwitz' departure certainly will not help stabilize things around here, at least in the short term.

But I disagree many of the views expressed by other students regarding Horwitz's departure. In the last 24 hours, I've heard students explain that Horwitz left because:

• He was upset with the condition of the university and/or the resources allocated to the School of Medicine.
• He didn't think the new curriculum would work.
• He was sick of hearing people complain about the new curriculum.
• He was sick of being dean, or he wanted to be chair of a department again.
• He wanted a higher salary.
• etc.

Of these ideas, the only one that I think is even somewhat reasonable is the first one. However, there are two reasons why I don't agree with any of these idea. First, when examined individually, the reasons listed above don't make a lot of sense. Second, in the context of Hundert's departure, the recent resignation of several other deans, and comments from Horwitz yesterday afternoon, I think there is a likely alternative reason why Horwitz would leave.

First, let's look at the reasons offered as for Horwitz's departure.

• He was upset with the condition of the university and/or the resources allocated to the School of Medicine. I would say this is probably true, yet I find it doubtful that this would be enough to make Horwitz leave Case. After all, the major budget issues have been resolved, there is a new university president coming in the next few months, etc. And why would he leave right now, just into the start of the academic year, instead of departing in the summer when he wouldn't have to deal with students?
• He didn't think the new curriculum would work. Since the new curriculum was a core piece of Horwitz's plans for the school, it was in his best interest to ensure that it succeeded. If Hortwitz thought the new curriculum wasn't working, it would make sense for him to stay at Case and work on improving it. University administrators, like executives in other industries, gain prestige by and are rewarded for managing complex organizations, making and meeting institutional goals, and successfully developing new projects. Thus, the idea that Horwitz would leave to protect his professional credentials doesn't make any sense. In contrast, departing before the new curriculum is fully in place only dimishes Horwitz's professional standing.
• He was sick of hearing people complain about the new curriculum. Are you serious? Deans of schools work with dozens of different constituencies, and I suspect that most of them are complaining about something at any given time. The idea that a dean would leave his position because of complaints about the curriculum is just ridiculous.
• He was sick of being dean, or he wanted to be chair of a department again. This, too, is a poor reason. It's not like Horwitz took the position of dean without being aware of what the position would entail, and even if this were his reason, I seriously doubt that he would choose to leave at the very start of an academic year. It's possible that Horwitz wants to be a chair again...but why would he take a "demotion" of that sort? After working in that position at Yale for nearly a decade, it's not as if he doesn't have other, more prestigous academic opportunities.
• He's all in it for the money. He wanted a higher salary. You bet. Horwitz leaves his dean position to take a chairmanship position....for the money? I see.

It's clear that I don't believe most of the other reasons for Horwitz's departure. However, his departure marks the fourth resignation of a dean at Case since Hundert's resignation in March.

• On June 21, just two weeks after Hundert resigned, Arts & Sciences dean Mark Turner announced he would resign on July 1. Time as dean: 29 months.
• On July 12, Dean Robert F. Savinell of the Case School of Engineering announced he would resign at the end of the year.
• On July 21, Myron Roomkin announced he would leave the Weatherhead School of Management on August 1. He spent only 21 months as dean.
• Horwitz's announcement came one month later.

It's not unusual for deans to depart when a university president leaves, and this set of resignations seemed to fit that pattern.

Perhaps the thing which most caught my attention, however, was Horwitz's response to my question during his brief Q&A session with students on Monday. When asked to comment on the fact that three deans had resigned since Hundert's departure, he replied "This set of departures will allow the new president of Case to build his or her own leadership team from the ground up." He then added something along the lines of " Sometimes, it's important for a new leader of a university to be allowed to pick individuals who share common goals."

Now, I didn't expect Horwitz to come out and say that the Board of Trustees asked him to resign, but his answer certainly gives the impression that the trustees are trying to clear out top management of the university in preparation for a new president. (Besides, stating publicly that he was asked to resign would merely undercut confidence in the university even more. I was just surprised that Horwitz didn't use the "I want to spend more time with my family" excuse.)

It makes sense from the Board's perspective for two reasons. First, Case has a better chance of getting a recognized, highly qualified president if that individual will have an opportunity to bring in individuals who they prefer to work with. Similarly, after going through two presidents in five years, the Board wants to make sure that the president they select will remain. Any deans who were seen as combative, ineffective, or difficult to work with would therefore make the Board's task of retaining a president even more diffcult (Turner, Roomkin, and Horwitz had all been described as such). And perhaps most importantly, at least from the Board's perspective, they had all been appointed by Hundert. Out with the old, in with the new.

So, on that note, I will add that this blog has once again achieved its intended purpose. I can whine about whatever issue is bothering me, and the only thing that has to listen is the giant anonymous Internet void. No irritated friends, no lengthy arguments, etc.

On a completely unrelated note, I got new contacts today and had my pupils dilated as part of my eye exam. So now I can't focus on anything closer to my face than at least 2 feet. Reading a book is certainly out of the question. So....now what do I do? Maybe a nap is in order.

In the zone

When I started the second year of med school three weeks ago, I was slightly anxious about the return to classes. While first year wasn't exactly easy, I had heard from several people that second year would prove to be a much greater challenge -- specifically, integrating "all" the material I've learned so far.

While I'm not counting my chickens yet, I feel optimistic about this year. I'm being more productive than I was last year, I'm remembering more material, and I'm starting to make connections between concepts in different topic areas. (Yes, there are confounders to this, namely the facts that I'm well rested, our current class block is relatively easy, and we're not required to do dozens of other activities such as CPCP or PD yet.) And even though the boards are only six months away, I feel like I can make it through the academic sprint of the next 180 days.

On that note, I'll end this post and get back to the review books. Another day or two of solid studying and I'll be done with GI.

Mood: calm
Song: Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Snow (Hey Oh)" and Fleetwood Mac, "Never Going Back Again"

An Awkward Conversation

While studying this afternoon at a local cafe, I stood up from my table and walked to the service counter to get a beverage. While the server/employee was getting my drink, I glanced down at the copy of the Plain Dealer. When the person returned, she looked down at the paper and asked I'd heard about that crazy movie "with Samuel L. Jackson on the airplane."

Me: Snakes on a plane?

Cafe Server: Yeah, that one. Did you see this review?

Me: No, I didn't see the review, but I did see it at the theater last night.

**pause**

CS: Really?

Me: Yeah.

CS: How was it?

Me: Entertaining, but in that campy, B-movie style way. I mean, even the movie doens't take itself seriously.

CS: What is it about? I mean, is it like, terrorists on a plane? Is the title just a metaphor for terrorism?

**pause**

Me: Um, no, not at all. The plot, if you can call it that, is based on having hundreds of snakes -- you know, reptiles -- released on a passenger flight over the Pacific.

**pause**

CS: Why?

Me: Supposedly to kill a government witness who is going to testify against some mobster guy.

CS: And why exactly are they using the snake approach?

At this point, two other employees had walked out and were listening to the conversation. While I could have explained the entire plot in another 15 seconds, I offered just a few references to the newspaper review, picked up my drink, and tried to extract myself from the situation. Realizing that they couldn't exactly force the customer to keep talking, they continued the discussion amongst themselves. As I was walking back to my table, though, I heard one of them pick up the paper:

CS: "This review says, quote, 'It is a rare example of a film not just living up to the hype, but surpassing it. And it is the best time you will have at the movies all summer, if not all year.' I still don't know what it's about, but maybe that's part of the fun.

CS #2: "So you're going to see it?"

CS: "Yeah, probably. I just hope it's not too serious...this has been a long week, and I need something fun. Maybe this will do the trick."

Not too serious? I think she's in luck.

SoaP

I just got back from the 10:00pm night-before-the-actual-release showing of Snakes on a Plane.

The verdict? Pure cinematic genius.

I'm not saying the movie is good. But it was the most entertaining event I've been to in many months. And at least 10-15% of my med school class was also in attendance. :-) At least we have fun when we can.

Snakes on a Blog

Snakes on a Plane doesn't technically open until Friday, but apparently there is a 10pm showing at my local theater tonight (Thursday). Since I bought the shirt and sent calls from Samuel L. Jackson to nearly a quarter of my med school classmates, it's not surprising that I'll be going.

Several of my classmates weren't interested in going to the show because they don't think the movie will be very good. To those people I say: yes, you're entirely correct. Others say that the movie didn't make the Top 10 Reviews for the coming weekend. And I say, yes, the movie wasn't even screened for critics. It's not as if there is any pretense about the film's quality. And still others just think it's strange that I'm interested ("in a cult-like way") in this film. And I have to agree with them. I don't really know why I think SoaP is so funny (although my old roommates and their relentless emails might have something to do with it). But starting another year of med school was a little bit depressing and it was nice to have something ridiculous to laugh about.

Mood: focused. On academics, not the movie. Mostly.
Song: David Gray, "Disappearing World"

Updates

I figured it was time for a change, so I switched to a new template, expanded the sidebar, succumbed to Google's AdSense program (see the toolbar), and added a few new links. Nothing fancy, especially compared to Semisimple, but it's nice to try something different.

Lieberman's Lesson

Josh Marshall's article this afternoon was right on target. Lieberman learned his lesson -- and I'm not talking about election results. I'm referring to Lieberman's explanation for his independent run and how it comes straight out of Bush playbook for the Global War On Terror.

The lesson has three steps. First, say that your values reflect those of the "mainstream voters." Second, insist that anyone who disagrees with you is "out of touch" and dangerous to the country. Third, repeat as necessary.

It's like a mini-version of the Iraq War or the War on Terror. You're either with Joe or you're with the extremists. Apparently half of Connecticut Democrats are outside the mainstream.

This is really the attitude that got poor Joe into this bind.

The mainstream is Joe Lieberman, along with possibly Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol. If you disagree with Joe Lieberman, a disagreement about policy is the least of it. It's a major existential crisis for the Democratic party which risks conquest by unreconstructed leftists, extremists and miscellaneous other freaks.

The idea that Ned Lamont is 'outside the mainstream' on any issue I'm aware of is laughable.

Marshall makes another good point. It's not as if Lieberman is merely saying that he's a competent senator who might be favored by 51% of Connecticut voters in a general election. He's attacking his own (former) party for not agreeing with him, and claims that he needs to run as an Independent to save the party from itself. After all, if Joe didn't believe he was the moral barometer of the Democratic party, I'm not sure what else he would have to do.

As a matter of civics, if Joe Lieberman wants to run as an independent, good for him. If 51% of Connecticut voters want to vote for him, that's democracy. As a Democrat, he should get out of the race now. And every Democrat should tell him to.

If he wants to run as an independent he should and could go to Connecticut voters and say, "A lot of people in my own party disagree with me on this or that issue. But I've served all of Connecticut's citizens for 18 years. And I still think I can be the best senator. So vote for me."

I wouldn't agree with that. But I could respect it.

But he's not. It's all about him and stabbing his own party in the back while he disingenuously pleads that he's trying to save it.

I had forgotten how much I enjoyed Josh Marshall's writing. Apparently he has an article in Time this week about the CT primary results. Good stuff.

Back to studying GI pathology...

No Turning Back!

I just bought my tickets for reunion. A roundtrip trip with nonstop flights, between Cleveland and San Francisco, for barely more than $300? I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this deal. Admittedly, I will miss one more day of school than I had planned for, but I'll save nearly $100 over what I had been expecting and I'll have nearly another full day (arriving at 11am vs. 9pm) of California vacation goodness.

And now it's 2:30 am. And I have class in five and a half hours. It's bedtime. Now.

But at least my plans for reunion are in motion!

Mood: cheerful
Song: David Gray, "Life in Slow Motion"

It's not that much money, really.

April 2003

"Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, this is it. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

-- Andrew Natsios, USAID Administrator

vs.

August 2006

The US has spent $437 billion on Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the war on terror since 2001. The Congressional Research Service estimates conservatively that we might spend another $371 billion on these operations through 2016.

It's too bad this whole thing will cost us 475 times more than expected. So much for fiscal responsibility.

Hello Again

A month since my last post? I suppose that's what summer relaxation/inactivity can do. Have no fear, though...I started classes for my second year of med school today, and one of my new year's resolutions (new academic year, ahem) is to take a few moments each week to convey some of my crazy med school stories here. In part to entertain, mostly to maintain my own sanity.

For now, though, it's back to doing what I do best: video games. Eh, strike that. Studying. Yeah, that's what I do. Something about becoming a licensed professional....

Mood: excited, jittery, optimistic, anxious, adjusting to my first caffeine jitters in over 2 months.
Song: Live, "The Beauty of Gray"