It That Gastroscopy Time Again...Yuck!
Well my fans and foes (smile), I've been a bit busy with Graduate School starting up again, so it's been a challenge to get into blogging of late. Also, I have a wonderful procedure today which will wipe me out for a while call the Gastroscopy, where they send a scope down my esophagus to view my hiatal valve and look for ulcers and such inside my stomach. I wonder if they'll find any grafitti down there?
So for the time being, I'll be out of it. Anyway, I haven't been following the news much on radio or TV; I'm extremely bored with it. And, for that matter, the Sophistry hasn't changed at all. As a matter of fact, Sophistry hasn't changed in over 2500 years.
Well, time for my gag fest. See you in a couple of days. One thing I will be watching is this Iran thing. I'm very concerned. What do you all think?
posted by Underground Logician @ 9:17 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
My best friend just had that done. She was scoped from both angles. She actually didn't think it was all that bad... But then, she's had babies.
Ewww. Spammers. Get the Raid.
UL,
Good wishes being sent your way.
Thanks, Shaw!
There! Spam no more!
UL, relax, things will go easier. Hope you are on the upswing soon.
ha ha. at first glance, i thought shaw wrote: "Good wishes on being sent away." that would have been something.
UL,
Hope all's well. Just found this in today's NY Times (1/30/06). Is he one of your professsors?
To the Editor:
Re Bob Herbert's column:
It is not just the president who is ethically challenged. Our government and citizenry are failing Ethics 101 as they show no awareness of the definition of a lie, and the maxim that a good end does not justify any and every means.
A liar is someone who denies the truth to someone who has a right to it.
Those who gave misinformation to the Nazis to protect Anne Frank and her family were not liars: they were denying the truth to those who had no moral right to it. Candidates for the Supreme Court are now routinely expected to be liars as they deny the truth about their intentions on issues where citizens have a moral right to be informed.
Lubricious terms like "war on terror" and "confidentiality" have become the "ends" that justify any "means," even violations of law and the Constitution.
The broad absence of popular outrage testifies to the general acceptance of these rudimentary ethical errors.
Daniel C. Maguire
Milwaukee, Jan. 26, 2006
The writer is a professor of ethics at Marquette University.
Shaw:
No, not yet. He's in my department and I know little of him. As to his statement, he seems to be a good ethicist just not a good constitutionalist. But who am I, but a little ol' grad student?
hey, underground.
just so you know, there's something funky with the comments link on your latest post (about moral relativism).
maybe it's just me. i'll try back later.
Post a Comment
<< Home