While I'm not an old person by age, my body is somewhat older than my chronological age. I've suffered from hypertension since I was a teenager, and refused to have it treated until my mid-20s (simply because only old people would have such a disease, right?).
Since then, I've been prescribed a medicine cabinet of anti-hypertension medications. The thing about these drugs is they do have side-effects. Today I was reminded of one side-effect if you fail to take one of your pills. In downing my grandma-sized handful of pills this morning, I unknowingly dropped a pill on the floor. It turned out that pill was a beta-blocker. By 3PM I was out of my mind, a heart rate of 100+/minute, and lightheadedness.
Luckily, a bought of collective sanity allowed me to deduce that I must have not taken one of my pills this morning. Returning to the location of my pill dispenser, I spied a white pill on the floor; it was the culprit! I went ahead and took it, because I couldn't imagine a night spent in that shape. My heart pounding out of my chest and my ears ringing were enough to set my mind.
Some people say they don't notice when they miss a dose of their blood pressure meds, but, unlike them, I certainly know when I've missed a dose!
Now with almost 30 minutes passed since I took my little white pill--and a resting heart rate safely in the 70s (and still falling)--I feel much more at ease and calm.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Wednesday, July 06, 2016
Brexit & Royal Assent
As most of the world is aware by now, the United Kingdom voted in June to exit from the European Union.
While the vote is guidance for Parliament, the actual act of exiting the European Union (by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty) formally has not started by the House of Commons.
I wonder if Parliament passes a bill "activating" Article 50 by petitioning the European Council, what measures could be taken inside the UK to prevent the formal exit request?
In 1707, Queen Anne was the last British monarch to refuse royal assent to a bill of Parliament. Accordingly, the monarch has the constitutional authority to refuse royal assent (veto). By this way, could Queen Elizabeth II save her nation from potentially losing Scotland and Northern Ireland?
While the vote is guidance for Parliament, the actual act of exiting the European Union (by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty) formally has not started by the House of Commons.
I wonder if Parliament passes a bill "activating" Article 50 by petitioning the European Council, what measures could be taken inside the UK to prevent the formal exit request?
In 1707, Queen Anne was the last British monarch to refuse royal assent to a bill of Parliament. Accordingly, the monarch has the constitutional authority to refuse royal assent (veto). By this way, could Queen Elizabeth II save her nation from potentially losing Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Monday, February 15, 2016
Supreme Court Exposed
The sudden death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has dealt a gut punch to the Republican Party. It is something they couldn't wait minutes before announcing that President Obama cannot replace him on the nation's highest court. Why? Because he's a lame duck. Didn't Ronald Reagan nominate Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court when he was a lame duck? (Let's check the record.)
I find that ironic, since Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution enumerates that it is the president's expressed power to nominate Supreme Court justices (how about that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)?). Of course, that is with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, by way of Alabama), is sure that he can mire any Obama nominee in senatorial minutiae, until Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president on January 20, 2017. (Wouldn't that be ironic and just desserts?)
Until then, the U.S. Supreme Court may divided in its votes on important court issues facing it, with only eight members. In such a case, the court could be divided by series of 4-to-4 votes.
On another note, why would a sitting United States Supreme Court justice be visiting a luxury Texas hunting lodge (or ranch) with people flying in on private jets? That seems like a prime recipe for ex-parte discussions about cases that may be facing the court. Republicans, however, may argue that since he was an appointment of Ronald Reagan, he is immune from such impunity.
I find that ironic, since Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution enumerates that it is the president's expressed power to nominate Supreme Court justices (how about that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)?). Of course, that is with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, by way of Alabama), is sure that he can mire any Obama nominee in senatorial minutiae, until Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president on January 20, 2017. (Wouldn't that be ironic and just desserts?)
Until then, the U.S. Supreme Court may divided in its votes on important court issues facing it, with only eight members. In such a case, the court could be divided by series of 4-to-4 votes.
On another note, why would a sitting United States Supreme Court justice be visiting a luxury Texas hunting lodge (or ranch) with people flying in on private jets? That seems like a prime recipe for ex-parte discussions about cases that may be facing the court. Republicans, however, may argue that since he was an appointment of Ronald Reagan, he is immune from such impunity.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Ben Carson Second Opinion
While watching tonight's Republican debate, if I had had an operation by Dr. Ben Carson I'd probably go in for a follow-up and second opinion. I'm not sure that guy is stable.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead
It would appear as if one of the Republicans' worst nightmares has come true. President Obama gets to add a liberal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the passing of Justice Scalia today in Texas. The passing of Scalia leaves only Justice Anthony Kennedy to carry on the Reagan-era legacy of the Supreme Court.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
America's First Prime Minister?
Donald Trump is right about Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). (I also asked this question some time before.)
Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada...not the United States. While his mother was born in the United States, his father was born in Cuba. He asserts that his mother is enough to cover the "natural born" citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution. I think the Constitution is rather clear on this issue. It would be up to the Supreme Court of the United States to finalize the position.
In 2008, the United States Senate, however, passed a resolution to give Senator John McCain (R-AZ) the status of natural born citizen, since he was born outside the United States, while his father was on active military service in Panama. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that the Senate would not consider a similar resolution for Ted Cruz.
What's that all aboot, eh?
Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada...not the United States. While his mother was born in the United States, his father was born in Cuba. He asserts that his mother is enough to cover the "natural born" citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution. I think the Constitution is rather clear on this issue. It would be up to the Supreme Court of the United States to finalize the position.
In 2008, the United States Senate, however, passed a resolution to give Senator John McCain (R-AZ) the status of natural born citizen, since he was born outside the United States, while his father was on active military service in Panama. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that the Senate would not consider a similar resolution for Ted Cruz.
What's that all aboot, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)