June 26, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Lasik: 3 years later — was it worth it?

It’s been around three years now since I had lasik surgery. Was it worth it?

I had worn glasses since I was ten years old. Too much reading probably. At first, my prescription wasn’t that bad, but as time went on, the glasses got thicker and thicker. By the time I was 40, I needed bifocals. I got the kind without the lines, which really would have bugged me, but bifocals are a headache in and of themselves — if your head isn’t at exactly the right angle, things are out of focus. Lying on the sofa and wanting to watch TV required a few minutes of arranging pillows so I could see everything in focus, and changing positions meant pausing the show to make adjustments.

Then things started getting worse. My eyes couldn’t handle the stress. I would get flashes that stayed for many minutes — you know, how when you look at the sun and then look away and there would be a kind of exposure that stays in your vision? I’d get those for no reason whatsoever. cyclops

The final straw was when I was in court and I started seeing two images. Scariest thing ever. You ever been to the optometrist and your head is against that machine and the doctor shows you two images, one above the other, and says, “Let me know when the images combine into one?” I was seeing two images without that machine!

So it was determined that I really needed to get a lasik operation by everyone except, of course, my insurance company, which called it “elective surgery.”

I was hesitant, of course — it’s my eyes, what if something goes wrong? (Plus I thought I looked good in glasses.)

The surgery itself was really simple. It took five minutes at most. I laid back, they used a q-tip to numb my eyes, and then it was done. I needed a ride home and couldn’t drive for a day or so, but the next morning was amazing. I woke up and could read the clock on the other side of the room for the first time in my adult life. I stayed home from work just in case but I was fine by later that day.

I also remember the first time I went to bed that night after having the surgery, and just as I was about to lay down, reaching up to my face to remove my non-existent glasses. Forty-five years of doing that every day is a hard habit to break.

One difference I noticed was that there was a halo effect around lights at night, especially things like streetlights. My night vision also seemed diminished. This is normal, and I’m not sure if it’s gotten better over time or if I’ve just become used to it.

My eyes were also very dry after the operation and I had to carry around eye drops and put them in every few hours. It gradually got better so that I no longer need to do that.

Still haven’t figured out how to shoot lasers out of my eyes, though. I suppose that comes later.

The operation was expensive but then again, so is buying new glasses every few years, which can really add up.

I still need glasses for reading and using the computer, but I buy them three for ten dollars at the discount store.

Last week, I decided that I should get bifocals again, with a clear top part and a magnified bottom part. face That way, I wouldn’t be whipping off my glasses every time I go between reading something and looking at the person I’m talking to (which happens a lot when you’re a lawyer, as you can imagine). What a mistake. I had forgotten the problems with having to hold your head a specific way. With the bifocals I had to hold my head up and look down my nose to read the computer screen. Fortunately, the eyeglass people were nice and allowed me to return them for a full refund.

So I’m going back to what I learned to do after the surgery — put the glasses down at the end of my nose so that I can see over top of them. Fortunately, I have plenty of nose for that.

It’s frustrating to have to always carry around glasses with me. I have glasses laying all over the house so if I go into the kitchen and need to read cooking instructions on a package, I’ll be ready. (I used to be able to hold those things up to my face to read them, but not any more.) But given all the advantages, this is minor.

So yes, I absolutely recommend it.

June 21, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Editorial cartoon: Superlatives

TMW2017-06-21color

Tom Tomorrow

June 21, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

The Supreme Court, Hate Speech, and the Washington Redskins

The United States Supreme Court just ruled that the government cannot stop someone from getting a trademark on a name that the government considers “hate speech.”

This is an important win for freedom of speech. As I’ve said here many times, the 1st Amendment is meaningless if it only protects speech we all agree with. As the Court held:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend. . .strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

The case involved an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants.” They wanted to trademark their name, but the government said no, you can’t, because it’s hate speech.

This case basically puts an end to the lawsuits against the sports teams with insulting names, such as the Washington Redskins.

Should the Redskins change their name? Absolutely. Should they be forced to do so by the government, making the determination as to what speech is acceptable for us to use? Absolutely not.

Speech we all agree with doesn’t need a 1st Amendment.

The Slants

June 20, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Editorial cartoon: P for Impeachment

Bors

Matt Bors

June 18, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Remembering my Father

It’s Father’s Day

Dad influenced us in many ways without sitting us down and giving us lessons. I can’t remember him ever saying “Now, don’t be a racist” or “It’s important for you to be a responsible person” but we learned by example.

My family around 1977, but with my girlfriend (now wife) Heidi standing next me.

Dad quit his job at Channel 12 to start his own business, and painted signs in the basement of our home, so he was always there. Each of us later went on to start our own businesses, and while we’ve each had our ups and downs, we’ve all become pretty successful at it.

He was also fiercely loyal to Mom, and loved her tremendously and treated her with respect, and that taught us something, too.

He hardly ever drank, except maybe wine on holidays, and none of us grew up thinking we had to drink to have fun. And he always made us laugh.

When Heidi and I started dating, one time we went on a picnic with my family and as we walked through the park, she was astounded to see Mom and Dad holding hands, obviously still in love with each other. “I didn’t know parents did that sort of thing,” she said. Later, my friend Mark Waid said something similar: “The reason kids come over to your house every weekend to hang out is because everyone wants to be a Ventrella. You don’t realize how unusual your family is.”

And that was true — on TV, the family sitcoms all had families basically getting along. But in real life, most of the kids I knew were from broken homes or unhappy homes. I never realized that when I was young.

So here’s to Dad: You did a good job.

June 17, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Editorial cartoon: Too hideous!

19144095_10207851951851475_2533522922543370854_o

Steve Sack

June 16, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Shooters, Background checks, and hypocrites

by guest blogger Mark Waid

First: like everyone with a soul, I condemn the shooting of the Congressmen in Alexandria. It is horrible, it is unacceptable, I wish those wounded the best. I am genuinely sympathetic towards them. Let’s get that out of the way right off the bat.

That said: Mo Brooks.

cartoon by Dan Martin

The victims were, to a one, among the very same representatives who fight tooth and nail against even the slightest, most basic common-sense gun control measures or closing of loopholes, who serve the NRA more faithfully than they do their own constituents, and who throw up their hands (“What’re you gonna do, amirite?”) every time someone dares suggest that maybe, just maybe, an entire nation of reasonably intelligent people might be able to figure out some way to help stop the murders of Sandy Hook children besides, or even simply in addition to, insisting that every civilian be armed at all times. At least one of the Congressmen who was there, Rep. Tom Garrett of Virginia, present on the field, eyewitness to the horror, has since told us that if they’d only been allowed to bring their own guns, they’d have been safer, because everyone knows that the first and most natural thing you do when you take to the diamond is strap on your gun holster. Just remember not to slide.

Yet as incomprehensible as I find these Congressmen’s priorities to be, let’s give them the enormous benefit of the doubt that they really, sincerely do believe that arming everyone regardless of whether or not they’ve had the slightest bit of firearms training truly is the best and only way to fight the problem and not just what the NRA pays them to say. Let’s go wide and assume they’re voting 100% with their conscience. All of them. Except for the one totally devoid of a conscience when it comes to you and your children.

Let’s turn our attention to Alabama representative Mo Brooks.

Of the men on that field, Mo Brooks is a uniquely vomitous waste of carbon. A representative who has repeatedly campaigned against any sort of stricter background checks at all — any — at all — in any form — had this to say about the shootings right after he doubled down on his absolute, unwavering conviction that our founding fathers were talking about SKS 7.62 assault rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment:

“With respect to this particular shooter, I’d really like to know more about him — whether he was an ex-felon, by way of example, who should not have had possession of a firearm — I’d like to know other things about his background before I pass judgment.”

You know what, Mo? WE ALL WOULD. Gee, IF ONLY THERE’D BEEN SOME SORT OF PROCESS IN PLACE THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THAT SORT OF INFORMATION BEFORE SOMEONE GOT SHOT. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.

Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe there’s some way I’ve overlooked that Mo Brooks didn’t suddenly get around to changing his mind about the usefulness of background checks until someone pointed a gun at him. But it wouldn’t seem so.

Absolutely nothing I’m saying here is a call for Second Amendment repeal. Not my point. And background checks would not have stopped the shooting. Hodgkinson apparently purchased his assault rifle legally. We know this. Likewise not relevant to what I’m saying unless you want to deliberately and willfully miss my point.

My point is about naked, “I deserve better than you because I’m a Congressman” hypocrisy.

My point is that Mo Brooks, who steadfastly opposes more informative background checks at every turn, just told us that he wants a more informative background check on the shooter. Not on any of the shooters involved in any of the 152 other 2017 mass shootings thus far, mind you. Just this guy. The one who was an immediate threat to Mo Brooks, not the others who threaten you or me. Because for Mo Brooks, when it comes to the ones who shoot at us and our kids because he won’t tighten background checks or do anything to make obtaining guns the slightest bit more difficult for those who we know after the fact should not have had them because of various mental health problems or histories of violence … well, y’know, who could have known?

Mark Waid is an Eisner Award-winning American comic book writer, known for his work on titles for DC Comics such as The Flash, Kingdom Come and Superman: Birthright, and for his work on Captain America, Fantastic Four, and Daredevil for Marvel Comics.

June 15, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Editorial cartoon: Tone it down, loser!

19142941_10154655290868715_4153266516814984654_o

Lalo Alcaraz

June 13, 2017 by Michael A. Ventrella

Star Trek: IDIC

“Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.”

Celebrating the differences that make us great and accepting those differences was one of the key concepts in the original Star Trek. So I’m glad to see that the official Star Trek merchandise now includes pride symbols.

There have been complaints, of course, because there are who claim to be fans of Star Trek who really aren’t, because they don’t get the whole theme of the show. In fact, for most of science fiction (apart from dystopian stuff), when you look to the future, you see more acceptance of different cultures, not less.

When Star Trek first began 50 years ago, it was a shock to see a female officer, and even moreso to see a black female officer. Well, yes, she was in charge of “communications” which, in many episodes, made her just a glorified receptionist, but then there were those where Uhura went on those missions alongside the men, fighting right beside them. Every once in a while, we’d get other female officers and even a black admiral or two. “No way the future would be like that!” some people claimed in 1966, never imagining that within their lifetime it would be unusual not to see people like that in power.

We clearly haven’t reached the goal of true equality, but like the Vulcans, we should always strive for infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Live long and prosper.