In My Eyes

This is gross, so consider it one of my off-topic random posts.

I have pink eye. I got it from my own personal germ vector who happens to be the four year old that lives in my house. My doctor once referred to children as little nuclear incubators of germs. Currently, I am listing pink eye as number six on the top ten list of reasons not to have kids. I'm working out the rest of that list.

For the uninitiated, pink eye falls into two flavors: viral and bacterial. The green oozey stuff gluing my eye shut is apparently evidence that I have become the host for bacteria. It also means I can deal with it via antibiotic drops. The viral version can stick around for weeks.

This morning, I woke up with my right eye stuck shut and swollen. I walked around in my shorts yelling "Cut me Mick. Cut me!" but got no attention and no laughs. I have been on drops for about 24 hours and they seem to be helping.

I'm glad I can handle the drops because I am very squeamish when it comes to my eyes. I don't wear contact lenses because the thought of putting my finger in my eyes is antithetical to a million years of evolution that impels me to protect my vision. I am incapable of getting most things out of my eyes without sticking my entire head into a bucket of water or under a running faucet. So, the drops made me nervous.

Happily, I heard somewhere that a drop in the corner of your eye next to your nose will find its way into your eye with a few blinks. Turns out it works and my eye is clearing up. That's good because it is very disconcerting to see snot coming out of your eyes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more