Without Feathers

Sorry, I couldn’t get it to rhyme exactly.

The drawn out victory of Al Franken over Norm Coleman in the Minnesota senate race is interesting to me for exactly one reason: Al Franken won because the rules say he won.

It is almost certain that Coleman received hundreds or maybe even a few thousand more votes than Franken. But more of the valid, countable votes went to Franken, not Coleman. Under the rules that were in effect on November 4, 2008, absentee ballots were required to be cast in a precise, well defined and adequately disseminated manner and, as it turns out, a big clump of absentee ballots cast for Coleman did not meet that standard. Too bad for Norm Coleman.

This reminds me of an election held eight years earlier in Florida in which Republican county commissioners ran their elections a damn sight better than Democrat county commissioners ran theirs. The Republicans focused on making sure that the voting machines in their counties were in good working order and that polling station staff were well trained and knew what to do in the event of an unforeseen issue. They also took the time, trouble and expense to assure that Republican voters knew how to operate the machines and cast their ballots.

The Democrats focused almost entirely on rounding up people who had never voted in their lives and dumped them en masse at polling stations staffed by people with grossly inadequate training. The inevitable results were as predictable as an Al-Qaeda attack using airplanes. Everyone should have known exactly what the outcome was going to be.

Well, this time the chads fell the other way. Norm Coleman won more votes, but Al Franken won the election — fair and square. You won’t be hearing me saying: “Not my senator!” Well, actually, you might, because I don’t live in Minnesota, but you get the point. Should Coleman have disputed the election as vigorously and tenaciously as he did? Absolutely yes! And, apparently, he did a much better job of following the law and leaving no stone unturned than Al Gore in 2000.

Gore might have actually beaten Bush in Florida if he hadn’t tried to finagle his way to victory by cherry-picking Democrat controlled counties in which to fight. But the fact remains: Under the rules in effect on November 7, 2000, George Bush won the Florida Presidential election — both in votes and in allocation of electors. So get over it if you are still simmering about Katherine Harris (whose only role in the election was to certify the results) and some Fox News consultant (who happened to be related to Bush).

DC Metro Trains Collide

It’s hard to see how the Bush administration could have been any clearer about the safety problems of the Washington D.C. Metro (commuter train) system: Railroad Accident Report, November 3, 2004. Regrettably, the Democrat dominated government of D.C. didn’t care.

Three years later Bush’s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) tried again to have the dangerous conditions in that system fixed: Federal Investigators Question Metro’s Safety, (By Eric M. Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page A01) but by then Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the House (of Representatives) — which has ultimate authority over D.C. — and, apparently, had no interest in the lives and safety of citizens who, after all, aren’t part of her electoral constituency.

On January 20 of this year we got “hope and change” in the White House, but no new concern for the dangerous situation on the rails of the nation’s capital.

How many more have to die, Mr. President, how many more?

And before you assail me with a liberal hissy-fit over my interpretation of events, please show me a single factual error in this post. You see: This game can be played from both directions.

Probably not.  This time I actually have a halfway decent excuse for not posting for awhile.  No, I’m not going to use that tired old canard about the dog eating my bandwidth.  I have a real excuse, signed by my doctor.

I lost much of my eyesight for about six weeks as a result of type II Diabetes.  I could see enough to get around without help, but reading was absolutely out of the question.  I just couldn’t read characters less than about an inch tall at any distance.  I’m oversimplifying a bit, but take my word for it: I couldn’t read.

My doctor had been warning me for years that I was “pre-diabetic” and could expect to go over the edge eventually, but my blood sugar seemed to be stabilized at just below the point of concern.  Then in December of last year, I started to experience strange symptoms which ultimately became too strange to ignore.

The first symptom was overwhelming thirst, all day every day.  Not surprisingly, this was accompanied by the need to relieve (I hope that is sufficiently graphic) every 20 to 30 minutes.  By the end of April I had lost 30 pounds and the ability to read, but what really sent me rushing to my doctor’s office was severe muscle spasms in my hands and lower legs.  By severe I mean that I basically couldn’t use my hands for up to two hours at a time.

Blood tests quickly revealed a fasting glucose level of 324 mg/dL (normal is 65-139) and hemoglobin A1C of 12 (normal is less than six).  That explained pretty much everything including my rapidly deteriorating vision.  Dr. Chung prescribed Metformin and advised me to reduce my carbohydrate consumption immediately and substantially.

A visit to my eye doctor confirmed that my vision issues were almost certainly related to the ultra-high levels of glucose coursing around my blood stream.  Two type of vision loss occur with Diabetes: Retinal damage and Lens deformation.  Pictures of the interior of my eyes indicated that my retinas were OK and the problem was almost certainly all in my lenses.

Maybe I have the best eye-doctor in NYC (Dr. Alan Schlussel, in case anyone is in the market) or maybe the level of care I am getting is routine.  Dr. Schlussel has been taking good care of me at no additional cost over my annual (insurance covered) check up and, in particular, has been providing me new contact lenses on an almost weekly basis as my vision swung wildly from near blindness to actually somewhat better than it has been for the last 15 years.

Long story shortened (since I know I’ve already gone on too long about this): I ended up with a net improvement of 1.25 diopters in both eyes and significant improvement in presbyopia as the excess glucose has been purged and glucose production constrained by the Metformin.  Both doctors agree that while the response (in both directions) is well known, it is not well understood, and neither of them have ever seen quite so dramatic a decline and recovery before.

I’m just happy to have eyes and thumbs back and it has been more than six weeks since I’ve awakened in the night with spasms and stabbing pains in my calves.  Modern medicine works for me.  Uh…no, I’m not suggesting that this demonstrates that health care in America is not in need of a substantial overhaul (remaining resolutely in the private sector).  I’m just saying that when skillfully applied, we do enjoy a very high standard of care in this country.

Will I reform my ways and post more often now that I’m (at least feeling) better?  Only time will tell, but I doubt it.  My basic problem is that I’m lazy.

And I think Benny Hill was the funniest man who ever lived.  Now that we’ve gotten past all that, here’s a clip that should go directly into the “Public’s Right to Know Hall of Fame.”

One thing that gets me angry, truly, flames-coming-out-of-the-ears pissed off is when the mainstream media deliberately and maliciously misrepresents the words of a conservative for the corrupt purpose of advancing the liberal, Democrat agenda.  It should piss you off as well regardless of your political affiliations.  It should piss you off regardless of how much you loathe and despise the victim because it isn’t just political.  This sort of defamation strikes directly at the heart of civil discourse and reasoned dissent.

A couple of weeks ago Rush Limbaugh said of the new president:

“Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.  So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

I certainly see room for disagreement in that statement, but there is nothing whatever disloyal or un-American in vigorous opposition to a policy with which one does not agree.  Any rational reading of the entire statement, in context (and, in fact, there is even more relevant context surrounding the above quote), can only conclude that Limbaugh was speaking in opposition to a policy, not the President himself.

Regardless of the facts in the matter, the  impartial, unbiased, objective mainstream media chose to pick four words radically out of context to support a media onslaught — clearly lead by the Democrat political machine — for the deliberate purpose of stifling legitimate political debate.  It doesn’t matter which side of the debate you are on, you should be furious and aghast at this attempt to misrepresent honest — and probably correct — dissent for clearly partisan purposes.

Let me be very clear about this: The mainstream media did not do this in an attempt to inform and enlighten.  The mainstream media did this for the express and only purpose of slandering the opposition in a futile attempt to silence dissent on behalf of the political party — the Democrats — that they (the mainstream media) prefer in power.

Well, what was I expecting?  As our esteemed commenter K once observed:

“Oh, that’s so cute. You were expecting accuracy in reporting?”

What Rush actually said, and I believe this is a case in which context is EVERYTHING:

And here’s a link to the complete transcript.

Seriously, think about this.  Is this really how you want to conduct the debate?

This may not fit your narrative of death and despair, but it is good news regardless of how much you hate/hated George Bush.

(from The Economist website)

“LOCAL elections can often pass unnoticed by the world beyond. But Iraq’s provincial elections on Saturday January 31st are of greater importance than most. The polls are a first test of strength for Iraq’s political factions since a flawed vote in 2005 and should also give some guide to a general election that is due before the end of the year. If the polls on Saturday attract a decent turnout and pass off fairly and peacefully, Iraq will have taken a big step towards becoming a functioning democracy. But much could go badly.”

The major “flaw” in the 2005 elections, by the way, was not that the process was noticeably corrupt or incompetent but that Sunnis Arabs boycotted the balloting.

I just didn’t want to comment upon until we were done with Geek-o-Rama.  Simon believes that AI will “find someone truly great this year.”  But he says something along those lines every year.  Next week we should begin to get some inkling of what the competition will really look like.  Apparently this year there will be 36 semi-finalists instead of 24, and there will also be a “wild-card” round.  Well, OK, anything to shake up an aging formula.

Unusually this year I am willing to go out on a limb and pick my personal favorite very early in the process.  I predict that Casey Carlson will go all the way…er, I mean, will be in the finals.  I missed her audition, but I heard she can sing.

I wasn’t thinking what you’re thinking I was thinking.  I was just thinking that she has that “x-factor” that Simon is always talking about.

I am really of two (possibly three) minds on this one.  On the one hand, I firmly believe that there should be no arbitrary restrictions on otherwise legal activity.  On the other hand: What the hell is the government doing paying for abortions anyway? 

Is there a Constitutional right to abortion that must be protected at all costs?  No, there isn’t — don’t quote Roe v Wade to me which decided only the rather narrow issue of state governments intervening to impede lawful activity.  For better or worse, you have a legal right to an abortion in this country.  However, it is not apparent (to me, anyway) that you have a right to make me pay for it.

So how should a simple conservative boy, such as myself, view this?  A victory for liberty or a defeat in the struggle against pervasively paternalistic government?  I’m leaning towards the latter.

Oh wait, my mistake.  This is an entirely different matter altogether.  This is not about some Americans paying for abortions for other Americans.  This is about American taxpayers paying for abortions for people in other countries.  Foolish me.  There’s no civil liberty issue in this at all.  It’s all about sending my money out of the United States to support (admittedly legal) activity that a substantial portion of my fellow U.S. citizens find morally reprehensible.

I’m going to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one, not just because I said I would give him the benefit of the doubt for his first 100 days, but also because this is, in principal, a genuine moral dilemma for me — except the part about sending the money to other countries, but that too, for better or worse, has been deemed legal by our very own Congress.  Have I mentioned today how much I loathe most of the members of the current Congress (but not the Congress itself)?

I’ve been hearing for the last seven and a half years that President George W. Bush “banned” human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC — the preferred abbreviation) research late in 2001.  Now I find this article from Reuters reporting on “the world’s first study of human embryonic stem cell therapy[.]“  How could that have happened if Bush had banned it?  Well, as it turns out, everyone who’s been saying that Bush banned hESC research has been — how can I put this diplomatically — um, lying.  That’s a damn lot of liars — no, I’m not giving anyone (Except President Obama, to whom I pledged to give) the benefit of the doubt on this one.  Anyone who said that President Bush banned hESC research is a damned liar.

In any event, this is good news and should be hailed as such — I just wish that Reuters hadn’t gone and spoiled my good mood by taking one more dig at W with this little bit of dishonesty: “Former President George W. Bush had been at odds with Congress, researchers and advocates for years over the issue and by executive order restricted federal funding of work involving human embryonic stem cells.”  No, he didn’t restrict federal funding by executive order. 

What he did, by executive order, was lift the total ban on federal funding put in place by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1998.  It was Bill Clinton who stood athwart science and said NO, nada, not one cent of federal money to go to hESC. Clinton’s stated reason: The Dickey ammendment prohibited it.But President Bush thought otherwise and found that funding could be offered, albeit, with limitations on what hESC material could be used. 

Restrictions, you say?  Limitations? How can science function in the straight-jacket of restrictions on funding?  Well, as a matter of fact, not one penny of federal science funds is dispersed without cables attached to it, let alone strings. 

That’s just the way federal funding works: You want federal dough?  You toe the federal line.  Ever has it been such and ever shall it be.  Don’t believe me?  If Bush was able to impose restrictions with the flourish of a pen on an executive order; Why can’t The One simply undo that restriction with just another flourish?  The reason: Because, as you well know, Bush didn’t impose restrictions on hESC research, he loosened restrictions of federal funding on such.  And, of course, for any president, there will be a significant political price to pay with a radical change in policy on this issue.

So, how did Geron Corporation accomplish this breakthrough in the face of the overwhelming impedement of no federal funding? “Geron and some other companies have been pursuing the goal without the use of federal funds.”  That’s right: They used private money.