Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Frightening

I've been reading for a while now about staph infections that are resistant to most antibiotics. This is, of course, what scientists and health professionals have been predicting and worried about for years. An article appearing today reports on two other articles in JAMA dealing with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In one of the articles, the researchers concluded that antibiotic-resistant staph kills more people than AIDS in this country every year. That should be sobering news.

However, will anything be done about this problem? Due to the very nature of public health, this must be handled at the federal level, but the likelihood of that happening is nil. It would require stopping the profligate use of antibiotics in animal feed and it would require Republicans to be willing to acknowledge that the federal government has uses beyond conquering other countries and enriching their already-rich friends.

Also, it would require Repubs to actually believe scientists. For some reason, Republicans have decided that they know the natural world better than scientists and that "science" is some sort of leftist pursuit, full of alarmists and malcontents. This, of course, is why Republicans have scoffed at global warming, first asserting that it didn't exist, then asserting that humans didn't cause it, then asserting that it wouldn't be that bad, and finally asserting that there is nothing we can do about it. What amazes me is their ability to hold all four of those positions simultaneously. They also don't care for the Big Bang Theory and the age of the universe, which is why a Bush appointee at NASA worked so hard to scrub references to the universe being billions of years old from various PR stuff. The Republicans have worked hard to discredit EPA scientists as well, with Christine Todd Whitman leading the way after 9/11 insisting that the air around the WTC was perfectly safe (it was anything but). They've also tried to bring down the FDA to the level of politics. And, finally, you have the embarrassing belief among Repubs that intelligent design should be taught alongside or in place of evolution in the classroom. Among other Repubs, they just want creationism pure and simple.

It is, of course, no surprise to me or to anyone with a brain that so many scientists (particularly, those of a biological persuasion) have turned sharply left in their politics. Scientists realize that, if empirical evidence cannot convince someone, there is little left to do but vote against the person. And, of course, apologize to their international colleagues for Bush.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Interesting Poll and a Prediction

An interesting poll of Virginians recently came out in the Post. It's interesting for a variety of reasons. If you're following Virginia politics and thinking about the upcoming 2007 state legislative elections or the 2008 U.S. Senate race for the open seat vacated by John Warner, well, it provides a little insight there. More interesting than that, though, are the findings regarding the presidential race.

Virginia has been a very "red" state since 1968 (last voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 1964). In recent years, however, there has been a slight shift, albeit at the gubernatorial level, as Democrats have held onto the governor's mansion since 2001. In this most recent poll, 52% of people wanted the next president to be a Democrat (compared to 41% for a Republican). As most people should point out, the "generic" Democrat vs. Republican is not a good indicator of how people will actually vote. In fact, one of the main arguments put forth by Karl Rove and others is that, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will not win the general election simply because her negatives are too high. So, the argument goes that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly win a state like Virginia, regardless of the "generic" contest. Rudy Giuliani has recently made the argument that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat Clinton (clearly, his argument rests on different premises from Rove's as it assumes an all-powerful Clinton).

HOWEVER, further down in the poll, they ask people who they would DEFINITELY NOT VOTE for in the general election. Giuliani actually manages to score 1 point higher (i.e. worse) than Clinton. 45% of polled Virginians would not vote for Giuliani vs. 44% of Virginians who would not vote for Clinton (obviously, this within the margin of error). This should not be comforting news to those Republicans who have been counting on Clinton's negatives to carry the day for them. In fact, the top three candidates in terms of voters that would NOT vote for them are, in order: Romney (53%), Thompson (48%), and Giuliani. Coincidentally, these are also the top three Republicans (according to national polls) vying for the Republican nomination. With such high "negatives" in a state like Virginia, it makes you wonder how any of these guys could possibly win the general election.

Nonetheless, here's my prediction for something occurring in 13 months: The election will be very close, decided by less than 3 points. You may wonder how I could say this after making a case for a blowout, but I do not underestimate the power of each side to throw the usual labels at the other, causing voters to pigeonhole them and then split, in their usual fashion, right down the middle. Clinton will be painted as a liberal, though as any liberal will tell you, she's far from a liberal, and thus her numbers will be dragged down. A couple of grandmas in Ohio could make the difference in the election simply because they like Clinton's hair or have a thing for bald liars like Giuliani.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

A Few Political Thoughts for the Day

1. Despite being out there in some ways, I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul just for saying some of the things he says and saying them unabashedly. He was absolutely right that some of our actions in the Middle East contributed to the anger directed at us by various radical Muslims, including al-Qaeda, which led to the 9/11 attacks. This does not mitigate the responsibility of al-Qaeda or even render us responsible for 9/11. It's simply an acknowledgement that our actions around the world can and do piss people off, particularly when some of our actions are anything but morally upright themselves. And sometimes that anger comes back and hits us. To say this, though, and take the inevitable hits from Hizzoner "the Bald Liar" Giuliani was courageous.

2. If Hillary Clinton's health care plan for guaranteeing health insurance for every American is "socialized medicine", as many of the Republican presidential candidates have termed it, then what is Britain's or France's health care system? I ask because anyone with half a brain could plainly see that Clinton's plan is nothing, not even remotely, like the European model. The Clinton health care system would not be government-owned or -operated and the health insurance would not be governmental insurance. Better yet, to Mr. Romney, how is her plan qualitatively different from the one you enacted in Massachusetts?

3. Um, does anyone else think that all involved in the "situation" regarding the Congressional resolution that what happened in 1915 between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians was genocide are just a little crazy? I mean, first, what the heck is our House of Reps doing even worrying about genocides that occurred nearly 100 years ago by a now-defunct empire? Second, the response by Turkey is just as absurd. They're trying to use this meaningless resolution to drum up nationalistic, anti-American feelings and to find an excuse to threaten and potentially attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. Finally, from an Armenian survivor: '"I don't like Turkey -- they are animals there," reported Perouz Kalousdian, 97.'

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that they have all lost their marbles. Maybe we should just leave categorizations regarding historical events to . . . well, historians.