Don’t you love the word, “disingenuous?” Well, yes, except when it is applied to treatment directed at me. (Don’t know what it means? Go ahead, check it out. I’ll wait.) An intriguing example of disingenuous actions is playing out in the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.
“GOP accused of rushing the confirmation.” That was the headline in the Tennessean. (9/19) The terrible charge of sexual harassment was hurled into the arena. Now, in a normal setting, this would be a cause to stop and consider the nuances carefully. But this is far from a normal setting.
We must consider that it would be desirable to complete the confirmation before the first of October, so the new judge could sit on the Supreme Court for the entire term. A last minute challenge could, logically, derail that time frame. However, a second, salient, and to many minds, damning, consideration is that this “last minute challenge” has been known and nursed since July. Over a month has passed since the Democratic leaders became aware of it.
And here is where, disingenuous becomes a critical component of the deliberations. If the opposition were solely interested in a thorough vetting and investigation of the allegation, why was it not presented on “day one?” If their reason was to investigate and confirm the validity of the charges, the supporting evidence should accompany the charge. And the existence of the “problem” should have been exposed when it was initially discovered.
The call for a “thorough FBI investigation” at this late date, considering that this question could have been researched and answered easily within the elapsed time, reveals this tactic as not a “search for truth,” but a stall and delay maneuver. In short, it is disingenuous. But, the facts must be aired.
And, according to the preliminary reports that I have seen, about 20 minutes of testimony will thoroughly answer this allegation. There seems to be an abundance of credible evidence and motivation to identify this as an obvious attempt to derail the nomination, as opposed to exposing the truth. A few minutes of exculpatory exposition and this whole fiasco will be relegated to the trash bin of history, assuming that what I have read so far is accurate.
But why wait until Monday? If the researchers that I read have already turned up controverting and clarifying information, just report that, and get on with the process.
But, but but! Didn’t the Republicans extend the process for Judge Merritt? Absolutely. And they were perfectly within their rights and responsibilities. The election validated their decision. And they were forthright in their statements that the nomination would be deferred until a new President was selected. They did not stall, then at the last minute, before a vote, hurl a supposed damning accusation at the nominee. But that is for another day.
Expose the facts, flush out the disingenuity, and confirm the Judge.
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Kavanaugh and the Senators
Sometimes you read something that is so egregious that it just jumps out of the page at you. Erin MacArthur hit the jackpot on Wednesday. (Nashville Tennessean 9/12) Her beginning comments were typical anti-Kavanaugh, along with her appeal to Senators Alexander and Corker. Then she lobbed the bombshell. She claimed to “see the disregard of their constituents’ requests and pleas.”
Three things just leaped out of the page. The statement was arrogant. It was presumptuous. And it was ignorant. (No offense.) It was arrogant in the sense that only her presonal positions are important and our Senators should ignore everyone else.
It was presumptuous in that she assumed, by her language, that the majority, if not all, of the constituents were begging for the rejection of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. And if that was not the presumption, then the statement reflects an abysmal level of ignorance.
It is ignorant first, because not only is her opinion not the exclusive one, it is the minority one. If she does not recognize that there is not much need to proceed with a logical refutation. And the ignorance extends to an understanding of our representative government. Our elected envoys to Congress are not ciphers or atomatons who merely accumulate the numbers of support or rejection for a given subject, and vote accordingly.
This is a federal republic. The representatives are not slaves or mere repeaters of the majority opinion. They are selected based on their world view and expressed values to act in the behalf of their constituents. And to reject Judge Kavanaugh based on two or three specific opinions misses the import of the position. The American Bar Association gave Judge Kavanaugh a unanimous, well qualified rating.
This is a lifetime appointment and he will deal with literally hundreds if not thousands of issues. To generate an opinion based on two or three specific issues is very short sighted. And this is particularly germane since one of her complaints was a hypothetical instance.
Her chief objection was about “women’s health access,” which is double speak for abortion. It is also called “women’s health care.” Abortion harms many women, as illustrated by several investigations. And in roughly half of the instances, abortion murders a woman/girl. How can protecting the “right to terminate” a female be protecting women’s health interests?
The final shot was that we, constituents, need Senators Corker and Alexander to act in their best interest. Not sure if the interest here is the C-group, or the Senators, but either way, Judge Kavanaugh seems to be well suited. He is their constituents’ best interest.
Three things just leaped out of the page. The statement was arrogant. It was presumptuous. And it was ignorant. (No offense.) It was arrogant in the sense that only her presonal positions are important and our Senators should ignore everyone else.
It was presumptuous in that she assumed, by her language, that the majority, if not all, of the constituents were begging for the rejection of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. And if that was not the presumption, then the statement reflects an abysmal level of ignorance.
It is ignorant first, because not only is her opinion not the exclusive one, it is the minority one. If she does not recognize that there is not much need to proceed with a logical refutation. And the ignorance extends to an understanding of our representative government. Our elected envoys to Congress are not ciphers or atomatons who merely accumulate the numbers of support or rejection for a given subject, and vote accordingly.
This is a federal republic. The representatives are not slaves or mere repeaters of the majority opinion. They are selected based on their world view and expressed values to act in the behalf of their constituents. And to reject Judge Kavanaugh based on two or three specific opinions misses the import of the position. The American Bar Association gave Judge Kavanaugh a unanimous, well qualified rating.
This is a lifetime appointment and he will deal with literally hundreds if not thousands of issues. To generate an opinion based on two or three specific issues is very short sighted. And this is particularly germane since one of her complaints was a hypothetical instance.
Her chief objection was about “women’s health access,” which is double speak for abortion. It is also called “women’s health care.” Abortion harms many women, as illustrated by several investigations. And in roughly half of the instances, abortion murders a woman/girl. How can protecting the “right to terminate” a female be protecting women’s health interests?
The final shot was that we, constituents, need Senators Corker and Alexander to act in their best interest. Not sure if the interest here is the C-group, or the Senators, but either way, Judge Kavanaugh seems to be well suited. He is their constituents’ best interest.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Abortion Letter to editor
Dr. Frank Boehm (9/6/18) is back and his hobby horse is still abortion. It almost seems like a obstetrics and gynecology professional shilling for abortion is equivalent to an oncologist advertising cigarettes. I guess Dr. Boehm will focus on the mother and ignore the baby. But wait, if it isn’t a baby, is she a mother? He will focus on the woman.
As I read the article, I noticed the orderly way he laid out his arguments for abortion. I was struck with the same notion that nearly equivalent arguments could be made for another “woman’s issue.” What if we were to defend sexual harassment and assault using those same rationales? Go paragraph by paragraph. (Please note that this is not to condone or approve these actions. The opinion is merely to display the paucity of probative force in the abortion argument.)
1. “Roe vs Wade has been around a long time, 45 years to be exact, and a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not want it to be overturned.” Well, sexual harassment has been around a lot longer than that, and about 50% of the population would not be upset if it were supported.
2. “Many people across this country have either gone through the process of abortion themselves or gone through the process with a friend or family member....” A lot of people have been harrassed and others have been the instigators of such and conversely been punished severely for their “indiscretions. I read an article recently by a “sexual predator” who was experiencing ongoing “punishment” for his crime nearly 20 years after he had “paid his debt to society.”
3. “A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest and rape.” Later on in the paragraph Dr. Boehm notes that 16% of abortions are for “medical” reasons. He also noted that there are one million per year. (The next point) That means that 840,000 babies are aborted for non-medical reasons. This is quoting his own statistics. And “medical” abortions have been legal since before the advent of Roe v. Wade.
If about one third of legal abortions have been erased as he states, why does he decry the prospect of eliminating another 84% of the non-medical procedures. (1.5 million at R v.W down to 1 million currently.)
4. “... ridding the country of Roe vs Wade would not curtail the number of abortions performed annually; it will only cause difficult problems for patients, doctors and law enforcement.” Harassment is already illegal, and it seems to be pervasive. He might have a point, in that he is illustrating the “scoff-law” nature of our society. “I want to do it. I’m gonna do it regardless of what anyone says.” Not a firm foundation for positing a legal or ethical framework.
5. “The abortion procedure today is much safer due to the widespread use of a cheap medication...” The same can be said for victims of harassment. Rohypno, GHB, and ketamine, along with ecstacy are all known for the anesthetic and amnesiac effects. For instance, the victim in the Vanderbilt rape did not even know that she had been assaulted. If you are going to base your defence on “painless,” the foundation is quite unsteady. And the baby has not yet been polled about pain.
6. “Should abortion become illegal, patients will either return to unsafe termination....” Prohibiting assault will only make perpetrators more clever in their execution of the assault. This repeats the “scoff-law” position, and this ties into his next one.
7. “Abortions are prohibited in Latin American countries, yet these countries report that abortions are nonetheless common....” He explains that the use of drugs, illegally obtained facilitate this. The same is true for “hit and run assault.” The fact that people do it, should have no impact on the legality. And this completely ignores any ethical considerations.
8. “Should problems occur with Misoprostol such as bleeding, infection or failure, doctors and nurses may become involved.” He continues to lament that medical professionals who treat these complications may be subject to sanctions. A short segue here would note that treating gunshot injuries without reporting that is likewise prohibited and accompanied by legal retribiton.
9. “Lastly there is the argument that states have already been successful in limiting the number of abortions performed.” This was addressed above, and is gratefully acknowledged. This merely makes the point obvious. There is a small actual need for this procedure. Let’s turn the tables on Dr. Boehm a little. What if 84% of his deliveries requested or demanded a C-section, regardless of the medical need or justification? Would he be a responsible physician if he acceded to their requests?
Abortion has a legitimate role in medicine, in some instances, and that is neither denied nor threatened. What is “at risk” is the elective procedure that is substituted for effective, practiced birth control. The remainder of his article concludes that we can “...reduce abortions in America without having to go through the Supreme Court, simply by making contraception universally available and cheap.” He had earlier noted that“unintended pregnancies” could be precluded by “ subdermal hormonal implants and intra uterine devices (IUD), which are 99 percent effective.”
Incidentally, the universal availability and low cost of contraceptives are merely red herrings. If abortion were priced at the “going rate” as opposed to being subsidized by abortion mills slurping up public funds, contraception would be the preferred fiscal choice.
His argument about not needing to go through the Supreme Court is valid, if the at risk population would act in a responsible manner. Abortion on demand would then become a moot point and we can go on to more productive pursuits. It seems, however, that his argument is self- refuting. As long as elective abortion is available and legal, a significant portion of the population will continue to ignore safeguards that make it superfluous.
Logically, he should argue for the elimination of legal abortion and promote “safe contraception.” By continuing to provide low cost alternatives to contraception, the system he supports perpetuates the demand for this horrific procedure. A logical shift would allow him to focus on eliminating sexual harassment.
As I read the article, I noticed the orderly way he laid out his arguments for abortion. I was struck with the same notion that nearly equivalent arguments could be made for another “woman’s issue.” What if we were to defend sexual harassment and assault using those same rationales? Go paragraph by paragraph. (Please note that this is not to condone or approve these actions. The opinion is merely to display the paucity of probative force in the abortion argument.)
1. “Roe vs Wade has been around a long time, 45 years to be exact, and a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not want it to be overturned.” Well, sexual harassment has been around a lot longer than that, and about 50% of the population would not be upset if it were supported.
2. “Many people across this country have either gone through the process of abortion themselves or gone through the process with a friend or family member....” A lot of people have been harrassed and others have been the instigators of such and conversely been punished severely for their “indiscretions. I read an article recently by a “sexual predator” who was experiencing ongoing “punishment” for his crime nearly 20 years after he had “paid his debt to society.”
3. “A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest and rape.” Later on in the paragraph Dr. Boehm notes that 16% of abortions are for “medical” reasons. He also noted that there are one million per year. (The next point) That means that 840,000 babies are aborted for non-medical reasons. This is quoting his own statistics. And “medical” abortions have been legal since before the advent of Roe v. Wade.
If about one third of legal abortions have been erased as he states, why does he decry the prospect of eliminating another 84% of the non-medical procedures. (1.5 million at R v.W down to 1 million currently.)
4. “... ridding the country of Roe vs Wade would not curtail the number of abortions performed annually; it will only cause difficult problems for patients, doctors and law enforcement.” Harassment is already illegal, and it seems to be pervasive. He might have a point, in that he is illustrating the “scoff-law” nature of our society. “I want to do it. I’m gonna do it regardless of what anyone says.” Not a firm foundation for positing a legal or ethical framework.
5. “The abortion procedure today is much safer due to the widespread use of a cheap medication...” The same can be said for victims of harassment. Rohypno, GHB, and ketamine, along with ecstacy are all known for the anesthetic and amnesiac effects. For instance, the victim in the Vanderbilt rape did not even know that she had been assaulted. If you are going to base your defence on “painless,” the foundation is quite unsteady. And the baby has not yet been polled about pain.
6. “Should abortion become illegal, patients will either return to unsafe termination....” Prohibiting assault will only make perpetrators more clever in their execution of the assault. This repeats the “scoff-law” position, and this ties into his next one.
7. “Abortions are prohibited in Latin American countries, yet these countries report that abortions are nonetheless common....” He explains that the use of drugs, illegally obtained facilitate this. The same is true for “hit and run assault.” The fact that people do it, should have no impact on the legality. And this completely ignores any ethical considerations.
8. “Should problems occur with Misoprostol such as bleeding, infection or failure, doctors and nurses may become involved.” He continues to lament that medical professionals who treat these complications may be subject to sanctions. A short segue here would note that treating gunshot injuries without reporting that is likewise prohibited and accompanied by legal retribiton.
9. “Lastly there is the argument that states have already been successful in limiting the number of abortions performed.” This was addressed above, and is gratefully acknowledged. This merely makes the point obvious. There is a small actual need for this procedure. Let’s turn the tables on Dr. Boehm a little. What if 84% of his deliveries requested or demanded a C-section, regardless of the medical need or justification? Would he be a responsible physician if he acceded to their requests?
Abortion has a legitimate role in medicine, in some instances, and that is neither denied nor threatened. What is “at risk” is the elective procedure that is substituted for effective, practiced birth control. The remainder of his article concludes that we can “...reduce abortions in America without having to go through the Supreme Court, simply by making contraception universally available and cheap.” He had earlier noted that“unintended pregnancies” could be precluded by “ subdermal hormonal implants and intra uterine devices (IUD), which are 99 percent effective.”
Incidentally, the universal availability and low cost of contraceptives are merely red herrings. If abortion were priced at the “going rate” as opposed to being subsidized by abortion mills slurping up public funds, contraception would be the preferred fiscal choice.
His argument about not needing to go through the Supreme Court is valid, if the at risk population would act in a responsible manner. Abortion on demand would then become a moot point and we can go on to more productive pursuits. It seems, however, that his argument is self- refuting. As long as elective abortion is available and legal, a significant portion of the population will continue to ignore safeguards that make it superfluous.
Logically, he should argue for the elimination of legal abortion and promote “safe contraception.” By continuing to provide low cost alternatives to contraception, the system he supports perpetuates the demand for this horrific procedure. A logical shift would allow him to focus on eliminating sexual harassment.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Alcohol
Well, we finally heard from science. For years we have been assaulted by people claiming that “moderate” uses of alcohol are not harmful and in fact can have some health benefits. I am a chemist. Ethanol is a poison. It is a brother to methanol, or wood alcohol, which most know is deadly. Methanol is a one carbon molecule and ethanol is a two carbon molecule.
Just for a little chemical lesson, biochemistry, actually. Our bodies are very efficient at oxidizing substances. Unfortunately for the “user,” the first product of oxiding methanol is formaldehyde. And that is a deadly poison. As our German friends put it, “Nicht so gut.” Well ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde, which is far less poisonous. Propanol, or rubbing alcohol is a three carbon molecule which the body breaks into a two carbon chain, and.... Yep, you got it, a one carbon chain and we are back to formaldehyde as a final product. Hardly anyone has ever died from propanol because it is a powerful emetic. I caused the drinker to vomit, thus eliminating the poison from his body.
End of chemistry lesson. So methanol and propanol are both deadly. We can “get away,” we thought, with imbibing a little ethanol, but it is still a poison. It just has a higher lethal dose than the other two members of that particular chemical homology. (High lethal dose means you have to consume more of it to be poisoned.)
So the arguments of “a little is okay” did not ever convince me, but now the British Medical Journal, “Lancet.” Just in case you doubt, here is a link to a report about the report. Or I guess you can look up the original.
Excerpt:
"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."
I guess the old saw, “I don’t drink, or snort, or chew, and I don’t go with guys what do,” isn’t such bad advice. Have a good and sober day.
Just for a little chemical lesson, biochemistry, actually. Our bodies are very efficient at oxidizing substances. Unfortunately for the “user,” the first product of oxiding methanol is formaldehyde. And that is a deadly poison. As our German friends put it, “Nicht so gut.” Well ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde, which is far less poisonous. Propanol, or rubbing alcohol is a three carbon molecule which the body breaks into a two carbon chain, and.... Yep, you got it, a one carbon chain and we are back to formaldehyde as a final product. Hardly anyone has ever died from propanol because it is a powerful emetic. I caused the drinker to vomit, thus eliminating the poison from his body.
End of chemistry lesson. So methanol and propanol are both deadly. We can “get away,” we thought, with imbibing a little ethanol, but it is still a poison. It just has a higher lethal dose than the other two members of that particular chemical homology. (High lethal dose means you have to consume more of it to be poisoned.)
So the arguments of “a little is okay” did not ever convince me, but now the British Medical Journal, “Lancet.” Just in case you doubt, here is a link to a report about the report. Or I guess you can look up the original.
Excerpt:
"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."
I guess the old saw, “I don’t drink, or snort, or chew, and I don’t go with guys what do,” isn’t such bad advice. Have a good and sober day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)