Blood is a constant need for those with medical emergencies or chronic problems, and the only way to get blood to those who need it is for people to donate their blood.
However, in order to ensure the safety of those who receive blood, there are a number of restrictions on those whose donations are accepted. Conditions that make blood medically useless include Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease, leukemia, lymphoma, hepatitis, AIDS, infections, malaria, syphilis, gonorrhea, sickle cells, and tuberculosis. To give a person blood from someone who has one of these conditions could be life threatening, and so the FDA requires that organizations take a list of precautions to prevent such diseases from getting into the blood system.
Progressives at San Jose State University are banning blood drives anyway, though. They have decided that the anti-HIV precautions are unacceptable, and so would rather not give blood at all, in order to attempt to bully the FDA into compromising its scientifically-sound, safety-first blood donation protocols.
Says MEDIANEWS about the situation:
San Jose State University’s decision this week to ban blood drives on the 30,000-student campus over discrimination concerns is drawing a gush of criticism from local blood banks.
Stanford Blood Center officials said they actually agree with San Jose State President Don Kassing that the federal Food and Drug Administration is wrong to prohibit blood donations from gay men.
…Blood drives on the San Jose campus bring in an estimated 1,000 pints a year, estimates Michele Hyndman of the Stanford Blood Center. In general, she said, high school and college campuses account for about 20 percent of all donated blood.
[Michelle Hyndman of the Stanford Blood Center] argues the effects of the ban go further, however, since many students who first give blood in campus drives go on to become lifelong donors.
Lisa Bloch, spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Blood Centers of the Pacific, agreed, calling Kassing’s decision “irresponsible.”
Politics come before science at SJSU, and activism before community health and safety. The radical agenda of certain homosexual activists must be honored, even if it disrupts a cornerstone of “public health,” which has long been a progressive buzzword.
As someone who was at risk of catching AIDS by taking blood transfusions numerous times because of five heart and bowel surgeries in 1983 and 1984 (as blood screening wasn’t available until 1985), I am fully in favor of the FDA retaining lifestyle bars on blood donations.
Via Ace of Spades, Ed Morrissey debunks some attacks on John McCain that really don’t deserve this much attention, but the balloon needs popped anyway.
I realize my comment about the DS being the best system since the SNES could be read as a knock on the Wii. It’s not. It’s just going to take a bit for the Wii’s game library to catch up.
Idiot publishers. No, let’s not make good third party games for the best selling new system around!
Gizmodo weighed in on the Republican Presidential race today, being good little Democrats and not being able to resist injecting politics where they don’t belong. Their pick is Mike Huckabee, but I think their own chart shows John McCain to be the pick.
They rate the credible candidates plus Ron Paul on three big government issues: “Net Neutrality” laws and regulation, Government subsidies for “Renewable Energy,” and high speed Internet access subsidies.
Mike Huckabee is their choice because they show him in favor of “Net Neutrality” laws, supportive of energy subsidies, and having taken no position on Internet subsidies. He scores two for two positions taken on big government, and could yet take the big government position on the third. No, thank you.
Mitt Romney is like Huckabee light. They find no position of his on Internet subsidies or “Net Neutrality,” but they say he favors energy subsidies. One for one with two possibilities later.
John McCain comes in sharp contrast with these two. Gizmodo cites him as being flat out against Internet subsides and energy subsidies, but “hedging” on “Net Neutrality.” One half out of three, then.
So I’m forced to draw the opposite conclusion that Gizmodo took. John McCain is the best Republican on the technology issues they list. He’s best in tune with our values, and best for our country’s continued growth and prosperity.
Now Civilization is coming to the DS, too. Joy.
Rico Oller keeps on tallying up the endorsements in the California District 4 primary race. The California Republican Assembly units in the district for have endorsed Rico Oller for the seat, Flash Report says. Oller took 17 votes to Eric Egland’s 2 and Doug Ose’s 2.
The California Republican Assembly has a long tradition and represents the conservative wing of the party. Its endorsement could be as important as that of Ted Gaines.
I have no polling to reference, but I suspect this race is all but over. It will be up to Rico Oller to pull the football from that blockhead Charlie Brown.
Helloooo Pau Gasol! He didn’t come cheap, because to get Gasol AND lose Brown required giving up Jarvis Crittenden, and two first round picks (2008 and 2010). I imagine they’re not lottery protected, since if this team goes to the lottery then it’s all over anyway.
I wonder what the lineup will be like when Andrew Bynum comes back. Will Phil go big, going with maybe Fisher, Bryant, Odom, Gasol, and Bynum? It’d be a shame if Bynum got benched in his breakout year just because of an injury.
The new poll is out! Rasmussen reports a tight race in California: McCain 32, Romney 28, Giuliani 14, Huckabee 11, Paul 5. Wowee, that’s a tight race with lots of excitement, isn’t it? Too bad it gives us almost no information on who’s in position to win more delegates.
Let me just say as an aside that I have nothing against Rasmussen Reports. My understanding is that it’s one of the better political polling organizations, because they do a better of ensuring to get likely voters when likely voters are appropriate. That’s why I reference them here, and every time I look up polls.
However when we look at political polling to tell us who’s in a better position to win a race, we need to ensure that the polling matches the electoral process. And this poll fails to do that at all in California.
California’s Republican primary isn’t a simple first past the post, winner take all event for all the delegates. No, we instead pledge the delegates in the manner they are awarded to us: All of the 53 Congressional districts award three delegates to the candidates who wins them, and the statewide winner receives our state’s 11 at large delegates and bonus girly-man delegate.
In some states, this structure might not matter. Maine and Nebraska even award their Presidential Electors this way (Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996), however this system has yet to cause either state to split its Electoral votes between two candidates. This is because these states are relatively small and homogeneous in population.
California though, is huge and diverse. California is of course our most populous state, with more people than the twenty least populous states, and is third in land area. We sent nineteen Republicans to the House of Representatives last election, including more fine conservatives than many Republican states. We aren’t New York, if ACU ratings are to be believed, sending Republicans with ACU ratings in Democratic territory. We have three in the 70s, with Mary Bono Mack bringing up the rear at 72 (and falling, sadly). And yet Arnold Schwarzenegger is our governor.
How on Earth, then, are we supposed to guess what the above poll numbers mean, in terms of delegates and actually winning the primary? Well, we know McCain and Romney are statistically tied for the at-large delegates. That’s it. All we learn is that Mike Huckabee is not in the running to take 11 of our 170 pledged delegates. That’s not helpful.
Can we possibly guess what the numbers mean? I’m not sure. The Secretary of State gives primary results by county, but we haven’t often had a top of the ticket primary that mattered. Schwarzenegger won as Governor without winning a primary in 2005. McCain has quit by the time we voted for the Presidential nomination in 2000. Lungren was uncontested on our side for Governor in 1998. Serious candidates for Senate are hard to find against Feinstein and Boxer.
So we have one race to consider, that’s it: March 2002, Governor, Businessman Bill Simon v. LA Mayor Richard Riordan v. Secretary of State Bill Jones. Statewide Simon won 50-31-17. Let’s consider the candidates.
In theory, it was Jones’s turn. He actually held statewide office, and arguably the highest office held by a Republican since Dan Lungren gave up the Attorney General’s office to lose to Gray Davis four years earlier. This guy was a successful conservative. He wrote our three strikes law. He sued ‘vote pairing’ organizers, who sought to trade votes for Gore and Nader like commodities. He also ran on anti-corruption and good government, classic Contract with America-style values, but he just didn’t catch on statewide. He did, however, win a few counties: Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, and Tulare, all around his old Assembly district in the heart of California. Taking majorities as a favorite son vote tell us nothing, unfortunately, about who this kind of candidate can reach.
So, we move on to Richard Riordan. What’s he like? Think of Rudy Giuliani (though ironically Giuliani himself supported Bill Simon in this race, having known Simon when Simon worked for him as an Assistant US Attorney). Riordan was the ‘moderate,’ pro-abortion Catholic candidate in the race, who ran on his record making LA safer, as well as a perceived ability to beat Gray Davis (Sound familiar?). Davis’s campaign feared him, too, so they actually ran ads statewide highlighting how out of step Riordan was with California Republicans, having been as ‘moderate’ as to donate money to Dianne Feinstein. And, it worked. Riordan won one county: Los Angeles, where he was mayor, by 7 points. The only other counties he cracked 40% in were San Francisco (-4 to Simon) and Ventura (-3 to Simon). He did the best in some of the most Democratic parts of the state, but only won a plurality (not even a majority) where he was the favorite son candidate.
The attacks on Riordan worked because there was a solid conservative in the race Republicans could back instead. Bill Simon, wealthy banker, pro-life Catholic, was able to speak forcefully on issues that excited Republicans statewide in a way that Riordan couldn’t and Jones chose not to. Combine that with out of state support and money, and Simon was able to run as a frontrunner from the start. With Davis attacking Riordan, Simon was free to attack Davis.
So what do we conclude about McCain and Romney? Well, first off, Romney probably has a Mormon advantage in southeastern California, and could win San Bernardino and Riverside counties, breaking ahead of McCain with the help of determined co-religionist turnout. LA and SF are probably up for grabs now that Rudy Giuliani is out. Beyond that? We’ll vote like the rest of the party. We vote Republican issues.
So I expect John McCain to take the majority of California’s delegates come Tuesday, because he’s the mainstream frontrunner. But I could have told you that without the Rasmussen poll, so I just don’t see the point in taking a statewide poll for a by-district election.
Governor Schwarzenegger invested much effort into trying to get ‘universal coverage’ here in California, but his tax and spend and probably illegal medical care plan he concocted with Assembly Speaker Núñez isn’t going anywhere. The relevant Senate committee killed it on a 10-1 vote today. The Republicans voted 4-0 against it, the Democrats 6-1 against.
Says the Sacramento Bee:
Opponents, citing a report released last week by the Legislative Analyst’s Office that concluded the plan might be underfunded by billions of dollars, said they were concerned about adding to the state’s projected $14.5 billion deficit.
“It doesn’t matter how many good things are in the bill if there isn’t money to pay for them,” said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica and chairwoman of the committee.
Ha ha. About the only bad thing about this is that it now won’t go to court, and set a precedent for getting MassCare thrown out as well.
John Derbyshire is raising money for Ron Paul at The Corner. I’m disappointed. We all know Ron Paul is opposed to Goldwater Republicanism, but once upon a time NR was a Goldwater Republican organization. If NRO continues to allow Derbyshire to shill for Ron Paul on their site, it shows that they truly have diverged from their proud traditions.