Soros Gives Lancet A Black Eye

This story has been percolating for a while, but I waited until it hit enough MSM outlets. I questioned the "study" released just before the 2006 elections in the Lancet, the British medical journal, that claimed that more than 600,000 Iraqis had been killed since the US invasion. That is in excess of the normal death rate. I called it bull then, the National Journal just recently called it major bull. Today, the Times of London makes sure that the person paying for the fraud is exposed internationally. That fraud "John" would be George Soros. The Lancet has taken a major hit to its credibility by accepting a bought and paid for political hit job by Soros. And the "researchers" who whored for Soros should be ridiculed. They were bought cheap.

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Low rent streetwalkers have more class. MIT, Johns-Hopkins, Columbia and the Lancet all have some explaining to do. Or maybe they should publish their rate schedule. That way everyone knows how much it costs to get formerly great institutions to whore.

Apparently, $100 grand or so buys the whole house. Cheap. Whores.

On Such Ground

On August 23, 1864, Abraham Lincoln had his entire cabinet sign a piece of paper. It was folded in such a way that those asked to sign it could not read the words that were written upon it. The so-called "blind memorandum" was not disclosed until after the election of 1864 returned Lincoln to the White House. The simple, short memorandum read as follows:

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this administration will not be elected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with he President elect as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration, as he will have secured this election on such ground that he cannot save it afterwards."

There is an obvious parallel today in this news.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process." The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House–in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

No, I am not saying that George W. Bush is a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln, nor am I saying that this move will ensure victory in Iraq. What I am saying is that Bush will have ensured that it is not easy for whoever next lives in the White House to walk away from what has been accomplished in Iraq - and much that is positive has been accomplished, despite the screeching from the left on this. They declared the surge a defeat before it even began, they declared the war lost. Yet General Petraeus proved them wrong.

All Your Organs Are Belong Us

Still think socialized medicine is a great idea? In Britain, the newest line of thinking for the government is that since the health care is free, they can loot your dead body for whatever fleshy bits they want as soon as you're dead. Whether or not you agree to being so looted.

Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister says that such a facility would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year.

The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.

But patients' groups said that they were "totally opposed" to Mr Brown's plan, saying that it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.

There are more than 8,000 patients waiting for an organ donation and more than 1,000 a year die without receiving the organ that could save their lives.

The Government will launch an overhaul of the system next week, which will put pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more "potential organ donors" from dying patients. Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they "convert" into donors and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor co-ordinators as patients approach death.

But Mr Brown, who carries a donor card, has made it clear he backs an even more radical revamp of the system, which would lead to donation by "presumed consent". The approach is modelled on that of Spain, which has the highest proportion of organ donors in the world.

"A system of this kind seems to have the potential to close the aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant surgery in the UK and the limits imposed by our current system of consent," Mr Brown writes.

George Orwell had it exactly nailed. He saw just how close a totalitarian mindset was in Britain and the West.

Every Vote Counts - Unless They Might Be Against Hillary

Some "Democrats" are up to some pretty sleazy - and completely undemocratic - tactics in Nevada. The teacher's union there is trying to block the Culinary Worker's union members from voting. This sudden turn of events happened when - surprise - the culinary workers endorsed Barack Obama. While the teachers have not officially endorsed anyone, many of the union's top leadership have. They back Hillary Clinton.

The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama, a blow to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama addressed the Culinary Union at their hall earlier Friday.

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts. The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the culinary workers are from minority groups. Which I am fairly certain we'll be hearing very soon. What is the usual song and dance from the Democrats about Republicans trying to disenfranchise minorities? With never an iota of truth, that smear gets repeated endlessly. (There are a lot of them, I have been to Vegas once.)

The Democrats, however, really do attempt to take votes away from people. Just ask the people in the culinary workforce in Nevada. This is sleazy, even for the Clintonistas.

Lost Shipment

A rural road in Cerro Gordo county, Iowa was blanketed in three inches of chicken manure over a one and a half mile stretch on Thursday. Sheriff's deputies report that a lot of people had to wash their cars as a result.

"The end gate failed on the semi and that's what caused it," sheriff's Deputy Frank Hodak said of the spill, which happened Thursday on a two-lane road northeast of Mason City.

Hodak said the driver, Jay Daniel McDonough, 33, of Nora Springs, didn't realize there was a problem.

"No, not for a 1 1/2 miles. I think he went to turn on a different road and saw it," Hodak said.

The deputy said he had "no clue" how much manure spilled, but it was a lot.

"The whole southbound lane of the road was completely blocked. It was probably about 3 inches deep," Hodak said.

Heavy equipment, including a skidloader and endloader, was brought in to clean up the mess. The county then dumped sand on the road. Clean up took about 2 hours.

There is no word on which presidential campaign the load belonged to.

A Quiet Giant

Time Magazine has a really nice article about Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, or as he preferred, Ed. Written by Simon Robinson, it paints a picture of a quiet giant, an unassuming man who never thought what he had done in conquering Everest was all that big a deal.

Beginning in 1962 he began working with the Nepalese sherpas who had so often helped him. Raising funds through his Himalayan Trust, he helped install bridges and pipes, built nearly 30 schools, two hospitals, 12 medical clinics and two mountaineering clinics, restored monasteries, and planted more than a million seedlings in and around the towns of the rugged and poor Solu-Khumbu region of Nepal. Much of the last years of his life were dedicated to the work of the Trust, which opened offices in New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Germany. Even into his 70s Hillary spent an average of five months away from New Zealand every year raising money through lectures and visiting the projects in Nepal. He still felt uncomfortable with his knighthood and fame but realized their advantages and the obligations they brought. "I would like to see myself not going [to Nepal] quite so often," he told TIME in 1996. "But at the moment… the responsibility is there. It has to be done." Determined to create a financial reserve for the Trust's future he was realistic about his role. "The worry is, What happens after Ed?" he said.

Do read it all, it really is very well done. Rest in peace, Sir Ed. (They have pictures as well.)

Factional Wars

Michael Barone looks at the various political factions that are clashing in the two parties right now over at Real Clear Politics. He points out that all this has been seen before.

The presidential selection process is supposed to enable the parties to come together, to agree on a widely acceptable nominee. But so far, the process has separated the parties into separate and hostile factions. One faction of the Democratic Party is relatively upscale, well educated, young. This faction is supporting Barack Obama. The other faction is relatively downscale, less educated, old. This faction is supporting Hillary Clinton.

This is not a new split in the Democratic Party. If you put John Edwards' votes aside, the New Hampshire primary results last week look very much like the New Hampshire primary results in 2000, when Al Gore narrowly defeated Bill Bradley by almost exactly the same percentage margin by which Clinton defeated Obama……

…..There is some irony here. Bill Clinton came to the presidency after a campaign that appealed most to the upscale faction. But the two candidates who ran as, in some sense, his heirs, Gore and Hillary Clinton, have appealed to the other side. The Clintons' theme song in 1992 was "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." Their theme song this year might turn out to be "Yesterday."

I'll send you over there to get his read on the Republican landscape. Barone thinks the Democratic contest may be effectively over by super duper Tuesday on February 5th. It does not look quite as settled on the Republican side. Not that this is really a new take on things. Many people have noticed how wide-open the Republican race is this year. If the Republicans are smart, though, they will refrain from the same factional warfare that is tearing the Democrats apart.  

UPDATE: I set Right Wing Prof off bigtime with this post. Go read it.

When Will Edwards Jump?

The Washington Post speculates that John Edwards may face a moment of truth (their words) after the South Carolina primary. If he throws his support to Obama, how bad will it get for Hillary Clinton?

John Edwards is the forgotten man in the race for the Democratic nomination, but he's not an inconsequential candidate.

Edwards, the angry populist of Iowa who may become a Southern-fried Democrat as the South Carolina primary unfolds, has a critical decision ahead. How long can, or should, he keep his candidacy going?

In a largely two-person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's clear where Edwards's sentiments lie. If he can't be the nominee, he strongly prefers Obama.

If there were any doubt, his performance in the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate answered that question definitively. Edwards leaped to Obama's defense when Clinton raised doubts about him — aggressively challenging the New York senator as a creature of a frightened status quo.

"I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead," he said. "Now that she's not, we hear them. And anytime you speak out — anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens."

Edwards has played that role before, although not quite so explicitly. Trained in the combat of the courtroom, he is a more natural debater than Obama — and more naturally confrontational, too. He has used the debates effectively to keep himself in the thick of the dialogue, even though he generally trails well behind Clinton and Obama in the polls.

Edwards put everything on the line in Iowa, a state that was a must-win contest for him. He was able to keep his campaign going largely because he managed to beat Clinton by a whisker for second place. The shift of a few votes would have reversed the order between the two, and he would have been history.

There is already a perceptible movement of nutroots support away from Edwards and to Obama. Dan Balz points out that the cold calculations of identity politics are heavily in play in South Carolina as well.

Obama and Clinton have competed heavily for the African American vote in South Carolina, and the Clinton campaign fears that Obama will now win the majority of that vote, perhaps a sizable majority.

Clinton's chances of winning would depend on the white vote, but as long as Edwards is running, she would have to split it. That alone was one reason that, before Clinton unexpectedly won in New Hampshire, her advisers were seriously considering skipping the state.

Balz's point in all this is that absent a win in the very near future, Edwards has no chance - and could begin to lose any real chance of wielding influence in deciding who does get the nomination. All the early conventional wisdom said that there would be a Clinton-Obama ticket. Might it actually be more likely to be an Obama-Edwards pairing? That appears to be what Balz is thinking.