The ALCAIDE’S CAFE

The poster child for the “cause” of embryonic stem cell research was a man (Superman, in fact) paralyzed by spinal cord injury. He, and the lobbyists who used him, played on the public conscience (and ignorance of the actual science of stem-cell research and potential) to demand that there be no economic or policy or ethical bounds to the sacrifice and utilization of any human embryo, that these tiny people-to-be be freely available for dissolution in a testube for use in the search for cures of spinal-cord injuries. Of course, I’m sure you know - at least - many people, scientists included, consider these embryos are extant human lives that deserve at least as much respect, valuation, rights and protections that, say, PETA people accord mice and snails and chickens and cows.

Just a few days ago our new President, Obama, overturned the few limitations the previous President, Bush, had established. Embryonic stem cell research was not forbidden by Bush, but only the use of public (tax) money, which is taken from all of us by force, for the sacrifice of new embryos was banned. The sentiment behind that policy, of course, was a respect for the beliefs of millions of citizens who do not want their taxes used for what they see as murder. Embryos previously killed and cloned were still fair game, and private money was allowed to kill as many human embryos as anyone wanted. So, it was felt, by the previous Presidency, that embryonic stem cell research was still pretty much unfettered whenever the taxed money of conscientious objectors was not paying for it.

It is ironic then that only a few days after Obama overturned the policy, presumably rescuing the hopes of all those with spinal cord injuries, that scientists announced the first successful therapy for spinal cord injury. And it involved not the pirated cells of human embryos, but adult stem cells taken, with no sacrifice of one human life to benefit another, but from adults’ bone marrow!

You can get a quick read on this at: “Stem Cell Administration Study Demonstrates Improved Quality of Life For Patients suffering From Spinal Cord Injury” (ScienceDaily, Mar. 28, 2009)

You know, this particular battleground in the “Culture Wars” is so unecessary. Both sides have such really great and deeply felt concerns; both have sincere moral positions; both, in fact, really have the same hope and desire for the science and medical goals. And I suspect few on either side actually disagree in their empathy and sympathy for the patients who need this next medical breakthrough, and regard for the sanctity of human life. It’s much more the rancorous partisan politics of our time that fuel the actual battle.

By the way, the studies just keep pouring out that show even more how little we actually need to kill our littlest young in order to profit our own selves and future. For instance:

“Testes Stem Cells Can Change Into Other Tissues” (ScienceDaily, Jan. 8, 2009)

“Stem Cell Troops Called To Repair the Body Using New Drug Combinations” (ScienceDaily, Jan. 12, 2009)

“Blood Cells Can Be Reprogrammed To Act As Embryonic Stem Cells” (ScienceDaily, April 21, 2009) 

There are hundreds, I assure you, that have appeared in the “pop science” ezines like Science Daily and more officious journals everywhere. All say the same: Barring ideology or partisan politics, there is/was no need to lift even these slight restrictions on the use of new embryonic cell lines. 

That “Ugly American Syndrome” showed itself again, these past few days, as the “we gotta have our sex” crowd in this country (and a few other parts of the world - mostly the “modern” world) condemned the Pope for his saying that condoms are not the solution to, but part of the problem in the AIDS epidemic.

In tour most modern culture, once ravaged by HIV but now only plagued by it, we believe that condoms are the prophylactic of choice against HIV’s hell … though the fact that HIV still eats its way through our society like the grim reaper’s second-in-command should make us a little bit uncertain … and wonder if it’s more likely that the availability of a number of super (expensive) drugs that is really the more effective barrier between HIV and AIDS that protects us against HIV’s full promise. Condoms, instead, may well be the reason so many still get the disease, even here in our so-clever and educated and technically savvy and well-able-to-buy society that HIV still thrives.

It may be that a condom well-used protects when it is used. But at the same time doesn’t it encourage the sexual behaviors that are needed for HIV to sneak into a life and perpetuate itself? HIV need only wait for the time the condom is not used, or is used poorly, or fails, to score yet another one for the gipper reaper to take his toll. The condom, and human fallibility, may indeed be seen as part of the problem if, as does the Pope, you both know human nature well enough to KNOW that we will keep on keeping on (sexually) but skip or forget, occasionally, our little guardian friend (the condom), and see the problem of HIV more as one of behavior and morality than biology and a little virus.

Were those offended by the Pope not so ready to take offense and condemn anyone who doubts their own wisdom and view of things, those who have been so loudly and vociferously condemning the Pope’s opinion, they might instead see his point … maybe even agree it has some merit … especially regarding that 60, 70, 80 percent of the world’s people where condoms are not so available, or habitual, or understood, or fresh and reliable. Where his moral remedy would guarantee what the condom cannot. Where, in fact, the condom almost guarantees the opposite, that it only encourages what will ultimately keep HIV alive and well as one of the most effective predators humanity has ever faced!

If there’s one constant in American culture and politics that leads our “diplomacy” to nought, vis a vis the Arab and Islamic world, it’s that we blindly (some - remember “The Ugly American” - would say, arrogantly) continue to assume they think exacly like us. That we share most basic values, perceptions, and objectives. They don’t. Their culture is a very different culture, and we never seem to grasp that. And it’s liable to be fatal, someday.

Nothing stands as a better example of that than President Obama’s little “Let’s start over and be friends this time” speech to Iran, the other day. Our people were a little bit shocked when the Iranian leadership dismissed his speech in an almost mocking manner. They looked as if they really could care less, though the truth is, it made their hearts leap with joy. But not for the reasons you might think. To their perception, Obama just confirmed what they are wont to believe every day: We (jihadists) ARE winning, the Americans are beginning to fade!”

I’ve always credited Obama with a bit more street smarts. I gave some of the credit for his great oratorical skills and persuasive ways to the African American male (esp) culture where one just grows up knowing how to talk your way into, or out of, or past any sort of situation or interpersonal challenge. It’s the way of the street. It’s the way people who are often the underdogs, the ones with less power than whomever they must face down or outsmart or placate get by. They talk. Hip hop, trash talk, smooth talk, conning and jiving, all psychological and conversational skills/weapons. But I’ve come to think Obama has spent too many years sharing the white halls of power and culture. He’s lost, or failed to hone, those street smarts so much.

They (the press & media folk) always talk about the “Arab Street” when the politics get rough or contentious. When something we do, or Arab leaders who have grown too like us in their own life of political power amongst the rest of the world (the non-Arab world), causes an adverse reaction, causes raucus and violent protests and demonstarations “in the streets” (where most Arab men spend most their time), we attribute that to the “street”, something we tend to equate with the unwashed, the proletariat, the Islamicists, etc. We don’t understand, that is not just the street, but the desert, the tents, the culture.

Arabs respect strength. Obama didn’t show strength. I even heard a well-known female Arabic reporter translate how she saw his speech (language and style) the next day. She thought it was weak. Almost effeminate. And much more likely to elicit a reaction like my title than one of serious respect or a “Hmmm, this man is serious and means well - maybe we ought to grab the opportunity to work out a new rapprochement.”

Arabs like the fight. They respect a good trick, a clever deception, a victory by cunning. One is honest to his god, his brother, his tribal elders, but not to his enemy. His enemy is a dog. He deserves no respect, no honesty, no quarter. All this talk about how if we treat them kindly and respectfully as prisoners of war they might treat our soldiers decently when captured is just so much ignorant malarky. They will do what we see them doing even to each other in their factional conflicts: burn, pound, drill holes in their knees and legs; rape their women and torture their children; make them suffer as much as possible before killing them with the insult of a beheading. By our values that might seem evil. By their values, it is macho. We are stupid and weak, and effeminate as homosexuals - whom they see as evil! Judging another culture by our own values … that IS the Ugly American at its best!

Obama and his Democratic left might want to do politics and foreign policy as they see fit. They might think it far superior to the hardness of the Republican neocon right. But it is not going to work in treating with the Islamicists and jihadists their sympathizers in the Arab street. If you honestly look at how they work, you’ll see even our neocon hardliners don’t come near their hardliners!

Watching Congress lately reminds me all too much of the stampeding zebras of the movie Madagascar2: thousands of indistinguishable striped asses (scuse moi Francais) would take to flight in a perfect symphony to escape whatever danger, or get safely (under the cover of the horde/herd) to whatever goal they wanted. Sometimes they just did it for fun!

Curious why I am so reminded? Well, picture this:

Remember how, just a few weeks ago, they (Congress) were tasked with putting together a “stimulus bill”, a humongous trillion-dollar spending spree that was to save the world economy.

The lion was at the door here (no doors in the jungle), bloody fangs bared, said the Great Whi… well, American Hunter Obama, and we were all gonna die if he didn’ have the biggest gun ever invented! Soooo Madagascar. Any way, whoulda thought that they, the herd of Striped Butts we all know (lovingly, of course) as the Congress, and the smaller older herd of similar butts (you know, the Senate) could ever get anything done in a hurry. But were we surprised! Maybe it was the fear struck by the Hunter/Leader Obama, but whatever, the Striped Butts ran that bill through the jungle so fast, there was nothing but a dizzying swirl of black and white camoflage leaving us wondering what it was. And we still don’t what they really did. Nobody knows! As the latest show of zebra choreography reveals!

So what was it that stampeded them like that? Well, they’d just heard that some AIG guys (the hyenas in Madagascar2?) had snuck around their watchful eyes and gotten a little bite of their private stash of greenbacks, which they’d stacked bales and bales of in all sorts of barns and fields. (Actually, the AIG guys got little more than a tiny biteful off one bale - not alfalfa or grass, by the way - stacked in one barn.) Anyway, faster even that the zebras of Madagascar, the Striped Butts of Washington swirled into action and passed their “Vengeance is Mine Bill” to force the AIG guys to vomit back their little nibble of green. (I’ve been told I should say “regurgitate”, cuz it’s nicer, when it’s the the IRS serving as emetic, I think ”vomit” is accurate)

You ought watch Madagascar2 (honest, I own no stock in it, and have no vested interest beyond a lot of fun … and I own a DVD of it) if you haven’t already. You’ll enjoy it, and probably understand a lot more about our Congress. In fact, all of Capitol Hill! Madagascar2 could be nominated as a rather arty documentary, or used in schools as a civics teaching, perhaps! 

KGB or Gestapo? Which would you say best describes the thuggery being exhibited by much of our Congress and Senate, right now, over the bonuses of about 100 AIG executives? Does it frighten you at all that:

1. A Senator suggests these executives commit suicide (for having gotten a $1 million bonus)? Maybe the same standard ought be recommended for $45 million/year baseball players who fail to bat 350, or win 20+ games. And $15 million/year football quarterbacks who don’t even lead the team to the playoffs. And … well, you get the idea. Seem silly? Well, I promise you some people will agree with all 3 suggestions. Sports fans can get vicious. What if they were government officials - think Russia during Stalin, Germany during Hitler, Iraq during Saddam! In fact, Saddam was famous for such things! So how far are WE from such things, in the USA. Lately, I’m not so sure as …

2. A Congresswoman suggests we tax the executives 1000 percent of their bonus. And another one says (on a TV news show) that she thinks we can, and they “will work on it tonight”. A Senator from California says tax them 100% of bonuses (which, the way some people are paid, that’s also their wages - like, you ever sell on commission?). That’s worse than a HUGE fine with no trial, without even proof that any particular executive did anything illegal. Or simply bad. Or maybe just did what his/her boss said to do. Or the company lawyers said was OK. Would you like to be threatened (wherever you work) that the IRS can do that? To just you, or the faculty or office staff where YOU work? Worse is the fact that …

3. The Congress is told that the executives are being threatened (by hundreds!) with death. With having their entire families slaughtered. And the folks doing the threatening are asking for their names and addresses. And one leading Congressman says he doesn’t care and wants their names published, and another congressman says that the names and addresses be made public … UNLESS they “voluntarily” give back their pay (or bonuses). Isn’t that EXTORTION? Sounds like a Mafia movie, with the thugs shaking down business people, sports stars, millionaires! Is that the kind of future, where government officials work that way, you feel safe in? Especially with that backhanded endoresement of death threats by citizens! What if, instead of AIG you work for MacDonalds? Some of the anti-meat, or high-fat, or fast-food activists would like to come after you. What if you work for a builder building “unenvironmental” housing developments? Or a car dealer selling gas-guzzling SUVs? Or a tobacco company? Or a chemical (like pesticides) company? There are ”enemies” for almost every busines, every product, even yours - people who would like to kill you for what you do, or don’t do. It’s not just about abortionists, or churches, or losing football teams, or AIG. Everyone is at risk if such thuggery is allowed - all the more so by the congress or any government official!

“During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, ‘We will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.’
While that statement — along with his pledge to impose a ‘cap on carbon pollution’ — drew applause, let’s slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country’s energy future….
By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that’s right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.
Mr. Bush’s record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world’s energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, .…
Let’s start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of ‘renewable’ energy. If he’s including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America’s total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.
If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush’s effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America’s overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.
Here’s why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That’s the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America’s total electricity consumption….
The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.
Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America’s total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share — we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Well, that’s enough plagiarism. That comes from:

Yesterday the “Global Warmists” were protesting a coal-fired plant (providing the biggest share of the electricity they’d need to get warm later) while shivering in an “unseasonably late” snowstorm. Hmmm.

A month or so ago, climatologists with our national weather service said there had been no sign of warmer temperatures for a decade. “Not to worry,” said the Global Warmists, “that’s just more proof it is heating up.” OK.

Well, then about two weeks ago the Gov’t agency that watches the artic ice announced they’d made a mistake: due to a “calibration error” there was more ice this year than they had said. The artic ice pack is actually larger than they thought, by an area about equal to California. ”Oh well,” the G.W.s said, “polar bears are still drowning.” (though the Wildlife Service says the polar bears were up in population by some 10% now. Strange.

Now, the climatologists say that the earth’s average temperature has flatlined over the last 8 years, even though atmospheric carbon has steadily increased. And it looks like we are in for about 20 to 3 years of cooling, ”the causes of which we don’t really understand. But,” they added, “after that warming will resume ’aggressively’!” For reasons we don’t really understand. Wow!

You think, maybe, we could hold off for a few of those 20 to 30 years of cooling (wasn’t that touted as the “Global Winter”, or the “Big Chill”, about 10, 15 years ago?), and give our economy a chance to recover, and our scientists to get a handle on what really is going on, and technology to really come up with some tried and proven alternatives to our oil-based economy, and our folks to come up with the money to buy replacements for the 350,000,000 cars they own right now, and the land-fills and recyclers to get rid of the old cars, and the environmental lawsuits to clear the courts so we can build the new power plants and power lines we need to make a shift? Just wondering. 

I don’t get it. Obama - President Obama - in order to “stimulate” our economy wants to discourage charitable giving. He wants to slash the tax credit/deduction for charitable giving.

Let’s see. I give $10 to my church it generally goes to pay staff. That’s stimulating. I give $10 to the food bank, it goes to buy food for the unemployed or other folks too poor to buy food. That’s stimulating. I give $10 to a charity paying for treatment of a child with cancer, or pay the motel charges for the child’s parents. That’s stimulating. I give $10 to “Habitat for Humanity” to buy lumber to build a house for a homeless family. That’s stimulating. In every case, the $10 goes immdiately into the economy, and helps folks at the same time.

But Obama says “let’s stop that! Let’s tax that man $3 or $4 more in taxes, instead. So I decide to keep my $10 in my pocket. Next year, Obama gets $4. It goes into the government coffers. It gets appropriated for???? Well, let’s hope for the best. It gets awarded to some state for homeless shelters. 6 months later some state bureaucrat gets it. After “overhead”, $1 goes to pay to keep a public building (in my town, the National Guard Armory) open for overnight shelter of a homeles person. Huuurah!

Now what happened here? My $10 doesn’t help anyone I wanted to help. But my taxes on it eventually helped someone. I guess I feel good about that. I think. I don’t know.

But instead of $10 immediately stimulating our economy and immediately helping someone in my town, and supporting my local favorite charity, and making me feel good and kinda like I should give again next month …. well, two years from now my taxes put $1 into something good somewhere. I think. How should I know? Some bureaucrat somewhere made the decision to help the homeless (I hope it didn’t go to buy a new helicopter for Obama). So who got stimulated? I know I didn’t (emotionally). I just got discouraged and turned off to giving to help the poor. Can’t afford too many charitable acts anymore.

Oh, I know. The government got stimulated. Took in more taxes, and a couple of years later, got the credit for “being there” for all us poor (that includes me, since I lost my job in the “depressed” economy.And I got stimulated to love the welfare agency and the generous Democrats who always take care of us when we need a handout.

In a more serious vein… these are thoughts I’ve come up with as I listen to the chatter and arguments every night in the cafe:

It’s getting harder than ever to have a serious and meaningful political debate, discussion, or campaign because of the “Sippet-Gotcha” syndrome: the political campaigns’ use of tiny bits of something someone says (the media call it “out of context”, I call them “Snippet-Gotchas”) to slam out ads that make the candidate or campaign spokesman sound stupid, or to be saying something VERY DIFFERENT than what they were really saying, or trying to explain.

Arguably, that’s what the McCain campaign did when they seized upon a remark of Obama’s, when he was using an old saw about lipstick on a pig. Obama, accusing McCain of still using old policies and trying to sell them as new, was accused of deliberately inferring something unflattering about the Veep candidate, Sarah Palin. I personally don'’t think Obama intended to insult or joke about her at all, but it is curious that most of his audience DID make the association and found the remark very funny (when even Obama seemed to miss the point!) So maybe there was something subliminal there but I’m just not nasty or partisan enough to pick up on it. Maybe the McCain campaign was right … that’s why I started this with “arguably”.

Less arguable and far more obvious it is that the Obama campaign HAS been doing a heap of such nasty and wholly misleading Snippet-Gotcha ads. It’s gotten so the McCain side can hardly talk!

For instance, McCain said (referring to our policies in Germany and S. Korea) that we may well keep troups in Iraq a hundred years - as long as they aren’t being shot at, and are welcome and just there to help stabalize things, he explained. McCain’s position and the caveats that explain it was SNIPPED to “troups in Iraq a hundred years” and used as a Gotcha to prove McCain is in favor of a hundred more years of war. It’s a horrible distortion that totally wastes McCain’s attempt to carry on a reasonable and nuanced discussion of a most important issue, an issue the candidates should be actually devating honestly and extensively. But with the Snippet-Gotcha tactic, the truth and discussion was blown up (IED’d!). 

Another example involves a joking answer of McCain’s to Rick Warren (the Saddleback Church forum where both candidates answered an hour’s worth of questions). Warren asked “What is rich”? McCain jokingly said “rich” was certainly making $5,000,000 a year. Realizing the Snippet hacks were already heading to the ad film-making room, McCain immediately scolded himself for having just tossed some more of his own flesh to the sharks, and gave a serious answer. Too late. In an hour there was an ad claiming McCain thinks only folks with five million or more are rich, implying his mere millionaire friends are middleclass and ”showing” how much he is ”out of touch (and sympathy)” with real folks (most voters) who only dream of being millionaires.

A more serious example: Carly Fiorina (the highly esteemed ex-CEO of Hewlet-Packard, and McCain advisor/supporter), being interviewed about the serious economic issues of recent days, responded to a question by saying she didn’t think the Senator McCain had the expertise to run a company like HP. Oh yes, in the same breath she also said that neither could Obama or Biden or Palin. But the Snippet editors ran to the cutting room to put out an ad claiming McCain’s own expert economic advisor said he was incapable of running a business, so how could he handle our faltering economy!

24 hours later the Obama campaign had its people appearing on the news shows repeating it but in a new form: “McCain’s own advisor, Fiorina, has said Sarah Palin is incapable of running a business”. With that, the only executive experience amongst all four candidates is punted out of the game. That Snippet killed two of the four birds it had originally spoken the truth about in a rare bit of honesty and candor in this election campaign, in a mere 24 hour shooting spree! A pretty good (dishonest) Gotcha! And  one more vital interest of the American people kicked off the table!

I could go on forever, of course. Anyone of any political persuasion can see the incredible devastation the Snippet-Gotchas are wreaking. The list grows faster than I can type.

But this last, the Fiorina Snippet-Gotchas, raises another issue I’d like to have a say on before I close and post this. It’s driving me nuts. It seems that in this 2008 election, like in no other, the candidate has to be not just good, or reasonably informed and able to talk about many issues, but has to be TOTALLY expert, TOTALLY decided, and TOTALLY already committed to a PLAN for every matter the President might ever deal with! 2004 was the year of the “flip flop”. 2008 is the year of not only “anti-flip flop” but of the Know-It-All candidate, brilliant beyond the need for mere advisors, with a chiseled-in-stone PLAN!

Obama, once McCain once honestly confessed that in his own humble opinion of himself economics was not his strongest suit (he always staked out his military expertise, foreign policy savvy, his “reach across the aisle” bonafides, and his nondogmatism - i.e. willingness to be pragmatic and less than Pelosi-style partisanship) … Obama immediately took the scepter and crown of cheif economist. He continuously runs Snippet-Gotchas and plain Gotchas (no need to snip McCains humble confession!) in ads and stump speaches ridiculing any and every thing McCain says or proposes on economics. And Obama has the PLAN(S). Nevermind he’s had to admit that some of its … well, its major thrust, to raise taxes for redistribution amongst lower economic (less successful? less productive? or just less lucky?) classes is going to be bad for the economy in general (Obama: “I know tax revenue goes down when you raise capital-gains rates, but it’s just fair!”; “If the economy is still weak, I may have to hold off on the taxes a bit” [obviously taxes sap an economy]).

Similary, Obama must be the BEST expert in military affairs. Hard to do against McCain with a few centuries family history, a military career, a stint as a military liason to Capitol Hill, and 24 years in the Senate and military oriented committees. Nevertheless, Obama cites his first publicly remembered speech against the Iraq war as proof he’s the BEST. Nevermind that whatever his own real views or knowledge was at the time, he gave that speech at the command of a woman who was his patron and financier at that time! 

It seems that reflection and advancing new ideas and positions is a crime worse than … well, no politician better do that. A good President must be someone who entered this world with all truth and wisdom (and PLANS) already chiseled in stone. Gee, that sounds like a messiah, doesn’t it!

I don’t know why I’m writing about this incident. Maybe its the “handicap” connection. My last piece was about the handicaps of John Mcain, and the Obama campaign’s ignorance, or disregard, or really cruel disregard of them whiling trying to score a gain via political smear. This one is hardly as nasty a case, but rather a somewhat humorous incident reflecting a politician’s ignorance of (or blindness/insensitivity to) someone’s physical handicap. And what was it?

Senator Biden (Veep candidate on the Dem side) was holding a rally in the midwest (Ohio, I think) and following the usual political rally script, “recognized” local politicos in attendance. After mentioning someone (I missed the name, so call him John Doe), he called out, “Stand up John!” When the fellow didn’t, Biden repeated his call, “Stand up. Maybe a third try followed, but finally Biden realized that John was handicapped and in a wheelchair. Biden then exclaimed something to the effect of, “OMG, he can’t, he’s in a wheelchair. Sorry John. Come on everyone, stand up instead….”

I don’t know, it’s an honest mistake, I’m sure. But somehow there seems to be another lesson or two here, for the learning. About politics, political scripts, the seeming friendships and familiarities between politicians, etc., etc. About realness, sincerity, and that sort of stuff. You decide.

Politics is an ugly game. A dirty business. Everbody knows it. Yet everybody does it.