Friday 31 May 2013

Feld of Wrath: Friday, May 31st

The words a father speaks to his children in the privacy of the home are not overheard at the time, but, as in whispering galleries, they will be clearly heard at the end and by posterity. -Jean Paul Richter, writer (1763-1825) 




P, thanks for the ride lasterday. I will not ride this morning, apart from a ride to school this morning. rep for the arrival of grandma will keep me here on the vacuum and in other domestic servitude. Will let you know about Rita and bridge on Tuesday -- later today. How much time do we need to ride from your digs to Horseshit Bay? W

Ray, it was good to see you back on the bike. Hopefully early next week we can get back on the horse. G
Dear Branko! Just a quick note to let you know that Whirlygig and Robo Man will be joining you on the quarter-deck of the Rum Runner for lattes while I ride out to Deep Cove or Seymour Demo. They have finally shown their true colours and have decided that sipping java and re-living past squash matches is preferable to actually managing to obtain exercise. Talking is far more rewarding than doing and they now realize that since you were a trail blazer in this regard they feel it is only proper that they take the sacred oath of fealty and pay homage to you, the Master of all Blowhards and Layabouts.


Don't worry about me, however, as I don't mind riding to Horseshoe Bay, solo, as it only takes me about an hour and forty minutes. If I leave the Heartbreak Terrace, (What an appropriate name, given the betrayal noted above!), at around 10:15-10-30am I can usually arrive in Horseshoe Bay Village in time to watch the 12:50 sailing load while I enjoy my own double espresso, (I spit on anaemic lattes!), and ruminate about former friends, lost to sedentary pursuits and empty boasts.

If you feel the need to try to justify your underhanded luring of the weak, ex-peletonii to the regions of sloth please feel free to call or write. By now I am an expert on rationalization and feeble excuses, having endured the slings and arrows of such for far too, too long, so much so that I am prone to fits of dizziness whenever such pathetic utterances are proffered.

I remain, as ever, Vitriolically Yours, Patrizzio, Il Conduttore, Bafflegab Detector Exrtraordinaire!


Dear Caustic BDE, I am enjoying my latte as you ride, cursing like a sailor, all the way to Deep Crave, Seymour's Demon and back, if there is a return. 



I will be at Heartless Terrace at 10:15 Saturday to great you in your post-malted dementia. In spite of your ranting, I am still prepared to carry some of your travel paraphernalia provided you carry my new prize vacuum cleaner -- you never have to lift. Mark could meet us at Science World at 10:30. I will confirm with the man. W - AP

George, 
The pedant in me is behooved to point out the error of your anagramatic ways. To wit: the correct form of post-nominal address for His Holy-than-thouness would be BED, for struth, is he not such an engine, a Bafflegab Emitting Device? Further apropos, his persistent fits of [self-diagnosed] febrility would argue for some BEDrest as a restorative [for all of us!].
Here's hoping [forlornly ?] that the morrow will bring us some brief respite...See you at Science World at shortly after 10:15. 8^) cheers, Mark


Hey there, How are you doing now? Hope you are 100 % back! Off tomorrow for a week with Range Rider and family. Will say hello for you. Hope to see you soon. G&F

If you want to donate blood in the United States, there are a bunch of eligibility requirements you have to meet first. (The American Red Cross has a long list.) The purpose of these requirements are twofold: one, to ensure that the donor is able to donate without harming him or herself, and two, to reduce the chances that the donor has a communicable disease which may infect a recipient of the blood. While some of the restrictions are controversial, one -- not listed by the Red Cross -- may have saved thousands of American donees from receiving tainted blood. That restriction: a ban on blood banks from purchasing blood from prisons and, ultimately, from prison inmates. How do we know that prisoners' blood had a disproportionate amount of problems? 


  
Because Canada hadn't instituted the same ban. In the 1960s, it wasn't uncommon for American prison systems to set up paid-for blood drives. Prisoners would give blood and the prisons, acting as a broker of sorts, would sell the blood and give a cut back to the inmates. Starting in 1964, Arkansas was one of the states which participated in these programs. 

By 1978, a company called Health Management Associates (HMA) won a contract to provide medical services to the state's inmates -- including running the blood donation program. Over the next few years, HMA sold prisoners' blood for $50 a pop, according to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, with the individual inmates receiving about $7 in scrip. Unfortunately, HMA's oversight of the program wasn't great. Pre-screening of donors simply wasn't as good as it would be on the outside, with many carriers of HIV or hepatitis allowed to donate blood. And even when inmates were flagged as carrying communicable diseases, many of them complained when turned around. Arguing that they had a "right to bleed" -- they wanted scrip -- these inmates convinced organizers (often prisoners themselves) to look the other way and allow the otherwise-ineligible inmates to donate.

By the end of 1982, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) advised would-be blood purchasers to eschew blood from inmates. This effectively ended the practice in the United States as the American Red Cross and other collectors and distributors of blood follow FDA requirements. However, many organizations outside the States did not follow FDA regulations and advisories. Specifically, the Canadian Red Cross continued to purchase blood from HMA, and, ultimately, from Arkansas' inmates. Over the next decade, over 20,000 Canadians received tainted blood transfusions. Roughly 1,000 contracted HIV while the others were later diagnosed with hepatitis C.


In 1994, the scandal came to a halt. HMA stopped collecting donations from inmates. The Canadian government began an investigation the fall prior, issuing what is now called the Krever Report, after the presiding judge. The Krever Report concluded that the original source of the blood may have been obfuscated by HMA, which packaged the blood as coming from "ADC Plasma Center, Grady, Arkansas." (ADC stands for "Arkansas Department of Corrections," but this was left for the addressee to figure out.) But the Krever report did not absolve the Canadian Red Cross, which ended up paying criminal penalties. (Then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, who was governor of Arkansas during the period HMA administered the prison medical program, is often alleged to be blamed in the Krever Report, but in truth is never mentioned or otherwise referred to by the report.) Finally, the Canadian government, as a result of the scandal and due to the recommendations of the Krever Report, created a pair of organizations solely empowered to administer the nation's blood supply, with Hema-Quebec entrusted to run Quebec's and the Canadian Blood Service for the rest of the nation. 


 Bonus fact : Men who have had sex with other men (even once) on or after 1977 are ineligible to donate blood, per the FDA. This "lifetime deferral" of such would-be donors is something the Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, and AABB (the leading organizations in the American transfusions world) have taken exception to, instead suggesting a 12-month deferral, which is the typical deferral for many other activities labeled "high risk."  On June 11, 2010, the U.S. Department of Human Services relevant advisory body opted to keep the lifetime deferral policy in place.


In 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to dig a canal across the Colombian state of Panama and the Colombian government stood in the way, the U.S. assisted Panama in rebelling against Columbia and becoming an independent country. In 1913, when Theodore Roosevelt toured South America and gave a speech in Chile, Columbian students protested, but he was unapologetic in his defense of U.S. actions:
"Roosevelt considered the Panama Canal to be one of the greatest achievements of his presidency, and he believed that the canal's archi­tectural genius and the indelible mark that it -- and, through it, he -- would leave on the world more than justified the small South American revolution he had had to foment in order to make it a real­ity. In 1903, Roosevelt's third year in the White House, the United States government decided, after much heated debate, that Panama rather than Nicaragua would be the best location for a canal that would connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

At that time, Panama was a state within Colombia, and so Roosevelt had offered Colombia twelve million dollars for the right to build the canal. When the Colombian Senate countered with restrictive treaty language and a demand for more money, Roosevelt's response was impatience and contempt. He wrote to his secretary of state, John Hay, that the United States should not allow the 'lot of jackrabbits' in Colombia 'to bar one of the future highways of civilization,' and he proceeded quietly to encourage and support a Panamanian revolution that had been bubbling under the surface for years.
  
"On November 3, 1903, with U.S. Navy ships lined up in nearby wa­ters, Panama declared its independence. Fifteen days later, John Hay and Philippe Bunau-Varilla, a Frenchman who had been the canal's chief engineer, signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which gave the United States control of the Canal Zone, a five-mile-wide swath of land on ei­ther side of the waterway. A decade later, the Colombians were still fum­ing. When asked by a Brazilian official why he had left Colombia off of his South American itinerary, Roosevelt had replied, 'Don't you know, my dear friend, that I am not a 'persona grata' in Colombia?'
  
"Although Roosevelt had steered clear of Colombia, he would not be able to avoid a hostile encounter in Chile, where Colombian stu­dents had organized protests against him. When his train pulled into Chile's capital, Santiago, in late November, he was greeted by a crowd that at first seemed to mirror the friendly masses that had welcomed him to Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. But the moment he leapt from his Pullman to the train-station floor, with the triumphal strains of the American and Chilean national anthems echoing around him, his welcoming party suddenly transformed into an angry protest rally. 'The human multitude, showing marked hostility, shouted with all their might vivas! -- to Mexico and Colombia, and Down with the Yankee Imperialism!' a journalist for Lima's West Coast Leader excit­edly reported.


 "The Chilean government went to great lengths to shield Roosevelt from the demonstrations, even buying and destroying newspapers that covered anti-Roosevelt rallies, but their guest had no desire to hide from any assault on himself or his country. On the contrary, he took every opportunity to face down his attackers, ready to explain in no uncertain terms why he was right and they were wrong. At a state reception welcoming him to Chile, he vigorously debated Marchial Martinez, a former Chilean ambassador to the United States, about the continued relevance of the Monroe Doctrine. Days later, in an electrifying speech, he gave an impassioned, utterly unapologetic de­fense of the Panama Canal. ...  

"Roosevelt told the spellbound crowd, 'I took the action I did in Panama because to have acted otherwise would have been both weak and wicked. I would have taken that action no matter what power had stood in the way. What I did was in the interest of all the world, and was particularly in the interests of Chile and of certain other South American countries. I was in accordance with the highest and strictest dictates of justice. If it were a matter to do over again, I would act precisely and exactly as I in very fact did act.' As these words rang through the hall, the audience leapt to its feet, cheering and applaud­ing the Yankee imperialist.  Candice Millard, The River of Doubt, Anchor Books, 2005


  

No comments:

Post a Comment