I just got back fom an optometist apponitment where my eys were dilated. I won't be albe to typ34 very wll this aftenon. Have a good discussion in the comments.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 07, 2006 01:41 PM | Email Thisfrom andrew sullivan:
"The bottom line is that the president clearly used his prerogative to classify and declassify intelligence data to leak selectively to the press to give a misleading notion of what his own government believed about Saddam's WMDs before the war. He was personally involved; and he tasked his veep to coordinate it. The most plausible explanation is that the president believes grave national security prerogatives can be used for political purposes and/or that he had something embarrassing to hide. Bottom bottom line: we can't trust him to be fully honest with us on one of the bases on which he led us to war. That matters, doesn't it?"
....or all you all too preoccupied with why burner left microsoft, law school and when she decided to run for office?
Posted by: dinesh on April 7, 2006 01:54 PMIf this were another blogger who shall remain nameless, that was going blind, we might come up with the notion that he was doing "something else" far too much while on the computer...
Posted by: Reporterward on April 7, 2006 01:56 PMBut if you want, we can talk about how navy veteran Doug Roulstone is going to upset Rick Larsen in the 2nd District. How Dave Reichert is going to clean his opponent's clock in the 8th. We can discuss why Adam Smith is falling over himself to try to appear moderate again after voting time and again against military and his constituents at McChord and Fort Lewis.
And we can always talk about the improprieties of Rep. McDermott.
Those are local issues.
who are these folks?
are they limousine liberals?
are they like bill arthur?
Sorry to trouble you with facts, but here they are:
The "leak" was from information in a document called the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The contents of that document were almost completely public by the time "Scooter" Libby gave tme to the press.
Senate democrats demanded that an unclassified version of the NIE be made public, and the administration complied.
A "leak" is only a "leak" if the information is classified. The president has the constitutional authority to declassify information. So if Dubya says to declassify the document and release it, this is not, by definition, a "leak." Hope that nuance is not lost on you.
Where'd I get my information?
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62024.htm
If you want to be taken seriously you should form your opinions based on facts, not based on the last article you read.
Stefan is not a touch typist.
Posted by: JCM on April 7, 2006 02:21 PMobi wan:
i note that you get your "facts" from an op-ed. i further note that your facts seem inaccurate or perhaps out of context.
the 2002 nie has not been fully declassified. in fact,
"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence would not comment publicly on the status of the classified NIE yesterday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333_3.html
further, if bush "can't leak" b/c he is the executive, then why did he not simply state that he authorized the disclosure of plame's name when this issue first came up in 2003. instead fitzgerald had to get involved, and now we have learned for the first time in the 33 month investigation that bush/cheney were personally involved.
look if clinton can get impeached for lying about a blowjob under oath, surely people could be outraged at the conduct exhibited by the current president.
and at 36% approval rating, people are expressing their dissatisfaction.
party line people will never waiver and many folks in these comments proclaim to be republicans, but sit idly by while govt. expands, individual liberties are curtailed, and budget deficits increase.
there is a relationship between what happens for a political party at the national level and at the local level.
Posted by: dinesh on April 7, 2006 03:13 PMCarefully think about the facts. What is Libby being charged of? Perjury. What did he perjure? He said that Cheney said that Bush said that he could talk about Plame because they declassified her information. The problem is that neither Cheney or Bush said that they had declassified Plame nor told Libby that they did. Plame wasn't classified when her identity was disclosed, and so no crime was committed! This entire "scandal" is much ado about nothing.
(By the way, the NYT publishes real state secrets---that we have detention facilities outside of the US, that we are monitoring international calls to known terrorists. How come the democrats aren't clamoring for an investigation into who the leaker was?)
I don't see what the big deal about this NIE document is. Why are people trying to throw this red herring in the debate?
You brought up Clinton, so let's spend a few moments comparing the differences.
(1) President Clinton perjured himself during the grand jury investigation and then admitted to it when there was hard evidence against him. President Bush did no such thing. There is NO evidence, NOWHERE that President Bush perjured himself in any grand trial hearing. If there was, then he certainly would've been charged with perjury. We can't go around condemning people for crimes they haven't committed until we have evidence that they committed a crime.
(2) President Clinton was DISBARRED. That means, he conducted himself in such a way that he can never practice law again. President Bush isn't a lawyer, so he can't be disbarred.
(3) President Clinton was found in contempt of court. That means he behaved himself very badly, to the point where the judge got angry and punished him for his rude behavior. President Bush has not been found in contempt of court.
You can go ahead and invent conspiracy theories and distort facts to your heart's content. Until President Bush admits to perjury, or gets found in contempt of court, then we can start comparing the two.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 7, 2006 03:27 PMYou did notice that that poll heavily sampled democrats? Or did you just forget to check into facts again? Did you check to see if the people were likely voters or registered voters? That's important too, because in America, if you don't vote, your vote doesn't count. (Except in King County, where every vote--even illegal ones--count!)
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 7, 2006 03:31 PMre your first paragraph: you could not have written that last week; i.e. you can make that assertion based only on recent reports and the arguments that flow therefrom.
but, bush could have said 33 months ago that 'i authorized this disclosure after declassifying a certain piece of information,' and thereby forestalled the entire fitzgerald investigation. why didn't he say that at that time?
as for the clinton comparison, i simply use it by way of illustration, not as an apples to apples comparison. if your partisan blinders prevent you from recognizing that the gravity of the situation; i.e. there are legitimate questions about the information provided by the administration leading up to war and now indictments have come from administration conduct relating to those questions, then your partisanship prevents you from questioning authority--perfect for a monarchy or communist govt. for heaven's sake, a republican congress impeached a sitting president for lying about an extramarital affair under oath, surely there must be some congressional concern about this president's conduct leading to and through this war! it is high school civics: checks and balances. i'm not suggesting that bush be impeached (yet!), but let's get some answers instead of partisan spin and talking points. hell, let's have some congressional leaders do their oversight job and ask some questions!
remember we are talking about a president who has said: "we don't torture". granted he didn't say that under oath to a grand jury, but i don't think he was telling the truth, do you?
katomar: nice try. it was the washington post. shall i quote scott mclellan at today's new conference. would that make you feel better? what, if fox news doesn't say it, you don't believe it?
Posted by: dinesh on April 7, 2006 04:02 PMI love these hypocrites like dinesh. They make perfect sense and are trying everything to tarnish the Bush Administration. They can keep digging away it won't benefit their cause.
Jerk off's one an all!
Posted by: SP Fan on April 7, 2006 06:42 PMI support the House Bill on Illegal immigration, which addresses securing the borders first, but doesn't address everything necessary - but that's not necessarily bad. The Senate Bill does little to address securing borders and focuses on sorting out them by longevity in this country and is short on practical enforcement - alot of good that will do - NOT ! At least 39 of the 100 Senators are out of touch with reality. There is a need for "guest workers" but only if noone else can be found. Also, English must be made the official language and enforced, otherwise this country will continue to go down the politically correct rathole. The Government needs to take a hard line in enforcement of no entitlements for illegals, except in case of verifiable emergency.
Posted by: KS on April 7, 2006 06:58 PMThe economy is booming.
Democracy is good and causes people to become our allies. (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc)
You may not agree with all of the president's policies, but they are moving the country and world in the right direction.
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on April 7, 2006 08:11 PMAnd who do the Democrats choose to hate? Why, George Bush, Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfeld, and the U. S. Military.
They offer excuses for Al-Qaida and the Taliban, while saving their hate and rage for their own country. Their lust for power overshadows even the safety of their fellow citizens.
So I ask you, who are the patriots? Those who are trying to ban military recruiters, even the flag from our schools? Those who want to allow our borders to remain wide open? Those who oppose surveillance of terrorists? Those who will not publicly acknowledge and condemn atrocities such as beheadings by terrorists but grow hysterical over our compartively benign treatment of captured terrorists?
Kind of makes you wonder who the real enemy is.
Posted by: katomar on April 7, 2006 08:31 PMThe brief moment of patriotisim and unity after 9/11 was just that a brief moment in time. Forgotten by the libs who just like to play the blame game.
You make reasoned arguments for the liberal side, which is rare on this site. I, for one (speaking for myself), welcome the discussion.
Yes, I got my facts from an op-ed. Does that make them not true? You haven't refuted the facts, only complained about my source. I included the link so that people could judge for themselves.
You quoted Andrew Sullivan and claimed his opinion as fact. I cited facts from an op-ed. There's a big difference. You haven't refuted the facts I cited. If you can, please do so I can check my sources.
Perhaps the entire NIE has not been declassified. If the parts released were declassified would that be OK? Or Not? What classified information was "leaked?" I don't know what, and how much, of the NIE has been declassified. You claim to be more informed. Please enlighten us; tell us what was "leaked" by the administration. What classified information was illegally divulged?
I thought your party understood and promoted "nuance." Now, you want us to view things as black and white.
Only the dumocraps want to have it both ways.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 7, 2006 09:59 PMElaine is correct! Conservatives who disapprove of Pres. Bush would absolutely NOT vote Democrat!
There are many people in this country who are steamed right now over Bush's intent on "Amnesty" programs for illegals! Some Republican supporters believe that their party has not been tough enough against the liberal's agenda in congress. All of this may equate to lower poll numbers for Bush but certainly not higher ones for the Dems...
If the pulse of this country is going away from the Republicans...it's going toward a third party..."Independant" - NOT Democrats.
I wonder if the Republicans and Democrats ever considered an Independant party to be a threat? If they didn't before...they are now.
Posted by: Deborah on April 7, 2006 10:48 PMAlso, we're trying to fight a politically correct war and the sad reality is that we are losing the so called war on "terror." We won't even name our enemy! When are we gonna take off the kid gloves and start fighting to win? Lets let Marines be Marines for crying out loud!
We obviously haven't learned the lessons of "Mogadishu." We are losing this war not because we have to, but because we choose to! When did we become such a weak, impotent, P.C. nation?
Retreat is not an option, but remaining in Iraq presupposes that we are staying until we defeat the enemy there. And since we're NOT DOING THAT, I guess we're just hanging out for an indefinite amount of time and hoping good things happen. While our brave soldiers get killed by snipers,roadside bombs, and RPGs.
What we should do (and should have done) is name the enemy (Islamic Jihadists.) Use OVERWHELMING force to bomb the cities known to be Jihadist stongholds from the air. Use bunker busters/moabs, etc. Do this until the enemy capitulates. You need to break their will. This is the only way to do this. Anything less is seen as weakness, and leads to more muslims joining the global jihad because they see us as a paper tiger and beatable.
The alternative is to live our lives in constant fear and threat of terrorism, capitulate to Islamic law, or accept Dhimmi status. None of which are acceptable.
Posted by: Ken on April 8, 2006 01:04 AMPick a spot just outside of Baghdad and pull a couple of runs with a squadron or so. When the Iraqis see that, they'll change their tune, or we shift fire....
However, thanks to CNN and Al-Jazeera, the tactics we used against German civilians and Japanese civilians would probably not work anymore...
Posted by: Aaron on April 8, 2006 01:21 AMFirst, Ted Stevens gives Cantwell a bump in the polls by threatening to campaign against her here. (And you just know Diane Tebelius is begging Stevens to stay away.) Now the FERC is allegedly trying to push around the Snohomish PUD in the Enron bankruptcy. One thing Cantwell has been on top of is the Enron-PUD case. Now, she will be championing our interests against Enron and a bunch of Bush appointees, or at least that's how it will play. This is exactly what she needs to blunt McGavick's momentum. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't see national GOP funds for him to get cut back by September when they decide to spend more in Pa. trying to save Santorum's sorry *ss.
Posted by: wayne on April 8, 2006 03:11 AM
One, there's something smelly and slimey under that rock.
Two, it'll be swept under the carpet and largely forgotten even if there are criminal actions.
My anger at the 2004 election debacle is not towards KCRE per se. I think it was obvious to most people for some time that there are serious problems with how we do elections.
The problem I have is with the un-democratic party. In FL in 2000 and again in KC and Ohio in 2004, they broke some fundamental rules of the game. Everybody knew the elections system was a mess and the D's deliberately tanked a long-standing gentleman's agreement that you don't mess it when the vote is so close you can't tell who really won.
Both sides knew that gaming the system was possible, so long as you worked it so that a recount was structured to take advantage of areas where your party had an advantage. In FL this was obvious to everyone EXCEPT the press and the blindered donkeys. In WA they had KCRE with its endemic incompetence, if not outright corruption (i.e. the role of unions and illegal immigrant interests). In OH the D'd were simply being obstructionist without any hope of changing the outcome.
The WA R's deserve some blame here too in that they didn't get a hint back in 2000 that their opponents had ditched the rule book.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/quarter/default.asp
Personally, design 3 is the worst of the all, but you be the judge of that. Better hurry though, all the dead liberals are voting and voting and voting and ...
Who cares? Go index your clog collection or dust your ice cubes.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 8, 2006 12:04 PMQuit pickin on ivan, he's busy trying to do his daughter's homework for her but the banana's are too ripe.
Posted by: Amused by ivan-like critters on April 8, 2006 02:42 PMThe fact that #3 is winning shows everything that is wrong with this state. It's far more about pandering, good intentions, etc. than about results or reality. Reassigning the name of King County is another good example. If the competition for state quarter shows this much of a lack of definition for the reality that is WA, then it's not at all serious. It should thus be accorded some real levity and we should come up with a state quarter that shows a student flunking the WASL.
What a joke. Hopefully this pure democracy BS is not how the final design will be picked. I thought we lived in a representative republic.
I just noticed that one can vote for the state quarter of their choice as many times as one wants from the same IP address. So what this means is that some wise ass (who probably also works for Dean Logan) has got a robot script that is just voting over and over and over for design 3. If you look at how fast the number of votes is going up, you will see that it's obviously computer generated.
I plan to bring this to the attention of the governor and the media so that we can have a proper contest for the state quarter and not a contest for whoever can write the best script to ping the vote site over and over again.
That said, I would encourage most here to get behind design #2 which appears to be the most popular design, not withstanding the auto-voting.
I'm sure that Ms. Greogire will be more than happy to get this fixed right away, lest Stefan spend many a post on the similarities between the 2004 election and this one for State Quarter.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2006 03:11 PMI for one would like to join with Dinesh in puzzling why ole’ stupid Bush could have said 33 months ago that he authorized the disclosure of information that was never classified to begin with about Valerie Plame,' that thereby may have forestalled the entire dumb-a$$ed liberal Democrat fitzgerald investigation?
An, why do you spose didn't he say that at that time?
Gosh this is a difficult one.
Maybe next ole’ stupid Bush will disclose who is in Grant’s tomb.
Hey Dinesh . . . what are your feeeeelings on this one genius?
It shouldn't be a scripting contest, it should be a one vote, per IP, per day, or even just one vote per IP setup to get a true poll of the residents of the state of WA.
What's really sad too is that design 3 really doesn't do justice at all to the state's features as a whole and it's just not a very good design. I've been collecting all of the coins for all 50 states, and if you look at the coins of the other states, and then compare Design 3 to those other states, it's going to make WA look pathetic in the eyes of the rest of the nation. Not that many other states don't already regard WA as a lost cause.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2006 05:28 PMBut not beyond redemption.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 8, 2006 05:39 PMGregoire has been quite acommodating to the tribes of this state! With the implementation of mandatory All Mail Voting in 90% of the tribal counties in the state and the impossible increase of voter turn out in these areas after that implementation (ie; fraud)...I can see how Gregoire would want to schmooze the leaders of the tribes for the sake of their cooperation in future absentee ballot election fraud!
Just watch how increased tribal voting suddenly influences our statewide elections in the fall! Just as they influenced the smoking ban vote last year and the gas tax initiative.....
(I hope the illegal immigrants don't get upset that their voting influence is being outdone by the indian tribes......sigh)
Posted by: Deborah on April 8, 2006 06:33 PMOn the heads side, GW should be replaced with Ron Sims and "In God We Trust" replaced with "In Goldy We Trust."
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 9, 2006 12:15 AMhttp://www.governor.wa.gov/quarter/resultsview.asp
Design 1 and Design 2 go up by a vote or two here or there. Obviously real people, up late, voting based on seeing a news story, etc. Design 3 is jumping up by hundreds of votes every few seconds. Clearly a robot script voting. If Gregoire ends up picking Design 3, it's going to be quite amusing. I know the tribal lobby is in her back pocket, but this is ridiculous.
Will be interesting to see if the MSM gives this any coverage.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 9, 2006 12:23 AMJust my 0.02 as a numismatist...
One of the goals of the 50SQ program designs was to have the quarter-sized 'canvas' have something that was emblamatic of each state, not be an image of a trademarked/privately-owned image that would run afoul of copyright/ownership issues (the person who submitted the concept design of the 2005 "Ocean in View" nickel later acknowledged -- after the coin had been released -- that they "borrowed" the image from another person's photo. WAY bad!), NOT be controversial or divisive, and not (probably looking to we here in WA, but not ignoring the possibilitiy of submittals of other notable persons from other states) contain the 'bust' image of a living/deceased person.
There have been some really great submittals to the US Mint (back when they allowed actual designs -- rather than the current "design narratives") that looked great when drawn large enough for artwork. Some even looked 'decent' when the artwork was reduced to the size of a US quarter dollar.
Good design elements, good detail and popular, that looked really crappy when implemented. Detail images in a sketch came across looking like 'blobs' when done in the normal coining process at the scale of a quarter dollar. And, compounding it is the fact that any line art has far better 'contrast' with the background of paper (or a black on white *.pdf image), hence a clear, pleasing, image -- when, in a coin, everything is the same color except for some limited contrast with relief in the coin and (later) as it wears.
Take a look at a well-circulated nickel, say 1950s vintage, and compare it to a recently re-sculpted die image of Monticello for the 2006s.
And, you can't cram too much relief into a small area that -- after a few years of use (and, one of the comments from the Mint is a reminder that these coins will have to be in circulation for 40-50, or more years, of sitting in (sweatty) pockets, change drawers, purses, and behind sofa cushions, getting the relief worn off. Again, ask yourself, what that design might look like in a few decades of use, and most of the cute clip-art images (of apples and such) will probably be long-gone.
Or, for them to be recognizable, the design element had to be enlarged -- destroying (in the opinion of the amateur/professional designer) the intent. The Mint artists, who actually are pretty good at knowing what translates well to 'coin' sized artwork, got raked-over by people who felt that they had an entitlement to their proposal -- exactly as drawn -- and the Mint killed-off the idea of taking actual artwork from the public and the state governors.
No private/corporate images... The "Space Needle" is privately held. Ditto, the image of a Boeing aircraft and a Starbucks cup. And, despite the potential humor, General/President Washington -- as the namesake of the state (until Ron Sims and Larry Gossett get a chance at it), is out of the running.
My two cents worth, based upon a collector's experience, was posted over at quarterdesigns.com. Design #1 -- cute, but suffered from the tendency to cram too many 'clip-art-like images' onto the now-overused state outline (either line image or raised relief). Design #2 avoided the clip-art look, but a fish jumping out of a lake near a mountain is what it would look like at $0.25 scale. It wouldn't be identifiable as 'The' Mountain, or a salmon to begin with -- let alone after years of wear and (horrors) use as a medium of exchange.
I didn't like the -- as designed -- image of the orca. But, the 'tweaks' that -- if asked -- I would have suggested wouldn't have been too dramatic. Incorporating into the design the use of the 'totem'/coastal tribe style of artwork is unique (one goal of the 50SQ design program) to Washington (too many states, now, have incorporated an American bison, for example) State. It takes advantage of the limitations of artwork in the coining process, and should look good, and recognizable, for the 40+ year life of the average coin. There is enough detail to keep the image, but, not so much tightly-spaced that it will looks like a 'blob'. And, it 'keeps it simple' -- so, users are trying to determine whether that blob out in the 'east' (presumably) is an 'apple', a 'kiwi fruit', or a (in real life) smelly item coming from a 'horsesass'....
(smile)
I'm sorry that some of us here have to assume that the orca image's success in the voting has to be some conspiracy. It might simply be that it is meeting the goals of the 50 State Quarters program design guidelines set years ago, and people voting are responding, accordingly -- and not some ankle-biters' whines about potential ballot-stuffing.
Now, "ugly" is what happened to the South Dakota quarter.... they could have left it with an image of Mount Rushmore, and maybe the wheat grains around the perimeter of the reverse, but the pheasant -- as one numismatist put it so well -- looks like it is about to take a 'dump' on the sculpture of Thomas Jefferson's face.
Oh, BTW, you each had an opportunity to submit a design narrative to the Governor's office.
#1 Maybe you're hacked-...
(the automated Comment Content Police wouldn't let me use the original term I wrote, refering to the lack of acceptability of a variation of an alternative term for urine)
...off because it sucked and wasn't coinable -- and wasn't selected to get designed by the Mint artists. And, #2, anyone who logs on anywhere in the world -- and in other timezones (ahem) -- can vote. It may bite, but people outside Washington State will be using and collecting these, so, the voting isn't limited to those who do.
Get over it.
Posted by: FT on April 9, 2006 07:59 AM
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I must be an "ankle-biter" for pointing it out.
Design #3 is the least attractive of the three - amatuerish in every respect. Least illustrative of the region. In other words: not representative and totally unworthy.
If it were to "win" on the merits of a legitimate vote, that would be one thing (OMG, we're back to that!). But this is obviously a set-up. A simple examination of the code for the poll can reveal whether or not it was hacked (Yes, we are back to this!), but we can reliably count on Fraudoire to ignore it, no matter how corrupt in the advancement of her agenda.
"Get over it."
"NO!"
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 9, 2006 08:44 AMGo refresh the results page yourself. It't not a conspiracy as much as it's just some cheater our there who's written a script to take advantage of a poorly written website for voting.
But it's very obvious from refreshing the page, the vote totals, etc. that Design 3 has an unfair advantage from a robot script. And, there's no way that a real distribution of votes would look as it does.
Do we want a representation that citizens of WA are truly behind for our quarter, or what one or a few WA citizens are behind and have scripted a computer to vote repeatedly?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 9, 2006 09:05 AM#3 is a decent representation of native art, but it hardly represents our whole State - especially Eastern Washington. i can't believe that a commission would propose something that wuold exclude so many of our citizens. Pretty thoughtless.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 9, 2006 10:08 AMIn those twenty minutes, the total votes went up by 4,306 votes.
#1 received 212 (5%)
#2 received 675 (16%)
#3 received 3,419 (79%)
I did nine samples from 10:10 to 10:30.
#1 ranged between 1% and 7% of the total votes.
#2 ranged between 10% and 26% of the total votes.
#3 ranged between 73% and 84% of the total votes.
With over 909,000 votes cast, it would appear that about 20% of the total state population has now "voted".
The voting rate appears to be almost 15,000 an hour - early on a Sunday morning, on an obscure government website.
Something does not look right with this picture....
By the way, I showed my six year old the choices (with zero coaching) and he didn't like #3, he thought he would choose 1 or 2 and finally settled on #2.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 9, 2006 10:59 AMOver the last hour, here is what I observed on the coin site:
Over 60 minutes from 10:10 to 11:10, the total votes went up by 12,534 votes.
#1 received 525 (4%)
#2 received 3,230 (26%)
#3 received 8,779 (70%)
#1 ranged between 1% and 7% of the total votes.
#2 ranged between 10% and 37% of the total votes.
#3 ranged between 60% and 84% of the total votes.
#2 had an overall increase after 10:30 where it became 30+ percent of the total.
Looks like someone is have technological fun out there....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 9, 2006 11:18 AMNext eye appt. drive South to Puyallup and for $28 you don't have to have your eyes dilated. Former Optometrist of the Year Dr. Gary Linton of Puyallup Vision Source invests in technology and is able to peer into the recesses of your eye WITHOUT dilation and can compare pics of the back of your eye from year to year - all the while keeping you from the hassles of eye dilation.
On another point, both our daughters see 20/20 by wearing contacs at night. It's called Ortho K or Corneal Molding. Dr. Linton is a forward thinking optometrist and is one of a handful who practice this. Put Ortho K in Google to research this. It retards the deterioration of sight as well. Only for people who are within a few diopters of normal vision, mainly children.
Check Dr. Linton out at 253.840.3937 or 1.800.339.3238. Say hi to him for me!
Posted by: Jean on April 10, 2006 09:39 AM