Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obamamedia found someone other than Bush to blame for Ebola

Obamamedia found someone other than Bush to blame for Ebola

Politico: This Ebola thing sure Looks bad for Rick Perry

Remember all the times Obama golfed, traveled to Hawaii, vacationed in Martha’s Vineyard and the liberal media insisted that it was no big deal because an executive can do their job from anywhere?

Apparently, that rule doesn’t extend to Republican governors and while most Americans might think the government’s poor handling of Ebola looks bad for Obama, Katie Glueck of Politico is pretty sure the real loser here is Texas governor Rick Perry:

Rick Perry’s Ebola test

AUSTIN, Texas — Ebola came to Texas. And Rick Perry went to Europe.

Now the Republican governor, a likely presidential contender, is back in Austin and scrambling to avoid a damaging perception problem like the “oops” moment that doomed his first shot at the White House.

At first, Perry seemed to have everything under control. When a man in Dallas was diagnosed with the deadly virus, Perry held an Oct. 1 news conference, assuring the public that “there are few places in the world better equipped to meet the challenges posed by this case.” When more people were quarantined, he launched a task force and told Texans to “rest assured our system is working as it should.”

But then he left Sunday for a long-planned 7-day trip designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials. During his absence, two more cases of Ebola were confirmed, both of them involving Texas nurses who had dealt with the first patient.

The governor cut his trip short and rushed home on Thursday, only to encounter criticism for leaving in the first place; Democrats charged that he was more focused on looking presidential overseas than on fixing a big problem at home.

See? It’s all Rick Perry’s fault, not Obama’s.

Meanwhile over at CNN, John D. Sutter thinks the real problem with Ebola is racism:

There’s evidence lighter skinned people have trouble “feeling” the pain of those with darker skin. Researchers at the University of Milano-Bicocca, in Italy, tested this in by showing a group of Caucasian people video clips of people of various races being pricked with a needle. They monitored the viewers to see how their bodies responded to the sight of another person being hurt. The white viewers reacted more strongly — or showed more physical empathy — when white people were hurt than Africans.

In another study, “researchers found that white participants, black participants, and nurses and nursing students assumed that blacks felt less pain than whites,” Slate writes.

Except for a handful of health workers, nearly all of Ebola’s 4,400 casualties have been black Africans — and these simmering biases are deeply troubling.

“Ebola is now a stand-in for any combination of ‘African-ness’, ‘blackness’, ‘foreign-ness’ and ‘infestation’ — poised to ruin the perceived purity of Western borders and bodies,” Hannah Giorgis wrote for The Guardian.

When it comes to politicizing Ebola, I don’t know who’s worse; Democrats or the press.

Oh wait. Same difference.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Has Katie Glueck of Politico ever written a word critical of Pres. ScamWOW’s golfing?

I honestly don’t know, and I’m not about to give Politico any traffic in an attempt to learn.

Ebola was being race-a-fied almost from the git-go. The idiots in the Collective cannot see anything but for the lens of race. It, along with AIDS, are the first diseases in human history to which a PC template has attached, with disastrous results just so far.

And it’s very early days with Ebola.

    AIDS … started in Africa.
    0B0LA … started in Africa.

    I’m starting to see a pattern here. Just sayin’.

      Deodorant in reply to walls. | October 19, 2014 at 1:13 pm

      The human race started in Africa. Just sayin’

      What exactly are you saying? That 2 contagious diseases that started in animals, spread to human beings and eventually arrived in the New World means what?

      Colonialism broke down the social fabric in Africa? JUST SAYIN’

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 19, 2014 at 3:55 pm

        Not sure you can support that happy bullshit, but…

        intercultural exchanges CAN be a bit rough.

        Any NOT stupid person (you are disqualified, btw) ALSO looks at the net picture.

        Being brought out of the Stone Age has been a jolt for people, BUT they got modern medicine, science, and such things as a reliable food supply and clean water. NOT inconsequential.

        IF you had a shred of that “iconoclast” you brag about, you’d have read Dr. Thomas Sowell’s ideas about how Africans are WAY better off for their experience, even given slavery (which they practiced with relish, you idiot)>

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 4:36 pm

          LOL – Yeah, slavery was a benefit. Don’t think I haven’t heard the arguments, but they are laughable.

          Here’s Randi Newman’s (a Southerner) take: ‘Sail Away’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chaP4MCXp4w

          Enjoy a little satire.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 4:42 pm

          Note you LIED about what I DID say…which was NOT “slavery was a benefit”, you pitiful lying SOS.

          And, no, I don’t believe you’ve read Sowell. Why should I…or anyone…believe a demonstrated liar?

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 4:57 pm

          I never said I read Sowell. What I wrote was “Don’t think I haven’t heard the arguments, but they are laughable.”

          Where is the lie?

          Since you insist, I will read some of him assuming it is online or my library system has it. I won’t buy a book by him based on your recommendation. Now why don’t you play the Randi Newman song? Go ahead. It won’t hurt too much.

      Deodorant in reply to walls. | October 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm

      BTW, when AIDS arrived on our shores, Reagan did absolutely nothing. He refused to even utter the word or acknowledge its existance. The CDC was denied funds and resouces. It festered and grew.

      NOT JUST SAYIN’

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 19, 2014 at 3:48 pm

        No. You’re jus’ lyin’.

        Do you EVER question the BULLSHIT the Collective packs up your butt…??? It appears that you just take and ask for more.

        HAVE you figured out how they punked you on the Surgeon General lie?

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 3:55 pm

          There you go again, mistaking contradiction for argument.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 4:07 pm

          Hunny, you didn’t MAKE any argument. You smeared OLD, very tired Collectivist lies on this thread. Lies you clearly have not investigated.

          Now, answer my question. Have you figured out HOW you were punked by your masters in the moonbattery over the Surgeon General?

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 4:47 pm

          I am outnumbered. So what if you think you punked me.

          Actually, I often think you are punking me. You mostly come across as a 12 year old boy. Maybe you are, and you have been punking me the whole time. If that is true, you win. You did punk me. But if you really are a mature lawyer, you are the punk and you know better. You couldn’t possibly function as a professional with the arguments you make here.

          Anyway, the Surgeon General comment, was at worst, incorrect. I am not saying it was. But if it was, it was not a lie. Maybe you assume I lie, because you do. I thought you rely on confirmation bias, but perhaps you augment that with lies.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 5:01 pm

          On the Reagan lie you were repeating, from your punk-meisters at the moonbattery…

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_record_122806.html

          You’ll note that there are all kinds of facts there, and it’s written by a guy who has some integrity. Foreign concept to you, as you’ve shown.

          As to the LIE you were duped by, which you could have determined with a SCENTILLA of inquiry, regarding the Surgeon General…

          1. after Reid outrageously violated Senate rules, there we nothing any GOP type could have done to stop the puke Obama nominated;

          2. we HAVE a Surgeon General, ya moron;

          3. we ALSO have the Surgeon General’s SUPERIOR, you grosser moron; and,

          4. Ebola is not really in the wheelhouse of the Surgeon General.

          Alllll of which I knew, somehow, with a thirty second review of the facts.

          I don’t really punk you out. I just help YOU, hunny.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 5:35 pm

          I just took a look at 2 websites that had excerpts from his books and an op-ed by him. His major arguments seem to be that it was happening everywhere and it was relatively less brutal in the US. He adds that Britain was enlighted enough to start to abolish it.

          I am not sure how that relates to a distinct population and the effects that slavery had on them. They did not know that white galley slaves had it worse. They did endure Jim Crow, de jure and de facto segregation and redlining after their liberation.

          I will gladly read more. But knowing what the Japanese did at Bataan is not relevant. It is an attempt at rationalization. Even if what he writes is 100% true, it does not deal with the fact that a distinct under-privileged culture was produced. That some descendents of slaves prospered is not important. In even the most brutal slave culture, a few would have had the luck and talent to achieve success. Doesn’t the bible tell the tale of Moses at great length? Don’t the Israelites go on to conquer Caanan? Isn’t that the justification for modern Israel? Do the Palestinians like it?

          If you wish to take this offline, somehow, I wouldn’t mind discussing this at length. You seem to know the owners of the site. This is not the place to continue this. What I have read, so-far, is factually true but the conclusions he reaches seem forced and manufactured.

          One other thing – To attempt to write off racism is a joke. Maybe it was not all pervasive and maybe Sowell doesn’t sky-dive with blacks because he doesn’t sky-dive at all. But that doesn’t mean there weren’t places were he could not have sky-dived at all. Even Lincoln did not bring blacks into the war until his need for manpower trumpted all else. Ditto for the 1st and 2nd WW. Not having to fight in a war may actually be advantageous. But the exclusion or segration of blacks in the army was due to racism. Not all claims of racism are true, but neither is the claim that racism played little or no role in the history of this country.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 5:46 pm

          I read the RCP article some time ago. I think it is safe to say that Reagan and/or his aides and advisors did everything possible to avoid AIDS and certainly delayed much, much longer than Obama did on Ebola.

          You got me on the Surgeon General. I can’t count the number of times I got you. Next time I do, I will make a huge point about. Besides, is the goal to educate or to hold a screaming match.

          You know damn well that no matter what Obama does you will scream bloody murder. Had he spent more money and re-organized the CDC so that we avoided the Ebola crisis entirely, you would be screaming about the money and resources. In the style of Sowell, why pick on Obama? We had George W. Bush.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm

          Yes, yes, hunny. This is you, raising straw men, and arguing arguments nobody made, squirting sideways after being nailed down.

          NOBODY said anything about slavery being a net good. My comment was a LOT more global. American Indians, Pacific Islanders, Australian Aborigines, the Eskimos and South American tribes were all Stone Age people when they encountered Westerners. All of them suffered, certainly, to some degree. All of them were in the NET benefited, too.

          Even the Chinese, Arabs, and Japanese…same story, but a little less lurching.

          Nobody said there was no racism in America. That’s your straw man. Again.

          What I have said, and do say, is that fifty years ago is not today, and you are no better than anyone here. Despite your arrogance and baseless condescension.

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 19, 2014 at 5:56 pm

        “Reagan did absolutely nothing. He refused to even utter the word or acknowledge its existance. The CDC was denied funds and resouces. It festered and grew.”

        That’s what you said. It is DIRECTLY, POINT-FOR-POINT refuted with FACTS in the piece you say you read.

        You are either a complete liar, or too stupid to comprehend the written word.

        Just for ONE thing, how much, and in what years, did funding for AIDS research occur during the Reagan term, you idiot?

        Please, BTW, CHECK the facts in the story. Don’t just swallow what is shot in your mouth. INVESTIGATE, “iconoclast”.

        HA!

      RandomCrank in reply to walls. | October 19, 2014 at 11:04 pm

      Yes, and I believe thst both communism and Naziism started in Germany, and everyone knows that the Irish are the original alcoholics.

I don’t know.
How did both Media and Academia end up infested with so many morons?

Who would conduct a study to prove that “lighter skinned people have trouble ‘feeling’ the pain of those with darker skin.” Isn’t the study itself RACIST?
Who paid for that study?

“The white viewers reacted more strongly when white people were hurt than Africans.”

Can’t anybody see the fallacy here?

How can anybody think these people are qualified to design and/or conduct a scientific study of any kind?

How can anybody think these journolists are qualified to read interpret or report on the results of a scientific study of any kind?

pfffffTT !!!!

    TX-rifraph in reply to Exiliado. | October 19, 2014 at 9:11 am

    I agree but there is more to this kind of stupidity. Something that applies to a group does not necessarily apply to members of the group. For example, in general, men are stronger than women. However, I have known many individual women who were stronger than individual men.

    “How did both Media and Academia end up infested with so many morons?” We let them because we were busy working and living our own lives. They were busy being victims and telling others how to live. And, they still are.

    Exiliado: Can’t anybody see the fallacy here?

    Do you find the study flawed? In what way?

      The white viewers reacted more strongly — or showed more physical empathy — when white people were hurt than Africans.

      Two initial major flaws jump out at me:

      A.) “African” isn’t a race. It’s a geographic descriptor. At best, it should read “those of African decent” but to be truly accurate it should reference Carleton S. Coon’s racial UN Classification from 1962 as “Negroid/Black” if they are going to reference the viewing group as “Caucasian or White.” However, even the UN has abandoned Coon’s classification in favor of “ethnic groupings,” which number in the 5,000 range. So, the study is both improperly described, and over-broad. But, perhaps that is simply the know-nothing reporters commentary upon the study.

      B.) The study Authors only studied White individuals, and did not study whether “Negroid/Black” subjects felt similar, stronger reaction when members of their own race were injured. This touches on the ingrained concept of “tribalism,” which is hard-wired into our brains. We have an innate mental construct to identify with those people who look like ~us~ when developing (see any non-ideological modern text on child development).

      The Authors were looking for a result, and got it by carefully structuring the study to exclude the result that they did NOT want to get (by testing Black individuals the same way).

        Now that Zach/Gus has been slapped down with facts, this is the part where he’ll go off on an ad hominem rant and throw a few red herrings out there.

          Ragspierre in reply to Paul. | October 19, 2014 at 11:57 am

          Paul, two very different trolls. D’Oderant is another. All three are readily identifiable.

          Paul in reply to Paul. | October 19, 2014 at 12:52 pm

          When I’m scraping dog shit off the bottom of my shoe, the turds tend to all look and smell the same.

          Ragspierre in reply to Paul. | October 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm

          Ha, ha, ha. I do-do understand!

          But I study trolls, the better to use them as foils, which is there only utility. I see it as Breitbarting they asses.

        Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 19, 2014 at 12:02 pm

        I think the term is “confirmation bias”, which is a real bugaboo for even NON-agendized real scientists.

        Most “social scientists” at the furthest things FROM real scientists.

        Chuck Skinner: “African” isn’t a race.

        The Forgiarini study is clearly referring to ethnically sub-Saharan blacks. They discuss the problem of defining race in the paper, but suggest people use racial characteristics as proxies for kinship.

        Chuck Skinner: The study Authors only studied White individuals, and did not study whether “Negroid/Black” subjects felt similar, stronger reaction when members of their own race were injured.

        That wouldn’t be a flaw, but a limitation.

        Chuck Skinner: The Authors were looking for a result, and got it by carefully structuring the study to exclude the result that they did NOT want to get (by testing Black individuals the same way).

        Actually, the authors suggest that they would expect the effect to be symmetrical, contradicting your presupposition.

        However, other studies do not find such symmetry. See Mathur et al., Racial Bias in Pain Perception and Response: Experimental
        Examination of Automatic and Deliberate Processes, The Journal of Pain 2014.

          Exiliado in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 12:12 pm

          That wouldn’t be a flaw, but a limitation.


          That was a joke, right?

          Exiliado: That was a joke, right?

          Notably, you have yet to defend your position.

          Exiliado in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 12:29 pm

          you have yet to defend your position

          It was clearly done, if not by me.
          No need to be redundant, especially since we all know you will ignore facts and arguments for the sake of trolling.

          This is my last response to you.
          Go troll yourself, or your mother.
          Your choice.

          We responded to Chuck by referring to the original studies.

          FINE. Because I’m in a bad, bad mood, I will actually RESPOND to your trolling, you pompous ass.

          The Study’s own AUTHORS recognize that this is an inherent bias of BIOLOGY. Quote:Empathic reactions to pain involve different layers of cognitive processing, with a predominant role played by automatic and implicit processes.

          We are told by the Study’s authors that the order of the videos shown to participants was randomized, but they never tell us what that randomization entailed. HOW many times out of the 61 participants did the “White” pain receivers come up first? It’s important, because the Authors tell us later “As regards effects over time, reactions to painful stimuli significantly reduced over time [block effect: F(1,45) = 8.08, P = 0.006] and the reactions to harmless stimuli were constant during the experiments [block effect: F(1,45) = 1.67, P = 0.20].” So, if the “white, pain” response came up first on a totally random basis more often than the “Black, pain” first response, or they eliminated more of the “Black, pain” first respondents due to statistical reasons (they eliminated 25 of the 86 participants) than of the “white, pain” first “black, pain” last response, they’re GOING to get a variable response out of phase with baseline.

          In Study experiment #2, the Authors controlled for racial bias by performing a prior Implicit Association Test (IAT) to control for personal racial animus. “Simple slope analysis (Aiken and West, 1991) revealed that the greater the participant racial bias, the greater the difference between the empathic responses toward Caucasians with respect to Africans.” Further, they have the same “experimental bias” problem in experiment 2 with dropping participants, but it’s more outsized due to the smaller number to begin with.

          Now, to some of your specific criticisms:

          The Forgiarini study is clearly referring to ethnically sub-Saharan blacks. – Utter and COMPLETE Horse-shit. They make REFERENCE to research done by Krebs in 1991 which is, at best, tangential and they extrapolate it onto “racial indicators (e.g., skin color, hair texture)” in a manner not proscribed by that study, as that study did not control for race if I’m reading it correctly. If they wanted to, they could TELL us the nationality and origin of the 12 individuals used in the study, or have included pictures. But they didn’t DO that, which means we can’t review their “research” in an objective light, because they did the experiment in a “black-box” and just showed the outcome statistics.

          They discuss the problem of defining race in the paper, but suggest people use racial characteristics as proxies for kinship. Yeah, that’s kind of IMPORTANT to the discussion, don’t you think, when you’re trying to say that one race has an implicit bias against another race, how the racial bias is perceived? Oh, wait, you DIDN’T think. That’s the problem.

          That wouldn’t be a flaw, but a limitation. Kind of an important one for the study’s conclusions, don’t you think? They used the study to attempt to paint all “White” peoples as having “implicit racist biases,” and then to say BECAUSE of that a racial bias may hinder pain assessment with detrimental effects on individuals, groups, and their peaceful relationships.

          Actually, the authors suggest that they would expect the effect to be symmetrical, contradicting your presupposition.. I did not see that language ANYWHERE in the study. The closest I could find to anything resembling your claim is “In a similar vein, Cosmides et al. (2003) noted that racial group membership defines coalitions and alliances during evolution and thus results in strong modulation of the neural substrates of emotional components of empathy.” THAT is a far cry from “we expect we would see the same trend if we did this study with black participants.”

          However, other studies do not find such symmetry. See Mathur et al., Racial Bias in Pain Perception and Response: Experimental Examination of Automatic and Deliberate Processes, The Journal of Pain 2014.. How about we stick to studies that we can ALL read, you insufferable twit, rather than Abstracts which don’t allow us to independently verify the sample-sizes, hmmm? My guess is that for Mathur they grabbed 30-40 med students in residency and tested them.

          Better to look at the 2008 Pletcher study, which itself was limited ONLY to Emergency rooms, and found it’s biggest disparity with white children vs. black children under the age of 12 (which is likely caused by sociological differences, rather than racial differences: White parents are more likely to take their children to either their OWN doctor or to an “urgent-care” type facility, rather than an emergency room, unless there is major trauma, leading to more likely prescription of opiates to the whites over the blacks even when there is a comparable “pain index” response.

          Now, run along you pompous ass. Go troll somewhere else where they don’t understand basic experimental science and all the ways to make it look entirely inept.

          Sorry, we didn’t respond sooner, but you pouted that “this is my last response to you,” so we stopped following the thread.

          Chuck Skinner: The Study’s own AUTHORS recognize that this is an inherent bias of BIOLOGY.

          Yes. As we noted above, the authors suggest people use racial characteristics as proxies for kinship.

          Zachriel: Actually, the authors suggest that they would expect the effect to be symmetrical, contradicting your presupposition.

          Chuck Skinner: I did not see that language ANYWHERE in the study.

          If racial characteristics are proxies for kinship, then we would expect the relationship to be symmetrical.

          Chuck Skinner: How about we stick to studies that we can ALL read

          We’d be happy to send you a copy. Send a request to angel at zachriel.com

      Exiliado in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 11:51 am

      So, you don’t see the fallacy.

      Or, are you choosing not to see it?

      Radegunda in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm

      ‘In another study, ‘researchers found that white participants, black participants, and nurses and nursing students assumed that blacks felt less pain than whites,’ …”

      So: Black people assume that black people feel less pain than whites. Must be racism – right?

        Radegunda: Black people assume that black people feel less pain than whites.

        The Trawalter et al. study finds the effect is due to perceptions of status and the privilege (or hardship) status. Hence, people, white and black, tend to see blacks as more used to pain, and therefore inured to pain to some degree. This can be deadly, though, when it leads to ignoring the spread of infectious diseases.

        Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | October 19, 2014 at 1:02 pm

        Curious…

        WHO has “ignored the spread of infectious disease”?

        WHO has provided doctors, nurses, and medical tech for YEARS in Africa?

        Aren’t many, if not most, white Christian health missionaries from Western nations?

        Wasn’t Firestone…one of your despised private sector interests…credited with saving a lot of lives by learning stuff on the ground, and applying it the way enterprises do?

        You’re SUCH a weak liar…!!!

      genes in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 12:32 pm

      “Researchers at the University of Milano-Bicocca, in Italy,”
      Too limited. It appears to be a study of Italian college students which may indicate a racial bias among Italian students.

        genes: Too limited. It appears to be a study of Italian college students which may indicate a racial bias among Italian students.

        As political leaders and healthcare workers were once students, that would still be an important result.

        There are several other studies concerning various aspects of the question. All find similar effects.

Criticism of Gov. Perry brought to you by the same people who cheer Obama for thwarting SW states to regulate their own borders.

I despise these pernicious propagandists.

If Governor Perry had decided to (for example) quarantine the health workers, ban fights to DFW airport from West Africa, and have the Texas Dept. of Public Health take over the treatment efforts from the CDC, how would Champ’s administration responded?

And how would Politico written about it?

I think we all know the answers to those two questions.

Well, FML.

And for those keepin’ it clean on a Sunday, that stands for “well, fluff my llama.”

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Of course, both these stories, and the ones like them we’ll be seeing in coming days are more “Squirrel!!!” efforts by the Collectivist Mushroom Media.

Zampolit Klain’s real purpose and work will be protecting the political ass of Pres. ScamWOW and the Collective, and that will involve a coordinated effort at both message discipline and deflection.

But the real story will remain in the minds of the American people, and that is that BIG GOVERNMENT fails. It not only fails to provide promised and pretended benefits, it imposes positive harm in various ways.

Just in the realm of impeded or killed innovation, the BIG GOVERNMENT model, which is, after all, an archaic, cumbersome, and anti-democratic system, has successfully killed and sickened countless Americans and others around the world.

One good result of Ebola MAY be the demand that the BIG GOVERNMENT failure just get the hell out of the way of progress, out of the way of people, their choices, their health, and their genius.

    Ragspierre: But the real story will remain in the minds of the American people, and that is that BIG GOVERNMENT fails.

    Isn’t Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas privately owned, with doctors under contract, part of the fragmented U.S. health care system?

    In any case, other than a coordinated government response what do think would be more effective?

      Let’s try shutting our borders down for a starter. Established protocol for infectious disease outbreaks for centuries, in all parts of the world, has been to isolate and quarantine.

      The ONLY reason that Pres. ShamWOW! isn’t doing so now is because it would highlight the sheer lunacy that is his open borders policy. The ONLY reason he is pushing that policy is for the politics of it.

      He wants to usurp LBJ as the Leader of the Democratic Plantation. LBJ put the “ni**ers” in economic chains through the welfare state, and bragged about it. Barry wants to bring in tens of millions of poor, uneducated illegals who will pull the (D) lever for generations to come.

      http://i.imgur.com/ip2Kpwb.jpg

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 11:51 am

      “Isn’t Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas privately owned, with doctors under contract, part of the fragmented U.S. health care system?”

      Yes, like our “fragmented” system for producing food, fiber, computers, cell phones, etc.

      Which works better? BIG GOVERNMENT, or the private sector (even WITH all the Collectivist impediments)?

      “In any case, other than a coordinated government response what do think would be more effective?”

      Well, show me a coordinated government response LATELY, and I’ll have something to work with.

      HOWEVER, under historical SMALL GOVERNMENT models, there were rational, common-sense COORDINATED responses to public health threats. Weren’t there?

        Ragspierre: Yes, like our “fragmented” system for producing food, fiber, computers, cell phones, etc.

        Apparently the system worked imperfectly in Dallas. Now people, even on this thread, want the government to do more rather than less.

          No we don’t want the government to do “MORE”, we just want the government to get back in the box that was built for it (AKA The Constitution) and DO THE BASICS that they are supposed to do.

          Controlling the borders is one of the powers and responsibilities that IS reserved for the Federal Government. Why don’t they do what they’re supposed to do, instead of trying to do every other damn thing?

          Are you too fucking ignorant to understand such a basic concept, or are you just stupid? Which is it?

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm

          I’ll go with “dishonest” for a hundred…

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 12:48 pm

        No. That’s another of your lies.

        What Conservatives want is government to do VERY FEW things, that they can do competently.

        The private sector did NOT allow this man into the country. The private sector did publish BS about Ebola coming to America being “unlikely”.

        And the private sector is crowded OUT by BIG GOVERNMENT assertions of power. Isn’t it?

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 1:07 pm

        Also, Zachie, baby, when private concerns err…and of course they can, do, and will…the effects are localized, immediate, and the concern will pay for it (absent government intervention…see BAILOUTS, BANK).

        When BIG GOVERNMENT screws up…and of course it can, does, and will…it expends IMMENSE resources in covering it up, learning nothing, and EXPANDING, as we are seeing currently here. But this is a lesson we do not need to relearn. We KNOW this, those of us who deal in reality.

      “Isn’t Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas privately owned, with doctors under contract, part of the fragmented U.S. health care system? ”

      No more private than any other component of the fascist economy you love. If they were truly private, the FDA wouldn’t have been able to tell them they couldn’t use effective screening technology.

The racism thing is a crock. But while I’m a fan of Perry, he never should have left Texas with the first case of Ebola on Texas soil. The optics of that are horrible.

Ebola came to Texas because the federal government issued a visa to a Liberian from an Ebola hot zone, and because the federal government refused (and still refuses) to ban non-essential travelers from Ebola hot zones from entering the U.S.

Ebola spread from the infected Liberian to Texas nurses, because the federal government, through the CDC, failed to give Texas (and all other U.S.) hospitals proper guidance on how to protect their staff while treating the Ebola patient that the federal government allowed into the country.

The Ebola-exposed nurses flew, and cruised, and exposed many other Americans, because the CDC failed to impose proper quarantines and idiotically authorized one Ebola-infected (and feverish) nurse to fly on commercial flights.

But yes, clearly this is all the fault of the state government in Texas.

    Observer: Ebola came to Texas because the federal government issued a visa to a Liberian from an Ebola hot zone, and because the federal government refused (and still refuses) to ban non-essential travelers from Ebola hot zones from entering the U.S.

    Most countries still allow travel from Liberia. It’s easier to control. If you shut off travel, people will just take circuitous routes, making the screening process more difficult.

    Observer: Ebola spread from the infected Liberian to Texas nurses, because the federal government, through the CDC, failed to give Texas (and all other U.S.) hospitals proper guidance on how to protect their staff while treating the Ebola patient that the federal government allowed into the country.

    The CDC provided the guidance. The hospital has admitted their failure to implement procedures. It’s typical for people to not train for rare events.

    Observer: The Ebola-exposed nurses flew, and cruised, and exposed many other Americans, because the CDC failed to impose proper quarantines and idiotically authorized one Ebola-infected (and feverish) nurse to fly on commercial flights.

    That was a mistake on the part of the CDC. Even if the chance of infection is very low, people still worry.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 12:52 pm

      “Most countries still allow travel from Liberia. It’s easier to control. If you shut off travel, people will just take circuitous routes, making the screening process more difficult.”

      That, of course, is a farcical lie you’re aping from the Collective, and one the American people know to be a facial lie.

      Everybody has a passport…well, except the illegals invited here by Barracula. A passport is a ready means of knowing a person’s origin, no matter their route.

      What a weak liar you are…!!!

      So you acknowledge that our porous southern border is a public health threat then?

      tarheelkate in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      Nurses at Texas Presbyterian say that in the first days of Duncan’s admission the CDC protocol did not include full mask and respirator. It does now. It seems very likely that this is how nurses Pham and Vinson were infected; they were cleaning up the awful messes which this disease causes.

      Before these events I would have relied, as did this hospital, on CDC advice.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 1:22 pm

      This is a serious disease, but we can’t give in to hysteria or fear.”
      —Pres. ScamWOW

      What an amazing, condescending LYING SOS we have for “leader”!

      SOME of us KNEW Ebola was a “serious disease” before we allowed it to come here, and we said so YEARS ago.

      Note how he simply lies: “Trying to seal off an entire region of the world – if that were even possible – could actually make the situation worse.”

      Except…

      1. that is a straw man…NOBODY is proposing to “seal off” anything, much less an “entire region of the world”, and

      2. AFRICAN NEIGHBORS find and have found it works SWELL for them.

      3. NOBODY is suggesting that all travel cease. ONLY that it be restricted, and common-sense measures put in place to hold people in quarantine as part of their price of admission into the U.S. Since this could be done CONCURRENTLY with visa processing times, there would be essentially LITTLE TO NO COST to the traveler.

      Observer in reply to Zachriel. | October 19, 2014 at 1:36 pm

      “The CDC provided the guidance. The hospital has admitted their failure to implement procedures. It’s typical for people to not train for rare events.”

      The hospital did NOT fail to implement procedures. In fact, the hospital says that it followed the CDC guidelines (guidelines which were changed in the middle of Duncan’s treatment, and which the CDC has since disappeared from its website).

      Read today’s Daily Mail article on Nurse Pham’s treatment at the TX hospital. The TX doctor who treated her said the staff there complied with all the CDC’s recommendations. The recommendations were WRONG — they did not specify that all skin had to be covered, and they did not specify that respirators should be worn.

      The CDC — IOW the federal government — has screwed this up from the get go. This mess is on them, not Texas, not the TX hospital or the nurses, and not Rick Perry.

      Make all the excuses for the feds that you want. People know better.

      Actually, all the countries that have contained the outbreak shut off travel as the first step. You are a liar.

If Obama stopped flights from the Ebola countries, he would assault at least two liberal gods:
1) All U.S. Ebola cases would then clearly come from the open land border.
2) Airlines are public transportation which is worshiped by the left.
It is all politics. The number of U.S. citizens who may die are just a statistic. The ends justify the means says he.

““Ebola is now a stand-in for any combination of ‘African-ness’, ‘blackness’, ‘foreign-ness’ and ‘infestation’ — poised to ruin the perceived purity of Western borders and bodies,” Hannah Giorgis wrote for The Guardian.”
The Guardian is a pro-terror, anti-west, anti-Semitic rag. I suspect Hannah is projecting her own hatred of “others”.

What Mr. Aleister seems to have noticed is that “What’s sauce for the goose (is sauce for the gander)”.

How about “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”?

How about “Now the shoe is on the other foot”?

Too bad for Rick Perry. He has put himself out as a Presidential candidate and his competency is justly called into question. I suggest you get used to it. I very much doubt he will be president, but his candidacy should be infinitely amusing for three reaasons that I can’t recall.

If he candidancy also causes ridicule for the state of Texas ( that elected him multiple times), so be it.

    Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 19, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Two questions for you troll…

    1. if you took Texas away, how would the U.S. employment picture look?

    2. have you figured out WHY you were punked by your Collective on your red herring about the Surgeon General the other day?

    BONUS QUESTION: do you ever get tired of showing your ass here?

      Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 1:47 pm

      When the last oil boom went bust, Texas shriveled up like a prune. You might as well give credit to the rooster for the sun rising. I believe the expession in the ’80s was “Will the last person out of Houston please turn out the lights.”

      “BONUS QUESTION: do you ever get tired of showing your ass here?” I stick around for you. If you had any smarts, you would stop responding and I might lose interest. Are you afraid that without you playing backboard and house troll to every comment I make, you fellow readers might be taken in by my svengalian abilities of persuasion? Always Ragspierre to the rescue. (sarcasm intended)

        And how much of that bust was due to eco-loon government? Hint: quite a lot.

          Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | October 19, 2014 at 3:34 pm

          Well, in truth a lot of it was the result of market distortions created by the LAST Republican Progressive, RM Nixon, who was, like our Pres. ScamWOW, a BIG fan of fascist economics.

          There was a lot of pent up demand, and a lot of untapped potential supply, for more oil. When the lid came off via the lifting of price controls, it was like a stretched rubber-band being released, and those do no simply return to their “resting place”. They go BEYOND resting to another place where they cannot stay, as did the oil field when it reacted to market forces and over-reacted. I was in the business at the time, and know the circumstances intimately.

          What D’Oderant is too stupid to understand, mostly because he’s a bigot, is that there is no “boom” in the oil field like that of the late 70s and early 80s.

          What he also is too stupid to get is that, if there were to be a bust, it would be felt all over the U.S. Certainly not just Texas.

          And he still has not answered my questions.

          Deodorant in reply to SDN. | October 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm

          Bigotry? I remember bumper stickers that had ‘Drive 90 – Freeze a Yankee’. I am lying?

          Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | October 19, 2014 at 4:14 pm

          That fallacy is called “ad hominem tu quoque”.

      Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 1:49 pm

      BTW, you seem to have missed the main point and gotten hung up on the Perry jibe that was specifically meant to prick you.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm

      Where do you live, D’Oderant?

      Texas is a much more diversified economic engine than you ignorantly fantacize, moron.

      You didn’t answer the questions.

        Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2014 at 2:26 pm

        Where do I live? You haven’t figured that out or actually read comments in which I wrote where I live? My location appeared in comments as recently as Friday. Given your ‘brilliance’, it should be no trouble for you to figure it out.

        The reasons why the economy is relatively good in Texas, at the moment, are complex. It is all well to brag as if the current state is permanent and that the number of jobs is the only way to measure the economy.

        In a cross-examination, I would be required to answer yes or no to any question you asked. That would not necessarily elicit the truth. In the real world, the economy is complex and the reasons why areas succeed are myriad and intertwined. Sometimes it is happenstance. For instance, NYC and its surrounding suburbs (hint) are doing quite well despite high taxes and strong regulation. Maybe Texas is doing well because of air-conditioning. Who would want to live in Houston in the summer? NY became rich because of its great harbor, the Erie canal and the influx of millions of immigrants. Governor Clinton can take credit for the canal, although it was considered a folly at the time. It also went way over-budget. It still affects NY today even though it has been supplanted. It is way to early to judge Perry’s contribution; especially because the Governor of Texas is a relatively weak office.

        BTW, the big cities in Texas are all turning blue. What are you going to do about that? Suppress the vote?

        ND is also booming. Do you really think that it is booming because large numbers of recent arrivals want to live there? A lot of the locals that are not in the oil business don’t think the boom is so great. So measuring by the number of jobs is just one indicator.

          Exiliado in reply to Deodorant. | October 19, 2014 at 2:40 pm

          In the real world, the economy is complex…

          Yup!
          It is.
          But still Texas is thriving while the rest of the world eats shit.

          Complex indeed. Maybe we should ask Texans. They seem to have figured it out.

          It’s booming because it looked at California and went 180 opposite.

    Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 19, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Exiliado, D’Orderant has backed into some valid observations. (I expect he does the same thing in his intimate relations…backing into them. NTTAWWT.)

    As Conservatives know, ANY economic system is extremely complex. Hayek taught us, though his insights, that they are SO complex, they cannot be successfully “controlled” in a Collectivist command economy. This is the genius of market economics.

    IF you leave people choices (like leaving NY or Kulhifornia for places where they can…you know…WORK) they will rationally act for their own best good.

    So, we see people voting with their feet, and moving to places where their standard of living…which includes self-respect…will be better. We also see whole companies like Toyota leaving a hostile Kulhiforia for a much more welcoming Texas. We see innovative companies deciding against Boston and FOR Texas.

    And it isn’t rocket surgery, as we say. Creating a climate for job creation HAS proven beyond the Collective, but that’s because they refuse to embrace reality, and insist on lying…first to themselves, as we see in the Ebola problem. Good public health policy is not more complex than good economics. Unless, of course, you insist on lying.

      Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If he made enough foolish claims, at least ONE of them was bound to have some bit of truth to it, even if it wasn’t what he meant.

        Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 19, 2014 at 3:45 pm

        Yeeeeeup.

        Deodorant in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 19, 2014 at 4:12 pm

        That’s original.

          I’m in a bad mood today, O Odoriferous one. My ability to be original in ways to refer to your trolling is suffering somewhat from that. Go stink somewhere else.

          P.S- Re: the major cities turning “blue:” We’re going to do what every political organization in power does: those who get to make the election maps will “Crack” the districts to distribute democrat voters into separate districts to elect republicans, until such time that there is a critical mass, that will then be “packed” into a single district, making all the surrounding districts guaranteed Republican, minimizing the democrat presence.

          No voter suppression required and 100% legal.

          The SCOTUS isn’t going to save the Progressives when they scream about “disparate impact.” Those days are LONG GONE. Congress COULD have addressed it by changing the formula on the Voting Rights act, but the Dim-Witted Democrat members wouldn’t LET them, for fear that the new “formula” would impinge on places like, oh CHICAGO and make DEEP DEMOCRAT states subject to oversight by the next Republican administration.

Shame on CNN for running another Ebola-and-racism rant. The author seems not to have noticed the pallor of the skin of most of the missionaries on the front lines in the hot zone, or the fact that the two American nurses (so far) who have been infected are of Vietnamese and African heritage. To accuse Texas Presbyterian, two of whose staff have contracted a grave illness, of treating Duncan inappropriately because of his race and ethnic origin is despicable — and without evidence.

Wow, the Ebola Media Czar is already at work injecting the media with Election fallout antidote.

Rick Perry? And here I thought that Ebola began killing people when a parasitic You Tube video was created by Malthusian Environmentalists and then published under the pseudonym of Mr. Mrs. Tea Party.

Politico’s founders were charter members of Ezra Klein’s propaganda cabal, Journ-o-List.

They are leftist hacks, not a reliable news source.

The Ebola ‘Patient Zero’ died on 6 December 2013 due to ingestion of ‘Bushmeat’.
Methinks, when it come to Ebola, the Democrats only saw the ‘Bush’ in ‘Bushmeat’.
It’s truly amazing how they see what they want to see.

Oh, to judge from the comments here, I’d say the “politicization” of ebola is pretty widespread regardless of political leaning.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend