It's really sad, but I think that Marceline has hit a new low, by even her obnoxious, ultra-partisan standards. (And when another liberal poster argues with her about this, I think it screams volumes.) Yes, plenty of blame can go around, and I'm sure that Rick Perry and the Congressional GOP have some responsibility. But in Marceline's black-and-white world, Republicans are totally responsible and her beloved president gets off scott free.

Of course it should have, Alphanguy. But now that Marceline wants to point fingers, go into the gutter, and suggest it's Rick Perry's fault, it is important for somebody to point out that Obama has yet to do this. In fairness to the president, I am not certain if banning flights would have stopped the spread, but it may have helped.

As I mentioned before, plenty of blame can go around, though that is of no comfort to the victims now.

To tell you the truth, i'm not entirely sure who has the power to do it.

To tell you the truth, i'm not entirely sure who has the power to do it.

Alphanguy, this is a good question, but based on everything that I have read it is the White House that has the power to do this.

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/lawmakers-demand-obama-institute-west-africa-travel-ban.html

Oh Max your concern trolling never ceases to entertain. Sorry but politics have real world consequences. People always say "this isn't the time for politics" when there's a crisis but when the crisis is over they go right back to magical thinking and doubling down on bad policy. Perry hates the government but when he needs help he comes running with his hand out. We have no Surgeon General right now because of the NRA. We cut funding for the NIH. Texas refused Medicare expansion. These are all political decisions with real world effects. Imagine if this had happened during the government shutdown. Remember all the crowing from the right that it wasn't a shutdown but instead was just a vacation for lazy Federal workers? Those lazy Federal workers are the ones who are now in Texas trying to keep secessionists from getting sick. I wonder if they'll ever get so much as a thank you.

Right wingers will never have to truly live according to the beliefs they espouse because the people they hate always protect them. I've just gotten to the point where I'm no longer willing to do that.

Fortunately for you and the people of Texas all those dreaded liberals and the tyrannical Federal government will once again come running to the rescue and when this is all over the Republicans in Congress will go back to shutting down the government to defund Obamacare and denying emergency funding for the next Hurricane Sandy all while blaming the President they are suing and wanting to impeach for doing not enough except when he's doing too much. The party of so-called personal responsibility will once again be protected from actually having to take any.

^ It could have just as easily been any other major city in America.

I do think though that the outbreak is proof that cutting funding for scientific research and for the CDC and other organizations is a really bad freaking idea. I am all for responsible government spending, but you can't strip away funding for essential programs and then complain because we're unprepared to handle a crisis. Speaking of politics and the free market though... it's shocking how many supposedly free market conservatives who hate government now want government to shut down our borders and thus devastate our economy.

These people see science as the enemy. Notice how the media, and many in the public, have already framed this as scientists hiding things and lying. The only solution many come up with is to close the borders. If we close the borders, we are automatically safe, and all those unworthy people will never touch us. We'll be safe because we're good and strong and pure.

You know the saddest part? I wouldn't be surprised if the media and the GOP actually use this as an excuse to cut funding even more.

Oh Max your concern trolling never ceases to entertain. Sorry but politics have real world consequences. People always say "this isn't the time for politics" when there's a crisis but when the crisis is over they go right back to magical thinking and doubling down on bad policy. Perry hates the government but when he needs help he comes running with his hand out. We have no Surgeon General right now because of the NRA. We cut funding for the NIH. Texas refused Medicare expansion. These are all political decisions with real world effects. Imagine if this had happened during the government shutdown. Remember all the crowing from the right that it wasn't a shutdown but instead was just a vacation for lazy Federal workers? Those lazy Federal workers are the ones who are now in Texas trying to keep secessionists from getting sick. I wonder if they'll ever get so much as a thank you.

Right wingers will never have to truly live according to the beliefs they espouse because the people they hate always protect them. I've just gotten to the point where I'm no longer willing to do that.

Fortunately for you and the people of Texas all those dreaded liberals and the tyrannical Federal government will once again come running to the rescue and when this is all over the Republicans in Congress will go back to shutting down the government to defund Obamacare and denying emergency funding for the next Hurricane Sandy all while blaming the President they are suing and wanting to impeach for doing not enough except when he's doing too much. The party of so-called personal responsibility will once again be protected from actually having to take any.

Your naked partisanship and plain nastiness really just want to make me throw up. I am no fan of the NRA, but they were not the only ones opposing Vivek Murthy's appointment as Surgeon General. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona--the 2012 Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Arizona--felt that Murthy was too young and inexperienced to hold the position:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/vivek-murthy-shouldnt-be-confirmed-as-surgeon-general/article/2546421

And an opinion piece in the liberal Boston Globe questioned Murthy's credentials for the job, wondering if his appointment was due more to his political involvement than this professional achievements:

Doctors for America originally began as Doctors for Obama, which campaigned on the president’s behalf in 2008. What’s more, Murthy served on Obama’s New England steering committee in that election and as a volunteer adviser to the president’s reelection team in 2012. In an op-ed last week for USA Today, Dr. Bruce Davidson even suggested that Murthy’s appointment to the Prevention Advisory Group was simply tribute for his prior political support.

For a position that requires nonpartisan scientific analysis for advancing the nation’s health, these credentials are troubling to say the least.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/12/09/vivek-murthy-too-partisan-surgeon-general/vzG7JAOAj9TZPZOVf7AQCI/story.html

If singlehandedly blaming "cuts" to the NIH for the Ebola crisis makes you feel better, go ahead. Many believe that the organization had adequate resources, and there is plenty of waste in the federal bureaucracy.

Beyond the generally stable funding levels over the past five years, note the uptick between 2013 and 2014, especially in the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The proposed 2015 request is lower than 2014's but again this figure is coming from the president's budget plan.

Then there's the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whose role in developing new medicines and interventions has been supposedly destroyed by cuts over the years, right? According to its budget documents, the NIH got about $23 billion in fiscal 2002 (George W. Bush's first budget year), a figure that rose to $30.2 billion in 2009 (his last budget year) before peaking at $31 billion in 2010. It dipped a bit from then and came to $30.1 billion in 2014, which is about the same amount the NIH requested in President Obama's 2015 budget plan.

You can argue that the United States needs to be constantly and massively increasing its spending on everything and that every time spending doesn't go up in a lockstep fashion (and faster than inflation, as it did throughout the Bush years) that you're killing people. You can also argue that the topline budget figures for various agencies don't matter, but then you're really talking about the ways in which bureaucracies, especially in the budget sector, misallocate resources. The one thing you really can't do is say that the federal government, which is not actually controlled by the Republicans (just saying), has been slashing its spending on anything.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/13/can-you-blame-ebola-outbreak-on-republic

I've already stated that the government shutdown (that happened last year) was idiotic, and even many other Republicans feel the same way. Given that it lasted only a few weeks, however, I highly doubt that it is responsible for Ebola in any way.

You still continue to blame Republicans for everything plus the kitchen sink (and, yes, they do deserve some blame). But you amazingly continue to suggest that the other side is totally blameless. And you start calling names (e.g. "trolls") the moment anybody questions you.

Edited October 14, 201411 yr by Max

These people see science as the enemy. Notice how the media, and many in the public, have already framed this as scientists hiding things and lying. The only solution many come up with is to close the borders. If we close the borders, we are automatically safe, and all those unworthy people will never touch us. We'll be safe because we're good and strong and pure.

You know the saddest part? I wouldn't be surprised if the media and the GOP actually use this as an excuse to cut funding even more.

I think some people see science as the enemy, but many like me, certainly don't in this case. I think borders need to be closed to those countries for now because of the outbreak, plain and simple, and if the disease were in Sweden and Norway, I'd say the exact same thing. I'ts not a matter of those people not being worthy to walk amongst us, it's a matter of them being sick and not spreading a deadly illness. Only in america with this massive victim mentality and racial baggage do you find these type of sentiments. Elsewhere in the world, people are more pragmatic.And let's keep in mind, the borders of Senegal, Chad, and Ivory Coast have already been closed, and travel severely limited in Kenya and South Africa. The airline worker's union in Europe is pressuring air France to halt all flights to and from Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. And people DO put too much trust in scientists and medical officials, how many times have they been wrong? Scientists, and officials we could TRUST told us DDT was safe in the 50's. They told soldiers that agent orange wouldn't harm them, the list goes on and on. And you want us to blindly trust now? You can do it if you want, but you'd be a fool. The main reason people are calling BS on the way this is being handled, is because the method of transmission is being framed as "Direct contact with bodily fluids", they are framing it as being transmitted in the same way that AIDS and Hepatitis are transmitted, but all the while using isolation and hazmat suits when handling patients. I don't think officials are downright LYING, I they are downplaying so as not to cause mass hysteria, because from Ferguson, we know what happens when there is mass hysteria.

Edited October 14, 201411 yr by alphanguy74

Our brilliant media in action yet again.

What a [!@#$%^&*] joke.

http://www.people.com/article/nancy-snyderman-ebola-quarantine-apology

I really hope they fire her on top of that non-apology. They're taking a lot of heat.

I think some people see science as the enemy, but many like me, certainly don't in this case. I think borders need to be closed to those countries for now because of the outbreak, plain and simple, and if the disease were in Sweden and Norway, I'd say the exact same thing. I'ts not a matter of those people not being worthy to walk amongst us, it's a matter of them being sick and not spreading a deadly illness. Only in america with this massive victim mentality and racial baggage do you find these type of sentiments. Elsewhere in the world, people are more pragmatic.And let's keep in mind, the borders of Senegal, Chad, and Ivory Coast have already been closed, and travel severely limited in Kenya and South Africa. The airline worker's union in Europe is pressuring air France to halt all flights to and from Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. And people DO put too much trust in scientists and medical officials, how many times have they been wrong? Scientists, and officials we could TRUST told us DDT was safe in the 50's. They told soldiers that agent orange wouldn't harm them, the list goes on and on. And you want us to blindly trust now? You can do it if you want, but you'd be a fool. The main reason people are calling BS on the way this is being handled, is because the method of transmission is being framed as "Direct contact with bodily fluids", they are framing it as being transmitted in the same way that AIDS and Hepatitis are transmitted, but all the while using isolation and hazmat suits when handling patients. I don't think officials are downright LYING, I they are downplaying so as not to cause mass hysteria, because from Ferguson, we know what happens when there is mass hysteria.

Thanks for this excellent post, Alphanguy.

Edited October 14, 201411 yr by Max

Our brilliant media in action yet again.

What a [!@#$%^&*] joke.

http://www.people.com/article/nancy-snyderman-ebola-quarantine-apology

Now there is someone I'd like to see get some jail time. What a self entitled wench.

Here's an interesting article laying out some reasons why a travel ban might be a bad plan. I'm sort of on the fence with this issue. Mostly I think the international community should be throwing every resource at Ebola at the source.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus

Now there is someone I'd like to see get some jail time. What a self entitled wench.

Here's an interesting article laying out some reasons why a travel ban might be a bad plan. I'm sort of on the fence with this issue. Mostly I think the international community should be throwing every resource at Ebola at the source.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus

I just don't see how a travel ban could work. Let's say we ban all flights from West Africa. There's nothing stopping people from catching a flight to some other country then simply transferring to a plane here. It also makes it harder to get aid workers to and from the affected area. For all the talk about airports I'm more curious about our ports and waterways. Ebola can also spread through bats and eating infected meat. Consider how many ships make their way to our ports complete with workers from all over the world and all manner of cargo.

I just don't see how a travel ban could work. Let's say we ban all flights from West Africa. There's nothing stopping people from catching a flight to some other country then simply transferring to a plane here. It also makes it harder to get aid workers to and from the affected area. For all the talk about airports I'm more curious about our ports and waterways. Ebola can also spread through bats and eating infected meat. Consider how many ships make their way to our ports complete with workers from all over the world and all manner of cargo.

Sure, we could stop that just by looking at a persons passport (at least to a large degree) if we really wanted to, but in the end it's all just a distraction. The politicians who talk about doing this are just trying to placate people, imo. I think it's possible a travel ban would stop a few infections, but it would probably cause a lot of economic damage.

I don't see it as a practical solution because I don't think we have a real problem with Ebola spreading here. The flu will kill more people in the US this winter then Ebola, imo.

I thought that Vox article was interesting, but they had a few straw man arguments in there. For example a travel ban wouldn't really have to stop aid workers either. Flights could just go one way for a couple of months, while we get this under control. Better yet, there should be government/military flights taking aid workers straight to the source.

Chris Brown got himself into trouble with this:

http://www.thewrap.com/chris-brown-draws-outrage-after-calling-ebola-epidemic-a-form-of-population-control/

He's right though. War and disease have been a source of population control. I don't think acknowledging that means you want war and disease to win the battle.

Max I agree

Travel to and from West Africa should have been temporarily suspended weeks ago, but of course, no official would have had the guts to do it, for fear of being labelled a racist. Political correctness may truly be the death of us all.

What a load of horseshit. The reason flight travel hasn't been suspended is because of money and because in some ways it's almost unfeasible to do.

But let me not get in the way of your steretypical race baiting bullsh*t.

As for Texas it's not Republicans fault that the Duncan guy lied. However the Republicans in Texas should take responsiblity for the state of their healthcare system such that it is. I don't know much about the healthcare system there so I won't cast judgement on it. But the fact that Perry is so anti-federal government is laughable considering how much Texas needs them now.

Chris Brown got himself into trouble with this:

http://www.thewrap.com/chris-brown-draws-outrage-after-calling-ebola-epidemic-a-form-of-population-control/

He's right though. War and disease have been a source of population control. I don't think acknowledging that means you want war and disease to win the battle.

Agreed but talking about scientific reality almost always makes for bad tweets.