So I'm on ESPN's website today updating my fantasy football roster in hopes I can pull out a huuuuge winning streak and make the playoffs, and I decide to poke around for NFL articles, news, commentary, etc... After all this is a great year for me and professional football; I'm a Saints fan!! Undefeated to date at 9-0, we average 36.8 points a game (first in the NFL), avgerage 426 yards a game (first in the NFL), more defensive touchdowns than any other team in the League, and we currently sit atop the NFL power rankings. There should be plenty to read...Right?!
Yeah not so much. Not one article, video, highlight or recap about the New Orleans Saints. Plenty of talk about the Pat's boneheaded 4th down disaster, and Peyton Manning, and whether or not the Bears even have a shot at making the playoffs, but Saints? Zero, nada, zilch, zippo!
Is it because we haven't ever won a Superbowl? Is it because we've had such a dismal past? Wouldn't these things make for an even better under-dog story? All I can say is if this is the way it's gotta be, I hope we stay under these chowderheads' radar, and bite them all in the ass come January.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Response Carried Over From Commentary at Another Location
See what started this at: http://ianmcgibboney.blogspot.com/2009/11/blending-sports-and-politicssomething.html
You're an angry fella Tom, but you do have a point about me portraying some of the same divisiveness and adversity in much of my own contributions and commentary. So, I'm not going to mark arguments for such or justify such.
Unemployment is a huge problem. It seems to be your sticking point, much like many others in your quest to paint the current President along with Democratic policy and implementation as the source for all of our woes. You are absolutely right: Obama initially stated that he could hold unemployment to 8% or less. He was absolutely wrong.
This is the source of my point. It's not about supporting the plans of Democrats, but rather supporting truly progressive plans that will have the desired impact, not half-measures watered down by compromise ceded to opposing political organizations. Krugman and a plethera of economists screamed at the top of their lungs about the E.R.A. not being nearly large enough to be fully effective. They even went so far as to state that while the proposed investment would slow down and reverse quite a few key economic indicators, it wouldn't have the desired effect on unemployment rates as they are usually one of the last indicators to turn around. Further, they are still stating unless more investment is made specifically in the areas of job creation several years of inflated unemployment rates are likely.
You see my point is not loyalty to party, but to good ideas. We've run higher defecits as a percentage of GDP in the past, and specifically when that money was used to strengthen the economy and production at home, it was very successful. I don't care about Obama or the particular individuals who tout ideas. I just care about the ideas.
I think Obama has come up short on some of his campaign promises, and delivered on others. I never expected any different when I cast my ballot for him. I simply saw and still see him as the best possibility for Progressive reform.
Tom, anyone who can look at the lack of support shown to health care reform by the Republican party and not say they would rather play politics, is either clinically insane or completely apathetic. Even the extremely ridiculous farce of a bill that they slapped together after much criticism for not bringing a viable alternative to the table, doesn't guarantee an exemption to preexisting condition exclusions.
You are right again on the universal mandate (although no one is going to be thrown in jail). It is a bad idea to provide more of a monopoly to the insurance companies who already are raping the American citizens. That is exactly why a strong and comprehensive public option is necessary. Contrary to what is said so frequently, a public option doesn't automatically equal a single payer government plan in a few years. There are other nations who still have private businesses providing highly regulated health insurance to customers, and they have achieved universal coverage.
Further, don't label me with the nothing but hatred mark. Much of what I write is simply commentary. Have I been inflammatory in my language? Yes, certainly, but there is not a pervasiveness to it as to warrant hatred. Frustration, sure. Anger, maybe, but not hatred.
Also, don't twist my words sir. I was referencing the Evangelical base of the GOP as "wholly equipped with condemnation..." not the party in total.
Finally, in reference to all of your talk about the Obama/racism issue. I have never said that political ideaology doesn't play some role along with other factors, but I have emphatically stated that when you have a President doing many of the same things that other Republican and Democratic Presidents have done; the only difference being the color of his skin, and the dark fellow takes the "Hitler" cat calls, racism is present.
Does that mean that every Republican is racist? Of course not. Does that mean that racism is stronger in the Republican party than the Democratic party? Maybe. However, it certainly does mean it exists, and as such, should be discussed.
Will Obama and the Democrats get trounced in the upcoming elections? I have no idea, and it certainly remains to be seen. To quote Ian, "That is why they play the games". I will say this though. If they are trounced, it will not be because a couple of Governor's races went their way early on. Those two races do not a national referendum make. I believe if Obama stops pandering to more middle of the road Democrats and Conservative Republicans, his success will be much larger, but that isn't likely. It's the nature of politics, and it's the system we have. I think the system we have sucks overall, but I can't think of a better one either.
So, I'm not here to get in a pissing match with you. I'm not here to discuss who's the bigger hypocrite, or what party did what to who'm now or in the past. I'm hear to discuss ideas, and how to bring the good ones to fruition. I haven't always done a good job of doing that, as you have pointed out, but that is my goal.
Now would you care to discuss ideas? Would you care to explain what you think would help our country and why? Would you care to listen to other's viewpoints as well? If you would, I'm in.
You're an angry fella Tom, but you do have a point about me portraying some of the same divisiveness and adversity in much of my own contributions and commentary. So, I'm not going to mark arguments for such or justify such.
Unemployment is a huge problem. It seems to be your sticking point, much like many others in your quest to paint the current President along with Democratic policy and implementation as the source for all of our woes. You are absolutely right: Obama initially stated that he could hold unemployment to 8% or less. He was absolutely wrong.
This is the source of my point. It's not about supporting the plans of Democrats, but rather supporting truly progressive plans that will have the desired impact, not half-measures watered down by compromise ceded to opposing political organizations. Krugman and a plethera of economists screamed at the top of their lungs about the E.R.A. not being nearly large enough to be fully effective. They even went so far as to state that while the proposed investment would slow down and reverse quite a few key economic indicators, it wouldn't have the desired effect on unemployment rates as they are usually one of the last indicators to turn around. Further, they are still stating unless more investment is made specifically in the areas of job creation several years of inflated unemployment rates are likely.
You see my point is not loyalty to party, but to good ideas. We've run higher defecits as a percentage of GDP in the past, and specifically when that money was used to strengthen the economy and production at home, it was very successful. I don't care about Obama or the particular individuals who tout ideas. I just care about the ideas.
I think Obama has come up short on some of his campaign promises, and delivered on others. I never expected any different when I cast my ballot for him. I simply saw and still see him as the best possibility for Progressive reform.
Tom, anyone who can look at the lack of support shown to health care reform by the Republican party and not say they would rather play politics, is either clinically insane or completely apathetic. Even the extremely ridiculous farce of a bill that they slapped together after much criticism for not bringing a viable alternative to the table, doesn't guarantee an exemption to preexisting condition exclusions.
You are right again on the universal mandate (although no one is going to be thrown in jail). It is a bad idea to provide more of a monopoly to the insurance companies who already are raping the American citizens. That is exactly why a strong and comprehensive public option is necessary. Contrary to what is said so frequently, a public option doesn't automatically equal a single payer government plan in a few years. There are other nations who still have private businesses providing highly regulated health insurance to customers, and they have achieved universal coverage.
Further, don't label me with the nothing but hatred mark. Much of what I write is simply commentary. Have I been inflammatory in my language? Yes, certainly, but there is not a pervasiveness to it as to warrant hatred. Frustration, sure. Anger, maybe, but not hatred.
Also, don't twist my words sir. I was referencing the Evangelical base of the GOP as "wholly equipped with condemnation..." not the party in total.
Finally, in reference to all of your talk about the Obama/racism issue. I have never said that political ideaology doesn't play some role along with other factors, but I have emphatically stated that when you have a President doing many of the same things that other Republican and Democratic Presidents have done; the only difference being the color of his skin, and the dark fellow takes the "Hitler" cat calls, racism is present.
Does that mean that every Republican is racist? Of course not. Does that mean that racism is stronger in the Republican party than the Democratic party? Maybe. However, it certainly does mean it exists, and as such, should be discussed.
Will Obama and the Democrats get trounced in the upcoming elections? I have no idea, and it certainly remains to be seen. To quote Ian, "That is why they play the games". I will say this though. If they are trounced, it will not be because a couple of Governor's races went their way early on. Those two races do not a national referendum make. I believe if Obama stops pandering to more middle of the road Democrats and Conservative Republicans, his success will be much larger, but that isn't likely. It's the nature of politics, and it's the system we have. I think the system we have sucks overall, but I can't think of a better one either.
So, I'm not here to get in a pissing match with you. I'm not here to discuss who's the bigger hypocrite, or what party did what to who'm now or in the past. I'm hear to discuss ideas, and how to bring the good ones to fruition. I haven't always done a good job of doing that, as you have pointed out, but that is my goal.
Now would you care to discuss ideas? Would you care to explain what you think would help our country and why? Would you care to listen to other's viewpoints as well? If you would, I'm in.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Maybe I'm Just As Guilty As The Tea Baggers
I've been reading over a current thread I was keeping up with at a well written blog I follow by Ian McGibbony, and in doing so, I followed a profile link of a fellow who thinks little of my politcal and social outlook. I delved into his profile and subsequently his webpage and was a bit disturbed. The tone and tenor of his repsonses on the blog I follow had already provided me with an insight to his overall frame of mind regarding our current President and also the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, but I was definitely surprised by the pervasiveness of his contempt and acerbic wit.
His every entry consists of hostile and derisive commentary about Barrack Obama, and it has made me wonder am I any different? Almost every commentary I make, almost every response to a posting that I issue, and certainly my own works have been similar in their ire towards George W. Bush and his Republican cohorts. I often get caught up in arguing with people for the sake of winning the argument and casting a poor light on someone that I perceive to be a Republican or conservative individual. I have reached a point of almost knee-jerk negative reaction to anyone who is conservative or touts conservative ideaology. Certainly I could pen sprawling and rather convincing arguments for those reactions and my commentary, but I am beginning to see those reasons are irrelevant.
I believe it is the act of picking a "team" and playing/fighting one another that is causing the lack of progress. Don't misunderstand me, the Democratic party holds vastly larger numbers of candidates who are congruent with my vision of what role government should play in our lives...better put even, what role "we" should play in our own lives. I do truly contain loathing for the wildy hypocritcal and destructive Evangelical base of the Republican party. Perhaps I see more of this strain of the party because of Geography and association, but I think that is important to remember the cause is not about blasting these people. No matter how good it may feel sometimes, it is counterproductive. After all the goal is not to discredit the Republican agenda, but to further the Progressive agenda. What is the Progressive agenda? The betterment of society as a whole. It is the "Socialist" brush that this idea gets painted with that causes so much trouble. This is unfortunate because whatever word you use to describe it, helping each other out is not a bad thing. The whole is reflected in the sum of its parts. The rich gentleman who loses a few dollars in taxes picks up edification and further wealth by a strong and successful societal whole.
The us versus them mentality hurts us all. Much to my dismay we all really do have to share the same country. It's just in our best interest to stop blasting each other (this will be extremely difficult for me) and working on building each other up.
His every entry consists of hostile and derisive commentary about Barrack Obama, and it has made me wonder am I any different? Almost every commentary I make, almost every response to a posting that I issue, and certainly my own works have been similar in their ire towards George W. Bush and his Republican cohorts. I often get caught up in arguing with people for the sake of winning the argument and casting a poor light on someone that I perceive to be a Republican or conservative individual. I have reached a point of almost knee-jerk negative reaction to anyone who is conservative or touts conservative ideaology. Certainly I could pen sprawling and rather convincing arguments for those reactions and my commentary, but I am beginning to see those reasons are irrelevant.
I believe it is the act of picking a "team" and playing/fighting one another that is causing the lack of progress. Don't misunderstand me, the Democratic party holds vastly larger numbers of candidates who are congruent with my vision of what role government should play in our lives...better put even, what role "we" should play in our own lives. I do truly contain loathing for the wildy hypocritcal and destructive Evangelical base of the Republican party. Perhaps I see more of this strain of the party because of Geography and association, but I think that is important to remember the cause is not about blasting these people. No matter how good it may feel sometimes, it is counterproductive. After all the goal is not to discredit the Republican agenda, but to further the Progressive agenda. What is the Progressive agenda? The betterment of society as a whole. It is the "Socialist" brush that this idea gets painted with that causes so much trouble. This is unfortunate because whatever word you use to describe it, helping each other out is not a bad thing. The whole is reflected in the sum of its parts. The rich gentleman who loses a few dollars in taxes picks up edification and further wealth by a strong and successful societal whole.
The us versus them mentality hurts us all. Much to my dismay we all really do have to share the same country. It's just in our best interest to stop blasting each other (this will be extremely difficult for me) and working on building each other up.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, but What You Can Do To Fight Your Democratically Elected President
Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a potential presidential contender in 2012, said Obama's speech is "uninvited" and that the president's move raises questions of content and motive.
Many school districts have decided not to show Obama's speech, to be delivered at 12 noon EDT Tuesday, partly in response to concerns from parents.
So we now apparently live in an era where the democratically elected leader of our country can not speak to the students of our country about the importance of staying in school and working towards an education?! Bobby Jindal wants to push and force the teaching of Creationism in public schools to our children, but Obama's speech is what gains headlines and pushback the country over. When did we enter the Twighlight GOP zone?
What questions of "motive" could this possibly raise? Are we truly worried that our President is secretely handing out Socialist Decoder Rings to all of our children? Do we think that the children of our country haven't seen speeches that our President has given already? These are all really pertinent questions, and I hope people the country over are answering them in their own heads. This is a travesty. With the racial inequity sewn into the fabric of our country's history, to have a brilliant black man and President speak to the youth of our country on the importance of staying in school and valuing education is absolutely priceless.
Where were these folks when Reagan and Bush Sr. spoke to the youth of our country? Even more pertinent is this. If these same folks railing against the President making this speech were told that the President intended to make a speech on the evils of abortion, they would be lining their children up to attend. Now I'm really not trying to make this an ad hominem defense, so let me clarify. If Bush or Reagan wanted to speak to the youth of our nation and encourage them not to use drugs and to stay physically fit, great! I'm not saying those were bad things. The point here is there are some issues that, on which, we should be consistently unified. Guess what? The value of staying in school and achieving our academic goals is one of them!!
I just finished taking a look at the 7-12 lessons plans which can be found here: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf and I absolutely can not come up with anything that doesn't fit right in with just about any state's Comprehensive Curriculum. This is good classroom practice and curriculum folks. Now I understand that there was originally a lesson plan that included a question about "How can you help the President?" What the hell was wrong with that question? Do we not want to help our country succeed? Is this counter lesson planning tactics brought to you by Rush Limbaugh? I just don't get it folks.
Monday, July 6, 2009
You Know What Really Grinds My Gears
When family members swarm my inbox with "patriotic" emails about how liberals are ruining the world, then proceed to log off get in their Hummer which gets 5 miles to the gallon and drive to get their paycheck from a high paying V.P. job that allows them to pay an effective 15 percent tax rate...it really grinds my gears.
When people use the word socialist when they have absolutely no idea what it means...it really grinds my gears.
When people refer to Global Warming as a conspiracy...it really grinds my gears.
When senators appear on television and state that citizens of Canada have to wait until they are blind in order to have cataract surgery despite the fact they have never been to Canada...it really grinds my gears.
When people act like the fact that the impoverished receive free or subsidized health care is a conspiracy rather than demanding the same for themselves...it really grinds my gears.
Finally, when someone engages me in a political discussion and insists on quoting "facts" that they read in an email forward that they received...IT REALLY GRINDS MY GEARS...I mean seriously don't tell me that President Obama wants to take your guns away and impose the highest taxes in recorded history upon the American public because some douchebag in your office sent you an email. Hop online and use a researched and legitimate source to find out the facts, that indeed he hasn't proposed banning the right to bear arms and he only wants to tax people at 10 percentage points lower than Ronald Reagan did.
When people use the word socialist when they have absolutely no idea what it means...it really grinds my gears.
When people refer to Global Warming as a conspiracy...it really grinds my gears.
When senators appear on television and state that citizens of Canada have to wait until they are blind in order to have cataract surgery despite the fact they have never been to Canada...it really grinds my gears.
When people act like the fact that the impoverished receive free or subsidized health care is a conspiracy rather than demanding the same for themselves...it really grinds my gears.
Finally, when someone engages me in a political discussion and insists on quoting "facts" that they read in an email forward that they received...IT REALLY GRINDS MY GEARS...I mean seriously don't tell me that President Obama wants to take your guns away and impose the highest taxes in recorded history upon the American public because some douchebag in your office sent you an email. Hop online and use a researched and legitimate source to find out the facts, that indeed he hasn't proposed banning the right to bear arms and he only wants to tax people at 10 percentage points lower than Ronald Reagan did.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Landrieu is a Joke
There are truly no progressive elected voices in Louisiana. Senator Landrieu wears the mantle of "Democrat", but she's a bigger special interest whore than most Republicans. A recent article I read at crooks and liars.com showed that she received over a million dollars in direct donations from the Medical Industrial Complex and another $400,000 or so from the insurance industry. You know in our current system I have no problem with a candidate who takes the donations and still votes against a special interest. Hell, I applaud them, but when Landrieu flips her script and hops on the Blue Cross Express, it's pretty obvious why.
The rub here is we keep electing these clowns! Why is the electorate so ignorant? I try to fight the Southerner stereotype as much as possible, but damn my fellow Southerners make it hard. It's to the point now that any true Progressives don't even bother running for office in LA. At least with a tool like David Vitter you know what you have...A hooker crazy, diaper wearing, corporate twit. I place Landrieu a rung under Vitter, because at least we know he's willing to fuck people for the right price. Landrieu is a whore hiding in a supposedly liberal-elected officials clothing.
The rub here is we keep electing these clowns! Why is the electorate so ignorant? I try to fight the Southerner stereotype as much as possible, but damn my fellow Southerners make it hard. It's to the point now that any true Progressives don't even bother running for office in LA. At least with a tool like David Vitter you know what you have...A hooker crazy, diaper wearing, corporate twit. I place Landrieu a rung under Vitter, because at least we know he's willing to fuck people for the right price. Landrieu is a whore hiding in a supposedly liberal-elected officials clothing.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What Has Bobby Done For Me?
Governor Jindal has been at it for a bit now, and he is typically a well-liked individual throughout his home state. He is a shining star in the Republican Party and has even been talked about in regards to a Presidential run. Given all of this, I asked myself today a simple question: "What has Bobby done for me?"
That's a really tough one to answer. Obviously I don't mean to inquire solely for my own personhood but rather for a wide swathe of the population who fits into the average middle class worker category. I'm told that I pay less state taxes now with the repeal of the Stelly Plan, but actually I don't because I "make too much moeny". That's laughable. In fact only a small portion of the middle class who make right around 50k a year see a two percent reduction in state taxes. Now I'm all for helping these folks out, but this doesn't strike me as a sweeping tax reform especially in lieu of the budget shortfall the State is predicting for next fiscal year.
In addition to cutting a very oddly applied tax, Bobby has managed to hand me a cut to the funding of my state public school system, and higher education system. So now some programs in K-12 classrooms around the state may be cut and students could very well lose out on intervention and support programs that they require. Also, teacher jobs and salaries may very well shrink in parishes across the state. Oh and also if I want to augment my education and continue my professional learning, I may have to drive half way across the state in order to find the correct program now as colleges forsee having to condense the courses of study and classes that they offer. Thanks Bobby!
Oooooh wait, let's not forget that squarely in the middle of this shortfall, Bobby attempted to turn down hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the Federal Government for absolutely no reason at all other than he wanted to pander to his right wing conservative base in preparation for a presidential run. This gets better and better.
Well at least I can say that he pushed for and won cutting edge anti-corruption legislation. Except that along with it, he hyper- inflated his staff's and appointee's salaries and hasn't remotely put a dent in government corruption. Another good thing about this legislation is that several respected lawyers believe that if it is ever used to remove someone from office it won't be upheld as Constitutional. Like I said, cutting edge stuff.
I have noticed that since Bobby has been elected more and more fundamental conservatives have been gaining office. This is fantastic! Now I have folks like Eric Skrmetta on important environmental committees telling everyone how man-made global warming is a sham. Truly a beautiful thing, please keep polluting Louisiana and see if you can drop some more of it in the river while you're at it!
Well I have no one to blame but myself. I thought you were a bright and moderate individual Mr. Jindal. I believed you'd apply fiscal conservatism in conjunction with innovation and empathy while holding people accountable for their actions. You have fallen grievously short on all counts. You have done all you can to subsidize wealthy corporations while gutting our public healthcare system and education system. You have completely disregarded anyone with a progressive viewpoint in your lust for conservative political advancement. I voted for you and I daily chastise myself for the phenomenal lapse in judgment. Please Bobby do us all a favor and see if Governor Palin in Alaska needs a running mate and get the hell out of Louisiana.
That's a really tough one to answer. Obviously I don't mean to inquire solely for my own personhood but rather for a wide swathe of the population who fits into the average middle class worker category. I'm told that I pay less state taxes now with the repeal of the Stelly Plan, but actually I don't because I "make too much moeny". That's laughable. In fact only a small portion of the middle class who make right around 50k a year see a two percent reduction in state taxes. Now I'm all for helping these folks out, but this doesn't strike me as a sweeping tax reform especially in lieu of the budget shortfall the State is predicting for next fiscal year.
In addition to cutting a very oddly applied tax, Bobby has managed to hand me a cut to the funding of my state public school system, and higher education system. So now some programs in K-12 classrooms around the state may be cut and students could very well lose out on intervention and support programs that they require. Also, teacher jobs and salaries may very well shrink in parishes across the state. Oh and also if I want to augment my education and continue my professional learning, I may have to drive half way across the state in order to find the correct program now as colleges forsee having to condense the courses of study and classes that they offer. Thanks Bobby!
Oooooh wait, let's not forget that squarely in the middle of this shortfall, Bobby attempted to turn down hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the Federal Government for absolutely no reason at all other than he wanted to pander to his right wing conservative base in preparation for a presidential run. This gets better and better.
Well at least I can say that he pushed for and won cutting edge anti-corruption legislation. Except that along with it, he hyper- inflated his staff's and appointee's salaries and hasn't remotely put a dent in government corruption. Another good thing about this legislation is that several respected lawyers believe that if it is ever used to remove someone from office it won't be upheld as Constitutional. Like I said, cutting edge stuff.
I have noticed that since Bobby has been elected more and more fundamental conservatives have been gaining office. This is fantastic! Now I have folks like Eric Skrmetta on important environmental committees telling everyone how man-made global warming is a sham. Truly a beautiful thing, please keep polluting Louisiana and see if you can drop some more of it in the river while you're at it!
Well I have no one to blame but myself. I thought you were a bright and moderate individual Mr. Jindal. I believed you'd apply fiscal conservatism in conjunction with innovation and empathy while holding people accountable for their actions. You have fallen grievously short on all counts. You have done all you can to subsidize wealthy corporations while gutting our public healthcare system and education system. You have completely disregarded anyone with a progressive viewpoint in your lust for conservative political advancement. I voted for you and I daily chastise myself for the phenomenal lapse in judgment. Please Bobby do us all a favor and see if Governor Palin in Alaska needs a running mate and get the hell out of Louisiana.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Double Standards on Terror
Fundamentalist. A word that has become a staple in the average U.S. citizen's vocabulary over the last seven or eight years. Most commonly associated with Islam and terrorism. Since 9/11, so very many chain emails, books, and opinion pieces have been written on the Islamic fundamentalists and how they are the most dangerous threat to our nation and our way of life. They can't be reasoned with, they cant' be bought, they can't be intimidated because they are religious fanatics ready to kill and be killed for their religious beliefs.
The question I pose today is this. Why are we so ready to abhor Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and in some cases, are applauding its Christian counterpart?
That's right I said applaud it. Yesterday Dr. George Tiller was assassinated by a Christian fundamentalist while Mr. Tiller worshiped in his own church. He assassinated Dr. Tiller because he was one of three doctors in the country who performed legal late-term abortions. He was labeled Tiller the Killer by Fox News contributor Bill O'Reilly along with Glenn Beck and various other pundits and organizations. One of these organizations was Operation Rescue, a group dedicated to ending abortion and advocating provocative protest often laced with violence.
The assassin entered a place of worship. A place of worship unto the very god that the assassin is beholden to nonetheless, and shot Dr. Tiller dead. This assassin was found to have been thoroughly interlaced with Operation Rescue, and had posted violent wishes for Dr. Tiller in many chat and blog forums. In fact, on Fox News message boards and fundamental Christian sites all over the internet there are notes of praise for the assassin. Saying things to imply that he was doing god's work, and that Dr. Tiller got was he deserved.
So I ask again, why are there not terrorist watch lists for fundamental Christian groups across America. They advocate violence. They have taken the lives of many doctors and patients providing and seeking abortions over the last fifteen years, so why aren't they being held at Guantanamo Bay? Why aren't they being subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques? They blatantly disregard the law of the land, challenging the auspice of the United States government itself. They want to change the way life is lived in our country through violence, intimidation and murder, so what is the difference? Does one of these individuals have to fly a plane into an abortion clinic before they are labeled with disgust?
I wonder if the fact that they are not Muslim and not brown has anything to do with it?
The question I pose today is this. Why are we so ready to abhor Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and in some cases, are applauding its Christian counterpart?
That's right I said applaud it. Yesterday Dr. George Tiller was assassinated by a Christian fundamentalist while Mr. Tiller worshiped in his own church. He assassinated Dr. Tiller because he was one of three doctors in the country who performed legal late-term abortions. He was labeled Tiller the Killer by Fox News contributor Bill O'Reilly along with Glenn Beck and various other pundits and organizations. One of these organizations was Operation Rescue, a group dedicated to ending abortion and advocating provocative protest often laced with violence.
The assassin entered a place of worship. A place of worship unto the very god that the assassin is beholden to nonetheless, and shot Dr. Tiller dead. This assassin was found to have been thoroughly interlaced with Operation Rescue, and had posted violent wishes for Dr. Tiller in many chat and blog forums. In fact, on Fox News message boards and fundamental Christian sites all over the internet there are notes of praise for the assassin. Saying things to imply that he was doing god's work, and that Dr. Tiller got was he deserved.
So I ask again, why are there not terrorist watch lists for fundamental Christian groups across America. They advocate violence. They have taken the lives of many doctors and patients providing and seeking abortions over the last fifteen years, so why aren't they being held at Guantanamo Bay? Why aren't they being subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques? They blatantly disregard the law of the land, challenging the auspice of the United States government itself. They want to change the way life is lived in our country through violence, intimidation and murder, so what is the difference? Does one of these individuals have to fly a plane into an abortion clinic before they are labeled with disgust?
I wonder if the fact that they are not Muslim and not brown has anything to do with it?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Are Republicans in Denial About Global Warming Because They Are So Fond Of Their Own Hot Air?
It never ceases to amaze me how willing the talking heads are to lie in order to further their cause. Even more surprising is how easily people accept their bogus information as fact. I live in Southeast Louisiana, and I do not have satellite radio, so needless to say all the talk radio I get is embossed with the Republican seal of approval. Practically every third commercial is a doomsday smear against Cap and Trade. These ads quite literally attempt to frighten little old ladies into thinking that Cap and Trade will tax them into an early grave. From Boehner's lips to Limbaughs rear-end they are telling you the average household will see a $3,100 a year increase in energy bills!
Hannity peddles this same idea on his radio and television show in between rants about Obama being the ultimate socialist and baby killer. In fact, O'Reilly is on this band wagon as well. Down here in oil town Louisiana people get all bent out of shape about energy policy, and they practically foaming at the mouth over their electric bill going up $3,100 a month. The reaction is understandable. Hell, I can't afford another $300 a month either. The only problem here is we arent' going to have to pay anywhere near that. In true Republican fashion they have taken something some really smart people have stated and then mangle and chop it all up until they can scare people with it. In this case and M.I.T. study was butchered.
What disturbs me about this is not so much the deception. I've already accepted that these guys will liie blatantly to further their cause. Rather, my concern is that they are lying because they either do not care about the effects of Global Warming or do not believe in Global Warming. Either way it's a terrifying prospect. Here in Louisiana I listened to a radio interview with Commissioner Eric Skrmetta in which he flatly denied the existence of any planetary warming as a result of human produced greeenhouse gases. In fact he attends the school of thought which states that since we breathe out Carbon Dioxide it cannot be a contributing factor to Global Warming.
Oh and for any fundamental critics who say "but there are scientists who disagree with man-made global warming" please check out this list of 650 "respected scientists" who do exactly that. What a crock of B.S. I think my plumber is listed on it somewhere.
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1922
Hannity peddles this same idea on his radio and television show in between rants about Obama being the ultimate socialist and baby killer. In fact, O'Reilly is on this band wagon as well. Down here in oil town Louisiana people get all bent out of shape about energy policy, and they practically foaming at the mouth over their electric bill going up $3,100 a month. The reaction is understandable. Hell, I can't afford another $300 a month either. The only problem here is we arent' going to have to pay anywhere near that. In true Republican fashion they have taken something some really smart people have stated and then mangle and chop it all up until they can scare people with it. In this case and M.I.T. study was butchered.
How do Republicans figure American households will be out $3,100? The figure is based in part on a 2007 study by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The study estimated that a cap-and-trade market for 2015 would be worth $366 billion in revenue. Republicans, figuring that that amount would be passed from the energy companies to consumers, calculated the average cost per household by dividing $366 billion by 117 million households (a population of 300 million divided into households of 2.56 persons) to get $3,128, or roughly $3,100.You would think that after the really smart folks with advanced college degrees from one of the most prestigious universities on the planet earth told Mr. Boehner that he didn't have his facts straight and that he was misrepresenting their study, he would have recanted and at the very least, found a new angle of attack. Oooooh Nooooo. He stuck with it along with the rest of his party (for the most part) and ignored the facts. Amazingly enough some analysis of Cap and Trade show increase in rates being as little as $81 a year! That's a pretty big stretch to get to $3,100.
However, one of the authors of the MIT study disputes that figure.
In a letter sent to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on April 1, John Reilly, associate director for research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that the study he coauthored had "been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee." He said the GOP's calculation fails to account for Obama's stated intent to provide rebates to consumers to cushion the effect of increased prices: "[M]any of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household."
-http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html
What disturbs me about this is not so much the deception. I've already accepted that these guys will liie blatantly to further their cause. Rather, my concern is that they are lying because they either do not care about the effects of Global Warming or do not believe in Global Warming. Either way it's a terrifying prospect. Here in Louisiana I listened to a radio interview with Commissioner Eric Skrmetta in which he flatly denied the existence of any planetary warming as a result of human produced greeenhouse gases. In fact he attends the school of thought which states that since we breathe out Carbon Dioxide it cannot be a contributing factor to Global Warming.
Oh and for any fundamental critics who say "but there are scientists who disagree with man-made global warming" please check out this list of 650 "respected scientists" who do exactly that. What a crock of B.S. I think my plumber is listed on it somewhere.
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1922
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
You Know What Really Grinds My Gears...
When people cash their Social Security Checks and rail about Socialism it really grinds my gears.
When people describe drowning someone just short of dying as enhanced anything it really grinds my gears.
When people act as though transferring GITMO detainees to Supermax Federal Penitentiaries(which have never been broken out of) equates to turning them loose on main street it really grinds my gears.
When people act as though their religion is the only religion that has never killed in the name of their god it really grinds my gears.
When people believe that if a talking head on T.V. says it it must be true it really grinds my gears.
When Bill O'Reilly states that waterboarding was not used often when indeed it was used 128 times on one individual it really grinds my gears.
When Dick Cheney threatens the United States with the certainty of another catastrophic attack if we follow anyone but his own plans (especially considering his President's administration oversaw and allowed the only foreign terrorist attack in my lifetime) it really really grinds my gears.
Finally, when Rush Limbaugh does that weird gurgling breath thing he does it really grinds my gears.
When people describe drowning someone just short of dying as enhanced anything it really grinds my gears.
When people act as though transferring GITMO detainees to Supermax Federal Penitentiaries(which have never been broken out of) equates to turning them loose on main street it really grinds my gears.
When people act as though their religion is the only religion that has never killed in the name of their god it really grinds my gears.
When people believe that if a talking head on T.V. says it it must be true it really grinds my gears.
When Bill O'Reilly states that waterboarding was not used often when indeed it was used 128 times on one individual it really grinds my gears.
When Dick Cheney threatens the United States with the certainty of another catastrophic attack if we follow anyone but his own plans (especially considering his President's administration oversaw and allowed the only foreign terrorist attack in my lifetime) it really really grinds my gears.
Finally, when Rush Limbaugh does that weird gurgling breath thing he does it really grinds my gears.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Do We All Have to be Right?
It just sort of happens. One day you realize you have an opinion on some politician's views or legislation, and then it begins to snowball. A few opinions turn into an ethos, and then you are firmly entrenched into the political debate. Perhaps you lean right, and perhaps you lean left. In the end you definitely align with someone. I've been so caught up in it over the last political cycle and the landmark election that I haven't taken the opportunity to step back from it until just recently. When I did I asked the question... "Do we all have to be right?"
I suppose that's about as loaded a question as one can pose, but it's pertinent to where we are at as a society. I don't believe we do. Sure there are some issues and topics that there is just right and wrong ideologically. For instance, no Progressive is going to bend on their moral stance regarding torture or civil equity, and their are a variety of moral/religious issues that Conservatives aren't willing to bend on at all. However, is there truly not some middle ground?
Is it such a monumental stretch to say for instance as a Progressive that I would concede a ban on late-term abortion if there were a concession for allowance in the instance that the mother's health was in significant danger? I don't think this concession would nullify my liberal political viewpoint. Conversely, would a conservative be giving up his red/white/blue stripes if he conceded to large investments in the impoverished class pertaining to healthcare and public education if there were oversight to prohibit large-scale abuse and indefinite dependence?
My point is that we often stand so stratified in political ideals that nothing gets done that either of us want. I thought that President Obama exemplified this measured brand of thinking in his speech at Notre Dame recently. In essence what he said was abortion is legal, so let's put our heads together and figure out a way to reduce the number of abortions that are sought after each year. Still he is branded the biggest baby killer to sit the Oval Office. I just don't get it. Perhaps we all need to step back sometime and ask ourselves Do we all have to be right?
I suppose that's about as loaded a question as one can pose, but it's pertinent to where we are at as a society. I don't believe we do. Sure there are some issues and topics that there is just right and wrong ideologically. For instance, no Progressive is going to bend on their moral stance regarding torture or civil equity, and their are a variety of moral/religious issues that Conservatives aren't willing to bend on at all. However, is there truly not some middle ground?
Is it such a monumental stretch to say for instance as a Progressive that I would concede a ban on late-term abortion if there were a concession for allowance in the instance that the mother's health was in significant danger? I don't think this concession would nullify my liberal political viewpoint. Conversely, would a conservative be giving up his red/white/blue stripes if he conceded to large investments in the impoverished class pertaining to healthcare and public education if there were oversight to prohibit large-scale abuse and indefinite dependence?
My point is that we often stand so stratified in political ideals that nothing gets done that either of us want. I thought that President Obama exemplified this measured brand of thinking in his speech at Notre Dame recently. In essence what he said was abortion is legal, so let's put our heads together and figure out a way to reduce the number of abortions that are sought after each year. Still he is branded the biggest baby killer to sit the Oval Office. I just don't get it. Perhaps we all need to step back sometime and ask ourselves Do we all have to be right?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Nut Job Round Up
Glenn Beck blogs today about a vast conspiracy to misdirect the public in order to further President Obama's vast liberal conspiracy to turn the whole world gay. Oh, and logically this all somehow pertains to ACORN as well. You think I'm exaggerating
Miss California will keep her crown for now and Donald Trump will announce Tuesday if she'll keep her title. The state beauty pageant has been investigating whether she violated her contract by failing to reveal that she posed in her underwear as a teenager.
But while most of the media will be showing you racy pictures of this woman even as they talk about how awful they are, the one thing they won't talk about is the truth: The pictures are simply another example of misdirection.
Miss California's crown isn't at stake over the photo, but rather for having the same position as President Obama on gay marriage.
How could she be such a hate-monger?
She's not. It's misdirection: Make people look at the hatemonger and her hot pictures while a real agenda plays out unnoticed.
It's the same thing with ACORN, the community organizing group that became notorious for voter registration fraud allegations during the 2008 election. Everyone wants to focus on politics and make this out to be a left-right issue.
I guess the idea is that when people are outraged about a Las Vegas registrar saying he believes that almost half of ACORN's registration forms are fake or about the ongoing ACORN fraud investigations in 14 states, it's only because they're bitter about John McCain losing to ACORN's old pal Barack Obama. It has nothing to do with the rule of law or free and fair elections — it's just about politics.
But that's just noise; it's misdirection.
So let me understand this. Miss California knows the rules. She knows the consequences for the rules. She breaks the rules, and now it is a vast left-wing conspiracy that she may be held accountable? That's the kind of logic that places a man like Rush Limbaugh as their de facto figure head for sure.
Look, the fact that Miss California has been placed in the spotlight while making a very public statement about an important civil rights issue may indeed have caused individuals to delve into her past. However, almost anytime someone gets caught breaking the rules, it is because they did something that made others look. Those are just the breaks. So Glenn, you lunatic, why don't you sit down on your couch, pop in a copy of The Manchurian Candidate and leave the public alone?
Sean Hannity when he isn't pimping out gold for sale mail-in scams and erroneously offering to be waterboarded for charity, is apparently sending bounty hunter producers to corner Janeane Garofalo and demand an apology for calling Tea Party Protestors racist. Really Sean? You don't understand where she's coming from?
No clearly you're right Hannity. Racism didn't play into this at all. Oh, and guess what? If you strut around a gathering with folks holding these signs up and don't say word to call out there blatant racist bias, then you get painted with the same brush. Is that altogether fair? Possibly not, but those are the breaks!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Queer Lies from the Religious Guys
From the Miss America pageant to high school yearbooks, the topic that just won't quit smacking us all in the face is homosexuality, specifically same-sex marriage. I mean seriously. You absolutely can not engage in any activity at large without this issue being raised, railed, screamed, or smeared. I hit the old internets, and I have Perez Hilton making a total jackass out of himself, because a beauty queen contestant didn't provide him with the answer he wanted in an interview question. I open my email box, and I have half a dozen viral emails prophesying the end of the world and a brimstone- laden death for the United States because of the wicked ways of the homosexual. Why is everyone so up in arms about it all, and is this truly the next "I have a dream" issue?
Since the Informed Southerner's mission is to present facts and interpretations that are not expressed and usually completely disregarded, let's take a look at why America is feeling so queer about homosexuals and their unions.
This is really the focal point of the entire argument. The United States has an extremely vocal and fundamental Christian element, and this element comes down squarely on the side of the Jewish Dr. Laura regarding homosexuality. Indeed, if you are a Christian this would seem to be an open and shut case. Let's read Leviticus 18:22 to process the full might of this argument.
Oh and then there was this clever reply...
In fact, J. Cecil, in his blog Progressive Catholic Reflections does an extremely thorough job of examining just about every Biblical passage that may be construed as applying to homosexuality and guess what? There is not one that clearly condemns homosexuality and the marriage of same sex individuals. This source is a great read, so please check out: http://gaycatholic.blogspot.com/
Since the Informed Southerner's mission is to present facts and interpretations that are not expressed and usually completely disregarded, let's take a look at why America is feeling so queer about homosexuals and their unions.
The "Religious" Stance... During an interview Dr. Laura said this:
Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. Such a thing is an abomination. (Lv 18:22)Well this definitely seems straightforward enough. This is a passage right out the Bible, and it calls man on man action an abomination (interesting that it doesn't mention woman on woman action?) . So certainly if you are a Christian and follow the edicts of Christianity, you must oppose homosexuality and certainly homosexuals joining in matrimony. Except...
What I am pointing out here is the broad scope that Leviticus, and particularly chapter 18 and 20, are in a context of priestly rituals and purity for worship. It is not altogether clear that the Hebrews intended these passages to apply to all people as part of a moral law, rather than a priestly code for ritual worship activity. Perhaps these are priestly rules in particular. It is interesting to note that Leviticus does not condemn lesbianism (there were no women priests at that time)! Source: http://liberalcatholic.blogspot.com/
Oh and then there was this clever reply...
The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by ev.19:27. How should they die?
I) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Jake
In fact, J. Cecil, in his blog Progressive Catholic Reflections does an extremely thorough job of examining just about every Biblical passage that may be construed as applying to homosexuality and guess what? There is not one that clearly condemns homosexuality and the marriage of same sex individuals. This source is a great read, so please check out: http://gaycatholic.blogspot.com/
The Next "I have a dream" Battle?
Many members and leaders of the gay community liken their struggle for acceptance and full legal recognition to the civil rights struggle of African Americans and other minorities . Is this accurate? Conservative pundits would certainly lambaste this claim as whining and irrelevant, while more liberal pundits would draw grand comparisons to those struggles. I for one think that the struggle is legitimate, but figureheads in this struggle should take a few notes from those who have stood on civil rights issues and won. For instance, in approximately fifty years we have come from:
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. " - Martin Luther King Jr.To:
I'm sorry, but it's going to take more eloquence, persistence and character than Perez Hilton can summon in his video blog to turn the tide of public opinion on this issue. I say this because pundits and the public alike in many instances rallied behind this crass display of attention grabbing. All this stunt accomplished was to solidify the fundamental "Dr. Laura" crowd who is steeped in scripture they have seldom examined and poorly understand. Further, it has pushed the moderate base, who may possibly open their eyes to reality, further toward the apathetic.She is a dumb bitch- Perez Hilton
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Rush Goes Hog Wild...Socialized Medicine is the Culprit? **Updated x1**
Welcome to the inaugural post of the Informed Southerner. As I have exactly zero readers at the moment, I will sincerely appreciate the first comment that is submitted regardless of its opinion!
This first post will reference a character who will most certainly be a frequent flier, Rush Limbaugh. Now Mr. Limbaugh is unique in that he pushes his opinion with such malice, deceit, and fervor that he exists in a category all of his own. This is a man who has absolutely no issue with mimicking and mocking a man with Parkinson's in order to further his agenda. So it is with pleasure and diligence that I pay particularly close attention to Mr. Limbaugh. And away we go...
This first post will reference a character who will most certainly be a frequent flier, Rush Limbaugh. Now Mr. Limbaugh is unique in that he pushes his opinion with such malice, deceit, and fervor that he exists in a category all of his own. This is a man who has absolutely no issue with mimicking and mocking a man with Parkinson's in order to further his agenda. So it is with pleasure and diligence that I pay particularly close attention to Mr. Limbaugh. And away we go...
Why Swine Flu is Worse in Mexico: "Mexico has socialized medicine" (????)
This is is a topic from today's Rush Limbaugh Show, and yes, you have probably noted from the parenthetical question marks that I don't exactly understand how one plus one equals two here. Here is the link to this glorious piece of hogwash (oh yes pun intended). http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042809/content/01125110.guest.html
So let's dissect this argument together. Rush starts by tossing out what he says are the latest numbers from the CDC on flu related deaths in the United States.
Right off of the bat I have to point out that a jaunt over to the CDC website and a simple search for "flu deaths" generates a result that discusses statistics from 2007 and 2008. So Rush's statement about "all he could find" is a bit shaky from jumpstreet, but I will grant him leeway that specific numbers regarding non-child deaths are not as readily available in the 2007-2008 article. The most significant point that surfaces from doing a minuscule amount of reading on this topic, however, is that the Center for Disease Control states that actual numbers of flu-related deaths are extremely difficult to determine as only deaths of children cause by influenza are required to be reported. Take a look.
It is truly unbelievable to me how easily the average citizen (especially the Southerners) swallow Limbaugh's swill hook, line and sinker, but that's why I started the Informed Southerner to hopefully show at least one individual out there that he or she should kick the tires before they buy the car, so to speak. So let's kick the tires...
This is just a small sample of exactly how unresearched and completely jaded/biased Rush Limbaugh's opinions can truly be. One thing complimentary I must say about Mr. Limbaugh is he is always consistent.
**Update: The confirmed death toll in Mexico has now risen to 19, still a far cry from the original one hundred and fifty some-odd deaths reported by the over-hyped media. So what has Rush done as this situation has evolved and much of the information released and publicized has been shown to be false? Does he recant? Does he update his previous shows or correct his info on a current show? Naaahhh. He blames the swine flu and the Mexico City Earthquake on Obama! This guy is a gem! Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz5_QxmMRog
So let's dissect this argument together. Rush starts by tossing out what he says are the latest numbers from the CDC on flu related deaths in the United States.
I have a press release from the Centers for Disease Control. Now, the press release is January 7, 2003. Now, admittedly, this is six years ago. But it's most recent I could find. "Using new and improved statistical models, [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] scientists estimate that an average of 36,000 people ... each year in the United States. In addition, about 11,000 people die per year from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a virus that causes upper and lower respiratory tract infections primarily in young children [crumb crunchers] and older adults." So in a normal year... The reason I looked this up is because I was asking about this yesterday. In a normal year, 36,000 people die in this country of the flu. Now, this pig flu apparently doesn't just hit the elderly.
Right off of the bat I have to point out that a jaunt over to the CDC website and a simple search for "flu deaths" generates a result that discusses statistics from 2007 and 2008. So Rush's statement about "all he could find" is a bit shaky from jumpstreet, but I will grant him leeway that specific numbers regarding non-child deaths are not as readily available in the 2007-2008 article. The most significant point that surfaces from doing a minuscule amount of reading on this topic, however, is that the Center for Disease Control states that actual numbers of flu-related deaths are extremely difficult to determine as only deaths of children cause by influenza are required to be reported. Take a look.
Exact numbers of how many people died from flu this season cannot be determined. Flu-associated deaths (which have laboratory confirmed influenza), are only a nationally notifiable condition among children; however not all pediatric influenza deaths may be detected and reported and there is no requirement to report adult deaths from influenza. source: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/season.htmLet's move from Limbaugh's shaky numbers and extremely poor Googling skills, and examine the thesis of his argument. Rush makes the jump to say that the reason that no one is dying here in the United States and so many are dying in Mexico, is that Mexico has socialized medicine while we do not. THAT'S IT! Rush obviously has thoroughly researched this and has formulated a rock solid hypothesis bordering on undeniable fact here. You see the Rush logic works like this: Mexico employs a system of health care which Rush is politically, ideologically, and financially opposed to, so obviously this must be the cause of the Swine Flu deaths in Mexico. Rush does a shoddy job of garnering statistics and numbers that may vaguely support his push-point, and then rams them down the throats of his listeners as if they were the "Gospel" truth. In all honesty, one could take a driving tour of the South and stop in any little town and inevitably ask citizens why people are dying in Mexico from the Swine Flu and not in the United States, and the response in an overwhelming amount of cases would be, "Because they have socialized medicine."
It is truly unbelievable to me how easily the average citizen (especially the Southerners) swallow Limbaugh's swill hook, line and sinker, but that's why I started the Informed Southerner to hopefully show at least one individual out there that he or she should kick the tires before they buy the car, so to speak. So let's kick the tires...
- Rush is basing this conclusion on the 150 deaths estimate that is being touted by many. Well the WHO issued a press release today that states that number is grossly overestimated. Indeed they only are able to attribute SEVEN deaths to the Swine Flu, and those are in fact in Mexico. Granted many more may eventually be chalked up to the swine flu once thorough analysis post mortem has been concluded, but these numbers are absolutely nothing to bank on as of yet. sourece: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21498,25403429-5005361,00.html?from=public_rss
- Rush attributes the deaths to the fact that Mexico's socialized system isn't treating it's citizenry, thus they are dying. The fact is that this virus has most likely been present in Mexico for a great deal longer than the United States, and it has had time to affect and unfortunately kill more individuals seems to have not even blipped Mr. Limbaugh's radar. In traditional Rush fashion he completely ignores anything that might be based in scientific fact or research. For instance take a look at a post from the Daily Kos, and read his opinion on the situation and the logical progression of the case fatality rate (CFR) of this virus.
Human flu genes got into the virus in two ways. One, humans with normal seasonal flu fed their dinner table food wastes to their household pigs. Two, humans with seasonal flu interacted with their household pigs in the yard. Thus the human flu genes mixed with the avian & swine flu genes present in the pigs.
The new combined virus was transmissible from pigs back to humans, and was also H2H (human-to-human) transmissible. Thus it passed among humans. As often happens with new viruses, the virus was most virulent (caused the worst symptoms and highest death rate) among those who were in closest proximity to the source of initial infection. This would account for the high CFR (case fatality rate) among the cases in Mexico.
So now you have the "ground zero" infections: people who caught it from pigs, or from people who had high contact with pigs. These people got the worst of it and had the highest death rate.
After that came the "first ring" infections: people who caught it from the "ground zero" cases. CFR would be starting to decrease in this population.
After that, the "second ring" infections: people who caught it from the first ring cases. CFR would decrease further in this population.
After that, the "third ring" infections: people who caught it from the second ring cases. This would most likely be the people in the US who caught it. Notice that so far, the CFR in the US is zero: no deaths. This would be consistent with the virus losing some of its virulence as it passed between humans: a common occurrence for new viruses. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/25/205934/014
This is just a small sample of exactly how unresearched and completely jaded/biased Rush Limbaugh's opinions can truly be. One thing complimentary I must say about Mr. Limbaugh is he is always consistent.
**Update: The confirmed death toll in Mexico has now risen to 19, still a far cry from the original one hundred and fifty some-odd deaths reported by the over-hyped media. So what has Rush done as this situation has evolved and much of the information released and publicized has been shown to be false? Does he recant? Does he update his previous shows or correct his info on a current show? Naaahhh. He blames the swine flu and the Mexico City Earthquake on Obama! This guy is a gem! Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz5_QxmMRog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
