Ebola Ebola outbreak news
(10-17-2014, 10:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Haven't read the whole thread, but I liked this bit by Seth Meyers:

Fearbola is sweeping America. It's very easy to get. A mere five minute exposure to cable news will infect the victim.

Ha. That's right.

Plus, care to guess how many Americans had died from AIDS before President Reagan acknowledged its existence in 1987?

20,000.

Not only that, but another flu season is upon us. Anywhere between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans will succumb to it. We have vaccinations to avoid this. But only 46% of Americans will get them. Furthermore, 10,000 Americans will die from skin cancer this year, yet the parade to beaches and tanning salons proceeds unabated. Alarmingly, between 17,000 and 80,000 Americans die every year from Hepatitus C despite the fact that we have both a test for it as well as effective treatment. No matter, 75% of infected Americans don't even know they have Hep C. Worst of all, America is seeing third world type outbreaks of measles and pertussis, although we have had vaccines for them for decades. But a growing minority of parents deny vaccines to their kids so as to protect them from a non-existent threat of autism. And do I even need to mention that 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshots?

But three people have in America have Ebola and one is dead so we better start freaking out on cable news.

Fearbola. We do fear extremely well in America. Problem is, we're always afraid of the wrong stuff.

I think being afraid of Ebola and wondering if our government is doing what the should is a good thing.
And I could care less if other things like aids or the flu are compared to this disease. Actually it seems stupid to compare it the the flu based on how many people die from a flu.
Pretty sure the vast majority of deaths from common flus are elderly frail people or people with medical problems.

What I see is yet another article wondering why people are afraid of a disease based on actions they take or don't take that IMO don't apply.

So what if only half of Americans get a flu shot? What does that have to do with EBOLA?
Reply
(10-18-2014, 09:10 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-17-2014, 10:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Haven't read the whole thread, but I liked this bit by Seth Meyers:

Fearbola is sweeping America. It's very easy to get. A mere five minute exposure to cable news will infect the victim.

Ha. That's right.

Plus, care to guess how many Americans had died from AIDS before President Reagan acknowledged its existence in 1987?

20,000.

Not only that, but another flu season is upon us. Anywhere between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans will succumb to it. We have vaccinations to avoid this. But only 46% of Americans will get them. Furthermore, 10,000 Americans will die from skin cancer this year, yet the parade to beaches and tanning salons proceeds unabated. Alarmingly, between 17,000 and 80,000 Americans die every year from Hepatitus C despite the fact that we have both a test for it as well as effective treatment. No matter, 75% of infected Americans don't even know they have Hep C. Worst of all, America is seeing third world type outbreaks of measles and pertussis, although we have had vaccines for them for decades. But a growing minority of parents deny vaccines to their kids so as to protect them from a non-existent threat of autism. And do I even need to mention that 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshots?

But three people have in America have Ebola and one is dead so we better start freaking out on cable news.

Fearbola. We do fear extremely well in America. Problem is, we're always afraid of the wrong stuff.

I think being afraid of Ebola and wondering if our government is doing what the should is a good thing.
And I could care less if other things like aids or the flu are compared to this disease. Actually it seems stupid to compare it the the flu based on how many people die from a flu.
Pretty sure the vast majority of deaths from common flus are elderly frail people or people with medical problems.

What I see is yet another article wondering why people are afraid of a disease based on actions they take or don't take that IMO don't apply.

So what if only half of Americans get a flu shot? What does that have to do with EBOLA?

Being skeptical of government is just good citizenship. Being afraid of Ebola is irrational. Aren't we the "Home of the Brave"? One person drops dead and you're afraid?

But irrational fears are our specialty. People are more afraid to get on an airplane than they are to drive to the airport. You are much, much safer on the airplane. But our mental calculation is warped by the spectacular, sensational nature of airplane accidents over automobile accidents. And irrational fears are born.

Up thread somewhere you claim "millions" of Americans could die from Ebola. There is no rational scenario where that is possible.

You're correct that the flu is more deadly to people who are close to death already. Still, you tv have a greater chance of perishing from the flu than you do from Ebola. You also have a much greater chance of being shot. If you want to be afraid of something, that thread is much more deserving of fear.
Reply
From The New Yorker Magazine:

In early March of 2003, when SARS swept into Hong Kong from Southern China, the streets of one of the world’s most densely populated areas were practically deserted. Venders in kiosks sold face masks and hand sanitizer to anyone brave, or foolish, enough to leave home. The fear of a new highly contagious disease is understandable, and, with no effective treatment or vaccine for SARS, it was difficult to know what to do. The World Health Organization recommended that officials in the countries most affected warn people with a fever to stay off international flights. Hong Kong went further, using infrared scanners and thermometers to take the temperature of more than thirty-six million passengers as they arrived. Nineteen hundred and twenty-one of them had a fever, and forty were admitted to the hospital. None developed SARS. (Canada and Singapore also scanned arriving passengers. Neither country found anyone with SARS.)

Last week, the Obama Administration announced that, at five major U.S. airports, passengers arriving from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone will be checked for fever. That measure isn’t likely to be any more effective at detecting the Ebola virus than it was at finding SARS. Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person to receive a diagnosis of Ebola in the United States, died last Wednesday, in Dallas. But before he left Liberia, as part of a routine scan at the Monrovia airport, a technician who had been trained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took his temperature with a type of infrared thermometer that had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Duncan had no fever, which isn’t surprising, as it can take as long as three weeks for Ebola to cause symptoms (and until people develop symptoms they are not contagious). Still, on Wednesday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, of New York, said, “Taking temperatures and learning more about passengers coming here from West Africa will provide another necessary line of defense against this epidemic. When it comes to Ebola, you can’t be too careful. As we saw in Dallas, all it takes is one case to discombobulate an entire city.”


Actually, all it takes to discombobulate a city is a few irrational decisions and some irresponsible statements. Several politicians, like Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana, have turned the epidemic into fodder for their campaign to halt immigration. Jindal, and others, have suggested that we ought to simply close our borders to people coming from West Africa. That would only increase the isolation of countries that have already been devastated and make it harder to deliver essential aid there. As Bruce Aylward, the assistant director general of the W.H.O., has pointed out, travel bans make the world sicker, not safer. He said recently, “The more difficulty you have with travel and trade, the harder it is to have an appropriate response.” He added, “which means this disease is getting more and more ahead of us.”

Fear is not a weakness; it’s how people respond to danger. Unless it is calibrated properly, however, fear quickly turns into panic, and panic moves faster than any virus. Diseases that get the most attention and cause the greatest anxiety are rarely those which claim the most lives. Malaria, tuberculosis, and H.I.V. have killed hundreds of thousands of people this year. Fewer than a thousand people died in the 2003 SARS epidemic, but a report by the National Academy of Sciences notes that its cost to the global economy—not only in medical expenditures but in lost trade, productivity, and investment—was almost forty billion dollars.

At least four thousand people have already died of Ebola, the economic impact of the epidemic has been calamitous, and every day the numbers get worse. But we need to stop acting as if the tragedy unfolding in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone could happen here on anything like the same scale. There will be more cases of Ebola in the United States, but unless something remarkably unlikely develops, such as a mutation that makes it easier for the virus to spread, the epidemic can be stopped. Ebola is difficult to contract, and although viruses mutate constantly, once they are established in humans they do not generally alter their mode of transmission.

That message is not getting through. According to a Harris poll taken just before Duncan’s diagnosis, forty per cent of Americans believed that Ebola represented a major or a moderate threat to public health in the United States. Thirty-seven per cent thought that the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009 posed a similar threat. The two outbreaks are not comparable. H1N1 infected about twenty per cent of the world’s population, including sixty million Americans. A catastrophe was averted owing solely to a biological fluke: the death rate of those infected was unusually low—there were more than twelve thousand fatalities in the U.S., but that is far fewer than die from the flu in most years.


Our response to pandemics—whether SARS, avian influenza, MERS, or Ebola—has become predictable. First, there is the panic. Then, as the pandemic ebbs, we forget. We can’t afford to do either. This epidemic won’t be over soon, but that is even more reason to focus on what works. Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone all need more money, more health-care workers, and more troops to help coördinate relief efforts. In the short term, the only way to halt the epidemic is with better infection-control measures. In Senegal and Nigeria, two countries where poverty and health problems are pervasive, the most basic such measures—contact tracing, quarantine, and proper protections for health workers—seem to have had a positive effect. (Part of the success in Nigeria is also due to the fact that officials made an enormous effort to keep the virus out of Lagos, a city of twenty million people.)

We also need to take better advantage of our scientific tools. Advances in molecular and synthetic biology have begun to provide a sophisticated understanding of the genetic composition of viruses. We are increasingly able to make vaccines by assembling synthetic proteins as if they were molecular Legos. Rob Carlson, the author of “Biology Is Technology,” who has written widely about genetic engineering and vaccine development, says, “We could have pushed the development of a synthetic Ebola vaccine a decade ago. We had the skills, but we chose not to pursue it. Why? Because we weren’t the people getting sick.” One day, a virus that matches our sense of doom may come along. Until then, we will need to rely on data and evidence—not theatrics or fear. ?
Reply
Quote:Erick Erickson Blames Fat Lesbians For Lack Of An Ebola Vaccine
http://wonkette.com/563177/erick-erickso...la-vaccine
Reply
(10-18-2014, 10:30 AM)MarkM Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 09:10 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-17-2014, 10:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Haven't read the whole thread, but I liked this bit by Seth Meyers:

Fearbola is sweeping America. It's very easy to get. A mere five minute exposure to cable news will infect the victim.

Ha. That's right.

Plus, care to guess how many Americans had died from AIDS before President Reagan acknowledged its existence in 1987?

20,000.

Not only that, but another flu season is upon us. Anywhere between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans will succumb to it. We have vaccinations to avoid this. But only 46% of Americans will get them. Furthermore, 10,000 Americans will die from skin cancer this year, yet the parade to beaches and tanning salons proceeds unabated. Alarmingly, between 17,000 and 80,000 Americans die every year from Hepatitus C despite the fact that we have both a test for it as well as effective treatment. No matter, 75% of infected Americans don't even know they have Hep C. Worst of all, America is seeing third world type outbreaks of measles and pertussis, although we have had vaccines for them for decades. But a growing minority of parents deny vaccines to their kids so as to protect them from a non-existent threat of autism. And do I even need to mention that 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshots?

But three people have in America have Ebola and one is dead so we better start freaking out on cable news.

Fearbola. We do fear extremely well in America. Problem is, we're always afraid of the wrong stuff.

I think being afraid of Ebola and wondering if our government is doing what the should is a good thing.
And I could care less if other things like aids or the flu are compared to this disease. Actually it seems stupid to compare it the the flu based on how many people die from a flu.
Pretty sure the vast majority of deaths from common flus are elderly frail people or people with medical problems.

What I see is yet another article wondering why people are afraid of a disease based on actions they take or don't take that IMO don't apply.

So what if only half of Americans get a flu shot? What does that have to do with EBOLA?





You're correct that the flu is more deadly to people who are close to death already. Still, you tv have a greater chance of perishing from the flu than you do from Ebola. You also have a much greater chance of being shot. If you want to be afraid of something, that thread is much more deserving of fear.


Quote:Being skeptical of government is just good citizenship. Being afraid of Ebola is irrational. Aren't we the "Home of the Brave"? One person drops dead and you're afraid?


Well of course I'm afraid of a disease that can kill people as quickly as Ebola. Maybe I should have stated it differently. I'm not walking around shaking, I'm not even thinking about ebola other than when I think about it here.
But what I meant was I was afraid of how the disease is/was being handled.

That's why I said wondering if our government is doing what the should is a good thing.

Quote:But irrational fears are our specialty. People are more afraid to get on an airplane than they are to drive to the airport. You are much, much safer on the airplane. But our mental calculation is warped by the spectacular, sensational nature of airplane accidents over automobile accidents. And irrational fears are born.

You are talking to the wrong guy. I'm driven by logic and common sense.Your example doesn't fit me whatsoever.
Quote:Up thread somewhere you claim "millions" of Americans could die from Ebola. There is no rational scenario where that is possible.

Well if every infected patient gives the disease to TWO nurses and they run around then you do the math Dr. MarkRazz



Quote:You're correct that the flu is more deadly to people who are close to death already. Still, you tv have a greater chance of perishing from the flu than you do from Ebola.

No shit NOW!!!! So far the disease has not spread in this country.Did you actually think I was worried about getting ebola NOW?
Reply
(10-20-2014, 05:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 10:30 AM)MarkM Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 09:10 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-17-2014, 10:16 PM)MarkM Wrote: Haven't read the whole thread, but I liked this bit by Seth Meyers:

Fearbola is sweeping America. It's very easy to get. A mere five minute exposure to cable news will infect the victim.

Ha. That's right.

Plus, care to guess how many Americans had died from AIDS before President Reagan acknowledged its existence in 1987?

20,000.

Not only that, but another flu season is upon us. Anywhere between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans will succumb to it. We have vaccinations to avoid this. But only 46% of Americans will get them. Furthermore, 10,000 Americans will die from skin cancer this year, yet the parade to beaches and tanning salons proceeds unabated. Alarmingly, between 17,000 and 80,000 Americans die every year from Hepatitus C despite the fact that we have both a test for it as well as effective treatment. No matter, 75% of infected Americans don't even know they have Hep C. Worst of all, America is seeing third world type outbreaks of measles and pertussis, although we have had vaccines for them for decades. But a growing minority of parents deny vaccines to their kids so as to protect them from a non-existent threat of autism. And do I even need to mention that 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshots?

But three people have in America have Ebola and one is dead so we better start freaking out on cable news.

Fearbola. We do fear extremely well in America. Problem is, we're always afraid of the wrong stuff.

I think being afraid of Ebola and wondering if our government is doing what the should is a good thing.
And I could care less if other things like aids or the flu are compared to this disease. Actually it seems stupid to compare it the the flu based on how many people die from a flu.
Pretty sure the vast majority of deaths from common flus are elderly frail people or people with medical problems.

What I see is yet another article wondering why people are afraid of a disease based on actions they take or don't take that IMO don't apply.

So what if only half of Americans get a flu shot? What does that have to do with EBOLA?





You're correct that the flu is more deadly to people who are close to death already. Still, you tv have a greater chance of perishing from the flu than you do from Ebola. You also have a much greater chance of being shot. If you want to be afraid of something, that thread is much more deserving of fear.


Quote:Being skeptical of government is just good citizenship. Being afraid of Ebola is irrational. Aren't we the "Home of the Brave"? One person drops dead and you're afraid?


Well of course I'm afraid of a disease that can kill people as quickly as Ebola. Maybe I should have stated it differently. I'm not walking around shaking, I'm not even thinking about ebola other than when I think about it here.
But what I meant was I was afraid of how the disease is/was being handled.

That's why I said wondering if our government is doing what the should is a good thing.

Quote:But irrational fears are our specialty. People are more afraid to get on an airplane than they are to drive to the airport. You are much, much safer on the airplane. But our mental calculation is warped by the spectacular, sensational nature of airplane accidents over automobile accidents. And irrational fears are born.

You are talking to the wrong guy. I'm driven by logic and common sense.Your example doesn't fit me whatsoever.
Quote:Up thread somewhere you claim "millions" of Americans could die from Ebola. There is no rational scenario where that is possible.

Well if every infected patient gives the disease to TWO nurses and they run around then you do the math Dr. MarkRazz



Quote:You're correct that the flu is more deadly to people who are close to death already. Still, you tv have a greater chance of perishing from the flu than you do from Ebola.

No shit NOW!!!! So far the disease has not spread in this country.Did you actually think I was worried about getting ebola NOW?

Hey TVg, if you have time, read the thing I posted from The New Yorker above this post. Might (or might not Wink ) answer some of your concerns.
I thought it was and excellent take on how we see this entire thing.
Reply
Yep, another year without a flu shot. I've never gotten one. Not sure if that's folly or just healthy....
Reply
(10-20-2014, 09:24 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Yep, another year without a flu shot. I've never gotten one. Not sure if that's folly or just healthy....

Wild one. Just throwing caution to the wind, aint'cha? Razz
Reply
(10-20-2014, 09:39 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-20-2014, 09:24 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Yep, another year without a flu shot. I've never gotten one. Not sure if that's folly or just healthy....

Wild one. Just throwing caution to the wind, aint'cha? Razz

Well, that's my question. Right? I've never had one in my life.
Reply
(10-20-2014, 09:55 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(10-20-2014, 09:39 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-20-2014, 09:24 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Yep, another year without a flu shot. I've never gotten one. Not sure if that's folly or just healthy....

Wild one. Just throwing caution to the wind, aint'cha? Razz

Well, that's my question. Right? I've never had one in my life.

Nor have I.

I didn't realize there was a question there. I'm sorry, I don't have an answer.
Reply
(10-20-2014, 09:39 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-20-2014, 09:24 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Yep, another year without a flu shot. I've never gotten one. Not sure if that's folly or just healthy....

Wild one. Just throwing caution to the wind, aint'cha? Razz

I had a bunch of friends that got flu shots ten years ago. I just saw them the other day and they all look older.


Quote:The fiancee of a Liberian man who died of Ebola earlier this month in Dallas, Texas was among nearly 50 people who emerged from three weeks of quarantine without any signs of illness from exposure to the virus that has killed more than 4,500 in West Africa since the beginning of this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-cautiously-opti...10466.html
Reply
I heard a new Ebola Joke.

You probably won't get it.
Reply
And that's no joke.
Reply
Can George Will get any stupidier? The answer to that question is yes.


Scientists Also Lying About Ebola, Explains George F. Will
By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait


George F. Will, award-winning columnist and distinguished Fox News panelist, is not a believer in the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. And once you’ve decided that scientists routinely make shit up in order to advance a nefarious bureaucratic progressive agenda, there’s no end to the number of new conspiracies you’re going to discover. Appearing yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Will explained to his incredulous co-panelists that Ebola is actually far easier to transmit than the authorities are letting on:

The problem is, the original assumption was that with great certitude, if not certainty, was that you need to have direct contact, meaning with bodily fluids with someone, because it's not airborne. There are now doctors who are saying, we're not so sure that it can't be in some instances transmitted by airborne …

In fact, there are doctors who are saying that in a sneeze or some cough, some of the airborne particles can be infectious?

Neera Tanden, appearing on the panel, asked, “I'm sorry, who are the doctors saying this? I mean, we have — I mean, this is what I think is really important, that facts about this disease do not lead to panic. So far, every expert that I've seen has said—” At which point, Will, goaded by the appeal to scientific authority, interjected, “Every expert that you've seen. Here we go again.”

Will proceeded to cite the “University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease,” which, he claimed, supported his belief that Ebola could be transmitted through the air. Politifact explains that Will is once again garbling bits of fact and turning them into a falsehood.

It is true that the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy’s website published a commentary by two University of Illinois professors suggesting that health-care workers treating Ebola patients should wear respirators. The commentary was misinterpreted by various right-wing media, forcing the Center to post an update explaining that the commentary had been totally misconstrued (“CIDRAP has not made claims that ‘Ebola is Airbone’ or that ‘Ebola [is] Transmittable by Air.’”). Its authors likewise tell Politifact that Will has misinterpreted their work and they do not endorse his conclusion.

So even the renegade Freedom Doctors cited by Will turn out not to agree with him. Instead, they agree with “the Oxford Journal of Infectious Diseases and summarize issued by the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and the New England Journal of Medicine.”

To their credit, Tanden and panel host Chris Wallace continued to point out that Will’s claims were fallacious. This merely seemed to deepen Will’s suspicions. “Again,” he replied with his characteristic sagacity, “we're getting used to people declaring scientific debates closed over and settled; they rarely are.” Scientific debates will never be settled so long as George F. Will is around to unsettle them.
Reply
Getting our flu shots tomorrow.
Reply
(10-21-2014, 08:17 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Can George Will get any stupidier? The answer to that question is yes.

Laughing Here is the crux of the situation. A cough or sneeze CAN transmit the virus, because they can include BODILY FLUIDS being projected through the air.

That does not constitute an "airborne" virus.

George Will is certainly playing fast and loose with the terminology, and inciting panic.
Reply
(10-21-2014, 08:33 AM)Hugo Wrote: Laughing Here is the crux of the situation. A cough or sneeze CAN transmit the virus, because they can include BODILY FLUIDS being projected through the air.

That does not constitute an "airborne" virus.

George Will is certainly playing fast and loose with the terminology, and inciting panic.

Exactly.
Reply
(10-21-2014, 08:17 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Can George Will get any stupidier? The answer to that question is yes.


Scientists Also Lying About Ebola, Explains George F. Will
By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait


George F. Will, award-winning columnist and distinguished Fox News panelist, is not a believer in the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. And once you’ve decided that scientists routinely make shit up in order to advance a nefarious bureaucratic progressive agenda, there’s no end to the number of new conspiracies you’re going to discover. Appearing yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Will explained to his incredulous co-panelists that Ebola is actually far easier to transmit than the authorities are letting on:

The problem is, the original assumption was that with great certitude, if not certainty, was that you need to have direct contact, meaning with bodily fluids with someone, because it's not airborne. There are now doctors who are saying, we're not so sure that it can't be in some instances transmitted by airborne …

In fact, there are doctors who are saying that in a sneeze or some cough, some of the airborne particles can be infectious?

Neera Tanden, appearing on the panel, asked, “I'm sorry, who are the doctors saying this? I mean, we have — I mean, this is what I think is really important, that facts about this disease do not lead to panic. So far, every expert that I've seen has said—” At which point, Will, goaded by the appeal to scientific authority, interjected, “Every expert that you've seen. Here we go again.”

Will proceeded to cite the “University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease,” which, he claimed, supported his belief that Ebola could be transmitted through the air. Politifact explains that Will is once again garbling bits of fact and turning them into a falsehood.

It is true that the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy’s website published a commentary by two University of Illinois professors suggesting that health-care workers treating Ebola patients should wear respirators. The commentary was misinterpreted by various right-wing media, forcing the Center to post an update explaining that the commentary had been totally misconstrued (“CIDRAP has not made claims that ‘Ebola is Airbone’ or that ‘Ebola [is] Transmittable by Air.’”). Its authors likewise tell Politifact that Will has misinterpreted their work and they do not endorse his conclusion.

So even the renegade Freedom Doctors cited by Will turn out not to agree with him. Instead, they agree with “the Oxford Journal of Infectious Diseases and summarize issued by the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and the New England Journal of Medicine.”

To their credit, Tanden and panel host Chris Wallace continued to point out that Will’s claims were fallacious. This merely seemed to deepen Will’s suspicions. “Again,” he replied with his characteristic sagacity, “we're getting used to people declaring scientific debates closed over and settled; they rarely are.” Scientific debates will never be settled so long as George F. Will is around to unsettle them.

Thanks of that, Clete!
I remember a different George Will, "back in the day".
I swear, when conservatives "drink the Cool-aid" and begin to accept that anything post 1900 is invalid, their brains turn to mush.
Re: Climate change. Of course science is not of one mind about what is happening, but there is a broad concessus that change is occurring. There may be some debate about how much of that is caused by human activity, but no real debate about the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere. That George Will can ignore this makes his comments about almost anything regarding science irrelevant.
So who cares? Well, George Will is read by lots of folks (I admit I still read his column, if only on occasion now).
We are approaching "the dawning of the age of Aquarius" and the mind set of people like Will is becoming dangerous.
Science, in the end, will rule. Dogma, is dying. When the conservative movement strayed from purely political to "everything about our behavior" it lost it's way. I'd bet even Barry Goldwater would bolt this bunch.

I'm happy and proud to be a card carrying progressive Democrat when I read stuff like this. So our Governor had a whacked out lady friend: I wish he had made better decisions in his personal life, but at least he is not stuck in the past, ignoring the truths of our modern world and all the changes we will have to confront.

George Will, the man, is not so important. That he voices a movement supporting the views he expresses is of real concern.

PS: Even his baseball books were not all that great. Razz
Reply
(10-21-2014, 07:18 AM)Cuzz Wrote: And that's no joke.
[video=youtube]
Certainly isn't, but this is, in a way[/video]
Reply
(10-21-2014, 02:10 PM)tornado Wrote:
(10-21-2014, 07:18 AM)Cuzz Wrote: And that's no joke.
Certainly isn't, but this is, in a way

No, it's just stupid.

Oh, and Imus? Laughing
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)