| twinklesweep |
10-23-2014 04:43 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologal
(Post 956254)
To me this is a medical not a political issue and I have spent my entire adult life in the medical community.
|
I agree. But is this anything new? There are those who refuse to see ANY issue, not simply this one, in ANY terms OTHER THAN POLITICAL--and often these terms are selective! Their motivation is something I will never understand. Here are a few examples; this list could go on and on....
- If states have to raise their public university tuition charges, resulting in, say, working poor no longer able to send their children to college, this is an EDUCATIONAL and ECONOMIC issue--but there are those who see it ONLY in political terms.
- If an effort is made so that the U.S. will no longer be the last major first-world nation not to provide universal health care for its residents, this is a SOCIAL and MEDICAL issue--but there are those who see it ONLY in political terms.
- If a war is declared to rid a region of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, this is a MILITARY issue--but there are those who see it ONLY in political terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebstuart
(Post 956272)
An interesting article from doctors without borders of what it is really like. The international response has been pathetic. This disease can be stopped or at least greatly reduced if those on the front lines had the resources....
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
(Post 956295)
The last paragraph in this article gives understanding about how poverty and misuse of the land in other countries affects us all:
"Scientists and epidemiologists know enough now to issue a clear warning. The risk of future Ebola outbreaks will persist as long as pervasive poverty forces large numbers of people, who depend on bushmeat for their very physical and economic survival, to hunt ever deeper in the region’s degraded and rapidly diminishing forests."
I believe first-world countries cannot afford to be isolationists, at least where world health is concerned.
|
I agree on this point too. But is THIS anything new (to some extent depending on the country)? The attitude, whether domestically or internationally, of "I have mine; the rest of you can go fly a kite [politely put though often not intended politely...]," continues to be alive and well. The very idea that we can even think in isolationist terms--that we can effectively put up a barrier to a virus at our borders (not necessarily ebola; could be influenza or any other serious disease)--is simply unrealistic, and not sharing resources goes beyond shortsightedness!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexaninVA
(Post 956387)
.... The DC “czar strategy” is designed to make the credulous and lightly informed across the country feel better, “hey, he’s appointed a czar…problem solved!” It’s further designed to take the heat off senior appointed officials who actually have line management responsibility while they scramble to actually solve the problem. However, in this instance, it is also being done with an eye on the calendar for early November. If you deny that, there’s not much else that can be said. As I stated in an earlier post, this technique seems to fool the gullible pretty much every time it’s tried, and not just with this administration I might add....
|
I had suggested in an earlier post that this position with the unlikely title of "czar" be researched, perhaps by a doctoral candidate, starting with President Reagan's appointment of the first "czar" (relating to the war on drugs, accompanied by the motto "Just say no!") right through to the present. I PARTIALLY agree with the first point in this quote--only partially, though, as the appointment may indeed be extremely effective:
- The DC “czar strategy” is designed to make the credulous and lightly informed across the country feel better, “hey, he’s appointed a czar…problem solved!”
And I partially agree with this second point--same reason as above, that is, the appointment may be extremely effective. Someone once sent me a YouTube video of interviews conducted during the Tea Party March on Washington several years ago, and in response to a comment (my wording may not be absolutely accurate) "We don't need no stinkin' czars," when the interviewer pointed out that the first appointee with the "czar" title had been made decades earlier by President Reagan, as mentioned above, the response was utter incredulity!
- As I stated in an earlier post, this technique seems to fool the gullible pretty much every time it’s tried, and not just with this administration I might add....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
(Post 956608)
What's the difference between Martial Law & Murphy's Law?
Answer: At least twice as much can go wrong under Martial Law.
|
Notwithstanding this being a serious subject, thank you for a moment of lightness. We must always remember that "Murphy was an optimist".... |
