Monday Night Open Thread

This is a very funny video (and unfortunately, very accurate) about civil asset forfeiture from John Oliver's HBO show.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< ISIS Gains in Iraq | Oscar Pistorius Sentencing Day 2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This certainly isn't as interesting as the Ebola (5.00 / 8) (#142)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    topic or sous vide cooking method, but Mr. Angel and I celebrated our 37th wedding anniversary yesterday.  Our love for one another remains strong, we're so very lucky.  

    Very Lucky Indeed... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:41:53 AM EST
    ...nice job and here is to hoping many more good ones in your future.

    Congratulations (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    Happy Anniversary Angel :) (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    Actually, it's MUCH more interesting (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    Congratulations and all good wishes for (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    many, many more years together.

    You and Mr. Angel have me and my husband beat by 3 years - we just celebrated 34 years in August.

    I have no idea how that many years passed as quickly as they did - it still kind of astonishes me!

    Hope you have something fun planned - enjoy!


    37! Big congrats! (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    Happy anniversary! (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:45:06 PM EST
    And may you have many more of them.

    Happy Anniversary (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    Angel and Mr. Angel.  

    That's wonderful, Angel (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by sj on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    Happy Anniversary, indeed!

    Congrats (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    Can't think of anything else that is more important than love that remains strong after 37 years.

    May your luck and your happiness continue for many more years.


    Thanks so much for your comments and wishes! (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 02:34:22 PM EST
    Holy Sh*t... (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    you've been married as long as I've been alive...I have a hard time putting up with myself for that long. ;)

    You truly must be meant for each other...here's to at least 37 more!


    If two Angels can't make it work (5.00 / 6) (#180)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    who can?

    Congratulations and all the best of everything to the both of you.


    Fifth Circuit (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    Two thoughts.... (4.80 / 5) (#17)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:45:21 AM EST
    One is the John Oliver's show, meant to be entertainment - which it is - is also the only show that consistently gives us examples of excellent investigative journalism.

    On civil forfeitures, on student loans, on ISIS, on General Motors, on the government's lax rules on product labeling...
    Many of these are on Youtube.

    Second thought: about our war on ISIS or ISIL or wtf...

    I personally do not believe for even a half a moment that we are in this for humanitarian reasons.

    But, let's say that we are, for the sake of argument.

    Our government, or a representative thereof, should be on television night after night detailing the atrocities being committed by our designated enemy. It should be actively stirring up world opinion. Night after night. Let ISIS, which seems to be very media savvy be put on the propaganda defensive.

    As it is now, they chop off heads.
    And we bomb and kill people who are in the way.

    That's not much of a distinction.

    And if we're waiting for a loan-wolf attack in the US to really stir up public opinion - well - that really sucks.

    As it is now, we're putting lives at risk. We are. Our military. Our country. Our people. And all those Muslim people who we ultimately consider to be collateral.

    This war, if one can accurately call it that, has pretty much disappeared from the headlines. That is the choice of our media and our politicians. They want us to go about business as usual, while they go about business as usual.

    But we will be the ones to suffer.

    Let Obama - or someone who has some charisma - start speaking out relentlessly against the abuses of our enemy du jour. Let this move into an arena of dialogue - accusation and denial - something in the open and away from something that is raging - yet not really raging on our collective consciousness.

    I remember Malcolm X relentlessly pointing out the abuses being leveled at Black people in our own country. He, along with Martin Luther King, effected change against a brutal, savage regime in one part of the country and an uncaring, numb and impotent regime in the government. And they didn't have to bomb anyone to get their message across and effect change.

    Let our leaders in Washington do something similar.
    That is - if they really give a damn.

    Is a "loan-wolf"... (none / 0) (#90)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:06:16 PM EST
    ...anything like a loan shark?

    : - )


    This is why an Indian Casino (4.67 / 3) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:21:03 PM EST
    Better to be wary of defendants' attorneys, (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:30:45 PM EST
    rack up such high fees for a case in which their clients admitted liability.

    Admiited but the defense argued (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    the clients couldn't be held responsible in a US court because the accident happened while passing through the reservation. They lost the case but lost nothing while the winning side owes $72,000. The guilty party continues to make $164,000 per year for doing nothing and pays nothing.

    Something seriously wrong with this picture


    Unless I missed something. couldn't the appellate (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    order the trial court to correct its obvious error?  Unless plaintiffs failed to name the driver as a defendant.

    That's something to take up with Congress. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    During treaty negotiations between Native Americans and representatives of the U.S. government back in the 18th and 19th centuries, individual tribes were often treated -- and further recognized by the U.S. Senate in any resultant treaty ratifications -- as sovereign nations. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has also held that tribes are sovereign political bodies. (Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 559 (1832)).

    (That said, the Court also ruled nearly 150 years later that Indian tribes only enjoy a quasi-sovereign status that is legally consistent with their domestic dependent status, which precluded them from prosecuting non-Indians for offenses occurring on tribal lands. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 228 (1978).)

    The presumption of sovereign tribal immunity from state law for any activities and / or acts occurring on tribal lands has longstanding legal precedent. Only Congress can rightly address legal conflicts between tribal authorities and state authorities, but any move to rescind or further erode tribal immunity would likely face significant legal opposition from Native Americans in federal court. And thanks in part to the emergence and popularity of Indian casinos, many tribes now have the financial resources to litigate such matters for an indefinite amount of time.

    Now, I could not tell from the Miami Herald article, but did the plaintiff ever consider approaching the tribal government directly to resolve the grievance? I don't know about the present state of Indian / non-Indian relations in Florida or the rest of the South, but many Native American tribes on the west coast strive to maintain good relations with their neighbors for obvious reasons. They will seek to affirmatively address issues or disputes in which it's been alleged that a tribal member or entity has done a non-Indian wrong.

    At the very least, I would hope that the Miccosukees would agree to absorb that $72,000 administrative fee incurred during the appeals process. As your initial post on the matter revealed, the continued bad feelings incurred as a result of this case could be detrimental for their business interests, which I would assume are now considerable. Were I a Florida resident and a wagering guy, I'd boycott their casinos, too.



    Here's the state appellate court's (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:45:11 PM EST


    Immunity of the tribe is not the issue. Plaintiff has a money judgment against the named defendants (driver and owner of the vehicle).  But the named defendants are apparently judgment-proof (can't bleed a turnip etc.).  So plaintiffs persuaded the trial court to add the tribe as defendants after the trial and verdict. The appellate court reversed this decision, not b/of tribal immunity, but b/c the tribe was not a party during the trial and no exception applied.

    Big stretch on plaintiff's part.


    So, how does anyone travel with (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:58:42 PM EST
    Cash now?  We just watched this John Oliver episode and it's really disturbing.

    Don't engage in conversation (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 06:28:08 AM EST
    with law enforcement. Sign the ticket if you're issued one and be on your way. Do not, under any circumstances, submit to a search of your vehicle. In nearly ever case where these highwaymen have stolen people's money, they first engaged the mark in conversation. 'Where have you been,' 'where are you going,' etc. Just don't answer. You have no obligation or requirement to answer those kinds of questions at a traffic stop. That's how the fishing expedition begins.

    when I was a callow yute for an illegal u-turn, and had a briefcase in my car.

    During the stop the cop asked what was in the briefcase, and I told him "resumes." He motioned with his head in an obvious indication that I should open the case for him to see inside, which I did, and, sure enough, thank god, nothing but a big stack of resumes.

    Obviously nothing bad happened to me due to this, but as I learned years later, right here on TL, I voluntarily gave up my constitutional rights by answering his questions and following his direction to open my briefcase.

    Years later on a weekend some local popo showed up at my house to ask my wife some questions about some stuff that happened at her employer. I simply asked if they had a warrant or other legally compelling order, and they said no and said if we had nothing to hide why not talk to them.

    I politely told them we did not voluntarily give up our constitutional rights and they, grumpily, exited stage right.


    So, when the PD asked where I was coming I (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    (1) shouldn't have told them I was coming from the opera, and
    (2) when the lead officer asked me, how was the opera, I shoul have invoked my right to remain silent b

    It's interesting because, although I "knew" not to talk, I still did.


    Because most police officers aren't (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    Despicable thugs.  You worked with and around them.  It's like living around the military.  Most of them are good people you can trust, but some of them are not.  I know enough and have enough long term connections to administrative persons,  that if someone in uniform did try to abuse me, I know how to immediately address it with a big Kaboom.  You know how to do this too in the law enforcement realm.  Not that we wouldn't still be railroaded to some degree, we just know it is unlikely.

    And law enforcement around here (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    Still disturbs me.

    You know (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    I'm lucky in my county with regards to law enforcement for the most part but there are parts of Georgia that are very scary when it comes to that.

    The small town thug (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    Southern law enforcement officer has been made fun of on screen throughout my childhood.  I didn't realize then......art imitates life :)

    home from. If it was some dive bar where you probably overindulged maybe you politely say something like "officer, I'm sorry, but it's 11:15 and my babysitter needs to be home by 11:30..." or some other plausible reason that you can't spend time chit-chatting?

    For the record, "plausible" is also (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:04:16 AM EST

    I would not suggest lying to the popo.


    He woul not have found the babysitter (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:56:42 AM EST
    riff plausible, as the last question was, ma'am, how old are you?  I said, did you just ask me my age?  (I didn't tell him I hate to be called "ma'am.")

    Ha! In that case (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    maybe your were concerned that you might have left the stove on with a pot on it?

    my favorite excuse (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by CST on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    for a cop was when my sister was pulled over for speeding - I had just come home from a long trip, was starving, and we didn't have any food in the house.  So being the wonderful sister/roommate that she was, she went to the store for me to get some mac and cheese.  When she got pulled over for speeding, she told the officer "I'm really sorry sir, my sister is pregnant and she needs some mac and cheese".  The officer let her leave immediately. (I wasn't pregnant, just hungry)

    I had a friend who was a cop (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    And he confessed to me that a) he always gave tickets to those who tried to cry to get out of them (he had 6 kids and wasn't about to be fooled by BS), and b) he NEVER gave tickets to old ladies and always let them go with a warning.

    Well, that latter (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    Is good news to me.  Maybe I should start developing a heavier foot on the gas peddle.   ;-)
    (Although, it is Mr. Zorba who, according to our kids, drives like a "little old lady.")

    Good to know! (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    When I worked at the courthouse (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    Several deputies told me that when they were on patrol, they always set their radar for 10 or 15 over the speed limit. It wasn't worth it to pull people over for going 5-10 over the limit.

    J, I am floored by that Oliver segment (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    I know you have been saying this for simply years and years. And I feel privileged to have been reading you. Oliver's segment will highlight this even more. Yes, it is funny, but by the end I was not laughing, one little bit. The mock "Law and Order" show-lette at the end -- "there is truth in this illusion". At this moment I really wish I could break your no-swearing rule. Thank you for posting that - I would have missed it.

    One correction or clarificationto Oliver (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:48:53 AM EST
     is that the federal civil forfeiture statutes and all state ones of which I am aware place the burden of proof on the State/ USA to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the SEIZED property is subject to FORFEITURE.

      SEIZURE is permitted upon a showing of probable cause but if  a person with an interest files a claim for the property, then the government must prove that property is subject to FORFEITURE because it was used in the course of or is the proceeds of criminal conduct.  Many statutes also have "proportionality" requirements so as not to run afoul of the 8th Amendment excessive fines clause.

      The problem is the statutes are very complex with mandatory deadlines and highly technical requirements for claimants. It is often simply  not possible to hire a qualified lawyer (federal law does allow attorney's fees as part of a judgment in favor of a prevailing claimant; it also allows a fine to be imposed against a losing claimant whose claim is deemed frivolous; in very narrow circumstances federal law calls for appointment of counsel in forfeiture actions-- involving primary residence and maybe a couple of other circumstances).

      The kid travelling with $2500 presents a typical scenario. Up front out of pocket costs (and the frequent need to travel to the jurisdiction of seizure) make just letting it go a practical decision.

      Something he didn't mention is when the lust to take property overrides law enforcement's pursuit of "justice."  This is a first hand experience.

      My client was set up by a small town police force to sell some pills a couple of times IN HIS VERY NICE PICKUP. He was NOT arrested but his truck was seized. He hires me and I contact the local prosecutor who informs me that if my client is willing to waive any right to contest forfeiture, no criminal charges will be filed. I, as is my duty, informed client of the offer. In light of the fact they had very clear audio/video recordings of the transactions I advised him the chances of conviction were quite high so he chose to take the offer. We  drafted an agreement under which my client could not be subjected to prosecution in the jurisdiction for any controlled substance offense occurring prior to the date of the agreement and the town cops got to keep his truck. The cops gave it a paint job and added some lights and now use it in parades. How is that for perverting priorities?-- let a drug dealer walk in exchange for a fancy truck. I had huge moral qualms about the whole deal but my client had priors and there was very real likelihood he would have received time if convicted.



    The problem with this discussion (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 07:49:46 PM EST
    is that some people will be emboldened to take actions that they would not, heretofore, have taken. I mean, watching that show was so infuriating I wanted to throw a shoe through the screen. And, reading here that you don't have to always cooperate with the police is nice to know.

    But, in the real world,

    A lot more people will end up in a lot more trouble following this advice than will by simply cooperating with the police.

    Don't get me wrong; I think it's outrageous what they do, but, we should have a legislative solution to this problem rather than expecting untrained citizens to go "one-on-one" with the police.

    Again, I want to reiterate, if I had my way, cops (and, judges, prosecutors, politicians, and anyone granted power over the citizenry) would be sentenced to life-without-parole for misusing their authority. (<snark>)(but, not by much

    The problem with these kinds of stories is that they're meant to infuriate and inflame the viewers. And, they, rightfully, succeed to a great degree. But, it isn't that getting viewers teed-off that's necessarily bad; it's the corollary "legal" advice, informing drivers they don't have to cooperate, that will end up costing a lot of people a lot of grief.

    Look, we all have that fantasy daydream of winning a showdown with the cops, but the reality is that the dream will become a nightmare much more of the time. The police stop and ask people leading questions thousands of times each and every day. I have sat in on training sessions where they study, learn, practice, and, perfect, interrogation techniques. They become very, very good at their job. Every psychological angle, from body position to tone of voice, is perfected for the sole purpose of getting you to cooperate. It would take a very brave person, one with an intimate and thorough knowledge of the law, to withstand, and win, these police confrontations. And, that's why most people, even knowing they're carrying contraband, will submit to a search.

    Bottom line: knowing the law, and insisting on following it in all circumstances, is not always the most practical answer.

    I know the law says I have the right-of-way over the tractor trailer barreling down at me at 75 mph. I think that exerting my rights over him might not be the smartest thing I could do today.


    Doesn't it pretty much depend on who you are (none / 0) (#95)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    culturally and socially? Example: I drive a very old crappy van that my sister calls the "rolling meth lab" because it is just so pretty. My 17 year old nephew borrowed it to help a friend out with a move. Within 30 minutes he got stopped about the expired tags on the van. The cop ended up letting him off even tho he could not find the current registration for the car - only 5-10 year old registrations. I had been driving that same vehicle all over for at least 5 months since the tags expired (just didn't notice I guess) and never got stopped. I am a rather regular 60+ white woman wearing my seat belt. He is a tall skinny teenage white boy wearing his seat belt (I suppose).

    And if he did face a prosecutor, my sister and I would show up ready and armed. Armed with having had found out the prosecutor's boss and colleagues, having had talked to them and using our connections, knowing my nephew's rights and ready to politely fight with our teeth! That is my nephew's luck of the draw.

    It would be so much easier for me to politely stick up for my rights than an easily intimidated teen. To me a cop is just another version of some young dude and to him he is a scary authority. This is not a  police problem as much as it is a social problem - and a problem of police training and guidelines.


    I just don't even know what to say to this. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    Anyone driving around on expired tags is really just asking to be stopped.  

    Not really sure what rights you think you would be standing up for - the right to forget to renew your tags? - but I hope you apologized to your nephew for putting him the uncomfortable position of being stopped by the cops.

    Did you ever renew your registration?


    Just a tad judgmental. I got a (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:36:21 PM EST
    ticket once by the parking person in the golf cart. I had the registration sticker but hadn't put it on the license plate w/i the required time period.

    The so called "rights" (none / 0) (#105)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:40:16 PM EST
    are to not have the vehicle subject to seizure and the contents searched on the spot. My nephew had the right not to answer any questions about if there was cash in the vehicle. He had the right not to have been subject to a search of the vehicle he was driving. He did not have the right to not get a ticket, but the cop actually did not give the vehicle a ticket. Did you listen to the John Oliver segment?

    Yes I renewed the next day. I apologized to my nephew and the entire family and they all accepted it.

    The point was that I had driven around for 5 months with a clear infraction on a little tag on my plates and had never been stopped (this was unintentional on my part). Within 30 minutes of driving the very same vehicle my teenaged nephew was stopped. His rights were not violated. My rights were not violated. We were lucky in that regard. I quickly moved to comply with all the rules and regulations the cops wanted.

    There is no need for you to "say" anything about this.


    I think you just got lucky, really. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    I think the fact that you drove without the right sticker for so long without being stopped was probably more a matter of luck than anything else.  Maybe your nephew was profiled, but when the cop interacted with him, he realized there was nothing there for concern, and so let him go without even ticketing him.  That happens a lot, too.

    I do think people should know their rights, and I think more people should exercise them.  And I also think it's terrible that cops take advantage of people the way they do - and that may be even more the case now, when I think people are understandably skittish about "crossing" law enforcement.  

    But I also think people have to be able to assess a situation and decide whether there is more potential danger to life and limb in asserting those rights than there is in answering a couple questions.  I don't think that's really a new thing, but I do think people are more aware of it.

    For what it's worth, the reason I said I didn't know what to say about what you wrote was because there was an actual reason why your nephew was stopped: the expired tags.  Your own inattention to the mundane inadvertently put him in a position where he could have been subject to search.  And not as equipped to handle it as someone older.  

    But it seemed to be the cops you were upset with, and I didn't get that.  I could understand if he'd been stopped for no reason, but that wasn't the case.


    Yes, Anne, obviously I got lucky (none / 0) (#133)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    I was way luckier than a teen driver in the very same vehicle. Do you think, maybe, that driving patterns (locations - he is a very careful driver) and age might have anything to do with "luck" with law enforcement?

    Did you watch the Oliver segment? One (just one) take away I got was that vulnerable people become targets. What makes them appear vulnerable? Fair question. Small infractions like expired tags, a broken taillight etc are legal reasons for law enforcement to stop a vehicle. Further questioning by the cops depends on the psychology and sociology of the moment. Probably depends a lot on the culture of that particular police force (another take away I got from Oliver). Plus people are not prepared to know what to do or how to act towards police - especially young people. I'm certain that -in some cases- answering a few questions would work out just fine.

    "Mundane Eventualities", as a self employed person, and an independently living person (live alone except when others need a place to stay, then I go into mom or caring mode) I have to deal with these way MORE than others who just work for someone else or who have a staff that work for them. My sister, who pays in taxes a couple of times what I earn net (usually), is simply given a benefit package, need dental? "no problem taken care of", regular auto-deposits in expected amounts which do not vary greatly, bonuses, and her office takes care of so many of those mundane eventualities.  

    She does not have to maintain and update a website or do her own IT work. Filing systems are managed by assistants. If she needs a new computer at work she asks for it, it is OKed and then, magically, it appears. She does not have to assess or deal with disposal of toxic chemicals for her work. She does not have to deal with complicated tax forms or make quarterlies - it's all just done for her by the company she works for. She does not even have to vacuum her office herself, or empty the trash every night - or weekly at home either. So I know all about them, more than most.

    I'm not complaining about my sister, I love her and really admire her. She has the same respect for me (we live one block apart and are close in so many ways). And, as I have said, I complied the very next day with these regulations and apologized.


    In CA that's a fix-it ticket. Get the tags on and (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:55:34 PM EST
    prove it to law enforcement b/4 court date.

    I did not even know my "tags" (none / 0) (#102)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:27:56 PM EST
    were expired. I got them renewed the next day. My nephew thought it was OK -- actually he thought it was kind of funny and I did apologize many times and he was totally fine about it. It was easy to renew and the ticket would have only been around $40. But no ticket at all. He just got stopped in the van in the first 30 minutes and I had not for 5 months.

    My point was that he was stopped and I had not been. Profiling a bit?


    Put it down to your good luck. And his. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:32:02 PM EST
    yes I was lucky (none / 0) (#106)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:43:30 PM EST
    he was a little less lucky. But where does that "luck" come from? I am a white middle aged woman who lives in a "nice" area. He is a white teenager who is skinny but healthy. My point was that sometimes "luck" with the police and the legal system is cultural and social.

    I recently got stopped (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    for running a red light, well a left turn arrow, AND had expired registration.

    He let me off with a 'take care of it soon'.


    I finally found a US show that keeps my attention (4.50 / 2) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:32:30 AM EST
    it's called Scropion, any of you seen it? I wasn't excpecting to like it but it's good.Monday nights (or any night with a DVR)

    I tried watching "Scorpion," but ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:10:25 PM EST
    ... found it to be a bit too over the top for my tastes, and I just couldn't get into it. What exactly do you like about it, Jeralyn? I might re-consider if you convince me. After all, you were the one who talked me into giving "Breaking Bad" another chance, and I'm glad you did.

    Did you watch CBS's short lived... (none / 0) (#89)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    ... Intelligence last year, and how do the 2 compare, quality-wise?

    Ebola (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:09:57 AM EST

    So far the CDC response has been mixed by most reviews.  The changing stories from Its head have not been reassuring. We might all feel much safer if the CDC had been given the opportunity a few years back to creep its mission and gin up some talking points for the Brady Campaign. Good PR takes practice.

    Good PR is particularly important when you are floundering at your core mission.

    So, it's the CDCs fault (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:33:20 AM EST
    that the nurse in Dallas got infected?

    The problem isn't with the guidelines they've issues, but the inability to follow them.

    Nice to find a convenient scapegoat when you are on the lookout for one.


    It isn't good PR that makes the difference, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    it's adequate funding:

    But CDC officials and lawmakers who support the agency warn that years of austerity has hobbled both the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, both in terms of their ability to combat future outbreaks and their ability to prevent them from happening in the first place.

    According to numbers provided by a Senate Budget Committee staffer, the CDC has actually recovered nicely from the sequestration cuts that went into effect a year ago. The agency has been allocated $5.882 billion in fiscal year 2014, compared to the $5.432 billion it received after the cuts took place.

    But if you move back the timeline a bit, you see that investment in the CDC has still fallen dramatically. The agency's current budget, in fact, is nearly $600 million lower than it was in 2010.

    1. $6.467 billion
    2. $5.737 billion
    3. $5.732 billion
    4. $5.721 billion
    2013 (after sequestration took effect): $5.432 billion
    2014: $5.882 billion

    While some of the funding was restored after the budget agreement between the House and Senate in early 2014, "there is still a gap between FY14 and FY10," the Senate aide noted.

    And it's not like the CDC didn't try to make the case for full funding, or detail the consequences of inadequate funding.

    Sure, you expect the CDC to do more with less, and then want to boo-hoo and b!tch when that proves the impossibility it was doomed to be.

    When do you think we can expect a call by Republicans to increase funding?  Yeah, that's what I thought.

    You people - and I mean that in the most pejorative way possible - are just never going to get it, are you?


    We also (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    do not have a Surgeon General to spearhead this effort.

    That's because the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    oppose anything the Kenyan Usurper does in order to protect America from the FEMA camps he has ready for dissenters who object to his campaign to make America a socialist-alinskyist state.</s>

    Actually, in this case (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    Democrats share some blame.

    From my link:

    Here's the irony: By ending the filibuster, and by allowing the 55-seat Democratic caucus to confirm nominees with no Republican buy-in, the majority has complicated life for its red-state members. They can no longer expect a Republican filibuster to kill a "controversial" nomination. They have to kill the nominations themselves. That's a challenge, because the Murthy nomination went from yawn-inducing to Fox News A-block material faster than any of them noticed.

    "I am not a member of an organized political (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    party.  I am a Democrat."

    Will Rogers.  

    Some things never change, it seems........


    According to right-winger (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    Erick Erickson, there is ample funding to prepare for and fight Ebola, it is just that the money has been misspent on overweight lesbians.  In his unhinged screed in 'Red State,' entitled: 'Fat Lesbians Got All the Ebola Dollars, but blame the GOP...,'  Erickson asserts that NIH funding for studies on women's health, such as the weight of lesbians, is the culprit.

    Scapegoating for the Republican's short shrift of research funding, may, just may, have a silver lining to his toxic cloud of bigotry--his readers and FOX followers might, just might, learn there is something real called science, that it needs funding, albeit, just for those causes it supports.  Baby steps, but steps all the same.


    Erickson's argument is so offensive ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    ... on so many levels. And THIS, of course, pretty much sums up the collective IQ of his target audience.

    Whats really funny (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 06:03:28 PM EST
    is that the person in the photo does not realize how many people understand that a tattoo like that is pure overcompensation

    ... oft-paraphrased quote from Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2:

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


    Well, the tattoo guy (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 06:40:54 PM EST
    can be credited with having a commitment to his views.  However,  that commitment comes with the frightening thought that some day he is going to be found with a little boy's foot in his pocket.

    Political blame game (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    Is a waste of time...

    Obama tried to cut CDC funding

    GOP passed bill approving 8.2% budget increase for CDC

    If the CDC isn't prepared it's because they haven't done their job.

    As I stated in another post they have plenty of money.   If they were caught unaware it's their own damn fault.    

    It's just as weak when the GOP complains about military spending.

    How can anyone argue the federal government is lacking for money?  

    Our federal government grows larger every year but never seems to have enough money.   How can that be?  

    It couldn't be that the federal government is terribly inefficient and too big to be managed could it?  

    No, has to be the mean republicans don't give it enough money.  


    How many people realize (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    That CDC funding goes towards allowing the petri dish of Florida and Alabama and the rest of red state South to not provide insurance to its citizens, and fund its own hospitals to a functional degree?

    Look, I live down here in this cesspool of germs at 72 degrees or above for months on end.  We are usually one of the first hot spots for everything.  But the healthcare system in this state is broken.  I wouldn't take my dog to the Enterprise hospital, let alone a human member of my family.  When we need ER care, if we can drive the extra 30 mins we drive to Dothan.

    Healthcare in the sticks of Alabama is like what is on the other side of the River Styx.  But keep yacking about things you don't get or even begin to understand or want to.

    It is time that states acted in the interests of their citizens.  It is time for healthcare for all.


    This really is (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    larger than a CDC problem. The people who came here to Atlanta to the hospitals that are right near the CDC were cured and sent home. This really is a public health problem and as long as Rick Perry thinks that 1/2 the state of Texas should be going to the ER to get treatment we are gong to have overworked stressed ER nurses and doctors who miss a lot of things and forget to ask the questions that need to be asked. The nurse that was tending the Ebola patient probably had 12 other patients she was managing at the exact same time. You hand out third world healthcare to your citizens and then third world results is what you are going to get.

    IMHO (none / 0) (#181)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    We all need to be more responsible not just the CDC.
    Think about your pets, not just in Ebola, but the flu season is around the corner. They can get illnesses from you and pass around.
    All be careful, please and take care of your loved ones.

    Funding (2.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:01:14 AM EST
    "Gin up some talking points" - Heh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:08:15 PM EST
    AKA - Study the very serious public health problem of gun violence, for which the gun lobby and their Republican friends in Congress have resisted for decades.

    Wonder why that is ...


    Mission creep (none / 0) (#110)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 05:42:16 AM EST

    Wasting funding on other than infectious disease control is part of the reason the CDC is floundering. Whatever you think about firearms, they are not an infectious disease.  

    Mission creep in any large organization diverts resources.  Apparently to some that is a feature rather than a bug.


    So you think the sole ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 06:22:18 AM EST
    ... purpose of the CDC is studying infectious diseases.

    That's pretty funny.


    Disease control is the core mission (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:10:57 AM EST
    Were you unaware?  (Hint: what do the letters CDC stand for?)

    We have a literal epidemic (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:15:52 AM EST
    of people being killed by guns in this country, and because of the NRA, the Federal Government can't study this problem through any agency at its command.

    How should we solve this?  NRA response:  "Arm everyone!".

    Which is good for the manufacturers of firearms, not so good for those of us who might be another target in a country awash with firearms.


    The FBI already compiles firearm homicides (none / 0) (#197)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 12:32:35 PM EST

    Why dilute the resources of the only agency for DISEASE CONTROL?  Yes it would be nice if the Feds studied anything and everything that might have some usefulness at sometime, somewhere, to someone.  

    Because it's a serious ... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 06:40:20 PM EST
    ... public health threat.

    That was easy.


    It may be the "core" mission (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    ... but it's not the sole mission, particularly not as you previously described it ("Wasting funding on other than infectious disease control").  The CDC studies many infectious and non-infectious diseases, as well as other health threats - lead poisoning, carbon-monoxide poisoning, coal mining deaths, tobacco use, etc.  In fact, they had funded a study on the very serious health threat of gun violence, until the NRA and Republicans put a stop to that.

    Wonder why they're so afraid of scientific studies?


    The CDC also did a study (none / 0) (#193)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 08:14:45 AM EST
    to find out if mosquitos could transfer the HIV/Aids virus, and found that they cannot.  My source is a veterinarian that studied there, but is now on vacation in Turkey.

    Mission (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:10:57 AM EST

    CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

    CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation's health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

    Yep, and they also study ... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 06:13:39 PM EST
    ... many non-infectious diseases and other public health threats - tobacco use, lead poisoning, coal mining deaths, etc.  One part of your link you forgot to include:

    Nurturing public health - building on our significant contribution to have strong, well-resourced public health leaders and capabilities at national, state and local levels to protect Americans from health threats.

    In fact, the CDC had funded research on gun violence until the NRA and Republicans got upset and punished them by cutting their funding.


    You selectively quoted the final bullet point of their "CDC in the 21st Century."

    If you feel their Mission, or description of their Mission, is inadequate, feel free to take it up with them.


    You mean their ... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 07:23:51 PM EST
    ... "CDC in the 21st Century", which is on their "Mission, Role and Pledge" page, is immediately underneath their "Mission" Section, outside the "Role" and "Pledge" sections and describes their mission in the 21st century?


    BTW - Their mission statement is perfectly fine, even for those trying to ignore the parts they don't like, such as that pesky 21st Century part, or:

    CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

    CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation's health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

    You read a very expansive meaning into (none / 0) (#191)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    simple English when it serves your purpose. Wonder why that is?

    The CDC's stated Mission supports the OP's claim that CDC's involvement in gun stuff is Mission creep. It does not support your claim.

    Next you'll be telling us that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's responsibilities includes terrorism and espionage, 'cuz the phrase "security threats" is in their stated Mission, doncha know.



    If only the CDC could help ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:31:11 PM EST
    ... with reading skills, too.

    The CDC's stated Mission supports the OP's claim that CDC's involvement in gun stuff is Mission creep. It does not support your claim.

    Not even close.  Much as you wish it was otherwise, the CDC's mission is not limited to that portion of its mission statement that you like.  You don't get to pick one portion of the statement and claim that's the CDC's entire mission, and that anything else is "mission creep".

    Well, you're certainly free to try to do so, but anyone with basic reading skills is free to laugh at your attempt.



    Substance aside, I do think that the CDC head (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 05:06:55 AM EST
    is a very poor spokesman. On a purely superficial level, his speaking style and television presence is not at all trustworthy. Admittedly I have only polled a small sample of me and a few friends, but I doubt we are alone.

    To me, it is (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    re-assuring to have the head of the agency (Dr. Tom Frieden) provide information rather than some glib public relations spokesperson without any knowledge of what he or she speaks, other than it is spoken well.

    Dr. Frieden may not have the gloss that some have come to expect from their blow-dried news readers, but he does have substance.  And, his substance includes the doubts, cautions and unknowns inherent in infectious disease and epidemiology.  He may not know all the answers, make stuff up, or fan hysteria.  So, from that point of view, he may well have media shortcomings.  

    In this case, we can't really put substance aside, it is what is needed.  Dr. Frieden, in addition to his education and training (Oberlin College, BA, Columbia University, M.D, and M.P.H., residencies in internal medicine at Columbia-Presbyterian, and infectious disease, Yale University), he has been NYC Health Commissioner, with achievements in subduing communicable diseases transmission including HIV, and especially tuberculosis.  

    Of course, he is the spear catcher at this point. And, his educational background will be dismissed and ridiculed by the right wingers. No vaccine, all the money spent on rabbit massage research and fat lesbians.  And, worst of all, he is an Obama appointee.

    But, if there had been a vaccine  a few years ago, the very same critics are likely to have been those that would not permit their children (or themselves) to get it, because of autism or other conspiracies.   And, we have those  red states that have denied Medicaid expansion under ACA, leaving the ER as the only and spotty resource for sick poor citizens.


    ruffian, while I do agree with (none / 0) (#112)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 06:26:52 AM EST
    your assessment of the CDC's recent spokesman, this Ebola crisis, while not new in the world, is very new here in America and I can't entirely  blame him for stale and inadequate answers.  I hope the CDC and their spokesmen improve rapidly, as I'm sure they do as well.

    Topic jump! Peter Dinklage (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    is the bad guy in the newest X-Men movie.  Just watching PPV.  He's very good.  And so far not one mention of his height.  He's just "the bad guy"

    No Protocols (2.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21:32 PM EST
    There were NO Ebola protocols

    Nurses at the Dallas hospital where the first patient died of Ebola in America have spoken out to insist there were no protocols for dealing with the disease in place - and claim that no hospital in the country is prepared to deal with the deadly virus.

    The director of the National Nurses Union RoseAnn DeMoro directly contradicted the CDC's initial claim that a breach in protocol lead to the infection of Nina Pham as she treated Thomas Eric Duncan.

    'Our nurses are not protected, they're not prepared to handle Ebola or any other pandemics,' DeMoro said. 'The protocols that should have been in place in Dallas were not in place and are not in place anywhere in the United States, as far as we can tell.'

     These startling allegations have followed assurances from the CDC that the nation is ready for Ebola.

    I'm pretty sure the nurses and other (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 07:45:45 AM EST
    medical personnel at Emory University hospital, where Nancy Writebol and Kent Brantly were taken with full-blown Ebola, would have something to say about the preparedness of that hospital, don't you think?  No new cases there.  

    No new cases so far in Nebraska, either, where the NBC cameraman was taken.  No new cases among the people in contact with Duncan in the Dallas apartment where he was staying - and their 21-day incubation period is up on Sunday.

    Couple of questions: what nurse or doctor - or anyone likely to come into contact with infected individuals - would consider treating someone without the benefit of infection control protocols?  Why would they agree to do that?  Why did they not speak out before this?

    Did the Dallas hospital lie when it said the infected nurse was observing protocols?  Was the CDC's response the result of them believing that protocols had been followed?  Was the hospital trying to cover up the fact that its administration failed to put effective protocols in place and oversee their implementation?

    And how is it that this hospital's alleged failures are the fault of the CDC?

    The reality is, and every infectious disease specialist will tell you that, even following the strictest of protocols, there is no guarantee that someone in direct, frequent contact with an Ebola patient will not contract the virus.  I read somewhere - can't remember now where - that the Spanish nurse who got the virus was in full protective gear, but touched her cheek while removing it.  That's a breach in protocol, Chip.  That's how it can happen even in the best hospitals.

    I will say this: I don't think you can leave this kind of treatment and care and protection to local community hospitals.  Maybe this needs to be addressed on some sort of regional, central basis where there are specific hospitals dedicated to dealing with Ebola and other infectious diseases.  The number of staff required to take care of one Ebola patient simply cannot be supported in every hospital in the country.

    I wish people could stop just reacting, blaming and cranking up fear and start thinking rationally and logically about this entire situation.  


    I Agree... (1.00 / 0) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    ...from day one in Dallas when a relative called the CDC because the Texas hospital sent a man showing Ebola symptoms who stated he came from a high risk area in Africa, home.

    The hospital is the one claiming protocols were not followed, which today was refuted by anonymous nurses who work there.  A second person has tested positive and the hospital is saying possibly more.

    It's corporate press masters in full spin mode at the hospital blaming everyone but the party at fault.

    That being said, the CDC dropped the ball, they have admitted they should have sent a team to Texas.  And sorry, but it is the CDC whose assumption that every medical facility in the country is prepared that allowed people to get infected.  This assumption that because they are a medical facility, they are prepared is one bad policy and according to the CDC will not happen again.  They will send a team to anywhere where a person tests positive.

    I find it very odd that republicans are going after the very group they want to protect us.  The CDC dropped the ball, but they did it because they believed a hospital, like the one in Dallas, was run by professions who understood the dangers and protocols surrounding Ebola.  That is an error in judgement that is understandable, not some ridiculous and blatant neglect of their responsibility.

    It would be nice if republicans went after the faulty link, the Texas hospital that so far, has received minimal blame for what I would consider grave errors in protocols and judgements.  The corporate hospital seems to off limits by the press so far even though they let a man with Ebola go home, have not trained their personnel in the proper protocols, blamed everyone else for their errors, and to date, two of their staff have been infected with a warning that there may be more.


    Just saw a CDC person (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:48:36 AM EST
    talking about the protection protocols in TX.  She said after seeing what they were doing that it was not what they were doing in Africa.  As in not as protected.  And that the protocols at that hospital, and probably others, needed to be changed.

    One hopes that is happening as we speak.


    I never took acting-CDC head Frieden's (none / 0) (#123)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    comments on the ability of US hospitals to deal with infection as meaning anything other than that US hospitals already have standard infection protocols in place - or at least they should - and they have access to or have on hand the clothing and equipment that would be needed.  So, they start from a better position than that which exists in West Africa.  

    In terms of how this whole mess has been handled, I don't think the CDC is blameless, but I do think they are spread way too thin, which is no small thing.  As are the hospitals that might have to deal with Ebola patients - or even with the influx of people convinced they have it.

    How do you avoid creating panic and fear, while at the same time educating the public and giving them what they need to know, in the minimal amount of media reporting that has been devoted to this?  They lead stories with the most inflammatory headlines, and then dole out sound bites and snippets that really don't ever dispel the fear created by the intro.  On the one hand, they tell us it's hard to transmit the virus, then make sure to tell us the nurse got it even though she was wearing protective clothing from head to toe, so now people don't believe it's hard to get.  Panic ensues, and people can't think beyond the panic to realize that Ebola is not spreading like wildfire through the country.  The people who cared for Writebol and Brantly have not gotten the virus - Duncan's family has not gotten it.  

    The hospital cannot just sit back and play victim here, they just can't.  If I'm a hospital administrator, or in charge of my hospital's infection control team, I'm working 24/7 to determine what more we'd need to do if someone suspected of Ebola walked into the emergency department.  And I'm ramping up infection controls throughout the hospital, to make sure people are in that mindset.  I'd be getting as much information from the CDC as they could give me, and I'd be tasking the people working under me with taking inventory, and coming up with an actual plan.  

    Given what we've seen in Texas, I think it is worth considering that if there are limited facilities where stringent Ebola protocols are already in place, that's probably where anyone with the virus needs to be sent.  If, as I've read, it takes 20 people to care for one Ebola patient, I'd seriously doubt hospitals have that kind of staff to devote to properly caring for those diagnosed with the infection.

    And - while I do not discount the need to address the situation as it exists in the US, the reality is that the epidemic needs to be brought under control in the original West African areas where it is flourishing.  


    The person I mentioned in the previous (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    comment addressed sending them to a better equipped facility.  She said the only sensible time to do that was when they were first admitted.  That after that the logistics, and danger of exposure to people and equipment, made transferring them very problematic

    And added (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    that every hospital in the country needed to be properly trained.  

    video (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    I think this is the interview
    If not it's the first one on the list on the right of the screen called "protocols questioned" or something like that.

    Doctors Without Borders has been (none / 0) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:44:11 AM EST
    dealing with Ebola outbreaks in Africa for many many years. They have developed protocols for infection control and containment that, it seems, we would do well to adopt here. DWB has been so successful with their protocols that only one DWB healthcare worker has ever been infected with Ebola while caring for a patient, and that was a recent case.

    Perhaps the CDC should hire DWB to help us establish the proper protocols here in the U.S.


    I must now correct my previous post. (none / 0) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    Since I viewed Sanjay Gupta's story on CNN yesterday about Doctors Without Borders, that was where I got the info about just one infected worker, DWB has announced that 16 workers have become infected.

    Here is the story.

    It is all so very sad and infuriating.


    Well, not exactly... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    JOHANNESBURG (AP) -- International aid organization Doctors Without Borders said that 16 of its staff members have been infected with Ebola and nine of them have died.


    And, from the same link, further to the matter of infection control:

    Four of the organization's medical workers who had just returned from Sierra Leone and Liberia said they were frustrated, "chasing after the curve of the outbreak," according to Jens Pederson, the aid organization's humanitarian affairs adviser.

    "To manage Ebola is not rocket science. It's very basic infection control and very basic protection of staff," said Pederson who said clean water, chlorine and soap were enough to disinfect an affected area.

    In terms of what DWB is issuing to health workers, I found the following:

    Doctors Without Borders is running six Ebola centers in the three most-affected countries--Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. A spokesman for the aid organization says that staffs at those locations are issued personal protective equipment that includes, among other things:

        Rubber surgical apron
        Surgical trousers and tunic
        Wraparound protective goggles
        Antifog spray (for goggles)
        Rubber boots
        Respirator mask/face protector

    Even if a person's entire body, from head to toe, is encased in protective equipment, it still has to come off, and my understanding is that it is in taking off clothing and equipment that may be contaminated that a high risk of exposure occurs, inadvertently.


    The link above (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    says taking it off should be a two person operation.

    CDCPPE (none / 0) (#124)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:27:45 AM EST
    Here is the CDC protocol for the protective gear

    Where is the covering for the hair/head???

     A cap for the hair/head is completely missing from this protocol.

    Does the CDC think that the hair cannot be contaminated or is this another forgetful error on their part???

    From photos I have seen the Dallas nurses did cover their head/hair even though it is not part of CDC PPE protocol.

    Is this what Frieden meant when he said that there was a breach of protocol -- the nurses actually had the audacity to cover their hair.


    Is There a Fact You Would Like to Mention... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    ...or just your gut reaction and instinct ?

    You do not know if the protective gear is effective, so I will go with the professionals, the CDC.

    You do not know what happened in the hospital, what protocols were followed, so I will go with the nurses who say none were in place.

    Inferring your opinion is fact seems to be you milieu, and it would be great if you could add something beyond your enraged opinion, which so far is in the accuracy range of a coin toss.


    You would do better to ask what (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    the Dallas hospital's protocol was, in light of this news:

    Health care workers treating Thomas Eric Duncan in a hospital isolation unit didn't wear protective hazardous-material suits for two days until tests confirmed the Liberian man had Ebola -- a delay that potentially exposed perhaps dozens of hospital workers to the virus, according to medical records.

    The 3-day window of Sept. 28-30 is now being targeted by investigators for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the key time during which health care workers may have been exposed to the deadly virus by Duncan, who died Oct. 8 from the disease.

    Duncan was suspected of having Ebola when he was admitted to a hospital isolation unit Sept. 28, and he developed projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea later that day, according to medical records his family turned over to The Associated Press.

    But workers at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas did not abandon their gowns and scrubs for hazmat suits until tests came back positive for Ebola about 2 p.m. on Sept. 30, according to details of the records released by AP.

    Here is a CDC fact sheet regarding the Dallas situation, and what is being done there, with the assistance of the CDC and professionals trained in Ebola infection control protocols.  

    I hope you find it sufficiently enlightening.


    A second nurse (none / 0) (#183)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    Has tested positive. She flew to Cleveland over the week-end. Being on the team treating the others, she should have never been allowed in contact to fly on a commercial airline. It was not the airline's fault, it was HERS. She, a nurse, using common sense
    That she knows, got on that plane with symptoms and flew anyway..

    Curious (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 07:50:37 AM EST
    as to how a nurse at one hospital in Dallas is so knowledgeable about every hospital in the country. Then again, Ebola and hyperbole go hand in hand lately.

    When I first arrived at the (none / 0) (#138)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    University of Miami Medical Center, on Monday, they had an Ebola form ready for me to read and check off points regarding the disease.  I wish I had saved one for these comments.  It was only three questions, regarding Africa, contact with people with any infections, and do I feel sick.  It looked hastily prepared but it seemed better than nothing at all.  I would guess that all hospitals and clinics are rapidly setting up their protocols, or have them ready by now.

    Political Panic over Ebola (1.67 / 3) (#27)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    Budget 'Cuts' Aren't Why CDC Fumbled Ebola

    "It didn't take long for Democrats to try to pin the blame for the spreading Ebola crisis on Republican-imposed "budget cuts." The effort clearly smacks of desperation. But it also happens to be completely false....."

    Maybe if the NIH hadn't spent $30 million on a study of 14 year old Chinese prostitutes they would have had more money for their vaunted vaccine, or maybe better Ebola protective gear, or maybe better excuses for its failure here.

    Wait (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    I thought the conservative meme was that the CDC had no money because they spent money on "fat lesibans"?  Now you're telling us it was on Chinese prostitutes instead?

    I can't keep my conservative stories straight....


    In my view, "conservative" (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:28:17 PM EST
     is a wrong descriptor for these stories.   More apt is "ignorant" or "demagogic."   Erick Erickson's story is both.

    The 'fat lesbian' study has a high potential for public health not only for sexual minorities, but also for the challenges of obesity in all people. Deeper study of biological and social factors may account for observations of higher risk for obesity in lesbian and bisexual girls and heterosexual men than that noted for heterosexual women and gay men.  

    This study, funded by two grants totaling about $1.5 million, to Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, by Harvard public health researcher, Bryn Austen, and overseen by the National Institute of Child and Human Development, is a demographic study that may contribute to the major issue of obesity.  

    On the other hand, the blocking of the $1 billion in funding requested by President Obama for Ebola by Senator Vitter (R. LA), recall, the senator who had the DC Madame on speed dial, until he could be educated,  is more difficult to explain.  


    I bet Vitter (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    would increase funding into cures for diaper rash, if given the chance, though.

    You can't defend the spending (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    practices of any federal agency.

    All of them are wasteful and inefficient.

    This is the most tired of all political arguments.  That a current failure of government is due to lack of funding.

    Typically the rejected request is generated because the money has already been spent or allocated and when an actual problems sneaks up on an agency they require new or additional funding to correct a previous error or episode of mismanagement.

    Of course it's never politically advantageous for democrats or anyone in government to point out the failures of big government to plan ahead so the easy defense is to find a mean republican (social) or democrat (pentagon) to blame for spending cuts, or more correctly a rejected request for increased spending over and above the already bloated and wasteful budget.

    Here's a small sample of what our government wastes money on.   Of course all this spending is just a small portion of our bloated and wasteful government.

    The real money is blown on debt relief and mandatory spending like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and now Obamacare.  

    How the Feds spend money

    Saving money on any of these programs would free up more money then all the public agencies could ever hope to spend.  

    But we can't touch those sacred cows so we bicker back and forth about how there isn't enough money in only 29% of the Federal Budget.

    Defies common sense really.


    pffffttt (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by sj on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    You can't defend the spending (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:28:15 PM MDT

    practices of any federal agency.

    All of them are wasteful and inefficient.

    There is no such thing as a not-wasteful anything. Not person, not committee, not corporation and not agency. Humans waste resources, period. How much trash do you toss out? Because you are wasteful in some areas, does that make you useless? Because you are wasteful some areas does that mean that you should not increase your income to make your life more efficient and effective, and to keep up with inflation until and unless you eliminate your wasteful ways?

    I'm much more bothered by corruption and foxes "guarding" the henhouse than I am about "wasteful and inefficient" agencies.

    And I am perfectly happy to blow money on Medicare and Social Security. In fact I would love to blow more money on Medicare and Social Security. Lots and lots more.

    And less on the "Defense" budget. ("Defense" is in quotes, because as near as I can tell, the bulk of the unknown "Defense" budget is spent on offensive measures and thinking, not defensive).

    Accusations of "wasteful and inefficient" are just talking points, and are a distraction pure and simple. And some people follow that distraction like it's the Pied Piper.


    You may be responding (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    to another comment, but my comment addressed the ignorance and belittling of research funding for efforts that are not understood, and don't care to be.   It was not an attempt to defend the practices of any federal agency.  Or, to quarrel with your judgment that " all of them" are wasteful and inefficient.  A pronouncement that real money is "blown" on spending like social security, medicaid, medicare and Obamacare is a tip off that an  argument in futility would be in the making. This is a case, I suspect, where breath is better saved to cool soup.

    But, sufficient for me to say that waste and corruption is not the sole province of government.  Medicare fraud (cf. Gov. Rick Scott), General Motors (cf. exploding ignitions), Wall Street (cf. collateralized debt obligations}, and drug development ($1000/pill hepatitis C) might make federal agencies seem streamlined and the height of integrity in comparison.

     I will take the hardworking, altruistic workers at CDC or the dedicated federally funded researchers studying diabetes with fruit flies over so many of those fine, up-standing captains of industry running the private sector


    Agree with you (2.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    that you don't have to be in government to be a crook.

    Screwing over the little guy is an American tradition and a bipartisan one.

    I agree that government is better at doing the things that are not economically viable.  

    If the Feds would stick to such services the NIH and CDC would have plenty of money.  


    Medicare plans to pay one third (none / 0) (#52)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    of that $1,000  per day HCV pill that the FDA just approved Oct.10, of this year.  That leaves $666.00 for the patient to pay per day for the recommended twelve week course.  Gilead the inventor of the pill has a website, www.gilead.com/support path program, where they are allegedly going to help with the cost, and not for just the poor or indigent.  Since the pill was just approved last week, there is much confusion about what will really happen.  Other companies, like Merck, also have HCV pills waiting for the FDA to accept.  Hopefully the 3.2 million Americans infected with this disease will be able to receive the pills and be cured.

    Off Topic a Bit (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    Last month, a friend of mine who has serious back issues got a prescription for a pain revealing cream.  The compounding pharmacy called, yeah I never heard of it either, and they told her, her portion after insurance was $400.  She told them to no way.  They then asked what her normal deductible was, she said $10.  She said no, then they said they would send it for free.

    The point, their markup is so high on this medication, they can afford to eat $400 on one prescription.  That is insane.

    Granted it's not pills, they are mixing up ingredients and their markup is for the mixture, not on the raw medicine.  One of the ingredients was Ketamine, which surprised me, didn't know that was for human use, nor did I realize it could be topical.

    I will have to ask if she knows how much her insurance paid.

    Did I read your post correctly, there is a cure for Hepatitis C ?  Not treatment, but a cure ?

    How many $1000 pills does one need to be cured ?


    Yes, the newly (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    approved drug (a combination of Sovaldi and Ledipasvir (a new antiviral) if claimed to be a cure for Hepatitis C.  The drug is being marketed at $1, 125 per pill with a cost of $94,500 for the 12-week treatment.   A lot of money (and raises issues) but a real breakthrough in the treatment.  

    twelve weeks worth Scott, (none / 0) (#60)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:45:51 PM EST
    however they are trying to get it down to eight weeks, which, of curse probably means the virus is gone after one week.  Gilead with their Solvadi pill says it's a $90k situation, but if you sign up they cut that down to $84k.  They earned $2.3 billion the first two quarters of this year, I read but can't verify that.  Yes it cures 94% of  all six genomes for all people.  Quite fantastic.

    That is Great News... (none / 0) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    ...a cure for HCV.  Hopefully the program will get to a place where insurance will find the cure cheaper than treated the virus.  Which I would imagine is not far off.

    Big Pharma needs to be reeled in, like seriously.  This strangle hold they have on America is not good for the citizens.  Which has me wondering, what does the pill costs outside the US.


    Yes, the cost of the pill is absurd, (none / 0) (#145)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    however they have already set up an eight week program for people whose liver is not compromised and have not taken, and failed, the older Interferon, with Ribavirin method.  The twelve week program is for people that have gone the previous route and failed, or have a compromised liver.  Remember HCV is a blood disease, and for a variety of reasons, such as, alcohol and drug abuse, it may not ever bridge to the liver.

    HCV New Drug Research (none / 0) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    has links to various articles on the new drug as well as some info on pricing in other countries.

    Here is some data you may find interesting:

    Gilead Sciences Inc. (GILD:US) is close to a pact with generic drugmakers to bring low-cost versions of its $84,000 hepatitis C drug Sovaldi to about 80 developing countries including India, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

    The broad licensing deal could be completed as soon as mid-September and would allow the generic manufacturers to produce Sovaldi and an experimental pill that combines Sovaldi with another Gilead hepatitis drug, said Gregg Alton, an executive vice president for Gilead, in a telephone interview.
    France uses tax to put pressure on hepatitis C drug prices
    The Socialist government said it had designed a "progressive contribution scheme" ensuring all patients can access new and more effective treatments against the liver-destroying virus, while limiting the burden of these drugs on state finances.
    After reviewing the data, though, NICE agrees that Sovaldi is an effective improvement over existing treatments. The Gilead drug, by the way, can cure nine of 10 patients. The decision was likely helped by the lower price tag in the U.K. Gilead is selling its drug for about $56,000, according to a NICE spokesman. "It's a lot cheaper here," he tells us.
    According to Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool and colleagues, three months of sofosbuvir could be mass-produced at a profit, and sold for as little as US$105. In September 2014, Gilead announced licensing agreements for generic sofosbuvir in 91 LMICs. The countries that are not included in these licenses must buy higher-priced sofosbuvir from Gilead. Limiting the countries where generic sofosbuvir can be sold will make it difficult for producers to reduce the price, because they cannot achieve economies of scale....

    A pharmicist whose state license is suspended (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    may work as a compounder. Caution advised.

    Exploding ignitions? (none / 0) (#94)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:15:03 PM EST
    Are you mixing Ford gas tanks and GM steering columns?

    Okay - let's be clear about something. (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    Republicans have been and still are on a mission to starve the government of any funds that are not in service to fattening the wallets of the already-wealthy and the bottom lines of businesses - oh, and that aren't for waging war.  They want to weaken or eliminate a wide array of regulations designed to protect the health and safety of people in order to divert that cash to the aforementioned wallets and bottom lines.  They want to skimp on inspections, eliminate controls and oversight and quality control, put the brakes on research, just about everywhere you look.  What did you think was going to happen as a result?

    So, when levees break and viruses grow and spread  and food-borne illnesses proliferate and airbags malfunction and gas tanks explode and bridges collapse and drugs are contaminated, direct your complaints at the politicians and elected officials - and even the nitwits who just regurgitate right-wing talking points all day long - who decided health and safety weren't a priority.  Tell Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to quit pandering for ratings and take some responsibility:  less government is what they wanted, so if it's not turning out the way they told all their stupid listeners it would, whose fault is that?

    Now that Ebola has reared its ugly head - in all of one person contracting it here in the US  -all of a sudden the right wants a scapegoat, wants to shriek and wail and put out false information and spread fear and assign blame.  In other words, business as usual.

    You want safe food, clean air and water, uncontaminated drugs, functioning car engines and infrastructure that isn't going to collapse?  You want vaccines and safety protocols?  You want your plane to stay up in the air, and the trains to stay on the tracks?  That doesn't happen with magic wands and fairy dust.


    No one is saying we don't need (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    Federal Spending.

    Just saying its a little too convienent to blame the latest crisis on lack of funding.

    I suppose the VA is a mess because of lack of funding.

    The Pentagon?

    Public schools?

    The correctional System?

    On and on and on.  

    Big, bloated, wasteful and inefficient government failing again and again.

    But pointing this out makes one a meany and an enemy of the common good.



    No, But Not Realizing... (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    ...that waste is byproduct of any large organization is ridiculous.

    What did BP and Halliburton end up paying for the Gulf, the difference between industry and government is industry generates revenues.  Can you imagine if you started paying cabinet members the same dollars they pay the private sector, republicans heads would implode because for some reason it's fine when industry gets fined a couple billion, but hot damn when teachers get a decent retirement.

    We routinely write off a million dollars, and that is just in my area, throughout my company, the waste and mismanagement is far beyond any government agency, but we build items that allow us to do that fairly casually.  Half my department is contractors, average billing out around $500/hr, plus travel expenses.  They do that because it's preferred to hiring people.  I disagree strongly, but I bet at any given moment, a fifth of our workforce at corporate is an employee of the big four accounting firms.

    This idea that Big Business is more efficient that the government is absurd.  Just pick up a paper and write down the dollars in fines wall street, car manufactures, and bank industry has paid in the past year just in fines.  I bet it's nearly a trillion dollars, all of it waste for not doing the right thing.

    HERE is a list of the financial fines, double digit billions.
    BP is looking at $18B in fines, not including the costs of clean-up and the lawsuits from one act.

    The president makes ~$250k, which is considerably less than my boss.  HERE are the salaries of top CEO's.  

    Top dog made $141M, that is nearly 600 times what the President makes and you think government is wasteful, get a clue.  The only reason the government is the bugaboo is because those folks listed above, whose companies can absorb a $10B fines, do not like being contained by regulation, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay billion dollar fines for doing bad deeds, over and over.

    You belief about government/private industry waste is not based on anything more than industry talking points.  From the people who continuously break the law, pay billions, and continue to do the same thing because their only efficiency is making money, which as you know is the one thing the government does not do.

    If government were run like big business, you could not afford to live here because their sole purpose is to maximize profits.  So please stop using an analogy that not only compares apples to oranges, but whose whole premise is base on a belief about industry that does not exist.


    I think the president (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    makes $400,000, but the rest of your point is spot on. He is the leader of the Free World, and has far more responsibility and stress than the CEO of any company ever will, yet gets paid about $45 an hour (8760 hours in a year - and I'm counting all 24 hours per day since he is on call all the time - divide $400,000 by 8760 - $45 /hour + change)

    Not a lot when you think about it.


    "Blown on debt relief (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    and Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare.."

    What really defies commonsense is how these scorched earth Randians and social darwinists persist in thinking their barbaric, cutthroat conception of civic responsibility will ever be accepted by anyone other than Koch bros peons and sycophants.  


    So true (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    You can't defend the spending practices of any federal agency.

    All of them are wasteful and inefficient.

    This is the most tired of all political arguments.

    I couldn't agree more.


    It was... (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    ...overweight 14 year old lesbian Chinese prostitutes.

    Which will soon be trending as a red state porn search engine query.


    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    The federal government (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    has plenty of money to do whatever it wants.

    We wouldn't be running a deficit if that wasn't the case.

    The problem is mismanagement and political apathy.

    This is why I never respond to the complaints of any public officials be they from the CDC or Pentagon about lack of funds.

    If they had to operate their operations like a business they'd have long ago gone bankrupt.

    It is one of the classic political talking points based on nothing but falsehoods.   It's one of the Dems favorites when it comes to public policy spending and a favorite of the GOP when it comes to military spending.  

    It's never, ever, ever true.  

    If a public program doesn't have enough money its because that money is being wasted somewhere else.


    I wonder how long before they ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    ... blame the hunky gay boy toys -- or is that toy boys? I guess that I'll have to defer to Eric Erickson on the subject, because for some obscure reason, movement conservatives who love to vehemently denounce the LGBT community seem to know an awful lot about its subculture. Why is that, I wonder?

    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:07:01 PM EST
    hubby is driving me crazy with his weather obsession tonight. Apparently there is some bad weather that is coming from west of us heading in to Georgia.

    It's a pretty nasty line (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    he not wrong to pay attention.   We had it earlier.  Actually supposed to be more dangerous when it gets to you.   More cross winds.  More tornado threat.

    I guess you made out (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:20:20 PM EST
    okay with no trees down?

    Not so bad here (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    just ungodly amounts of rain.  Like almost three inches in a few hours.  Much worse further south.

    Yes, the weather (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:14:33 AM EST
    woke me up at 6:10 this morning.
    So far only really bad rain though.

    Did anyone watch the Grimes/McConnell (none / 0) (#10)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:47:18 PM EST
    debate? What did you think of it?

    Turkey now denying they are letting US use airbase (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jack203 on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:35:36 PM EST
    It sure seems to me they want their minority Kurds to suffer a major defeat against ISIS.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

    With friends like Turkey...who needs enemies?

    Kobane is the second biggest battle since we got involved against ISIS.  (The Mosul Dam was the first).  And our "friends" seem to be rooting for us to lose.

    What a disaster the Middle East is.

    IIRC (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:16:45 AM EST
    Turkey does not like the Kurds and frankly could really care less if they all get slaughtered. There's been some sort of issue going on there for quite a while.

    Turkey is bombing the Kurds, not ISIL (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 06:34:31 AM EST

    "In a separate development, Turkish warplanes on Monday bombed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebel targets in Hakkari province near the Iraqi border, causing "heavy casualties", Turkish media report.

    If confirmed, this would be the first major air raid by Turkey on the PKK since a ceasefire was reached in March in 2013."


    Rams vs 49ers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jack203 on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:58:57 PM EST
    These refs are terrible.  Two atrocious pass interference calls.  Both favoring the niners.

    The number of rediculously (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    ticky-tacky interference calls this year makes me wonder if the refs are feeling either overly bored out there or irrelevant and underappreciated.

    Bad time to be a db in the NFL.


    The nation's most rat-infested city is ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    ... Chicago, followed by L.A., Washington, D.C., New York and San Francisco.

    Of course, not everyone is unhappy with this news.

    Okay, that list (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    has Baltimore at 9 and  Denver at 12. Before I moved to Baltimore I had seen exactly 2 street/barn rats in my whole life. By the time I left, I didn't blink an eye at a sighting and only tried to prevent the Mighty-Rodent-Hunter-that-is-my-dog from also having the sighting.

    The only way that ranking makes sense is if they included mice in their criteria. Because, sadly, that would make sense.


    The San Francisco Bay Area has ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    ... a lot of rats down by the waterfront. For that matter, so does Honolulu. I think most big cities have ongoing control issues with their rodent populations, so how exactly they determined these rankings, I really don't know.

    Dude . . . (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    those are sea lions!  ;)

    Speaking of "exploding,"sea lions will (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    one day rule La Jolla.

    Have sea lions now taken over ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:06:18 PM EST
    ... Ghiradelli Square and Fishermen's Wharf, too?


    Seriously, though, the last time we were in The City, we walked by Pier 39 early one afternoon, and you know how many sea lions we saw there? Exactly one -- and he was sound asleep and loving life, with nobody around to jostle him.

    But that was a fluke, obviously, because every other time I've been by there, that pier is crammed full with them and they're arguing with each other over space.

    You'd think that with all the sea lions and harbors seals hanging out in the Bay, we'd also see more large sharks taking up residence. Do you have a lot of sea lions up where you are?



    I demand a recount (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    DC HAS to have more rats than anyone - I wanna know - did they count the folks at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and on K Street....

    We're talking about actual rodents, jb, ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    ... not the overcompensated human vermin that seem to thrive so well in your city's environment.



    I'm just suprised (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    they have Boston shown as Boston-Manchester.  I get that they are trying to say "greater Boston area".  But there are 100 places I'd pick to say that before Manchester (NH?  By-the-sea?  CT?  I don't even know).  I assume they are referring to Manchester NH which is 1.5 hours away, in another state, and while some people may commute to Boston from there it's not what I would consider part of "greater Boston".  I mean Providence is 45 min away, in another state, and I bet way more people commute between Providence and Boston than Manchester and Boston.  But then I'm a south-shore girl so I may be biased.

    to clarify (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    you are more likely to find deer, IMO, than rats, in the vicinity of Manchester NH

    And down here we (none / 0) (#54)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    have the endangered Key Largo tree rat.  All thirteen of my palm trees have a little family of Palm rats living in them.  They are very small and my cats do a fair job eliminating them, but they much prefer the flavor of the Iguanas that are everywhere, eating every flower, in all yards.  They love catnip and marijuana plants.

    ... that happens to wander into the house. Every so often, I'll find a pair of reptilian hind legs left over from the fateful encounter, usually in the kitchen.

    I know, that didn't make any sense. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:32:16 PM EST
    But they did the same thing by lumping Cleveland, Akron and Canton together. Perhaps they also included Milwaukee in Chicago's total, and didn't bother to tell us.

    The last few times I've traveled to the Boston area, I've actually flown in and out of Providence, which I found to be so much easier than Logan Int'l. It's like OAK-Oakland vs. SFO.



    but... but... (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    we spent 90 billion dollars on a tunnel for a faster route to Logan :)

    I've flown out of Providence once, it was fine, but for convenience to the city Logan is definitely closer and much easier to get to now.  I love on the south side of the city (in the direction of Providence) and it would still probably take me 45 min to drive to Providence and about 15 min to drive to Logan.  Both are accessible by train as well.


    Vonderitt Myers sandwich identified -- (none / 0) (#42)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    It was a baloney sandwich:

    Forensic evidence shows teen shot at St. Louis officer, police say

    Gunshot residue tests and ballistics evidence indicate that Vonderitt D. Myers Jr. fired a gun at a police officer before being fatally shot, police and union officials said Tuesday.

    Although police officials have already said that Myers fired at least three shots at an off-duty police officer before the officer returned fire, the newly released evidence could further dispel claims by friends and family that Myers was holding a sandwich, not a gun, when he was shot.

    Several photographs showing Myers holding three guns, including one that looked like the stolen Smith & Wesson gun recovered at the scene, circulated on social media after his death....

    It's all over in Kentucky (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    but for the shouting.  There's an almost 100% chance Mitch McConnell will be the Senate Majority Leader come January.

    DSCC Goes Dark in Kentucky

    The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has gone dark in Kentucky, where the party is targeting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    After a significant investment in support of Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, the DSCC had not reserved time for the final three weeks of the race and, as of today, is no longer on the air.

    I know that Jeralyn has a standing policy ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    ... about not speaking ill of the recently departed. But I'm wondering if she might not make an exception this one time for David Greenglass, who died today at age 92.

    To refresh everyone's memory, Greenglass was the convicted atomic spy from the post-Second World War era who admitted committing perjury during the infamous Rosenberg case to save his own skin, and whose fabricated testimony likely sent an innocent woman -- his own sister Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg, no less -- to the electric chair in his stead.

    This guy caused an awful lot of grief in his day, and in my opinion, really does not deserve the spiritual equivalent of a "Bon voyage!"


    Excerpt from the LAT obit.: (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    Greenglass, who had given only two limited interviews in the years since he left prison, agreed to talk to Roberts in exchange for a portion of the book's profits -- he told Roberts he needed the money -- and gave up veto rights over what was published.

    PS. Doctorow's "Book of Daniel" is worth your time.


    I read it. Wonderful book. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:49:37 PM EST
    But the 1983 Sidney Lumet film "Daniel," based on Doctorow's book, was considerably less wonderful, and borderline incoherent.

    I think there's a very good case to be made regarding the direct correlation between the Rosenbergs' gruesome end and the anti-Communist hysteria of the early 1950s. But that said, the evidence shows that Julius Rosenberg and David Greenglass were guilty of passing classified information to the Soviet Union.

    Further, while Ethel Rosenberg clearly shared her husband's political persuasions and probably had at least a vague idea that her husband and her brother had some unsavory connections to Soviet agents, there's no direct evidence that she was ever a participant in any of their schemes, or even knew exactly what they were doing. Rather, it was the (perhaps suborned) perjury of Greenglass and his wife Ruth, offered during the investigation and at trial to save their own skins, which ultimately sealed her fate in court.

    But one would never really know any of that, watching Lumet's film. Instead, what we get is an homage to leftist idealism, lathered with lots of pathos for the children who paid a very steep emotional price for both their parents' political passions, and their mother's apparent willingness to embrace political martyrdom rather than her own kids.

    I can't believe that was ever Sidney Lumet's intention, but nevertheless, the result was a serious misfire and mess. I'd love to see a filmmaker take another crack at Doctorow's book someday.



    I haven't seen the film nit is interesting (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    that Greenglass not only was assigned to Los Alamo and had security clearance, but also that security w/in that facility was so lax.

    My father was on embassy duty in Paris ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:19:35 PM EST
    ... back in June 1953 when the Rosenbergs were executed at Sing Sing, and my mother was out shopping for groceries with my then-infant older sister and got caught on the street when French Communists and other leftists rioted. She said that they were looting shops and burning cars, and when the gendarmes charged in, it turned into the single scariest moment in her life. No doubt; she was all of 20 at the time.

    I had no idea that this guy... (none / 0) (#84)
    by desertswine on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    was still alive.  He sort of belongs to a different age.

    I didn't know he was still living, either. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:55:39 PM EST
    But, in the immortal words of Inspector Clouseau, "Not anymore."

    Tomorrowland (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 05:42:33 PM EST
    this might get me out of the house and into a theater-


    Tomorrowland will be directed by Brad Bird, helming his first picture since Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (which successfully reinvented the Mission franchise for Tom Cruise). Don't mistake Bird for an action gun-for-hire, however. His earliest pictures were animated... and brilliant. The world learned about Bird through the touching and heartfelt sci-fi/family adventure The Iron Giant. He then transitioned to Pixar for The Incredibles and Ratatouille -- where he proceeded to collect two Oscar statue.

    Tomorrowland marks a mysterious collaboration between Brad Bird and screenwriter Damon Lindelof.  Lindelof has an uneven track record with genre geeks, and that the amazing work he has done on television programs like Lost and the current The Leftovers is overshadowed by rewrite work he did on films like Prometheus, Star Trek Into Darkness and Jon Favreau's Cowboys and Aliens. But Lindelof's the key to Tomorrowland.

    If movie stars still sell tickets, then Tomorrowland should fill a few theater seats by having George Clooney on the marquee. Clooney plays Frank, the jaded inventor who - as a child - had access to Tomorrowland and now regrets that this wondrous land is being kept from him.

    Hugh Laurie's role in Brad Bird's Tomorrowland is one that's being swallowed up in the secrecy of the project. The House star wasn't present in any of the footage shown online or at New York Comic-Con, and so all we can go on is that fact that we know he has been cast as David Nix, the villain of the piece, and the chief antagonist to George Clooney's long-time inventor.

    Outside of Brad Bird's cast, we reported earlier that Oscar-winning composer Michael Giacchino will pen the music for Tomorrowland -- as if you needed any more reasons to grab a ticket for opening day. Giacchino, of course, has been a long-time collaborator with Bird, having composed the musical scores for Ghost Protocol, Ratatouille and The Incredibles. We will be able to hear their latest magical collaboration when Tomorrowland opens in theaters on May 22, 2015.

    CDC Protocol for PPE for Ebola (none / 0) (#99)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 10:55:42 PM EST

    Is it any wonder that over 230 nurses and doctors have died from Ebola and the CDC are just now going to rethink their protocol???

    Your tax dollars at work or not --

    ACA (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:40:40 AM EST
    If You Like Your Insurance, Can You Keep It This Time Around?

    Maybe - but if you got a plan on an exchange last year, you still should look for a better deal this time around.

    Some of the technical problems stem from the difficult balance between keeping people enrolled and encouraging them to shop for a better deal. Due to complicated behind-the-scenes changes in the way the law's tax credits are calculated, people who automatically renew their policies, without taking another pass through the enrollment system, are at risk for particularly large and often surprising cost increases.

    To offset the risk of widespread premium hikes, the administration will encourage existing customers to go back through the system, update their personal information, and shop for a better deal. People who are willing to change plans can insulate themselves from most premium hikes--but that's where the technology starts to get tricky.

    For starters, returning customers will have to use the old, 78-screen application. New customers can use a simpler, faster, and more streamlined 16-screen version.

    2nd Dallas Nurse (none / 0) (#131)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    Second Dallas nurse with Ebola was on Frontier Airlines flight 1143

     A second nurse who treated Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan has been diagnosed with the deadly disease a day after flying from Ohio to Texas, officials said.

    Which means that according to what the CDC has been telling us, but what they are trying to back away from now, she was contagious on that flight.

    Oh well -- nothing to concern yourself here folks -- just move along.

    Unless she was symptomatic, she (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    was not contagious.  

    But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that she did have symptoms and was contagious, what does that mean for her fellow passengers?

    Well, unless she was having sex with them, kissing them, licking them, vomiting on them, or pooping on them, the chances that anyone else was infected are extremely low.  How do we know this?  The family members of Thomas Duncan have not contracted the virus, and since they clearly were exposed to Duncan after he had become symptomatic, it stands to reason that it is not likely that the second nurse transmitted the virus to anyone else on the plane.

    It's not that there's "nothing to see," Chip, it's that you have allowed your own panic to blind you and take over your ability to apply reason and logic - not to mention science - to this entire situation.


    Not Really (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    The CDC said Vinson was not experiencing symptoms at the time of her flight, but is asking all 132 passengers on Frontier Airlines Flight 1143 from Cleveland to Dallas-Fort Worth which landed at 8:16 p.m. Monday to call 1-800-232-4636.

    I just saw a different report that she was not symptomatic on the flight.  


    Howdy, anything you offer that (none / 0) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    starts with "the CDC said," will be dismissed out of hand by the likes of Uncle Chip - he seems to have deemed the entire organization worthless.

    How do you know (none / 0) (#141)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    that she didn't have a low grade fever on that flight or other unnoticeable symptoms??

    Did anybody take her temperature before or during the flight or while waiting for her luggage???

    Read the CDC website and you will find out that an Ebola carrier is contagious for 3 days before a blood test will test positive -- and she tested positive the day after the flight.

    Unless of course the CDC is lying --


    The virus spreads by direct contact, so (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    I repeat what I said in a later comment:

    Well, unless she was having sex with them, kissing them, licking them, vomiting on them, or pooping on them, the chances that anyone else was infected are extremely low.  

    How do we know this?  The family members of Thomas Duncan have not contracted the virus, and since they clearly were exposed to Duncan after he had become symptomatic, it stands to reason that it is not likely that the second nurse transmitted the virus to anyone else on the plane.

    You are reminding me of the people who thought you could get AIDS just sitting next to someone who had it.


    Then explain this from the CDC: (none / 0) (#146)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    cdc.gov on Ebola

    "Ebola virus is detected in blood only after the onset of symptoms, usually fever. It may take up to 3 days after symptoms appear for the virus to reach detectable levels. Virus is generally detectable by real-time RT-PCR from 3-10 days after symptoms appear."

    "Specimens ideally should be taken when a symptomatic patient reports to a healthcare facility and is suspected of having an Ebola exposure. However, if the onset of symptoms is (less than) 3 days, a later specimen may be needed to completely rule-out Ebola virus, if the first specimen tests negative."

    If she was diagnosed the day after the flight then she had to have been symptomatic and thus contagious for 3 days prior according to the CDC.  


    But you're still missing the essential point: (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    you can't get Ebola just by virtue of being in the presence of someone who is carrying the virus.  It is transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluids, and of the many that we have, those that contain the greatest level of virus in them are blood, vomit and feces.

    But the agency in which you have so little confidence said:

    Because she had helped care for Dallas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan, this health care worker should not have traveled on a commercial airplane, CDC Director Tom Frieden said.  At that point, health care workers were undergoing self-monitoring. They were allowed to travel but not on a commercial plane with other people, he said.  Moving forward, the CDC will ensure that no one else in such a situation travels outside of a closed environment, he said."

    EVEN IF she had undetectable levels of virus in her system at the time she flew back to Texas, what direct contact did anyone on that plane have with her blood?  With her saliva?  Did she bleed on anyone?  Did she share a can of soda with someone?  I'm sure those are questions the CDC wants to ask.

    I have no expectation that any of the answers it provides will meet with your satisfaction.

    At this point, it seems you have your nose pressed smack up against the trunk of a tree and have no clue you are standing in a huge forest.


    Give it up, Anne (none / 0) (#164)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    Uncle Chip has his mind made up, and we're not going to change it, despite his many attempts to try and stir people up.
    It's not going to work with the vast majority of the readers of this blog, but he persists.
    If he wants to live in a perpetual state of panic, it's on him.  It's a sad and pathetic way to live, but it's his problem, not ours.

    Great story (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    but the fact is as of this morning they were still waiting for official confirmation of infection.  Early test indicated she was infected.

    Every person on the original list (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    is being monitored very closely.  Taking their temp many times a day.   Setting aside that this person is a healthcare worker and probably understands well the need to do that logic would say that anyone would do it out of self interest.  
    If she says she did not have a temp on the plane I tend to believe her.

    In his own world Chip  is the crazy person in the SciFi movie who end up being right all along.   In everyone else's he just a crazy person.


    Chances are -- (none / 0) (#166)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    Well, unless she was having sex with them, kissing them, licking them, vomiting on them, or pooping on them, the chances that anyone else was infected are extremely low.

    So then is that how  you claim the 2 Dallas nurses got Ebola from Duncan???


    Is that another of your lame attempts (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    at wit, or just more evidence of your nitwittery?

    Perhaps I should have said, "unless her fellow passengers were inserting catheters and breathing tubes into her, hooking her up to dialysis, taking blood for testing, cleaning up her diarrhea and vomit, changing the sheets on the bed, inserting IV lines - you know, the things she was doing for poor Mr. Duncan in the hospital - it's unlikely she passed the virus to anyone on the plane."

    ::rolling eyes::


    3 symptoms of the virus are (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:33:45 PM EST

    My guess is that may have been the problem while caring for him (along with saliva). My other guess is that is not what was happening on the plane.


    My original point was that she was (none / 0) (#174)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    not likely to be transmitting the virus to people just by virtue of being on the same plane - but Chip offered the information that a person could have undetectable levels of virus prior to developing symptoms and be contagious at that point.  

    Conceding that possibility, transmission would still require direct contact with body fluids.  Since a plane is a non-hospital setting, and the nurse wasn't symptomatic, I merely offered some suggestions as to what the nurse would have to be doing in order to infect someone else on the plane.

    And I'm pretty sure none of that was happening.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#182)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    and that is kinda what I was saying in my shorthand way to UC.

    I'm pretty sure this was not happening on the plane:

    Duncan was suspected of having Ebola when he was admitted to a hospital isolation unit Sept. 28, and he developed projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea later that day, according to medical records his family turned over to The Associated Press.

        But workers at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas did not abandon their gowns and scrubs for hazmat suits until tests came back positive for Ebola about 2 p.m. on Sept. 30, according to details of the records released by AP.


    I think it's pretty clear how the hospital workers got it now, hopefully, even for people like Uncle Chip . . . (please note, I was not confused before on how they could have become infected!)


    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    A Better Question... (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    ...and much more pertinent to this thread, how do you know she did ?

    You made the claim, back it up.  

    Your own link contradicts your assertion, did you miss that part in your haste to denegrade the CDC.


    Flying by the seat of their pants -- (none / 0) (#189)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 06:45:49 PM EST
    A Better Question and much more pertinent to this thread, how do you know she did?

    Because all news broadcasts said she had a low grade fever before boarding -- as you know by now.  

    She even called the CDC before the flight and told them that she had a low grade fever and asked them if she should fly home.

    And the CDC said "YES -- Go Ahead and Fly".

    Afterward Dr Frieden, who has famously asserted that you can't catch Ebola from sitting next to someone, said she shouldn't have gotten on the plane and sat next to someone.

    And when asked why she flew to Ohio from Dallas in the first place she said that no one at the CDC said not to.


    Flight Restrictions Poll (none / 0) (#187)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 06:20:42 PM EST
    Americans want flight restrictions from Ebola countries. And it's not close.

    A new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News shows 67 percent of people say they would support restricting entry to the United States from countries struggling with Ebola.

     Another 91 percent would like to see stricter screening procedures at U.S. airports in response to the disease's spread.

    You are right, Chip (2.75 / 4) (#194)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    People are too immersed in protecting the CDC and the Democrats to be honest even with themselves.  The CDC is an org that really doesn't understand how this particular strain of Ebola spreads.  Otherwise they wouldn't continually move the goal posts on precautions when people get sick.

    Ebola can also be transmitted via saliva and sweat AND via coughing and sneezing.  From the CDC.


    Oh, dear Lord...not another one. (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:04:11 PM EST
    I find it unintentionally hilarious that right after telling us that the CDC doesn't know how Ebola is spread, you cite the CDC on that very topic.

    So, do they know or don't they?  And if they don't, where is your source that does know?

    Did you read all of the information at the link?  Ebola is not a respiratory virus, and the link states,

    Unlike respiratory illnesses like measles or chickenpox, which can be transmitted by virus particles that remain suspended in the air after an infected person coughs or sneezes, Ebola is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids of a person who has symptoms of Ebola disease. Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person's eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease.

    No one - NO ONE - is protecting Democrats, at least not here.  And what, exactly, would they be protecting Democrats from?

    And they're not protecting the CDC, either.  "Moving the goalposts on precautions?"  If I can find the precautions at the CDC website, and I can find the protocols that state that those caring for infected patients should not also be caring for non-infected patients, why couldn't the folks at Texas Presbyterian?

    Are you aware of why the health care workers in Africa wear full body suits?  Because many of them are not in controlled environments, where they can prepare to see someone who may be infected before having actual contact with them.  It was thought that US health workers, within these state-of-the-art hospitals, would start from a better and more controlled environment, be several steps ahead of the game, and didn't count on the outright incompetence and negligence, and really, stupidity in that Texas hospital.

    The reality is that Ebola just isn't as easy to get as the media and others are happily giving the American people the impression it is.  There is no reason for media crews to be filming at the airports as one patient is moved to a facility that can actually handle Ebola.  There is no reason for helicopters to be filming a motorcade.  

    Just please don't count on the media for accurate information, and for the love of God, don't count on Chip to educate you either.  By now, he's probably too busy duct-taping plastic to his entire house, installing a negative air pressure system and stocking up on respirators and bleach.



    In other news, ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 06:33:18 AM EST
    ... people don't like things they fear, and it's "not even close".

    This is news?