Wednesday, April 29, 2009
All Hail the New Ridiculousness
This morning as I awoke to come to work, reports were surfacing that the first US swine flu death had been reported. The loss of any human life is saddening. I feel sympathy for anyone who loses a loved one, especially, as in this case, just an infant.
More details are now starting to surface and another instance of media irresponsibility is illustrated. As it turns out, the 23 month old girl is not from the US, she is from Mexico. She contracted the disease in Mexico, and was in the US recieving treatment. There are only 65 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US and outside of this one individual, they are all reported as mild. It is ridiculousness to use the death of a little girl to insight greater viewership. It cheapens the story and the death of the little girl to report partial, false or misleading information.
Now the US government is starting to talk about taking "utmost" precautions. We must be wary of over reaction. This is not the first encounter our country has had with swine flu. In 1976 a version of swine flu hit the US originating in New Jersey on a military base. One private died and Pres. Ford, under extreme pressure, decided to start a compaign to vacinate the US population against this terrible virus. Staring in October, 40 million people were vacinated. The only problem was that the vaccine caused paralysis in a percentage of the population. The program was therefore terminated in December of the same year. When everything was said and done, only the one person ever died from the virus.
Originally we were hearing reports from all over the world that hundreds of people had contracted and died from the disease. However, the World Health Organization is saying this morning that there are only 7 confirmed deaths world wide caused by swine flu. To put that in perspective, 20,000 to 35,000 people die each year in the US due to the contraction of the more normal strains of the flu. The combinatio of flu and pneumonia is the 7th leading cause of death in the US. The fact that we have gone nearly a week with misleading news stories is just another sign that the media groups in the US need a serious overall. Why can't we just get reports of things as they really are?
More details are now starting to surface and another instance of media irresponsibility is illustrated. As it turns out, the 23 month old girl is not from the US, she is from Mexico. She contracted the disease in Mexico, and was in the US recieving treatment. There are only 65 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US and outside of this one individual, they are all reported as mild. It is ridiculousness to use the death of a little girl to insight greater viewership. It cheapens the story and the death of the little girl to report partial, false or misleading information.
Now the US government is starting to talk about taking "utmost" precautions. We must be wary of over reaction. This is not the first encounter our country has had with swine flu. In 1976 a version of swine flu hit the US originating in New Jersey on a military base. One private died and Pres. Ford, under extreme pressure, decided to start a compaign to vacinate the US population against this terrible virus. Staring in October, 40 million people were vacinated. The only problem was that the vaccine caused paralysis in a percentage of the population. The program was therefore terminated in December of the same year. When everything was said and done, only the one person ever died from the virus.
Originally we were hearing reports from all over the world that hundreds of people had contracted and died from the disease. However, the World Health Organization is saying this morning that there are only 7 confirmed deaths world wide caused by swine flu. To put that in perspective, 20,000 to 35,000 people die each year in the US due to the contraction of the more normal strains of the flu. The combinatio of flu and pneumonia is the 7th leading cause of death in the US. The fact that we have gone nearly a week with misleading news stories is just another sign that the media groups in the US need a serious overall. Why can't we just get reports of things as they really are?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter's Unethical Decision
Today Arlen Specter's staff announced that he would be switching to the Democratic party, giving the Democratic party 60 votes in the Senate and ending the ability to filibuster. What about this switch is so egregious?
Arlen Specter ran on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania. Part of his initial appeal to the people in the area was that he was at least a Republican in name, although he has seldom been a Republican in action. His election would help to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic Senate. He received donations from Republicans and had access to general GOP funds. During the previous election there was a large debate about whether the Republican party would support Mr. Specter who had acted so many times against established party platforms. The fact that he was an incumbent played a huge factor. In the primaries, Mr. Specter had a huge fight to maintain his position that he would be the best Republican candidate.
In the business world we would call this situation fraud. There was a presumed contract between Mr. Specter and his constituents, as well as the Republican party as a whole. He took their money, received their votes, and now is betraying their most valuable asset, the filibuster.
Why is the filibuster important? It keeps any party that is in control from running rough sod over the other party. It tempers the ability of any political party to impose a tyranny of the majority. The usefulness of the threat of filibuster was illustrated earlier this year when the stimulus bill was being debated in the Senate. Threatening a filibuster vote, the Republican party was able to get at least some concessions, though extremely minimal. In the end three Republicans turned coat and sided with the Democratic party to pass a bill that no one read. Of course, Arlen Specter was one of those three turn coats. In this interview with The Hill, Mr. Specter explained that he felt that the filibuster was needed and he assured everyone he would not switch parties.
The Sunny Side
Most conservative Republicans viewed Arlen Specter as less of a Republican then a Democrat anyhow. In the wake of this controversial flip on fiscal responsibility it is understandable that he feels more comfortable on the other side of the isle. The question could be raised about when his unethical action occurred (IE. was it unethical to accept Republican money for re-election last year, or unethical to switch parties now, or both?). I guess he may be able to at least partially atone by returning all GOP and individual Republican contributions that he received for his re-election, but seeing as how he couldn't pass up the pork in the stimulus bill, then there is now way he is going to do something that honorable. At least people who gave him campaign contributions had the expectation that they would get something for their money.
Arlen Specter ran on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania. Part of his initial appeal to the people in the area was that he was at least a Republican in name, although he has seldom been a Republican in action. His election would help to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic Senate. He received donations from Republicans and had access to general GOP funds. During the previous election there was a large debate about whether the Republican party would support Mr. Specter who had acted so many times against established party platforms. The fact that he was an incumbent played a huge factor. In the primaries, Mr. Specter had a huge fight to maintain his position that he would be the best Republican candidate.
In the business world we would call this situation fraud. There was a presumed contract between Mr. Specter and his constituents, as well as the Republican party as a whole. He took their money, received their votes, and now is betraying their most valuable asset, the filibuster.
Why is the filibuster important? It keeps any party that is in control from running rough sod over the other party. It tempers the ability of any political party to impose a tyranny of the majority. The usefulness of the threat of filibuster was illustrated earlier this year when the stimulus bill was being debated in the Senate. Threatening a filibuster vote, the Republican party was able to get at least some concessions, though extremely minimal. In the end three Republicans turned coat and sided with the Democratic party to pass a bill that no one read. Of course, Arlen Specter was one of those three turn coats. In this interview with The Hill, Mr. Specter explained that he felt that the filibuster was needed and he assured everyone he would not switch parties.
The Sunny Side
Most conservative Republicans viewed Arlen Specter as less of a Republican then a Democrat anyhow. In the wake of this controversial flip on fiscal responsibility it is understandable that he feels more comfortable on the other side of the isle. The question could be raised about when his unethical action occurred (IE. was it unethical to accept Republican money for re-election last year, or unethical to switch parties now, or both?). I guess he may be able to at least partially atone by returning all GOP and individual Republican contributions that he received for his re-election, but seeing as how he couldn't pass up the pork in the stimulus bill, then there is now way he is going to do something that honorable. At least people who gave him campaign contributions had the expectation that they would get something for their money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
