Why Ebola triggers massive right-wing hysteria

[The_Trouvere]

yes, you are a cracker. suck it up and become a human you pile of shit

You are a joke in poor taste. You give the impression of someone who dropped out of high school, and has never had a job in his/hr/its life. Nevertheless, you favor an economic system that punishes those without lucrative talents.

 

[The_Trouvere]

lets face reality, you obama lovers are lovers of the welfare

When your parents get tired of supporting you, you will be dependent on welfare.

 

[domroger]

When your parents get tired of supporting you, you will be dependent on welfare.

Just put him on iggy .

It is better for the blood pressure .

 

[KingOrfeo]

From Salon:

Wednesday, Oct 15, 2014 11:32 AM EDT

Tea Party’s Ebola paranoia: Why GOP’s fear-mongering is just a cynical turnout strategy

Most Americans think the U.S. can handle the disease, but not Tea Party and rural voters. So the GOP whips up fear

Joan Walsh

There’s good news in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday night: Most Americans believe the government is ready to handle a possible Ebola outbreak, even as a second Dallas health worker has contracted the disease. But if you want to understand why the GOP is fear-mongering on the issue, you’ve got to analyze the poll results more closely.

Some 56 percent of Americans say the government is prepared to handle Ebola, including 61 percent of Democrats. But that number is flipped on its head when you ask Tea Party voters: 57 percent of them say the government is not prepared, as do 54 percent of rural voters. So two core components of the GOP red-state base coalition don’t trust the federal government, in the person of President Obama, to keep them safe – and there’s some political opportunity for Republicans in those numbers. When Texas Sen. Ted Cruz continues to insist “I remain concerned that we don’t see sufficient seriousness on the part of the federal government about protecting the American public,” those are the voters he’s talking to.

The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent makes the excellent point that one big political benefit of Ebola to the GOP is that it gives them a theme with which to nationalize the election and make it about the perceived failures of President Obola – I mean Obama – especially in states like Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina, where vulnerable Democrats have kept it close by focusing on local issues and their GOP opponents’ foibles. That’s why Thom Tillis is insisitng that Sen. Kay Hagan has “failed the people of North Carolina and the nation by not securing our border.”

The poll had more good news than bad for the forces of calm and reason: 49 percent of Americans thought the CDC is doing a good job, compared to 22 percent who said it wasn’t. Other polls have given us a little more to worry about: Last week’s Rutgers-Eagleton survey of New Jersey voters found that 69 percent were at least somewhat concerned about the disease spreading here – and that people who were paying the most attention to TV actually knew the least about the disease, and were the most frightened.

That’s an unusual finding: People who pay the most attention to coverage of a political issue usually know the most about it when polled. But not when it comes to Ebola. “The tone of the coverage seems to be increasing fear while not improving understanding,” the pollster told reporters. No data on whether they were mostly watching Fox, where Bill O’Reilly is calling for the resignation of the respected CDC head Tom Frieden (the sensible Greta Van Susteren called her colleague out here.)

That same NBC/WSJ poll showed Republicans with a generic two point lead over Democrats in the coming midterm elections, 46-44. Again, the best thing I can say about continued polling is: It could be worse for Dems. That same poll had Republicans up by 7 at the same point, and they went on to deliver a “shellacking.” The poll was tied 45-45 in 2012, when President Obama won re-election and Democrats gained seats in Congress.

Even better, Democrats are leading Republicans in among registered voters in the top-11 Senate races, 47 percent to 42 percent. So Democrats should expect losses, but it’s still not looking like a wave year. Unless Republicans can use Ebola and ISIS to drive out their voters, and Democratic voters stay home.

 

[KingOrfeo]

GOP Congressman: Obama Wants Ebola To Spread So He Can 'Take Control' Of Everything.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

clearly you obama kind are suffering from some kind of mental illness

 

[NeverEndingMe]

When your parents get tired of supporting you, you will be dependent on welfare.

you realize, that your pathetic job is nothing more than a form of welfare, right?

 

[richard_daily]

Absolutely. We need a Surgeon General. Fuck your politics.

My politics are fine... and I agree, we need a Surgeon General. That said, the Surgeon General-in-waiting shouldn't be playing politics... It's not like this wasn't something that could have been foreseen.

There isn't just one side here to blame, and you can say "fuck you" all you want to me, but ultimately, this was totally avoidable, and you know it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That said, the Surgeon General-in-waiting shouldn't be playing politics...

Why not? It's not a strictly ministerial post, it involves discretionary policy choices, it's political, and choosing a SG is a political choice.

 

[Sean Renaud]

My politics are fine... and I agree, we need a Surgeon General. That said, the Surgeon General-in-waiting shouldn't be playing politics... It's not like this wasn't something that could have been foreseen.

There isn't just one side here to blame, and you can say "fuck you" all you want to me, but ultimately, this was totally avoidable, and you know it.

This is something we could have foreseen however him having an opinion is not him playing politics. Is there a reason why he should be neutral?

And yes there is just one side to blame here as is true of most conflicts. Yes, it was avoidable, the LEft coudl continue their cowardly habit of bowing to the right for any and every reason.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

My politics are fine... and I agree, we need a Surgeon General. That said, the Surgeon General-in-waiting shouldn't be playing politics... It's not like this wasn't something that could have been foreseen.

There isn't just one side here to blame, and you can say "fuck you" all you want to me, but ultimately, this was totally avoidable, and you know it.

excuse me, but you are a fucking idiot

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why not? It's not a strictly ministerial post, it involves discretionary policy choices, it's political, and choosing a SG is a political choice.

After all, gunshot wounds kill "only" what, 30K people per year?

But...but...Ebola comes from AFRICA!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

AIDS came from Africa too, 36 million dead world wide.

Over how long?

Not to mention how long was it ignored when it was thought to be limited to gays and blacks?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the reality is, if you support the left or obama, you are mentally retarded

 

[RobDownSouth]

AIDS came from Africa too, 36 million dead world wide.

I'm off ignore now? I knew you couldn't exist without me, especially with your pilot fish koalabear gone.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I'm off ignore now? I knew you couldn't exist without me, especially with your pilot fish koalabear gone.

you need to be in a hospital

 

[KingOrfeo]

From Salon:

Thursday, Oct 16, 2014 12:19 PM EDT

Wingnuts’ awful new Ebola plan: Let’s adopt a catastrophically bad policy because America needs a pick-me-up

A National Review writer wants to boost America's self-esteem, even if it means more Africans contract Ebola

Simon Maloy

Dr. Marc Siegel is, as you’ve probably already guessed, a medical doctor, but he’s also a pundit – an almost unbelievably bad pundit. Dr. Siegel is a member of something called “the Fox News Medical A-Team,” and in his capacity as a pundit for the conservative media, he’s often called upon to lend his medical expertise to garbage right-wing attacks on health policy and health care reform. His big problem with the Affordable Care Act is that “too many people have health insurance,” and he also seems to believe that the law will somehow empower the Post Office to kill your father.

This morning he took his analytical talents to National Review and wrote an article advocating that the U.S. impose a ban on travel from countries affected by the Ebola epidemic. That in and of itself isn’t all that remarkable – many conservatives and Republicans have been pushing for just such a ban, even though it’s an awful policy idea that will likely just make the Ebola problem worse.

But here’s the interesting part: Dr. Siegel knows that it’s an awful policy, and he acknowledges that it’s almost certainly going to backfire and make a lot more people sick. He wants to do it anyway, though, because it will “patch our battered national psyche.”

Sadly, it has reached the point where we will not feel safe unless we ban travel to and from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. The reason this is a sad moment is that there is a good chance it could interfere with the flow of health care and resources to and from these countries. Not only that, but, historically, when a country suffering from a growing epidemic has felt cut off from the rest of the world, the fear quotient has risen, and people afraid of the contagion have attempted to flee. Unfortunately, when people hastily attempt to escape imposed restrictions, they tend to take fewer precautions, which increases their chances of catching the dreaded disease.

But first and foremost, although we are members of the world health community, we must worry about our own public psyche here in the United States. If our leaders can’t give us a sense that we are protected, we must achieve it by imposing a ban.

So here we have a doctor – a medical doctor – arguing that our first and most important responsibility is not the physical health of people in West Africa, but rather our own bruised self-esteem. He’s advocating a policy that he acknowledges will increase the chances of people contracting a deadly disease in countries that are ill-equipped to deal with the emergency, simply because America has wet its pants needs a bit of a pick-me-up.

“I realize this isn’t strictly a medical argument,” Siegel writes, adopting the most highly sanitized description of his position possible. It’s actually the precise opposite of a “medical argument” – it’s conscious advocacy on behalf of exacerbating a medical catastrophe. He’s espousing a curious reinterpretation of medical bioethics: “First do no harm; except when we’re scared and the people getting hurt are all the way over in Africa.”

It’s one thing to be in the grips of Ebola panic and make bad decisions out of fear of the disease, and quite another to advocate making a bad decision with the full knowledge of how bad it is simply because of its shallow appeal to the public’s irrational terror.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

help me understand, do you live in a plastic bubble?

From Salon:

Thursday, Oct 16, 2014 12:19 PM EDT

Wingnuts’ awful new Ebola plan: Let’s adopt a catastrophically bad policy because America needs a pick-me-up

A National Review writer wants to boost America's self-esteem, even if it means more Africans contract Ebola

Simon Maloy

Dr. Marc Siegel is, as you’ve probably already guessed, a medical doctor, but he’s also a pundit – an almost unbelievably bad pundit. Dr. Siegel is a member of something called “the Fox News Medical A-Team,” and in his capacity as a pundit for the conservative media, he’s often called upon to lend his medical expertise to garbage right-wing attacks on health policy and health care reform. His big problem with the Affordable Care Act is that “too many people have health insurance,” and he also seems to believe that the law will somehow empower the Post Office to kill your father.

This morning he took his analytical talents to National Review and wrote an article advocating that the U.S. impose a ban on travel from countries affected by the Ebola epidemic. That in and of itself isn’t all that remarkable – many conservatives and Republicans have been pushing for just such a ban, even though it’s an awful policy idea that will likely just make the Ebola problem worse.

But here’s the interesting part: Dr. Siegel knows that it’s an awful policy, and he acknowledges that it’s almost certainly going to backfire and make a lot more people sick. He wants to do it anyway, though, because it will “patch our battered national psyche.”



So here we have a doctor – a medical doctor – arguing that our first and most important responsibility is not the physical health of people in West Africa, but rather our own bruised self-esteem. He’s advocating a policy that he acknowledges will increase the chances of people contracting a deadly disease in countries that are ill-equipped to deal with the emergency, simply because America has wet its pants needs a bit of a pick-me-up.

“I realize this isn’t strictly a medical argument,” Siegel writes, adopting the most highly sanitized description of his position possible. It’s actually the precise opposite of a “medical argument” – it’s conscious advocacy on behalf of exacerbating a medical catastrophe. He’s espousing a curious reinterpretation of medical bioethics: “First do no harm; except when we’re scared and the people getting hurt are all the way over in Africa.”

It’s one thing to be in the grips of Ebola panic and make bad decisions out of fear of the disease, and quite another to advocate making a bad decision with the full knowledge of how bad it is simply because of its shallow appeal to the public’s irrational terror.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Porkwarrior]

They can't raise taxes on it, bomb it, invade it, arrest it, ban it, lynch it from a tree or blame it on Obama.

No wonder Republicans are freaking out about Ebola!

 

[NeverEndingMe]

They can't raise taxes on it, bomb it, invade it, arrest it, ban it, lynch it from a tree or blame it on Obama.

No wonder Republicans are freaking out about Ebola!

you are a fucking idiot

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

And now Ann Coulter weighs in . . .

 

[KingOrfeo]

They can't raise taxes on it, bomb it, invade it, arrest it, ban it, lynch it from a tree or blame it on Obama.

Doesn't stop them from trying. Haven't you been paying attention?