You guys wanted an Ebola Czar, so you're getting an Ebola Czar.
Funny how all of you "small gummint" types were falling all over the microphone stands in order to go on TV to implore, nay, demand that the President appoint an "Ebola Czar". All it takes is a little whiff of crisis and you self-reliant-states-righters fall to the ground and plead for the folks in Washington to save your asses from whatever peril affrightens you so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, yeah; hypocrites are them.
Who exactly wanted this? I don't want the federal government anywhere me or any sort of a crisis. I just want the border closed and flights from Ebola-plagued countries stopped, but Obama is apparently more concerned with affecting the economies of those third-world countries than he is with protecting America. The last thing I ever wanted was another Dem apparatchik in the mix, especially an unqualified former lobbyist for Fannie Mae and an ex-Biden lackey. Nothing good can come of that sort of incompetence jumping in the mix.
@Murphy's Law:
"Republican Who Wants West Africa Flight Ban Unaware There Are No Direct Flights To U.S."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/dennis-ross-ebola-flight-ban_n_6002730.html
Ebola is irrelevant. Campaign for vaccination against next winter's influenza season (a vaccination cocktail which needs be renewed every fall) if you want to save lives!
Because closed borders work so well...
The answer isn't the Escape from New York style prison where the disease can be "contained", that result will be the further spread of the disease as people find ways to get out and they have an incentive NOT to seek treatment outside if they then fall ill.
If the US had a sensible guest worker program, our border with Mexico would be much more secure. People, on the whole, come from south of the border to find jobs. We find those people useful, often for certain low wage jobs, and hire them. We do that, 90-95% of the porosity problem on the border goes away and the Border Patrol can focus on the real problem.
In today's interconnected world, disease isolation is no longer possible if the disease has a moderately effective transfer vector. Ebola doesn't have that, it has a marginal vector that involves very visible manifestations of illness. Thus the best way to contain Ebola is what the impacted countries are trying to do, treat the infected away from other possible victims, and dispose of the bodies safely. The effective way to do this is by ensuring there is no incentive to hide the ill, but in the infection prone part of West Africa, this has become difficult because people have learned not to trust the "Government" or the "West" because of their history with them.
If we simply slap a travel ban on that area, how wide do we make the net? Border controls in West Africa are very limited...travel ban on Africa, OK but expect some disruptions as critical ore supplies get disrupted, oil supplies drop, and a number of other commodities dry up. How much are you willing to spend to enforce this ban and to isolate persons who have been in those areas? Internment camps? How long? Males may have the virus in their semen for up to 3 months after recovery...maybe longer.
I know of no "republicans" who wanted any Ebola Czar. None. I do know a bunch of "Democrats" who thought it would be a good idea.
Closing our borders to those whose travels took them from or through an affected country is mostly all we ask (well, that and a public health/CDC response to the current cases and those stemming from them that is effective....and people who are already supposed to be doing that job to be smarter than Broccoli).
Don't need another campaign donor of Barry's to be given a title without a clue as to what to do....
Post a Comment