Given how conservative the Democratic Party has become, maybe she voted for the

Green Party?

CNN actually did some real journalism on ebola and public health policy

First, we have a Dallas prosecutor threatening to arrest Thomas Duncan for being sick while black.

Then, poor Nina Pham is being attacked for "a breach of protocol ". Goddamn it, could you be more insulting to our underpaid, overworked nursing staff? These people are real-life heroes!

Perhaps CNN got to a bit closer to the truth and our collective responsibility to make sure our government is motivated by public heath rather than protecting the profit margins of our health care industry.

When I read the steps below, disturbingly obvious, it was with profound sadness that we are so poorly prepared for something like this. In our own lifetimes we may witness a post antibiotic world where infections no longer respond to standard treatment. We are not prepared in the least. Just replace "ebola" with "infectious disease".

We Need to Stop Scapegoating!

If there is blame, it isn't Thomas Duncan or Nina Pham. It is the arrogance of something known as American exceptionalism. It's the same thing that keeps fueling our idiotic wars, drug violence, gun violence, poverty and debt. We lavish all of America's resources on the rich at the expense of the broader good, then blame those least able to defend themselves when the shit hits the fan.

The below is paraphrased from CNN.

Ebola: Five ways the CDC got it wrong
By Elizabeth Cohen, Senior Medical Correspondent
updated 5:03 PM EDT, Mon October 13, 2014

1. The CDC is telling possible Ebola patients to "call a doctor."
When passengers arrive in the United States from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea, they're handed a flier instructing them to "call a doctor" if they feel ill.

We saw how well that worked at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. On September 25, the hospital sent a feverish Thomas Eric Duncan home even though he had told them he'd recently been to Liberia.

One way to do it differently: Set up a toll free number for returning passengers that would reach a centralized office, which would then dispatch a local ambulance to get the patient to a hospital.

The hospital would be warned that a possible Ebola patient is on the way, and the patient would not be brought through the main emergency room.

That's the idea of Gavin Macgregor-Skinner, an assistant professor at Penn State's Department of Public Health Sciences.

2. The CDC director says any hospital can care for Ebola patients.
"I think it's very unfortunate that he keeps re-stating that," said Macgregor-Skinner, the global projects manager for the Elizabeth R. Griffin Foundation.

He said when it comes to handling Ebola, not all hospitals are created equally. As seen at Presbyterian, using protective gear can be tricky. Plus, it's a challenge to handle infectious waste from Ebola patients, such as hospital gowns contaminated with blood or vomit.

Dr. Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, said some hospitals have more experience with infectious diseases and consistently do drills in how to deal with biohazards.

"If you were a burn unit patient, wouldn't you want to go to a burn unit?" he said.

3. The CDC didn't encourage the "buddy system" for doctors and nurses.
Under this system, a doctor or nurse who is about to do a procedure on an Ebola patient has a "buddy," another health care worker, who acts as a safety supervisor, monitoring the worker from the time he puts on the gear until the time he takes it off.

The "buddy system" has been effective in stopping other kinds of infections in hospitals.

4. CDC didn't encourage doctors to develop Ebola treatment guidelines.
At Sunday's press conference, Frieden hinted that Presbyterian might have performed two measures -- inserting a breathing tube and giving kidney dialysis -- that were unlikely to help Duncan. He described them as a "desperate measure" to save his life.

"Both of those procedures may spread contaminated materials and are considered high-risk procedures," he said. "I'm not familiar with any prior patient with Ebola who has undergone either intubation or dialysis."

Osterholm said CDC should coordinate with medical groups to come up with treatment guidelines.

5. The CDC put too much trust in protective gear.
Once Duncan was diagnosed, health authorities started making daily visits to 48 of his contacts.

But that didn't include several dozen workers at Presbyterian who took care of Duncan after he was diagnosed. They weren't followed because they were wearing protective gear when they had contact with Duncan. Instead, they monitored themselves.

Public health experts said that was a misstep, as the CDC should have realized that putting on and taking off protective gear is often done imperfectly and one of the workers might get an infection.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/health/ebola-cdc/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

One thing I noticed is that workers in Liberia spray each other down with disinfectant before removing protective gear. With the buddy system in place, that just seems to make sense.

Standing Ovation for Snowden Film

The Democratic National Committee website has nothing about Ferguson or police

abuse and militarization. Why not?

Is it unfair to expect one of our two political parties to acknowledge the systemic national problem of racism and violence by police?

And I don't understand why supposedly loyal Democrats think that calling out up the obvious silence is an act of subversion against the Democratic Party. It is completely unacceptable.

Are we waiting until the "free market" solves the problem? Are we simply afraid of angering the gods by bringing it up? Are we waiting for Republicans to take the lead on this?

Also there is nothing about respecting a person's right to privacy as a Democratic Party value.

But they do have this, saying not only are they going to spy on you, they are going to share what ever they collect with other countries.

Why are the concern types scolding about staying home? It's because bullying people

is much easier than actually representing them. The latter requires a political party and candidates who actually give a shit about the nation beyond the comfort of a few Wall Street CEOs. The former just takes fear and insults.

When President Obama says he supports net neutrality...

We've heard similar populist campaign positions just before elections. Torture was bad until the President sanctified it as an act of patriotism by folks who simply did their jobs too well.

And of course Mr. Obama was against spying and wiretapping before he was for it. And let's never forget the Peace Prize winner's disaster known as the Afghanistan surge, a surge of wasted lives and money.

And with all the President's talk about alternative energy, we have massive expansion of fracking and deep water drilling near environmentally sensitive areas.

Who can forget the President's well known rhetorical support of single payer and the public option?

There are those who would scold us for trusting words before an election. They will argue that the fault is ours, we should have known better before we voted. In a twisted defense, they will tell us deception serves a noble purpose which simple citizens are not competent to understand.

Words matter. This is a critical issue. Let the Democratic Party know you will be holding them accountable for their words.

Interesting winner for world building of the year

This is great design work.



More pics:
https://www.worldarchitecturefestival.com/webform_submission/1882

Why must you abandon opposition to our war strategy, surveillance state,

immunity for torture/corporate crime, fracking, Israel's ruthless violence against occupied civilians, outsourcing millions of US jobs to countries abusive to men, women, children, increasing health care/education costs, declining wages and dependance on corporations for legislative authority to be considered a serious Democratic presidential candidate?

Isn't opposition to this injustice and inequality a defining quality of a Democratic voter?

Clinton says new granddaughter Charlotte “has just as much God-given potential as a boy..."

Let's talk about potential. Chelsea was reportedly paid $600,000 a year as a special correspondent for NBC despite having no special journalism skills. One of her tasks? Interviewing the GEICO lizard in a shameless display of corporate ass kissing. I'm thinking there are a lot of well qualified women, you know, real journalists, who are righteously pissed about that particular inequality. And don't forget Chelsea's $75,000 speaking fee. Alright, some is donated to charity- her parent's charity! The injustice of it!

Then, there's this, "all women should grow up in a world of full participation and shared prosperity.” OK, sure. How about the women making less than $250K a year who are getting the shit kicked out of them by Wall Street crooks? How about the millions of jobs for women being sent to India and China every year? Not just manufacturing, but professional jobs like engineering, architecture, medical, legal, etc. Does she think women are treated fairly in India? Does she think America will grow by empowered millionaire women selling real estate to each other?

Ultimately, I am reminded of the fact that she claimed to be "dead broke" when she left the White House. You know, dead broke means food stamps, welfare lines, the whole shebang. Amazingly, she discovered her $250,000 speaking fees and managed to pull herself up by her own bootstraps.

Clearly, her granddaughter has nothing to worry about in the "equality" department. As far as opportunity, justice and equality, its hard to imagine a less authentic spokesperson. Hillary has no idea about the hardships working families face. She might be moving her lips, but she's not speaking to 99% of us, regardless of gender. We deserve better than that.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/02/eyeing_2016_clinton_calls_for_female_empowerment/