“Nothing Is More Terrible.. August 25, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Anti-Vaccine.Tags: blame, CDC, deaths, ignorance, measles, outbreaks, Vaccines
add a comment
..Than Ignorance In Action” (Goethe)
From WebMD August 21st, 2008..
Measles Outbreaks.. (in part, emphasis mine)
Measles Outbreaks Worry CDC
Surge in Measles Cases Blamed on Parents Who Won’t Vaccinate KidsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDAug. 21, 2008 — CDC officials worry that a surge in U.S. measles outbreaks means a return of the disease to American shores.
In 2000, the CDC declared that measles no longer was spreading in the U.S. Since then, there have been an average of 63 cases a year that come from infections acquired outside the U.S.
But as of July of this year, there have already been 131 U.S. measles cases. The number of imported cases hasn’t gone up, but the disease is spreading much more readily. Four-fifths of the cases came in seven measles outbreaks.
Who’s spreading the disease? It’s largely children who don’t get vaccinated because their parents hold “philosophical or religious beliefs” against vaccination, the CDC says.
“Even with our current extremely high vaccination rates, we could have significant pockets of people in outbreaks. And if vaccine coverage levels fall, we risk many more outbreaks. We are concerned,” Jane Seward, MB, MPH, deputy director of the CDC’s viral disease division, said at a news conference.
***
This year’s two biggest measles outbreaks came in Washington State and in Illinois.
In Washington, an unvaccinated child likely caught measles at a church conference attended by 3,000 junior high school students, some from foreign nations. That child infected seven other children in her household; they spread measles to 11 other people. Of the 19 cases, 16 were school-age children. Eleven of these kids were homeschooled; none was vaccinated because of their parents’ beliefs.
***
Very high coverage rates are necessary because measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to man. If a person with measles coughs in a room of 100 unvaccinated people, Seward says, 90 to 95 of those people will get the measles.
And many of these people would get very ill. Uncomplicated measles is a serious illness, but some kids who get the illness come down with life-threatening encephalitis or pneumonia. In the years before vaccination became common, a few children each year developed a very rare measles complication called subacute sclerotic panencephalitis — a degenerative brain disease that is almost always fatal but which can take up to 10 years to kill.
***
Most at risk are people who can’t take the measles vaccine — very young children and people suffering cancer or immune disorders.
Fortunately, none of the U.S. measles cases this year has been fatal, although 15 people were hospitalized — including four babies under 15 months of age. But there were two deaths in Europe this year, one in Italy and one in the U.K.
The increase in measles outbreaks is a direct result of the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.
It is not, as some of these parents would argue, a result of poor nutrition or the “Big Pharma” propaganda machine that would see these faceless conspirators put poison into our childrens’ bodies simply to make money.
How many preventable deaths will be too many?
~~~
“Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.” ~ Isaac Asimov
~~~
Alas, Poor Naslund, We Knew Him Well.. July 5, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Canucks Rock!.Tags: Canucks, hockey, Markus Naslund, Trevor Linden, Vancouver
add a comment
Au Revoir, Markus Naslund
So.. Markus Naslund is leaving the Canucks.. while I liked #19, it must have been difficult for him to wear the “C” in a town whose hearts had long been captured by #16, Trevor Linden (forever THE Captain in Vancouver’s heart!).
Naslund had a quiet leadership style. When he was “on”, he made some beautiful magic that was a exciting to see. That he was often absent when it was time to “lead by example” was disappointing, to say the least. The famed grit that Linden always displayed – especially in the playoffs – seemed absent in the tepid (albeit classy) Swede.
I won’t miss Naslund the way I mourn the loss of Linden (to retirement, no less), but I do wish Naslund well in New York. I think he will miss Vancouver sooner rather than later.
Stupidity Reigns.. The Decision Not to Vaccinate Costs Everyone $Money$ & Puts Everyone at Risk.. April 28, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Anti-Vaccine.Tags: anti-vaccination, logical fallcies, measles, outbreak, pima county, pseudo-science, risk, stupidity
3 comments
Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Part Deux
The continued decision by many parents in North America not to vaccinate their children continues to put the public at risk, and unnecessarily burdens the Health system, both resource-wise and financially. As I have waxed on the subject previously, I will try not to repeat myself too much, but I do maintain that the decision to vaccinate – or not – MUST be based on information that can be objectively verifiable as accurate, current, and reliable.
And the arguments against vaccinating do not measure up to any standard – scientific, logic, credibility, common sense, etc. to name a few.
The below-noted article, in part, excellently articulates the future we have in store. I wonder how long it will be before the liability of the parental decision not to vaccinate will be held to proper scrutiny. I have no doubt that it will take more outbreaks – and more deaths – before we see that day.
I am not promoting mandatory vaccinations; I am promoting common sense. I am all for making a good decision using critical thinking skills.
I am against pseudo science, logical fallacies, quackery, and the financial gain made by folks using these methods to promote their anti-vaccination stance.
I hope the parents who are making the decision not to vaccinate – based on emotion, fear, and unscientific, anecdotal “evidence” – stop putting us all at risk. They are putting our valuable medical professionals at risk, as well as our families and friends.
Denogean: Not getting measles shots is a choice hard to justify
(From Anne T. Denogean at the Tucson Citizen, in part, emphasis mine):
The toddler was brought into the hospital with fever-related seizures.He developed ear infections and a telltale red rash, stopped eating and spent 10 days in April at University Medical Center.He’s one of the 13 cases of measles confirmed in Pima County since a Swiss tourist brought the disease here in February.“It’s frustrating that in this particular developed country, where we have so much access to preventive medicine, people are choosing not to do that and are putting themselves and the community at risk,” said Dr. Sean Elliott, a UMC pediatric infectious disease specialist.I know I’m inviting the anti-vaccination crowd to fill my e-mail in-basket. But I agree with Elliott that vaccination is as much a responsibility to society as a personal choice.This outbreak, which public health officials say isn’t over yet, illustrates the impact the few unvaccinated can have on an entire community.The Swiss woman exposed an estimated 1,700 people to disease. By the time Elliott’s patient was confirmed as a measles case, some 500 people at UMC had been exposed.“He did not develop the rash until he had been in the hospital four days, meaning he had exposed an entire floor of babies and, when he was in the emergency room, an entire room full of emergency department patients,” Elliott said.Further, UMC’s air-handling system, as at many hospitals, covers several floors, meaning more patients were exposed.As a result of the exposures, Pima County has had to contact 3,000 people, said Patti Woodcock, a spokeswoman for the Pima County Health Department.The outbreak has been a huge stress on the medical system, she said.While national childhood immunization rates have climbed to 77 percent, many parents still neglect to get their children immunized (as was the case of the UMC patient) or make the conscious decision not to do so based on unproven links between autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines.To some degree, vaccines are a victim of their own success. We’ve forgotten that the diseases they prevent can be worse than just a nuisance. “People have not seen infants dying from encephalitis, from measles or crippled with polio,” McDonald said.At the same time, she said, people have access to a ton of information through the Internet but little guidance in evaluating the information.McDonald said part of her is disappointed. “I would hope that people would think a little bit about the balance between their own and their children’s safety and society’s,” she said.Is refusing vaccination for yourself and your kids a “selfish” choice?“That’s a pretty charged word,” McDonald said. “This is driven out of concern for their kids, and that’s pretty primal. But I think there has been a shift in that ethic.”I don’t know the right word, either.But parents who decide against or neglect immunization for their families put the onus for their safety from vaccine-preventable diseases on families who do vaccinate.The herd effect – the high numbers of vaccinated people in the United States – has kept these diseases at bay and kept the unvaccinated safe.But as the infected Swiss miss proved, global travel can change that in an instant.
And From the Canadian Front..
Ton-of-Science vs. “Mommy Instinct”
(In Part, emphasis mine, from SomeCanadianSkeptic)
So far, just over 4900 individuals have joined into a group-claim, claiming that the MMR vaccine caused their children to become autistic. So far, no one has recieved any funds for this claim because the science simply opposes their viewpoint. Autism is one of the medical buzz-words these days, and thanks to reputable scientists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jenna McCarthy (the one who made herself famous by eating her boogers on MTV) have helped to increase this public perception that doctors simply don’t listen the mothers, don’t care about mothers, and purporting the scientific value of the “mommy instinct”.
In the words of Dr. Steven Novella, “I’m sorry, but your mommy instinct doesn’t trump ton-of-science”.I can only hope that true science will continue to penetrate, and that feel-good science of the “mommy-instinct” stays out of the realm of medical research.
Paving the Road to Hell.. April 6, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in On Being Single.Tags: date, desperate, good intentions, plenty of fish, single, single women
1 comment so far
On Being Single at “29-and-holding”..
I am certain that most of them don’t mean to do it. The friends, the parents (especially the mothers), the aunts and uncles, the older brothers and sisters, the co-workers, etc… upon hearing that you (let’s call you a successful professional – a 30-something woman with above-average looks, intelligence, and personality) are single, the most hackneyed of cliches fall off their lips so easily.
Good Intentions..?
Little poison darts all wrapped up in the ignorant bubble-wrap of good intentions.
The comments are like different equations that all have the same answer – implying that you deserve pity for your single-hood, or that something is wrong with you for still being single, or that you aren’t getting any younger, or that you had better start looking if you want to have children, or that there’s no need to worry as there are “plenty of fish in the sea”, or a pathetic attempt at an unasked for reassurance along the lines of “there’s someone for everyone”, or my personal favourite: “Maybe you are setting your standards too high/being too picky/etc.” and so on.
These little zingers are usually followed by a self-absorbed exploration into their own world of what they were like before they met their wonderful husband, or how their “friend” met someone great online and that “maybe you should try the same site”, or better yet, a commentary is started about where you might meet the man of your dreams or what you could do to “put yourself out there”.
Keep Your Pity to Yourself..
I’ll let these well-meaning folks in on a little secret.. I’m not worried. And their comments reveal far more about their personality than they do about mine.
I know that these “well-meaning” folks do not mean to be hurtful, however they are the same ones who will thoughtlessly say to a woman who has just miscarried a child with immense private pain and grief: “well, the good news is that if it happened once, it can happen again” or “the miscarriage meant there was something wrong with it so it really is a blessing” or “so when can you try again?”.
Being happily single is a far better place to be than unhappily married/separated/divorced. I have seen far too many acquaintances who have pushed men away with their obvious desperation, or who have entered into marriage with the first man to ask them – or the wrong man – because they feared the stigma of single-hood over the fear of being stuck in a miserable marriage. I am not cynical, I have lots of friends in happy relationships, and I don’t resent them for it, I applaud them.
I resent the ignorance behind the above-noted comments.
If you are worried about me being single, then set me up with someone you think I could date(!).
My “too-picky” requirements run along these lines:
Someone who is relatively successful (read: gainfully employed and lives on his own), pleasant (read: can carry a conversation), no criminal record (self-explanatory), and above-average in looks and intelligence (read: good hygiene, takes care of himself, and doesn’t say things like “I seen this” and “I ain’t done that”).
The next time you want to offer advice or sympathy to your single friends, think about what you’re saying. You might be revealing far more about yourself than you realize..
Updated Info..
From a great blog I just found, “The Upside of Being SIngle” (emphasis mine) in part:
“It never fails that there’s a favorite aunt or uncle, maybe even your parents or friends, that wonder aloud why you’ve not settled down, met someone nice and married (or remarried). These loved ones mean well but what they don’t understand is the key to your being okay with “singlehood” is your strong Sense of Self.”
“…So now when that sweet Aunt Tilly queries aloud why Mr. Right hasn’t come along, I am empowered to smile with confidence and honestly say that I’m the happiest I’ve ever been in my life…”
“…be at choice – live happily single!“
Obama’s “Universal Health Care” = Selective Mandates & $$$ Fines for Parents.. March 7, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Politics.Tags: clinton, discrimination, fines, mandate, obama, Politics, universal health care
add a comment
From The Horse’s Mouth..
Obama will fine parents who don’t purchase insurance for their children
(Partial transcript, emphasis mine):
OBAMA: Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it’s not a mandate on government to provide health insurance, it’s a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.
OBAMA: Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they have concluded that that 20 percent can’t afford it.
In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.
(APPLAUSE)
In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty, and Senator Clinton has said that we won’t go after their wages. Now, this is a substantive difference. But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there.
BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Wait a minute, no, this is too important. This is the number one issue that people talk to me about. You know, when a mother grabs my arm and says, “I can’t get the operation my son needs because I don’t have health insurance,” it is personal for me.
CLINTON: And I just fundamentally disagree.
You know, Senator Obama’s plan has a mandate on parents and a fine if parents do not…
OBAMA: That’s right.
CLINTON: … insure their children.
OBAMA: That’s right.
CLINTON: Because he recognizes that unless we have some kind of restriction, we will not get there.
OBAMA: There’s a reason.
CLINTON: He’s also said that if people show up at a hospital sick, without health insurance, well, maybe at that point you can fine them.
We would not have a social compact with Social Security and Medicare if everyone did not have to participate. I want a universal health care plan.
On Point..
Excellent Analogy about the “effectiveness” of selective mandating from Hillary, from Aaron Bruns on the Fox News blog (in part)..
Making an historical parallel, Clinton continued, “that would be as though Franklin Roosevelt had said, ‘Social Security is a good idea, but we shouldn’t make it required. Let’s just sort of go halfway and see what happens.’ Or if President Johnson had said, ‘Medicare is a good idea. Why don’t we cover a lot of but not all of our seniors?’”
Experts Agree..
From a comment written by Corky on the Drudge Retort blog (in part)..
Urban Institute’s John Holahan: ‘Implementing universal coverage requires an individual mandate.’ John Holahan, Principal Researcher at the Urban Institute wrote, “Implementing universal coverage requires an individual mandate, which may or may not be combined with an employer mandate. Implementing them would make insurance accessible and affordable, and reduce the number of uninsured by about one-third. Covering the remaining two-thirds is only achievable if health insurance is made mandatory in the state.” [Urban Institute, Report for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, October 2005]
MIT’s Jonathan Gruber: ‘Without a mandate you never get those people covered.’ “The mandate is crucial. Many of the uninsured are voluntarily uninsured in the sense that they could get insurance today . . . but chose not to because they don’t need it,’ Gruber said. Without a mandate you never get those people covered.’” [Investor's Business Daily, 7/31/07]
New American Foundations’ Len Nichols: Programs that do not require participation will never approach universality.’ Len Nichols, director of the New American Foundation, testified before the Senate budget committee, “There are only three analytically credible ways to cover all Americans: (1) tax-financed single payer/Medicare for all; (2) employer plus individual mandates to purchase private health insurance; (3) individual mandates alone. Programs that do not require participation will never approach universality.” [US Fed News, 6/26/07]
Hypocrite..
(from Florida Health Insurance, in part):
“Shortly after, Obama sent out a memo noting that in Massachusetts, the only state so far to require residents to buy health insurance, “hundreds of thousands of people have not purchased insurance despite a fine levied on those who fail to do so through their tax returns”
In Short..
- Obama’s plan will not introduce universal coverage
- Obama has repeatedly criticized Clinton’s plan because it forces individuals to buy insurance they may not be able to afford
- Obama agrees that any mandate requires enforcement in order to be successful
- Clinton’s plan is widely and universally credited as being the ONLY plan that introduces universal health care coverage
- Clinton’s plan will ensure fairness in mandating all individuals; Obama’s plan will discriminate against parents by forcing them to pay for insurance
- Obama will fine PARENTS who don’t pay for coverage for their children, but doesn’t address the very same issue with HIS selective mandate (above) as the point he uses to slam Clinton’s plan in Massachussets..
- Note to Obama: “hundreds of thousands of parents will not buy insurance for their children despite fines being levied on them”. The logic works both ways. And Obama’s plan is discriminatory, especially towards single-income families, and single parents. Again, as I have stated over and over again – the vast majority of single parents are WOMEN. Obama will be fining struggling families everywhere, but the mandate will hit the hardest on an already vulnerable population.
- Clinton’s plan – with her universal coverage and therefore universal mandate – is FAIR; Obama’s is not.
Ad Nauseam..
My other posts/links on this topic..
*Disclaimer: I have nothing to gain by endorsing Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. If I was American, I would absolutely support Clinton. From up here, it is easy to see the forest for the trees. Obama and his campaign are as vague as smoke – and just as hard to pin down. Obama promotes rhetoric supported by illogical, hypocritical arguments designed to play to the emotion of the American voter. Typical signs of a charlatan or quack. I hope Americans make their decision based on factual information that is objectively verifiable as accurate as opposed to jumping on the Obama Bandwagon because of charisma, popularity, or favourable media.
The Essence of Universal Health Care
Obama’s Lack of Credibility in Universal Health Care
William Shatner Spoofs Molson’s “I Am Canadian”.. March 6, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Funny.Tags: Beer, Canadian, Funny, I Am Canadian, Molson, spoof, Star Trek, William Shatner
add a comment
William Shatner does a hilarious spoof of the original Molson Canadian beer commercial.. 
)
Universal Health Care – A Canadian Physician’s Perspective March 5, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Politics.Tags: Canada, costs, health care, hillary clinton, perspective, Politics, universal
2 comments
The Essence of REAL Universal Coverage and Why Americans Need It
A brilliant, briliant description by Dr. Carolyn at the noquarter blog of what life is like in a health care crisis in a country with and without universal health care.
In part (emphasis is mine):
“I am near the end of another busy shift in a major Canadian emergency department. The nurse in charge asks me to see two women in the minor care area – a daughter and her elderly mother. Both of them are in tears and pale with fear. I go into the room that they are in and immediately observe the elderly mother is holding her acutely swollen wrist. I am not surprised that she is crying; however, her daughter’s tears take me aback. The first words out of her daughter’s mouth are that they are American and do not have insurance. They were visiting our city and her mother slipped on the water front pier, badly injuring her wrist.
In Canada, we have the “Canada Health Act” which requires that all residents of a province or territory [Canada] be accepted for health coverage. This means that every Canadian, regardless of the amount of money they have, receives quality healthcare that is within their financial means. Everyone is covered. If someone genuinely cannot afford healthcare, they are covered by the province’s social assistance program.
Not fully grasping the extent of what not having health insurance in America means, I begin assessing the mother. Immediately, I offer her something for pain before she heads off for an x-ray. Her response again puzzles me: “How much will that cost”?
I have no idea. I just show up for work and do that best job that I can. I, like many of my colleagues, are oblivious to the costs because cost is not an issue for Canadian patients. Before the patient allows me to do anything, she insists that I find out what she will be charged. In this particular emergency department, foreign patients who visit the hospital are charged up front. In this case, I manage to wave all costs because the thought of contributing to someone’s financial ruin in the name of compassionate healthcare is too disturbing for me to comprehend.
When I go home that night, I still feel nauseated by what I observed.
I witnessed patients who were too sick to be transferred denied surgery or advanced care because the hospital would not get reimbursed.
This begs the question: Why aren’t Americans demanding affordable and compassionate quality healthcare for everyone?
The only candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election who has significant experience and expertise in reforming America’s healthcare system is Senator Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind that I am a Canadian physician. I have nothing to gain by endorsing anyone. I am writing this letter because I never want to see a patient like the elderly woman who broke her wrist in tears because of fear, and not pain, again. No one should be denied quality healthcare. Becoming ill or injured should not become a point of financial sacrifice or ruin.”
Bravo, Dr. Carolyn.
Universal Health Care – Obama, Show Me the CRED! March 5, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Politics.Tags: children, coverage, credibility, discrimination, experience, Health, health care, Hillary, JFK, mandate, obama, Politics
add a comment
“When written in Chinese, the word ‘crisis’ is
composed of two characters–one represents danger,
and the other represents opportunity.”
~ JFK
LIAR, LIAR.. Obama, Goolsbee Can’t Backpedal Fast Enough to Escape “NAFTA-Gate”.. March 4, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Politics.Tags: Canada, clinton, CTV, goolsbee, Liar, memo, NAFTA, NAFTA-gate, obama, Politics, rioux, TimeLine
4 comments
Wasn’t It George Washington Who Said: “I Cannot Tell a Lie”?
Or So the (Fictional) Tale About the Honest President Goes..
Barack Obama has done it again. Lied, Denied, and Lied some more instead of just admitting that he stated something that wasn’t factual. Repeatedly.
Here is a TimeLine of the Denials: (Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6304) (Emphasis is mine)
Timeline: Obama Campaign Denials Of CTV/NAFTA Report
3/3/2008 8:45:38 AM
2/26/08 – CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. [CTV, 2/27/08]
2/26/08 – “Late Wednesday, Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. ‘Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,’ the spokesperson said.” [CTV, 2/27/08]
2/27/08 – “Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.” [CTV, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – Goolsbee: Canada’s consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.’ [ABC, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – Goolsbee: “I am not confirming or denying any meetings with anyone,’ Goolsbee told ABC News, directing queries to Bill Burton, Obama’s campaign spokesperson.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – “ABC News spoke to Goolsbee, Thursday, and who denied calling the Canadian embassy in Washington, or calling Rioux, but would “neither confirm nor deny” whether he had spoke to Rioux about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – CTV: “On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.” [CTV, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – CTV: “The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.” [CTV, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Burton: ‘The news reports on Obama’s position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy — that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy.” [TPM, 2/28/08]
2/28/08 – Burton: “It’s telling that the Clinton campaign’s closing argument is based on a story run on a Canadian television station that’s already been debunked by the Canadian Embassy.” [ABC, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Burton: “Again, this story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade. The only flip-flopping on NAFTA has come from Sen. Clinton, who talked about how good it was for America until she started running for President,” [ABC, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Sen. Obama: “The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were.” [CTV news, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Rice: “The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word…period.” [MSNBC, 2/28/08]
2/29/08: Sen. Obama: “Our office has said the story is not true. It’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” Anchor: “So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion.” Sen. Obama: “It did not happen.” [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]
2/29/08 – Goolsbee: “It is a totally inaccurate story…I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.” [New York Observer, 2/29/08]
2/29/08 – Burton: ‘This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.’ [Greg Sargent, 2/29/08]
2/29/08 – Plouffe: “The story’s just not true…. No one in our campaign has said or otherwise implied that he would back away from his position on NAFTA.” [The Page, 2/29/08]
2/29/08 – Burton: “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.” [Politico, 2/29/08]
It did not happen. Except.. there’s proof that it DID. When the proof was presented and widely distributed, here is Obama’s response to his repeated denials:
Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Mr. Obama said: “That was the information I had at the time.”
(Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303)
End of Discussion??? “It Did Not Happen”??? Oh, okay, Obama LIED, but seems to suggest that it is okay to LIE and DENY because “that was the information he had at the time”.. Hmmm.. seems to me that Obama should make sure his information is accurate before he makes any denials or statements.
And when he is caught in that lie, as is the case today – he should acknowledge it!! When you are wrong, you say you are wrong, and you apologize. This is a no-brainer for anyone with integrity, but especially more so for the leader-of-the-free-world-wannabe. This is clearly the same type of “honesty” Americans will get more of if they do elect Obama.
NAFTA WAS Discussed, And “Parts” of the Memo ARE Accurate and Consistent
(Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303) (emphasis mine, italics are my comments):
· “Mr. Obama said that one of his advisers had been invited by someone at the consulate to visit and discuss trade” (I guess “Trade” with Canada doesn’t include NAFTA? Bah. The careful wording emphasizes the lie. See TimeLine date 2008-02-27, where Obama’s campaign INSISTS that NO CONVERSATIONS have taken place on the NAFTA issue)
· “On NAFTA, [Mr.] Goolsbee suggested that [Mr.] Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.” Mr. Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Mr. Obama’s position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.
· Mr. Goolsbee said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Mr. Obama’s position, and he replied about his interest in improving labour and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Mr. Obama sounds like a protectionist.
· Mr. Goolsbee “was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy,” the memo’s introduction said.
· “That’s a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,” Mr. Goolsbee said of the memo’s description of “political positioning.” “A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.”
Is the Memo Inaccurate? Erroneous? (NO!)
…Goolsbee has disputed the memo’s characterization of his comments (Disputing the “characterization” of his comments doesn’t amount to an accusation of inaccuracy.. Goolsbee’s chance to clarify was last Thursday.. or Friday.. or Saturday.. This very late disagreement with the “characterization” of his comments in the memo amounts to more of the same evasive wordplay that has been evident in NAFTA-gate from Day One).
…The memo is the first evidence of any such discussion to emerge publicly (Follow the evidence..)
…On the Canadian Embassy website Thursday, the government denied that conversations took place between Canadian officials and members of any presidential campaign regarding trade. By Monday, that statement was replaced by one that apologized for any confusion DeMora’s memo may have caused (Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/03/obama-canada.html?ref=rss)
(A “non-apology” – to apologize for confusion caused does not equate to an apology for an error.. Canada is scrambling in attempts to remain neutral, but does not condemn DeMora or Rioux for any wrongdoing or for making inaccurate notes.. because the notes are accurate!)
… The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting (retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303)
… He said he has been surprised that such a banal and trivial meeting with a low-level consulate official has created so much controversy and resulted in such an inaccurate depiction. He said he was invited to the consulate to meet the officials and get a tour (a classic logical fallacy – “attack the source of the information” – Goolsbee attempts to minimize the importance of the people and the meeting.. it only weakens his argument! Besides which, a Consul General is NOT a “low-level” official.. more on that in a bit..)
To clarify Goolsbee’s obvious personal attack – a well known logical fallacy – here is a description of it, in part, emphasis mine:
“Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim…
In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.” (retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)
… Goolsbee disputed a section that read: “Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” …”This thing about `it’s more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,’ that’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said of DeMora. “He’s not quoting me…”I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,” Goolsbee said. (Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrFPkleRZmbmPtPxHBGNAPSzfUtwD8V5OLP00) (Disputing A SECTION of a 1,300 word memo and then attacking the writer of the memo. Who do you think has more credibility here? Did the memo writer get everything else about the meeting right? Because memo notes are about getting the gist of the meeting, they are not direct quotes. Did DeMora only misunderstand the NAFTA part of the meeting? If so, then when the notes were signed off by the Consul General, perhaps Rioux was also mistaken in his interpretation of Goolsbee’s comments?)
A Refreshing Breath of the Obvious:
(From Susan UnPc at noquarterusa, link below) (emphasis mine):
Here is Larry Johnson — he was Deputy Director of Counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department — on how such meetings take place and are recorded:
“Obviously the Obama advisors don’t understand a thing about foreign relations. They assume that any comment with a member of a diplomatic representative of a foreign government is somehow not noteworthy. To reiterate, a consulate (i.e., a place that issues visas and handles immigration issues for a government, in this case Canada) is a part of the Canadian Embassy. The Consul General is not the Ambassador. However, he or she would be considered number three in the Embassy pecking order (he or she is subordinate to the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission).
In meetings like the one with Obama’s economic advisor, Goolsbee, the ConGen (shorthand for Consul General) would be accompanied by at least one note taker. The junior diplomat who wrote up the results of the meeting had to submit his report to the ConGen, who signed off on the report or cable (A cable is diplomatic speak for an official message sent back to the home government).
And why did the Canadians meet with Goolsbee? Because of his relationship with Obama. The Canadians, doing what good diplomats do, wanted to get an idea of what Obama’s stance on Nafta is because they are recognizing he could be President. This is what diplomats do.
The other day, in an update to my February 29, 2008 story, “CTV Reconfirms Obama NAFTA Story,” Larry Johnson added:
[I]t is important to help younger readers understand that Goolsbee’s conversation with the Counsel General (CONGEN in State Department speak) is a senior Canadian Embassy official. A Consulate is a place where folks go for a visa or to work on immigration problems. The Consulate is subordinate to the Embassy in Washington. Best to think of it as a branch of the Embassy. Clearly the CTV report confused Embassy with Consulate. Bottomline is the same–a senior Obama advisor told a representative of the Government of Canada (in this case, the CONGEN) to ignore Obama’s rhetoric (retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/03/obama-nailed-on-nafta-gate/)
~Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!~
~ Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17
Updates:
1). From CTV: (video) Mike Duffy and Tom Clark LAUGH at Obama..
2). From the Globe & Mail – PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) Confirms that CLINTON campaign made NO contact with Canada about NAFTA; only Obama’s made contact.
If You Support Hillary, You Need to Pick Up on This!
Think Outside the States..
I have waxed on about this in an earlier post here and commented on other blogs on the same subject (here & here)
I wonder why Hillary’s Campaign isn’t driving home the essential differences between her health care plan and Obama’s? The differences ARE significant and will affect Americans whether they see it now or not.
The rest of the developed world “gets” what Hillary has long understood. Obama doesn’t. His arguments are fallacious, his plan is vague and simplistic, and his draconian selective mandating of coverage for children unfairly discriminates against parents, single-income families, and especially single parents – the VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE WOMEN.
Some of the differences I’m talking about:
The Obvious Factor..
(emphasis mine)
More..
(emphasis mine)
“They Just Don’t Get It” (Comments)
Questions..
On such a critical issue as health care, why would Democrats even consider electing someone who so obviously doesn’t have a clue on the subject? Obama doesn’t even grasp the concept of what universal health care is and why it is so important!
When I heard him debating, stating that his plan “won’t force individuals to buy coverage if they don’t need it”, I LAUGHED! Until I realized it wasn’t a joke. Then I was stunned. Flabbergasted. What a phenomenally stupid and ignorant rationale for not implementing mandated coverage for all. People don’t NEED coverage UNTIL THEY ARE INJURED OR BECOME ILL!!
So who pays for the healthy, “I-don’t-need-health-care” individual who – in a split second – becomes a quadriplegic in an unfortunate but irreversible accident? Who pays for the “I-don’t-need-health-care” individual who is normally healthy as a horse, but after a sudden blinding headache discovers he or she has a tumour that requires immediate surgery – who pays then? There are so many scenarios, but what Obama fundamentally doesn’t get is that everyone “needs” health care. Everyone needs to share responsibility – at ALL levels of society – government, businesses, individuals, etc. in order for universal health care to occur. And this includes Obama.
By selectively mandating coverage for children, Obama is unfairly forcing the financial responsibility of health coverage onto a population that Hillary’s plan clearly supports – parents. Selective mandating is illogical – is it only children that use the services of the health care system? Is it only children who get sick or injured?
How can it be that Obama believes there are some adults who “don’t need” health coverage and uses this argument to support his reasons for NOT mandating coverage? Does this mean that he believes that ALL children are unhealthy or ill? Does it not follow that there are also healthy children who “don’t need” health coverage? Obviously, children cannot pay for coverage themselves, but I’m sure that in America as in Canada, parents are fiscally responsible for their children.
What will happen to the money $$$$$ that the parents of healthy children who “don’t need” health care invest into coverage if the child never “needs” it?
**Who will enforce financial fairness of mandated child coverage in the instance of divorce or absentee parents??All Obama is doing by selectively mandating coverage for children is ensuring accountability for the cost of health care from part of the population.**
He promises an end to discriminatory practices by insurance companies while implementing a different kind of discrimination, one that will trickle down and harm the most vulnerable population – single parents.
His plan doesn’t answer the most critical questions about affordability – what will happen to those who cannot “afford” coverage and do not qualify for Medicaid or his vaguely-defined Federal Subsidies (are these a one-time subsidy? Are they refundable? How quick will the application process be? Will the application process be guaranteed to be fair?).
More Questions: