Bird Flu, Where’s Your Faith Now Bush?

Hearing President Bush envoke the opinions of scientists in regards to the Bird Flu, I wondered if anyone else’s ears started bleeding? Surely there were some bloody ears in Kansas, but I don’t think anyone from that state is risking eternal damnation by reading deadissue. Now, I’m not doubting the effect that a deadly virus could have on our country, but let’s get real about this. Some people have died in CHINA! Remember being a kid digging a hole in your back yard, thinking that if you dug it deep enough where you’d end up? We’re talking about an outbreak on the other side of the planet here.

Aside from the obvious hysteria alarm Bush sets off whenever he’s in trouble politically, to allocate over 7 billion dollars towards finding a cure is a gift to big pharma. The new policy also assumes that China either cannot or will not fix this on their own. Last time I checked, we’ve got more freedoms, and they’ve got the efficient government. If I had to put money on who could handle an outbreak of bird flu, I’d bet on China before the United States. All that aside though, I for one am insulted by Bush’s deference to Jesus when it comes to everything, only allowing logic and science to factor into his decisionmaking when his back is against the wall.

Follow this 7+ billion dollars and you’ll know why Bush is pro-science this week.

This entry was posted in Words. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Bird Flu, Where’s Your Faith Now Bush?

  1. Paul says:

    A lot of people show deference to Jesus Chris. ( I am a Unitarian). Can GWB do anything to please you ? I doubt it!

  2. Chris Austin says:

    Paul – do you show deference to JC when it comes to evolution or global warming? Frist and Bush both support the teaching of intelligent design.

    Bush hit a home run with his Greenspan replacement. He’s too much of a politician for my taste. When he seeks out the middle ground on any issue, it’s because he’s covering for something else. Tom Ridge made it clear that the terror alerts leading up to the last election were politically motivated. This is his playbook at work.

  3. Chris Austin says:

    PAUL – “But critics battered Bush’s plan for the federal government to stockpile enough of the anti-flu drugs Tamiflu and Relenza to treat 44 million people and make states buy another 31 million treatment courses, mostly with their own money, to cover the rest of the anticipated need.”

    This equals less money for roads, schools, cops, firefighters, state financial aid for college…

    It’s a kneejerk reaction backed by enough scary information that it has the effect of those terror alerts from last year that have mysteriously become more infrequent. That play wasn’t going to work again…it had to be something different. And if political necessity calls for funding from the states that they already can’t afford? Then that’s what happens in the Bush White House.

  4. Paul says:

    Chris run for office and see how the other half lives friend. Is there a Bush led conspiracy to deceive and manipulate the American people ? Please answer that question Chris.

  5. Chris Austin says:

    PAUL – I grew up during the 80s and 90s. Throughout high school and beyond I’ve payed attention. During the Clinton years especially, the conservative movement made a lot of sense to me when it came to making government more efficient. While I disagreed with the social aspect of their agenda, it did seem right on that throwing money at a problem in lieu of demanding accountability was the wrong thing to do.

    When problems are “fixed” by government handouts, it doesn’t work. So when these politicians who said they were about one thing, lead in the exact way they said they wouldn’t, it bothers me.

    Do we pay too much in taxes here in America? Do we borrow too much money from countrys we’re competing with in the global economy? Is government efficient? Are children who grow up in poverty getting a fair shake? These are the questions that matter most to me. The longevity of our success depends on it. MANY nations in the history of the world have been on top only to see it fall away, and we don’t have to go that route.

    All I see is political moves and spin. With this administration their go-to is stoking the level of fear within the country. I’m offended by that.

    Yes, I think Bush does preside over an administration that manipulates the population through the use of fear. If you look at every terror alert last year, there were over 10 instances where it came immediately following some damaging political news. Check out this:

    The Nexus of Politics and Terror

  6. Paul says:

    I am not an apologist for GWB by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not see subterfuge and/or a conspiracy in everything he does either. Politics can be a dirty business. The Republicans and Democrats both get down and dirty all too often, but the system survives. Why?

  7. karl says:

    Paul the system survives because some very smart people set it up about 230 years ago. As long as the judiciary stays independant, and seperation of church and state is respected the system will continue to work.

  8. right thinker says:

    As long as the judiciary stays independant, and seperation of church and state is respected the system will continue to work.

    Which makes you wonder why the Democrats want to fillibuster any non-liberal judicial nominee. Also, what does separation of church and state have to do with keeping the system going.

    I’d argue the most important ammendment is the 2nd because it’s what really keeps the people free. Britain is on it’s way to becoming an Islamic state and France is buring to the ground.

  9. karl says:

    I am not going to try to argue gun control with you, I might even be less in favor of gun restrictions than you are.

    I am not so sure about England and France being in such dire straits.

  10. right thinker says:

    I am not so sure about England and France being in such dire straits.

    Price Charles is the new spokesman for Islamic fundamentalism and Muslims are taking Paris by seige at this very moment. They are being torn apart from within.

    I am not going to try to argue gun control with you, I might even be less in favor of gun restrictions than you are.

    You got that from the re-education camp we went to, right?

  11. Chris Austin says:

    Paul says:
    I am not an apologist for GWB by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not see subterfuge and/or a conspiracy in everything he does either. Politics can be a dirty business. The Republicans and Democrats both get down and dirty all too often, but the system survives. Why?

    It survives because politicians aren’t what’s keeping it together…it’s you and I and the millions of working Americans who ensure the system’s survival. Sometimes our hard work is not enough and we’re undercut by idiotic corporate and civil governance…which take the lives of our children (war), our pensions and drive up the cost of our health care.

    Busting out a terror alert or a pandemic scare when the going gets tough is what I’m against. Using fear to sedate us. It’s dishonest Paul, and it wasn’t done by Clinton that I can ever remember.

    karl: As long as the judiciary stays independant, and seperation of church and state is respected the system will continue to work.

    RT: Which makes you wonder why the Democrats want to fillibuster any non-liberal judicial nominee. Also, what does separation of church and state have to do with keeping the system going.

    ‘Non-liberal’ isn’t correct…if it were, John Roberts would have been filibustered. This new candidate’s opinion stating that women should have to consult the father before having an abortion…that’s dangerous. That’s turning back the hands of time to when wives were owned by their husbands, not allowed to own property or control their own destiny.

    It has nothing to do with liberal or non-liberal, but everything to do with whether the candidate would set the country on a track backwards or forwards.

    RT: I’d argue the most important ammendment is the 2nd because it’s what really keeps the people free. Britain is on it’s way to becoming an Islamic state and France is buring to the ground.

    A firearm doesn’t make someone free. I carried a rifle for 4 years and didn’t feel free at all.

    Britain and France are certainly not becoming Islamic states. IRAQ…if you read the constitution…now THAT’s an Islamic state. IRAN, that’s an Islamic state. PAKISTAN, SYRIA, SAUDI ARABIA, all Islamic states.

  12. karl says:

    Gun laws seem like drug laws to me. The main reason for outlawing drugs is that people think that drugs lead to other crimes. The same can be said for guns. Outlaw the crimes that people supposedely commit not the things that may lead to these these crimes.

  13. That’s turning back the hands of time to when wives were owned by their husbands, not allowed to own property or control their own destiny.

    No, it allows Fathers to be informed about the welfare of their children. The child is equally that of the father as it is of the mother.

  14. Chris Austin says:

    That’s bull. One of them has to squeeze it out of a hole the size…I’ll leave it at that. It’s her body. If a man wants to have a child, he should find a woman who also wants one. Otherwise…it is like the old days. Say the father doesn’t want her to have it? It suddenly becomes up to him then?

    Perhaps this has something to do with this “ownership society” we hear so much about.

  15. Chris Austin says:

    If a woman wants to have sex with the man, she signs over posession of her uterus to him…in Pennsylvania.

    Ownership society…

  16. Chris Austin says:

    As Homer Simpson once said to Marge…”remember, it’s uter-US, not uter-YOU”

  17. Karl says:

    The problem with notifaction laws is that they are telling you what kind of family relationship to have. Ideally if a teenager is pregnant she should be able to discus it with her parents, but in many cases people do not have that kind of relationship with their parents. It is almost like the right wing wants to legislate family closeness, and you cannot make people be close to their parents.

    As for spousal notification the same thing goes, in fact more so, you can argue that parents have a right to know things that their children may not want them to know. But if you are not comfortable talking to your spouse about pregnancy the courts should not be involved. Again the right is trying to make people communicate in their marriages through legislation. Alito is not fit to serve on the supreme court based on his opinion regarding spousal notification. FILABUSTER!!!

  18. Chris Austin says:

    Already they’re going to the knee-jerk spiel about, “so if you’re pro-life, liberals consider you radical, unfit”…much like they take a matter involving a school shooting and put the 2nd Ammendment in every other sentence.

    This is about a concept that’s a little bit more involved than the basic concept of abortion, so 90% of the debate and coverage will consider it too complicated and just stick with the ‘us vs. them’ and ‘this is what liberals see when they look at you’ stuff and kill any notion of an intelligent discussion taking place in the public square over Alito.

    They’ll describe it as if Christians, pro lifers are under assault much like the Jews were during WW2…

    The matter has to do with privacy and freedom, but martyrdom need not make sense to anyone but the charged up fanatic who can hear Satan’s voice every hour of every day telling him to do things…’give in to the notion that this is not a fight between good and evil, come stay down here with me forever’…

    That’s the best thing about religion for some I suppose. It can have an effect like PCP or schitzoprenia…without all the bloodshed and prison cells.

    I can hear Bill O’Reiley now…”The left thinks that because Alito is pro-life, that he’s a radical.”

    They’ll pre-school the issue like they always do.

  19. right thinker says:

    The problem with notifaction laws is that they are telling you what kind of family relationship to have.

    That’s funny, I read it as preventing the government from spliting the family apart. Imagine your 16 year old daughter gets pregnant and the marketing wizards at planned parenthood rack up $5,000 in medical costs and the kid gets hurt in the process.

    Who is responsible to pay the $5,000? Parents and/or guardians, right? Sure the child is under the age of consent to enter into contract but the court took care of that.

    The child who may never have children again can’t go for malpractice since she wasn’t the one who asked for the proceedure, it was the court who took over temporary guardianship. The parents can’t sue because they weren’t the guardians at the time of the malpractice.

    Child protective services then shows up wanting to know why the child is injured and why you didn’t supervise the procedure or any of the care.
    “But I didn’t know” is the response.
    “How could you not see she was pregnant?” is the reply.
    Or
    “Don’t you know who she hangs out with?”
    or any number of things as to why you were such a bad parent that your child had to go through the State to get an abortion.

    Of course, had you know, you would have had time to get help from what ever service providers are in your area to help keep the family together. The way it is now is just a profit making scheme for the abortion providers while giving children the false sense of “dodging the bullet” by not having anyone find out in the short term, until the bill shows up.

    Yet another liberal method of “not having to take responsibility for anything you do” is under attack and I say good riddence.

  20. right thinker says:

    I can hear Bill O’Reiley now…”The left thinks that because Alito is pro-life, that he’s a radical.”

    That is exactly what happens, just look at Roberts? Actually, it’s anyone right of Castro is a radical to the American left.

  21. karl says:

    Right:

    The medical problems that you are worried about are far more likely to occur if the girl has to go to an unqualified doctor. If the 16 year doesn’t want her parents to find out she can go to a back alley clinic, or carry the kid full term and give birth in a restroom stall.

    The morning after pill would solve many of these problems, hopefully soon these pills will be available over the counter. If conservatives are realy so concerned with the health of pregnant women hopefully they will help to make these pills available.

  22. right thinker says:

    If the 16 year doesn’t want her parents to find out she can go to a back alley clinic, or carry the kid full term and give birth in a restroom stall.

    So the government tears familes apart on the off chance that the child will engage in an elaborate pregnancy cover up? If the parents know then either they or someone they can find will be able to help. Why are parents automatically the enemy?

    The morning after pill would solve many of these problems, hopefully soon these pills will be available over the counter.

    I agree for the most part except that a pill is just a band-aid for a larger social problem. With the assault on religion and morals you probably won’t be seeing a real fix anythime soon.

    If conservatives are realy so concerned with the health of pregnant women hopefully they will help to make these pills available.

    Conservatives are concerned about the baby’s health, the family’s health, society’s health AND the girl’s health. Maybe if liberals were a little more open minded and thought beyond the issue….

  23. karl says:

    Maybe we can go back to chastity belts. Or better yet we can completely seperate boys and girls and let the parents arrange marriages. That seemed to be working fine in Afganistan.

    People like to have sex and no amount of legislating is going to change that. Keep abortions safe legal and rare.

  24. right thinker says:

    Maybe we can go back to chastity belts.

    I think this would be a tough sell but if it works for you then just go with it. Btw, how do you get your pants over it?

    Or better yet we can completely seperate boys and girls and let the parents arrange marriages.

    Or, we can acknowledge that government doesn’t have any business mandating family values and leave it up to the private sector. I don’t want to have to get permission from my Senator or a Judge to take my kid to church or to the park or what school to put them in.

    That seemed to be working fine in Afganistan.

    You mean the government sanctioned interference of the family’s right to live by it’s own cultural and social norms? Sounds a lot like Southern California.

    People like to have sex and no amount of legislating is going to change that.

    Hey, we have a common beleif after all!!!

    Keep abortions safe legal and rare.

    Again, we agreee, although I wonder about the left’s commitment to rare. Are we up to 2 million a year yet?

    The liberal version is more like keep abortions state funded, an inalienable right like free speech and as many as the clinics can abort.

  25. karl says:

    We might actually have found common ground. The morning after pill really is a safe alternative to abortion, just as condoms area good thing.

    Governement really should keep their hands off of our reproductive systems. Where you and I differ is how we percieve abortion. I don’t see it as the preffered means of birth control and as long as other forms of contraception are available abortions should become rarer as they were during the 90’s. Abstinence education has led to more STD’s and abortions than giving out condoms in schools.

    Since your return you seem a bit more pragmatic, I guess reeducation camp payed off.

    BTW I hope everything is going well for you. This place gets a little boring without you.

  26. karl says:
    Since your return you seem a bit more pragmatic, I guess reeducation camp payed off.

    Yup, I sure is more smarter!!!

    BTW I hope everything is going well for you. This place gets a little boring without you.

    My strategy is to lie low for a while and then when no one expects it, WHAM, a heavy dose of reason. Then I run for the cover of the underbrush.

    Governement really should keep their hands off of our reproductive systems.

    Exactly, and the fruits of those reproductive systems. My taxes shouldn’t be paying for abortions or heroin or someone elses retirement.

    Abstinence education has led to more STD’s and abortions than giving out condoms in schools.

    By definition, abstinance can’t possible lead to more STDs or abortions. The optimist says that people have control over their own destinys and the pessimist says we are all abunch of howler monkeys who have no choice but to follow the demands of the penis and stick it in anything that moves. I;m leaning towards nurture rather than nature.

  27. karl says:

    Abstinence= no STD’s but Abstinence education leads to all sorts of things.

    Maybe that is the difference between us. I see what people are doing and want to help them do it safely. After all it is what they want to do. You seem to think we should change what it is they want. Maybe that is the difference between a realist and an idealist.

    Have a good day, I am going snowboarding, at least that is still safe and legal.

  28. right thinker says:

    I see what people are doing and want to help them do it safely. After all it is what they want to do. You seem to think we should change what it is they want.

    Kinda like making special gloves for kids who play with matches and fireworks so they don’t burn their hands. Sure, they’ll burn down other stuff but the short-term goals are key.

    And there’s than NAMBLA group and they want to have sex with young boys, after all it’s what they want to do. Some people like to drive 100 mph on the freeway and some like to drink and drive (most drunks make it safely to their destination)

    You seem to think we should change what it is they want.

    Getting everything you want with no consequences is totally unrealistic. When did it become our right to get everything we want because I am beginning to feel left out? That “if it feels good, do it” crap Bill Clinton tried to foist on us ended up being a double edged sword. Maybe there is something to those seven deadly sins (for the non-religious) like glutton and sloth, to name a couple.

    Maybe that is the difference between a realist and an idealist.

    I think it is physical versus mental/moral. If there is no physical pain or suffereing then would you say everything is fine? I look to the mental and emotional consequences for guidance of my actions.

    Sure, an abortion, for example, solves a short-term financial problem an returns someone to a life of conveniance but many mother will ive with the feeling of being pressured to abort by money hungry clinics and/or live a entire life of regret and guilt.

    Where do you think this whole ridiculous fad of becoming a virgin again originated? Girls who got used by guys and are trying to quell the burden of loss.

    Have a good day, I am going snowboarding, at least that is still safe and legal.

    Well lets see, damaging habitat, contributing to global warming, contributing to polution(car exhaust, ski lift grease and grime, trash, etc.), and how many minorities snowboard?

    You are in danger of having your liberal credentials rescinded. You must repent at the altar of Dean and send your ski money to the DNC empire (just put Sith HQ on the envelope and they’ll know where to send it)

  29. karl says:

    You got me on the snowboard thing. Although they are talking about building a rail line to the ski areas which would eliminate some of your concerns. But you make some good points about ski areas.

    I try to avoid born again virgins, as in my experience they usually are stalkers.

    Sex is going to happen why not give people the tools to make it a safe fun experience not something that they have to deny later.

    Trust me on the born again virgin thing if you meet a girl like that change your phone # and don’t let them near any of your pets.

  30. Chris Austin says:

    karl: I see what people are doing and want to help them do it safely. After all it is what they want to do. You seem to think we should change what it is they want.

    RT: Kinda like making special gloves for kids who play with matches and fireworks so they don’t burn their hands. Sure, they’ll burn down other stuff but the short-term goals are key.

    And there’s than NAMBLA group and they want to have sex with young boys, after all it’s what they want to do. Some people like to drive 100 mph on the freeway and some like to drink and drive (most drunks make it safely to their destination)

    You seem to think we should change what it is they want.

    Getting everything you want with no consequences is totally unrealistic. When did it become our right to get everything we want because I am beginning to feel left out? That “if it feels good, do it” crap Bill Clinton tried to foist on us ended up being a double edged sword. Maybe there is something to those seven deadly sins (for the non-religious) like glutton and sloth, to name a couple.

    Maybe that is the difference between a realist and an idealist.

    I think it is physical versus mental/moral. If there is no physical pain or suffereing then would you say everything is fine? I look to the mental and emotional consequences for guidance of my actions.

    Sure, an abortion, for example, solves a short-term financial problem an returns someone to a life of conveniance but many mother will ive with the feeling of being pressured to abort by money hungry clinics and/or live a entire life of regret and guilt.

    Where do you think this whole ridiculous fad of becoming a virgin again originated? Girls who got used by guys and are trying to quell the burden of loss.

    We have an abstinance program already to refer to on whether the concept works or not. It’s called the ‘War on Drugs’. See, with zero tollerance and simply preaching abstinance, we’ve got more tax money paying for the ammo in this war. Then the people we catch live behind bars, requiring more money every year.

    People still get high – and people are ALWAYS going to have sex. Think about it for a second Right, life with no sex. Ponder that for a little bit.

    When I was growing up…my high school years, I might have had sex with a pie if I had thought of it. I was a horny fool…as are millions of young men all over the world, and it’s been like that forever.

    We look at things through our adult eyes, and our logic often collides with the reality of youth, brain chemistry…life. It’s not as much about ignoring the problem as it is getting real about it.

    Look at the decisions our founders made that backfired…women can’t vote, blacks are 3/5 of a person, prohibition – all required ammending the constitution, and all proved that in a free society the worst mistake you can make is to tell the people they can’t do something their body naturally tells them then want to do.

    Because the opposite is all about self-deprication. It forces people to hide, which is unhealthy to begin with. As intelligent human beings, we are capable of making right choices, we are capable of discovering moderation and the answer to ‘why I shouldn’t do this’.

    Of all the lessons we learn in life, very little of it comes from believing what we’re told. Trial and error, and the growth that comes from understanding mistakes is what makes a person great.

  31. karl says:

    Chris:

    Seems like te right wants people to do the the exact opposite of what they want to. It seems like a bad relationship where you keep thinking if you work hard it will all work out. These relationships either end in divorce or misery, but someone gets to be the martyr. Maybe the right wants to make us all martyrs.

  32. Chris Austin says:

    Anyone who says preaching abstinance is the cure to drugs or STDs just doesn’t want to talk about it. Saying ‘don’t do it’ is the easiest way to go about it.

    And when they do it, your hands are supposedly clean.

    Too many of these evangelicals had gay kids, girls who got pregnant…and the mere discussion of either these things wouldn’t be convenient, so the preacherman bails them out.

    That’s not the case with everyone (religion involved), but it is taking the easy way out.

  33. karl says:

    Seems like certain people believe that passing a law against something will make the problem go away. The war on drugs proves that sometimes that does not work.

Comments are closed.