Andy9o8

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask of doctors and nurses who are brave and self-sacrificing enough to risk going to Africa to treat and have direct contact with Ebola patients, that the last phase of their noble service is that when they return home, they need to sideline themselves in some kind of clinical isolation for long enough to be sure they're in the clear. Make it a matter of law that, for example, their income will be paid (we'll work out the details...) and their jobs will be held for them while they're in isolation.

I acknowledge your point. But the 12% mortality rate is from the miniscule sampling in the US (I think). Sure, that's very important, but according to the WHO, the world-wide death rate is closer to 70%. Of course, you and I know that that's mostly in Africa, not in First World-treated patients. Still, that's what people hear and read, so I think they can be forgiven for taking it to heart. Nobody wants to risk putting their hand on Dr. Spencer's sputum in the subway when the WHO is telling people that if you get the disease, you've got a 50-70% chance of dying, and not gradually, like with TB, but really fast. At some level, standards of care in risk management, especially in liability hindsight mentality cultures like in the US, require those in charge to employ very high levels of caution. It's that mindset that I think is guiding the various state governors' policies.

The 3 anecdotes are important, but not the final word on risk. My point is still: contact with infected bodily fluid is what it is. (We could go back & forth forever about this.) Well, every cloud has a silver lining.

You'd certainly not think so. Then again, SUPPOSE - just suppose - Dr. Craig Spencer was contagious when he rode the NYC subway.. and SUPPOSE he sneezed some saliva and phlegm carrying contagion onto a surface, and then someone else touched it, and then touched their face, etc. ..well, you see where this is going. And just like that nurse who rode the plane from Dallas to Cleveland, it has consequences. The perfection of keyboard layperson's hindsight suggests that Spencer should have been hyper-cautious enough to informally restrict himself to home, preferably alone, for at least a while until he was certain he was in the clear. He didn't, and that, too, has had consequences. That's why I don't blame the NY & NJ governors for reacting to the Spencer case with enhanced emergency quarantine rules. Yes, Nurse Hickox's quarantine seems like it may have been handled a bit clumsily, and she's mightily pissed off about it, but I still think on balance the governors were more reasonably prudent than not on that call.

That means his freefall flying skills are weak or rusty. So it's probably his fault.

Not so much legal arguing as factual arguing. And as long as there are more than 1 expert, it's not very hard to get more than 1 opinion as to what conclusion should be drawn from the evidence. I wouldn't presume how that should be applied to this case.

I would accept any forensic evidence (assuming it's proven accurate) for being what it is, for whatever it's worth. But I've been in a forensic evidence-related profession long enough to know that almost any datum of evidence, or collection thereof, is subject to interpretation as to what conclusion to draw from it/them - this is demonstrated all the time in every case in which there are "battles of experts", each drawing different conclusions from the same body of evidence. Philosophically, am I personally capable of professionally keeping all bias at "neutral" and looking at all the evidence in this case - say, as a hypothetical "perfectly fair and objective juror" - and concluding that the sum total of the evidence more probably than not supports the officer more than the decedent, if indeed the evidence compels that factual conclusion? Sure I am. But I'd probably need the assistance of experts in helping me come to my conclusion; and more likely than not, some of the experts may disagree with one another. So I'd have to do my best to sort that out. Sorry not to give you a more direct answer, but that's what it is.

To me as a layperson, the banana republics' bans seems to make some sense: they know they don't have first-class, or even second-class, medical infrastructures in their countries, so they've probably concluded that, patient-for-patient, someone with Ebola entering their country probably poses more of a public health hazard than the same person entering a First-World country.

Sigh. OK, since you felt the need to raise it: If one takes the time to look it up and report it accurately, one will see that Obama made at least 2 public statements yesterday, including (but not limited to) the very sentence of the very statement to which you "refer", specifically referring to the attacks in Canada as terrorism. OK, back to the spirit of the thread: Good on you Canada. Well done. Our thoughts and support are with you all.

Comedian urges Washington Redskins to adopt 'sunburned white person' as their logo

It's a miracle!

Nope, you haven't convinced me. Nor have you rebutted my point. Therefore, you lose. You do, however, get points for evading my point.

I think the point you're missing is that saints, unlike judges, must have performed miracles. Them's the rools - genuine divine intervention channelled through a person to achieve the impossible. JP2 either believed that or he didn't. If he believed there were thousands of people out there performing genuine miracles then he was at least a little bit mental. If he was, for political reasons, canonising people that he didn't believe had performed miracles then he was a cynical liar. That's the long and short of it. I'm not missing the point. The process of rationalizing bridges the gap between belief and cynicism. You're also missing the difference between the effect of a lifetime of intense social and psychological indoctrination (read: religious beliefs) and being a little bit mental.

In the case of Turner and Dish, it really is. That, and a monumental dick-swinging contest between the two. (Seriously.) That aside, the ratings difference between CNN and Fox has a lot do do with demographics. CNN has a comparatively higher proportion of college-educated and white-collar viewers, who tend to watch less TV in the first place, and want their news fast, without lingering. And adding to this dynamic is the increasing number of people who used to trend toward getting their hard news on TV but now get almost all of it on the internet, especially now that internet-friendly smartphones have taken off. On the on the other hand, Foxnews's viewership, for example, has a comparatively higher proportion of blue collar people, those who don't have college educations and retirees, all of whom tend to watch more TV, and also would tend to take the time to linger longer at watching Fox on TV. Al this has little to do with popularity or truthiness than it does demographics.

I think more political pragmatist. Popes on the one hand tend to convey recognitions to those who might be consistent with their own philosophy, in order to stamp their imprimatur on the institution. And on the other hand, they're also conveyed to impart a degree of balance, the better to control (or at least placate) the widest cross-section as possible or to accommodate coalition alliances. By comparison, this is done in secular politics all the time. For example, in the US, a president's philosophical influence can (and does) live on for decades after he leaves office via his appointments to the federal judiciary. (While at the same time, he always appoints a certain number of judges from the opposing party, again for various practical political considerations.)

I'd give first presumption that it was mainly out of practical political considerations. Here's an interesting article on the subject: John Paul II, Oscar Romero and the politics of making saints

I say we set up a big barbecue. In Dresden.

Ooh, excellent trolling. I'll bite. The difference between the US and Germany is that the sentence "We use people to pave our roads" means one thing in one country, and quite another thing in the other.

They also hypnotize you, collect your DNA and clone you. Then they use the clones to claim your estate's assets when you die. Hey, I know a guy who knew a guy who that happened to. So that's what happens. The horror. 3rd post on this site and you're already a genius. Come on over and join us in Speaker's Corner. I think you'd be quite useful there.

Only the popular ones.

What about the ME163?I'm pretty sure it's been retired.

It's because of a shoting. They want free Cosmopolitans and Birkenstocks. The silence from white leaders is deafening. Boehner? Limbaugh? Beuller? Trash. Send em back to Europe.

That's funny. I thought logic and reason were supposed to be a gift for man from god. So you're suggesting he gave us logic, but wanted us to never, ever, use it? Bullshit. He doesn't really believe what he says, nor does he care what you reply, as long as he gets someone to react. "Hee hee, hooked me another one, Maw!" That's pretty much the sum total of it.

The article's headline asks: "U.S. Government Patented Ebola! Why?" So, here's the actual patent documentation: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251502 Excerpts: In theory (and in plain English), the concept is basically this: rather than allowing a single pharmaceutical company to be able to monopolize a pharmaceutical therapy, the US govt, as patent-holder, can license it out to multiple manufacturers, thereby, hopefully, increasing the availability of therapeutic treatment to the public, and decreasing the price. At least that's the idea.

Yes, during Bill Clinton's administration. Also something about John Lennon, I think.