Swine flu... Hype?

Do you have the H1N1 virus? Or better known by its other name, Swine Flu? As of Thursday, there were over 100 confirmed cases in the United States of this mutated strain of the otherwise common, seasonal Influenza virus. On Wednesday, sadly it was announced that the strain had taken the life of a 22 month old boy in Houston who was visiting from Mexico City.

Fort Worth ISD, amongst other school districts, have announced that it will be closing all schools until at least May 8^th, and the Interscholastic League has announced that all competitive sports have been suspended until May 11^th. All this due to a few cases dispersed throughout the state totaling 26 confirmed. Do they do this for the regular flu season?

When you turn on the television right now, the “swine flu pandemic” is the top story. Mexico has said they have found the origin of the flu to have been a 4 year old boy in Mexico, apparently the water supply to their home was contaminated by pigs, hence the name. Do not be confused, this virus can not be contracted through eating pork. You can still enjoy your Egg McMuffin or your Bacon Cheeseburger.

That is really not the story though. In 1976, there was another “swine flu pandemic” that erupted. At that time, then President Ford had asked Congress to approve the funding for a vaccination for the American public. Over forty million citizens were vaccinated until complications arose that halted the vaccinations. One death was attributed to the actual virus while dozens died from the vaccine and hundreds of others were left paralytic due to complications with the vaccine. Is this really worth the fuss right now? Each year during the flu season, over 30,000 people die from the flu, currently, although it still may be in its early stages, there are few known cases of the “swine flu”. Compared to that, it is really worth all the hype? In Mexico, where healthcare is nil in comparison to that of the United States, there have been almost 100 confirmed deaths due to the virus. People have been making the plea to close the US-Mexico border and halt all flights from Mexico to the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said that closing the border is unnecessary (mainly for commerce reasons) but she did agree to a five day halt on the incoming flights from Mexico. My view, the disease is already here, what’s the point now?

Beyond the hyping of this “pandemic,” this incident has turned into a very political one. Back in February during the “stimulus bill” debates and compromising, moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine proposed the cutting of $900 million that was to be for “pandemic flu preparations”. She wanted this funding stripped from the stimulus because she felt it was not a form of economic stimulus and it should be put into a different appropriations bill. That is what many liberals or democrats want to point out. Yet there is another voice that agreed with Sen. Collins and is quoted as saying, “All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they're all out." That was Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, according to the New York Post on February 8, 2009.

This should not be about politics and it should not be about hyping up a virus to send the American people into a panic. Do yourself a favor, wash your hands and turn off the TV.

Enhanced Interrogations kept us safe.

My article as published in my school newspaper: http://tinyurl.com/EnhInt

National security concerns override personal feelings about methodology

Written by Colt Ables

THURSDAY, 23 APRIL 2009 03:27 PM

Apparently, the problem with “enhanced interrogations” is that they work. Regardless if you call the methods used by the CIA torture or enhanced interrogations, you have to admit that they aided in keeping America safe since September 11, 2001.  Last week, when President Obama ordered the release of top-secret memos that were passed from the White House Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA, people said we are less safe with these details coming to light.  Methods used range from face slapping and a technique called “walling” (throwing someone wearing a protective collar to prevent whiplash into a flexible wall), to the infamous water boarding. I bet the terrorists are relieved to know the methods that we would have used if they are captured. The real issue is about the information that wasn’t released. Much of the information from the memos that did not pertain to the methods used was blacked out. Marc Thiessen, former staffer in the Bush administration, remarked that much of what was blacked out in the memos actually pertained to the information obtained during the interrogations. In a report for The Washington Post, he cited information about a possible attack on the West Coast that involved flying a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles. There was also information that led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said to have been the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Who’s to say the individuals would have cracked in another form of interrogation? But much of the information obtained provided intelligence that helped keep our nation safe.  Now those who provided counsel to President Bush could be in trouble and face prosecution due to a political witch hunt just to stifle the success and legacy of those who kept us safe. If the proposed methods weren’t used and planned attacks thwarted, who’s to say what the consequences would have been? If your mother, father, son or daughter’s life were in danger and you knew that someone had information that could save any of them, would you not use whatever means were necessary to ensure the safety of your loved one?  After Sept. 11, extreme measures were needed to ensure the safety of American citizens and, regardless of your feelings on the methods used, they worked. If you are one who wants to argue that “America’s image has been tainted” — if doing the popular thing at the expense of innocent American lives is your course of action, then what does that make you?

Pirate Problem? by Colt Ables

Was published in my school paper also: http://www.theshorthorn.com/content/view/16766/71/

Over the past few months, if you have been listening to the news, you know that there has been a rise in the number of ships that have been hijacked by pirates. Last week when pirates attempted to hijack the American flagged ship the Maersk Alabama the crew members fought the pirates back and they abandoned the operation, only after taking the captain of the ship hostage onto one of the ship’s lifeboats. After American Navy ships made it to the area, it took five days for the Captain to be rescued. Three Navy Seals simultaneously shot three of the four pirates that were on the lifeboat, rescued the Captain and currently is holding one of the pirates to face criminal prosecution in American courts. Mission accomplished. What now?

Sadly, the French also tried to rescue four hostages being held captive by three Somali pirates just two days before the successful recovery of Captain Phillips, but their operation ended in the death of one of their hostages.

What are we to do to fight against piracy in that area of the world where many ship and crew have been held for ransom, grossing the pirates close to $100 million in 2008. This is the first time in almost two hundred years that an American flagged ship has been taken or its members held for ransom by pirates. Is this a national security issue? Essentially, yes, because just as the terrorists on 9/11 took over four planes to cause harm to America and American lives, pirates could hijack an oil tanker (as has already happened last November but a ransom was paid to get the Saudi oil tanker back) and detonate the contents in a port taking the lives of many innocent people and also disrupting trade. This is already a disruption to trade as hijacked ships are held for more than just days. Currently, there are over 300 hostages being held by Somali pirates and on Monday alone, the pirates had already hijacked four other vessels, their crewmembers, and also it was reported that the American vessel the Liberty Sun was fired upon by the pirates.

The real question, as afore mentioned, what do we do now? Can we afford to send in the Seals every time there is a hostage crisis to take out the pirate or should we attempt to end this nonsense all together? As reported by Bloomberg, a self-proclaimed spokesperson for the pirates, Mohamed Hashi Yasin, declared on Monday, “France and the U.S. will encounter unforgettable lessons… We will treat every country as they treat us.” It was even said that they will target U.S. and French ships now to get their revenge. Can piracy be called terror? Should these men be treated as terrorists and we go after where we know they operate their training camps and dock their boats in Somalia? Yes.

If we want to crack down on this threat to human lives and which slows transport in an area where about 1/10 of trade passes through, we must put an end to these acts of terrorism. They may not be destroying property, but they are putting innocent lives in danger to exploit for financial gain. We must end it, and we must end it now.

Strike the training camps, the “mother ships”, and safe havens with aerial strikes and cut the threat off at its base and possibly allow the ships to carry weapons to defend against these threats on the seas. Killing five of them may send a sign and deter them, but we must take this seriously and the threat by the self-proclaimed spokesman doesn’t really assert that these situations will be ending anytime soon.

Disarm now?

North Korea launched a three-stage, Taepo Dong-2 rocket on April 4th against the warnings from world leaders that this was a provocative action and would have consequences. The said purpose of the launch was to possibly put a satellite into orbit. The rocket was said to have a possible distance of 4400 miles which would have the possibility of hitting Alaska. The North Koreans set the rocket off just hours before the president spoke of global nuclear disarmament in Prague. This action from North Korea defies UN Security Council Resolution 1718 which was adopted in 2006 which prohibited any ballistic missile activity in North Korea.

This event only falls into the broader aspect of President Obama’s speech in Prague proclaiming global nuclear disarmament. Both North Korea and Iran have been in the development stages of producing weapons grade material to use in nuclear weapons. With both of these regimes being hostile to not only the United States but also to their neighboring countries, what would the solution be for these two programs? These regimes are utterly dangerous and pose a serious threat to any effort towards peace in their regions of the world. But how are we to react?

Should they be allowed to continue production of weapons when they hold such hostile views of their neighbors? My answer is no. If they are allowed to produce these weapons, are we to wait until someone is hit with one of their ballistic missiles or preempt such action from even happening? One of the programs which has been developing and implemented over the last three decades is a Missile Defense Program. This is a system of land, sea, and air-based installations that would allow for a possible projectile to be shot down during the three different stages of the trajectory. This of course is effective in the event that such an action is taking place where a ballistic missile is launched successfully. But President Obama is looking to cut missile defense spending amongst other defense measures.

Is this the answer when we know that Mahmoud Ahmadinijad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea harbor ill feelings toward other nations and in the case of the President of Iran, wishes to “wipe Israel off the map”?

In the case of North Korea, NORAD confirmed that the three stages of the missile launch did not reach orbiting distance and did not deliver a satellite. This was seen as a missile launch in breech of UN Security Council resolutions. Should we sit back in inaction and allow the Security Council to apply sanctions? We know how well sanctions worked in Iraq, Saddam Hussein found ways around them and continued weapons development. Hard action is needed and time is limited until their Nuclear proliferation is successful and they develop nuclear weapons. Time is running out for hard, strong action.

TEN THOUGHTS ON AIG from DAVID FRUM
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:56 PM

Taken from NewMajority.com

1. If I worked at AIG, I'd be ashamed to take a bonus, and I am dismayed that anybody there could feel otherwise.

2. The evidence is accumulating that the Obama administration has been much, much less than candid about its AIG decision-making. In particular: for the president to argue that Tim Geithner did not "draft" the bonus clauses in the AIG deal is disingenuous. Of course he did not draft them. Nor did he sweep up the room afterward. He was head of the New York Fed! But he did sign them, so he is responsible.

3. The Obama administration's defense of these bonuses makes things worse. They seem to be representing the AIG bonus-takers as successful blackmailers: We had to agree to pay them or else they would blow up the world economy. That's not a very appealing argument - and it is not an exactly reassuring signal about how the Obama administration would respond to actual terrorists or actual blackmailers.

4. All that said: a contract is a contract - and a contract signed by the US government is something more than an ordinary contract. There can be no reneging.

5. The only thing worse than contract-breaking by the US government would be an attempt by Congress to impose special onerous taxes on a small, discrete group of unpopular people. If that's not unconstitutional, it ought to be.

6. In this matter, Congress has behaved in ways that are simultaneously hysterical, thuggish, and deeply hypocritical. Barney Frank's demand for the release of the names of bonused employees is the lowest, an open invitation to lynch law.

7 Some AIG employees have already voluntarily surrendered their bonuses. When will members of Congress voluntarily return their AIG campaign contributions? And what about you, President Obama?

8. From the start, AIG has been handled with a shocking lack of transparency. Why did it take so many months to identify the counterparties who are receiving taxpayer money via AIG?

9. The role of Goldman Sachs in all this is especially troubling and mysterious. Much more than the names of the bonused AIG employees, I'd like to know the name of the Goldman PR person who persuaded Reuters to report that Goldman was receiving none of the AIG money when in fact it received more than anyone.

10. I fear, I truly fear, that AIG may mark an ideological turning point in American history, a moment that marks the beginning of a sharp turn toward more regulation, more statism, and more populist anti-business feeling. Bitterly ironically, it will be the people who did most to provoke today's outrage whose party will benefit most from it.

The first 50 days

Democrats were quick to usher in the demise of conservatism after this past election in the Age of Obama. Many people touted that conservatives lost when the Republicans suffered the defeat at the polls. But I will remind you, that it was only after the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter that we got a true conservative leader, President Ronald Reagan.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference that was held on February 26-28, there was record attendance with more than 8,500 and over half in attendance were students. All came to rally and reassure those who proclaimed our demise; our conservative principles did not die on November 4^th. Do the liberals have a yearly conference to rally the troops or are they too involved with trying to legalize marijuana, hugging a tree, building a wind-mill, or miscalculating the effects of “global warming”?

It took a bad economy that began in the Nixon and Carter years to get Reagan so if you ask me, it’s looking pretty good for conservatives right now. The economy began to collapse under President Bush, not by his doing alone, and it seems to be getting worse with President Obama and his policies that bring us closer to a state of collectivism everyday. The Dow has plunged below 7000, unemployment is still rising despite what all believed would be the consequence of electing the “Messiah” as some would have him called. Many have learned that President Obama is not a friend of the free-market and despite being “pro-choice” he is not a friend to the worker who does not wish to unionize, wishing to take away his right to choose if he wants to be represented by a union or not.

President Obama is already looking to introduce “universal healthcare” because he says that healthcare costs have skyrocketed over the past few years… maybe he should look at some of the Democrat’s favorite constituency, the trial lawyers, and ask them why the cost of healthcare has risen at such a rapid rate. It is because of excessive lawsuits that have driven up the premiums of a doctor’s liability insurance which aided in the rise in the cost of healthcare.

What about spending? Candidate Obama talked about fiscal responsibility over the campaign and the idea that he would not be one to stand idle as senators and congressmen got away with passing legislation laden with earmarks, but besides some of the spending in the Stimulus bill, the current appropriations bill termed the Omnibus Spending Bill to provide the funding for the rest of the government until year end September 30, this bill has over $7.7 billion in earmarks tallying to over 8,500. Is this going to be another campaign promise that gets broken by the administration who said they were going to be transparent, not hire lobbyists, and bring America together? And just think, it has only been 7 weeks and we didn’t even talk about the three-plus Trillion dollar budget he introduced…

To leave you on a lighter note, did you hear about the difference between the two Messiahs? Jesus saves, Obama spends.

Tax cuts from Gutfeld.

MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: THE ANTIDOTE

One of the big topic of conversations around dinner tables (or in my case, a lunch box filled with discarded ears), is Obama's tax philosophy. Some find it confusing - for he claims he's for tax cuts, yet he's still raising taxes for some Americans (otherwise known as rich jerks).

Now, here's the thing: if the president is going to cut taxes for something like 96 percent of the population, then he`s got to think that tax cuts are good. I mean, you don`t do something to 96 percent, unless it works.

So, why not just go to 100 percent?

Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids waiting for a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 96 percent of the class? No - if you believe there`s an antidote that repairs what's wrong, you don't leave any one out.

But here, we do.

The question, then, is why.

Well, It's not because we need the revenue, because that cash from the top 2 to 4 percent won't help.

So then, why?

Oh yeah - that four percent is "rich." And if you've been basting in the sauce of class warfare most of your life - the rich need to be punished, even if all they've done wrong is get rich.

Which is a nasty form of negative reinforcement. Look, if you're going to get nailed for elevating yourself to a higher financial class, after awhile, you`re going to think, "Why bother."

And then, "Is that meth?"

Worse, the definition of rich? Bull crap. What's rich in one area, is poor in another. A family can live happily on 75 grand in Kansas, but in Manhattan, they'll be turning tricks for oatmeal. Inevitably, the so-called rich are going to have to move out of cities, so they can live on skimpier means – which means a lot of whiny Columbia grads wandering confused at Ace Hardware.

And that's something we can all live without.

-By Greg Gutfeld, taken from Dailygut.com