What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in Public Health, TB.
3 hours ago, Beerman said:

"President Joe Biden’s no-border policy has detonated an explosion of illegal-immigrant apprehensions and got-aways at the southern “frontier.” Millions of Americans consider this one of Biden’s biggest failures, surpassed only by his utterly calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, this fiasco is Biden’s finest hour."

https://nypost.com/2022/02/04/the-border-stampede-isn't-a-biden-a-failure-its-exactly-what-he-and-dems-want/

Biden bad! Be afraid of Brown People! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, Tweety said:

Again, attack the source rather than  what it says.  Typical liberal stance here.  

It's a typical stance in discussion of American politics, don't you think? I mean, Trump supporting Americans have been parroting Trump's "fake news" since 2015 or 16. Liberals don't generally call media sources "fake news" but we often point out when they publish propaganda and other inaccurate and intentionally inflammatory content which isn't reliable.  I routinely remark about the accuracy and reliability of sources when they are known for being neither accurate nor reliable.  

It seems to me that the citations offered were discussed and then separately the sources themselves were noted to be pretty famously biased and unreliable. Isn't the quality and source of information important? Americans for Prosperity is a political messaging group...otherwise known as propaganda.  They've had great success in convincing their audience that we can't step away from coal or petroleum based energy and climate change is liberal propaganda. 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
On 2/4/2022 at 7:50 PM, Beerman said:

I'm not sure why you think they didn't explain why certain studies were or were not included.  

They explain their process, starting on page 5.

The offered a nonsensical reasoning to one of the studies, which actually included "etc" as a reason, they didn't address the few-hundred other studies they excluded.  Of the 34 studies that remained, half were not peer-reviewed studies and of the others only one was not by an economist.  So it was a supposed meta-analysis of an epidemiological question that included none of the hundreds of studies on the subject by epidemiologists. 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
17 hours ago, Beerman said:

Apparently the Biden administration puts some stock in the Johns Hopkins paper.  They are even trying to tie Trump to, and distance themselves from the lockdowns.  

Yes, I'm serious.

"Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president,” she said. “What our objective has been is conveying that we have the tools we need to keep our country open.”

-Jennifer Psaki 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/white-house-casts-covid-19-lockdowns-as-a-trump-era-relic

 

Psaki endorsed the conclusions of the "Johns Hopkins" paper?  Maybe you could specify where that occurred.

She was correct that the only thing resembling a lockdown that we've had was at the very beginning in NYC, which resulted from having to dig large pits for all the dead bodies.  Other than that we've used non-lockdown mitigation measures in order to avoid the need for another lockdown.

I'm not sure how it is that the basic definition of "lockdown" seems to now include wearing a mask to the store, or eating al-fresco, it seems the re-branding of these mitigation measures is to make them seem more horrendously traumatizing, because having to eat outside will of course scar you for life.  It's clearly far worse than small children I've had to escort into their parents hospital room so they can watch them die.

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
On 2/4/2022 at 11:25 PM, Beerman said:

Just for fun, we'll pretend that what you say is all there is to it.

So, seems than that high prices then were very predictable.   What did the Biden administration do to help head off high oil prices?  Say, for example, what did they do to encourage oil producers to ramp up production?

He's granted more drilling permits that Trump did in his first, by a fairly wide margin.  https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-data-biden-slays-trumps-first-year-drilling-permitting-by-34-2022-01-21/

The new regulatory measures you mentioned from the Heritage article were actually far less than what even many Republicans were hoping for.  DeSantis for instance was pushing for a full ban rather than just limited restrictions.  So if he's supposedly anti-oil, but yet somehow makes DeSantis look like a hippie environmentalist by comparison?

He has taken some steps to try to revive the emerging renewable energy markets that Trump decided to abandon in favor of coal (which lost the US an estimated 600,000 jobs).  Do you really think it makes sense to simply not take part in an inevitable future market?

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.
15 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It's a typical stance in discussion of American politics, don't you think? I mean, Trump supporting Americans have been parroting Trump's "fake news" since 2015 or 16. Liberals don't generally call media sources "fake news" but we often point out when they publish propaganda and other inaccurate and intentionally inflammatory content which isn't reliable.  I routinely remark about the accuracy and reliability of sources when they are known for being neither accurate nor reliable.  

It seems to me that the citations offered were discussed and then separately the sources themselves were noted to be pretty famously biased and unreliable. Isn't the quality and source of information important? Americans for Prosperity is a political messaging group...otherwise known as propaganda.  They've had great success in convincing their audience that we can't step away from coal or petroleum based energy and climate change is liberal propaganda. 

I can't disagree.  

Biden is not advancing the Republican conservative agenda and it's their media informing their side on how he is not doing that.  And yes, they especially along with Fox News and their huge audience is quite effective.  

But sometimes saying "pfft look at the source" and totally dismissing it doesn't sit well with me.  

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.
17 hours ago, nursej22 said:

Biden bad! Be afraid of Brown People! 

The article makes it look like Biden is handing out free airline tickets "here you go, have nice trip, enjoy your vacation"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/04/claims-ghost-flights-illegal-immigrants-don't-add-up/

Again, with the "open border" crap.  Granted the numbers are greater during the Biden Administration.  We saw this coming when Trump was defeated.  By virtue of the fact that Biden isn't Trump the numbers increased.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-doesnt-have-open-border-policy-so-why-do-republicans-say-otherwise-1672356

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
15 hours ago, MunoRN said:

 He's granted more drilling permits that Trump did in his first, by a fairly wide margin.  https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-data-biden-slays-trumps-first-year-drilling-permitting-by-34-2022-01-21/

The permits are granted on previously sold leases.  He's legally required to grant them, although some believe there are ways he could slow it down.

The reason he is doing so many is because the president before him sold so many leases.

15 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The new regulatory measures you mentioned from the Heritage article were actually far less than what even many Republicans were hoping for.  DeSantis for instance was pushing for a full ban rather than just limited restrictions.  So if he's supposedly anti-oil, but yet somehow makes DeSantis look like a hippie environmentalist by comparison?

I'm not sure what regulations you think Republicans and DeSantis want more of?

15 hours ago, MunoRN said:

 He has taken some steps to try to revive the emerging renewable energy markets that Trump decided to abandon in favor of coal (which lost the US an estimated 600,000 jobs).  Do you really think it makes sense to simply not take part in an inevitable future market?

Yes.  Let the free market dictate the future of renewables.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Renewables deserve the same level of federal subsidizing that fossil fuels have enjoyed...don't you agree @Beerman ? Isn't it important to invest in our energy future if we want to be geopolitically secure?

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Let's talk about "free market" capitalism since it's been mentioned in relationship to renewable energy development.  

First, isn't it important to start from shared understanding? I understand that all capitalist markets are regulated by government...there is no actual capitalist economy that is free from regulation...do we agree on that? Do we also agree that the primary role and function of American government is to protect the health and welfare of We the People?

My opinion was heavily influenced by the writings of Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich and Klugman. Here is an example. How were your thoughts about the economy influenced. 

Quote

Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which government “intrudes”. According to this view, whatever we might do to reduce inequality or economic insecurity – to make the economy work for most of us – runs the risk of distorting the market and causing it to be less efficient, or of unintended consequences that may end up harming us. The “free market” is to be preferred over “government”.

Quote

This prevailing view is utterly false. There can be no “free market” without government. A market – any market – requires government to make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market”. It creates and maintains the market.

Market rules are neither neutral nor universal. They partly mirror a society’s evolving norms and values. But they also reflect who in society has the most power to make or influence the underlying market rules.

Our politics have created an income and wealth inequality in this country that is not sustainable...IMHO. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Renewables deserve the same level of federal subsidizing that fossil fuels have enjoyed...don't you agree @Beerman ? Isn't it important to invest in our energy future if we want to be geopolitically secure?

Japan has been extracting crude oil from plastics since 2017.  Korea is gearing up for 2024.  I can't find that we are using this technology in America and can only wonder if our wealthiest PAC in Washington has influenced this decision for our country.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Let's talk about "free market" capitalism since it's been mentioned in relationship to renewable energy development.  

Let's not.  I'm not interested in spending my time here debating and trying to narrow down a definition that we all agree on.

I believe you know what I meant.  But, I'll restate my thought, anyway. 

Yes, I'll agree that in general a certain amount of regulation is necessary.

However, the govt shouldn't be going out of it's way to overregulate one industry while doing the same to prop up another.  

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion