Jesus and Mary Chain - Happy When it Rains
Just a little musical interlude because pretending I am 14 again without a care in the world takes me away, temporarily, from all the goings-on of the world.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
AGW Warning from 1989
Just some key words from the vid that stick in my head.... things like 'It's unclear whether' global warming is the cause of the problems with crops, but 'there is a 50-50 chance' if we don't do something, 'even if it's not sure', it could be a catastrophy in 2 decades.
Wait it's 2009 now....
___________
I'm just updating this with one of my random thoughts again..... Why are people having such a hard time believing that the AGW scientists could be fiddling data, hiding data, etc in order to achieve their end goal? Haven't there been cases over the years where scientists hid, for example, possible drug side effects that they did know about but were hoping weren't going to be severe enough to be noticed? Pharmaceutical companies don't just magically create medications - these things are researched and tested and created by scientists. I don't know if there are recent cases of outright deception, but my brain is tickling in the far recesses of memory that I have heard stories over the years of people receiving compensation and others being charged for not releasing all of their findings properly. If scientists did it then, why can't they do it now? What holds them up on a pedestal anyway?
And then, what makes these particular scientists the all-knowing ambassadors when there ARE other scientists who are skeptical or downright disagreeing with their findings? Why are these scientists 'right' but the others are 'wrong'? Who determines that? It's difficult to be a person who was not trained in this field to make any sense of what is going on. But to automatically assume one group of scientists is incapable of being deceiptful just because they are 'scientists' is a little bit naive, don't you think? Especially since they claim the skeptical scientists are the ones with-holding data and manipulating results. Do you see what I am trying to say here?? Regardless of what the outcome is, both groups accuse the other of manipulating data so someone MUST BE. It IS possible... so who is it? Don't automatically assume you know how to pick sides when you have no way of checking the facts yourself unless you too are a scientist in this field and 100% sure of your findings with untainted proof to back it up. Otherwise you are just a sitting duck like the rest of us, wondering who is going to win - and which ones are being deceiptful and hiding truths from us. Remember- someone MUST be manipulating data. And they are all scientists... so where does that leave Mr Joe Public in sorting through this mess?
Medical Musings Update 2
Just for interest, the mammogram/health care bill seems Clear As Mud, doesn't it?
1 - From the Washington Post : "As a health reform bill endorsed by President Obama marches toward its first Senate floor vote on Saturday, his opponents stepped up efforts to define the legislation as big-government ambition run amok that will interfere with intimate medical decisions and threaten the pocketbooks of average taxpayers.....Meanwhile, the surprise recommendation this week by a quasi-government panel that women should have fewer mammograms injected a volatile issue into the health debate....Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way.....But White House officials dismissed that as overheated rhetoric and expressed little concern that the issue would resonate with Democratic lawmakers or average Americans.....""Many of the opponents of health reform stopped relying on truth, facts and reasoned argument a long time ago," said Dan Pfeiffer, White House deputy communications director. " November 21, 2009
2 - Then I heard on Robin Mead this morning that perhaps that isn't quite so true due to a section of the bill and I did some checking on CNN.com but all I could find at short notice was this article "I want my mammogram". One excerpt says "Sebelius says the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." [Sebelius is the Health and Human Services Secretary]. November 19
3 - So I googled "mammogram + health care bill" and found a number of people talking about Section 2708 of the Senate Health Care Bill. One such blog is here. Excerpt: "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for— (1) items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;".......
Now read the USPSTF recommendation for mammograms: "The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation."
Well isn't that just clear as mud??? Since Mammograms have been recommended at Grade C, what does that mean from the bill? I have yet to find anything that says insurers will cover Grade C, just Grades A and B.
But beyond that, why is the Health and Human Services Director saying that the Task Force does not set federal policy or determine what is covered, but the Section 2078 lists rules for insurers BASED ON recommendations of the Task Force? Sure maybe they don't 'set policy' themselves - but isn't that walking a very fine line? They don't set policy, but their recommendations are put into the policy. What the heck is the difference? To me it's just mincing words - careful wording that isn't exactly a bold-faced lie but it might as well be because at the end of the day, what the Task Force says, goes.
You can see a full list of recommendations and statements from the Task Force HERE and I suggest to watch for an update on the cervical cancer screenings in the near future. Currently it sits at Grade A (which I believe is where mammograms sat before last week), but new reports suggest the grading will change if the Task Force decides to do that.
But I thought they did not determine what gets covered? Oh that's right, it's the politicians who are determining that they will write policies on what the Task Forces determines. Clear as Mud.
What was stated in the Washington Post at the top of this entry? Oh yeah - ".Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way."
Sheesh those crazy conservatives have no idea what they are talking about eh?
1 - From the Washington Post : "As a health reform bill endorsed by President Obama marches toward its first Senate floor vote on Saturday, his opponents stepped up efforts to define the legislation as big-government ambition run amok that will interfere with intimate medical decisions and threaten the pocketbooks of average taxpayers.....Meanwhile, the surprise recommendation this week by a quasi-government panel that women should have fewer mammograms injected a volatile issue into the health debate....Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way.....But White House officials dismissed that as overheated rhetoric and expressed little concern that the issue would resonate with Democratic lawmakers or average Americans.....""Many of the opponents of health reform stopped relying on truth, facts and reasoned argument a long time ago," said Dan Pfeiffer, White House deputy communications director. " November 21, 2009
2 - Then I heard on Robin Mead this morning that perhaps that isn't quite so true due to a section of the bill and I did some checking on CNN.com but all I could find at short notice was this article "I want my mammogram". One excerpt says "Sebelius says the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." [Sebelius is the Health and Human Services Secretary]. November 19
3 - So I googled "mammogram + health care bill" and found a number of people talking about Section 2708 of the Senate Health Care Bill. One such blog is here. Excerpt: "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for— (1) items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;".......
Now read the USPSTF recommendation for mammograms: "The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation."
Well isn't that just clear as mud??? Since Mammograms have been recommended at Grade C, what does that mean from the bill? I have yet to find anything that says insurers will cover Grade C, just Grades A and B.
But beyond that, why is the Health and Human Services Director saying that the Task Force does not set federal policy or determine what is covered, but the Section 2078 lists rules for insurers BASED ON recommendations of the Task Force? Sure maybe they don't 'set policy' themselves - but isn't that walking a very fine line? They don't set policy, but their recommendations are put into the policy. What the heck is the difference? To me it's just mincing words - careful wording that isn't exactly a bold-faced lie but it might as well be because at the end of the day, what the Task Force says, goes.
You can see a full list of recommendations and statements from the Task Force HERE and I suggest to watch for an update on the cervical cancer screenings in the near future. Currently it sits at Grade A (which I believe is where mammograms sat before last week), but new reports suggest the grading will change if the Task Force decides to do that.
But I thought they did not determine what gets covered? Oh that's right, it's the politicians who are determining that they will write policies on what the Task Forces determines. Clear as Mud.
What was stated in the Washington Post at the top of this entry? Oh yeah - ".Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way."
Sheesh those crazy conservatives have no idea what they are talking about eh?
Friday, November 20, 2009
What Is This???
Climate Research Unit (UK) hacked?
I got there via Al Fin's blog post .
.
ETA: I see that WCVarone blogged about this earlier as well.
And this is an interesting set of email excerpts, links to various news organizations breaking news pieces, and the visitor comments are interesting to read as well - from Gather.com
I got there via Al Fin's blog post .
.
ETA: I see that WCVarone blogged about this earlier as well.
And this is an interesting set of email excerpts, links to various news organizations breaking news pieces, and the visitor comments are interesting to read as well - from Gather.com
Medical Musings Update
Wow that was fast lol. I made a prediction yesterday that pap smears would be next on the list in the US to be done every 3-5 years instead of yearly... and they announced last night that they recommend every other year. I was close enough ;)
Again, another thing we have been doing up here for awhile. I don't know what the stats are, I don't know if it has harmed anyone, but it's just another example of how money-saving is trumping personal choices over health care.
I used to get letters in the mail every year from my provincial health authority telling me how important it was to get yearly paps, detailed information on how fast the cells can form and how women need to keep on top of their health. Now I only get a short letter every 2 or 3 years telling me that I should get a pap done within the next year. Is the change mainly based on cost saving? Of course it is - they say there is no evidence to show that yearly mamms or paps save lives better than waiting longer, but it is still cost driven. If I want to get a pap every year, who are they to tell me I don't have to or to tell me I CAN'T? I pay into this system every month, every day, through my taxes and so do millions of other women. But someone on a Board decided that we don't have to get this done - because they don't want to pay for it. They consider it a frivilous cost.
What's next? I don't have another prediction right now but if I think of one I'll post it here.
AP News Link
I also noticed something else interesting in the article. They changed the age to 21 when previously it was within 3 years of sexual intercourse, or 21 (whichever comes first).
Now let's think about HPV. The Gardasil shot is being pushed in the US because it covers some strains of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer. When I looked it up while ago, they figured 30-40 strains of HPV can lead to cervical cancer. HPV is passed through sexual contact. The Gardasil shot only covers 4 strains of HPV.
Okay so let's say a 14 year old girl starts having sex, unprotected, with multiple partners over the years. She follows the guidelines and doesn't get a pap for 7 YEARS. HPV is the most common STI and about 50% of Americans will have some form of HPV at one time or another.
The test for HPV is included in the regular cervical cancer screening (pap smear).
So now they are saying it's okay for all these teens to go for years having sex but not get tested for HPV or cancer until they are 21. That's a lovely idea!
Again, another thing we have been doing up here for awhile. I don't know what the stats are, I don't know if it has harmed anyone, but it's just another example of how money-saving is trumping personal choices over health care.
I used to get letters in the mail every year from my provincial health authority telling me how important it was to get yearly paps, detailed information on how fast the cells can form and how women need to keep on top of their health. Now I only get a short letter every 2 or 3 years telling me that I should get a pap done within the next year. Is the change mainly based on cost saving? Of course it is - they say there is no evidence to show that yearly mamms or paps save lives better than waiting longer, but it is still cost driven. If I want to get a pap every year, who are they to tell me I don't have to or to tell me I CAN'T? I pay into this system every month, every day, through my taxes and so do millions of other women. But someone on a Board decided that we don't have to get this done - because they don't want to pay for it. They consider it a frivilous cost.
What's next? I don't have another prediction right now but if I think of one I'll post it here.
AP News Link
I also noticed something else interesting in the article. They changed the age to 21 when previously it was within 3 years of sexual intercourse, or 21 (whichever comes first).
Now let's think about HPV. The Gardasil shot is being pushed in the US because it covers some strains of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer. When I looked it up while ago, they figured 30-40 strains of HPV can lead to cervical cancer. HPV is passed through sexual contact. The Gardasil shot only covers 4 strains of HPV.
Okay so let's say a 14 year old girl starts having sex, unprotected, with multiple partners over the years. She follows the guidelines and doesn't get a pap for 7 YEARS. HPV is the most common STI and about 50% of Americans will have some form of HPV at one time or another.
The test for HPV is included in the regular cervical cancer screening (pap smear).
So now they are saying it's okay for all these teens to go for years having sex but not get tested for HPV or cancer until they are 21. That's a lovely idea!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Medical Musings
So there is some uproar in the US over a recommendation that women not have mammograms until the age of 50, and bi-yearly after that instead of yearly. I note the concerns and the reasons.
But this has already been going on in Canada for a decade, or at least in BC and Alberta. My ex's mom was going for yearly mammograms in the 90s because of breast cancer in her family. In about 1999, she was told to go every other year instead. So two years later she went for a mamm and they found a lump. It had passed through the stages and they found cancer cells in about 11 of 13 lymph nodes in her armpits. She had radical surgery, chemo, and radiation. I am happy to report that she is still in good health and did very well throughout her treatments. However - I have always wondered if it could have been caught sooner if the yearly mammogram had not been cut? It is just happenstance? Did it form so quickly that a yearly one would not have made a difference? We will never know the answer to that but I think about it even more now that the US is facing the same changes.
Another thing for me to note and then predict for the US is a change in the pap smear testing. When I was 18, I was told I should have a pap yearly. But several years ago I was told they decided that every 3-5 years is more acceptable for those who have never had an abnormal result (I am one of them). So now I go every 3 years. Maybe I should insist on going every year? I just don't know. There is no history of cervical cancer in my family but is forcing women to wait 3-5 years the answer? I am not due for another for 1.5 years so what if I already have something starting down there? What could another year of waiting to discover it do to me? The chances are probably very slim but how do I know for sure?
Here are my thoughts on this - it is largely cost-related. If you think about it, every woman over 18 (or from whatever sexually active age) getting a pap every year takes up a lot of time and money. I use a half hour appt slot for a Physical, when normally the doc could see 3 patients in that time period (or six 5-minute walkin patients). Every woman doing that is a strain on our public health system and backs up appts, let alone the cost of having the tests checked out and the results returned. The same with mammograms. I realize they have looked into this and found that a ton of money is going to these programs when only a handful result in positive diagnoses... but aren't they playing with our lives now and experimenting? We won't know for another decade or two if changing these tests to 2-5 yr waits and changing the age to start is going to be better for us or worse. That is one major flaw in a public system. So much of the decision is money-based, it's hard to know if it's for our own personal good, or just good for the coffers. I say it's more the latter. If we had the option to pay into a private insurance company that then decides it will cover yearly mammograms or yearly smear tests, then the money would not be coming from the public tax pile and it would free up more cash for other things (whether it's for people choosing to stay on a public system entirely, or for other medical issues). So I do not understand why we are not allowed to do this. It makes no sense to me.
I am perfectly willing to keep my taxes as they currently are and help fund the public system, but I would like to be offered a choice on top of that. What if I decide it's worth it to also buy private insurance for my family? I do not have that choice though - not for basic health care. It's the govt system or bust (or go to another country). I don't have the money to do THAT but I could figure out the money for a private basic health insurer. Maybe I won't buy that honking huge new tv and put the money towards my family's health instead. But those are just pipe dreams because the option is not available right now and in the meantime, we see cuts left and right. Alberta Health Services has announced a further 1000 job cuts (600 by not filling current vacancies, and over 500 other services that have not been fully specified yet). Some taking voluntary buyout... but the rest is a mystery as of yet. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's not. We have to wait and see where the jobs get slashed before we know for sure.
There is talk of closing hundreds of elderly-care beds in Calgary and Edmonton. What if my gran was in one of them and I wanted her to stay put? I can't pull out my private insurer card and say 'don't worry, it's covered'. I would have no choice but to find somewhere else for poor nana if she could not safely live with us (history of senile dementia in my family). There are no real choices and options for most Canadaians/Albertans and now I see the US following suit yet again. If it's not working here and the evidence is right in front of their faces, why are they still playing follow the leader? There are so many things going on down there right now that have been tried in other countries but they seem to think they can do it better. Well,,,, good luck with that.
But this has already been going on in Canada for a decade, or at least in BC and Alberta. My ex's mom was going for yearly mammograms in the 90s because of breast cancer in her family. In about 1999, she was told to go every other year instead. So two years later she went for a mamm and they found a lump. It had passed through the stages and they found cancer cells in about 11 of 13 lymph nodes in her armpits. She had radical surgery, chemo, and radiation. I am happy to report that she is still in good health and did very well throughout her treatments. However - I have always wondered if it could have been caught sooner if the yearly mammogram had not been cut? It is just happenstance? Did it form so quickly that a yearly one would not have made a difference? We will never know the answer to that but I think about it even more now that the US is facing the same changes.
Another thing for me to note and then predict for the US is a change in the pap smear testing. When I was 18, I was told I should have a pap yearly. But several years ago I was told they decided that every 3-5 years is more acceptable for those who have never had an abnormal result (I am one of them). So now I go every 3 years. Maybe I should insist on going every year? I just don't know. There is no history of cervical cancer in my family but is forcing women to wait 3-5 years the answer? I am not due for another for 1.5 years so what if I already have something starting down there? What could another year of waiting to discover it do to me? The chances are probably very slim but how do I know for sure?
Here are my thoughts on this - it is largely cost-related. If you think about it, every woman over 18 (or from whatever sexually active age) getting a pap every year takes up a lot of time and money. I use a half hour appt slot for a Physical, when normally the doc could see 3 patients in that time period (or six 5-minute walkin patients). Every woman doing that is a strain on our public health system and backs up appts, let alone the cost of having the tests checked out and the results returned. The same with mammograms. I realize they have looked into this and found that a ton of money is going to these programs when only a handful result in positive diagnoses... but aren't they playing with our lives now and experimenting? We won't know for another decade or two if changing these tests to 2-5 yr waits and changing the age to start is going to be better for us or worse. That is one major flaw in a public system. So much of the decision is money-based, it's hard to know if it's for our own personal good, or just good for the coffers. I say it's more the latter. If we had the option to pay into a private insurance company that then decides it will cover yearly mammograms or yearly smear tests, then the money would not be coming from the public tax pile and it would free up more cash for other things (whether it's for people choosing to stay on a public system entirely, or for other medical issues). So I do not understand why we are not allowed to do this. It makes no sense to me.
I am perfectly willing to keep my taxes as they currently are and help fund the public system, but I would like to be offered a choice on top of that. What if I decide it's worth it to also buy private insurance for my family? I do not have that choice though - not for basic health care. It's the govt system or bust (or go to another country). I don't have the money to do THAT but I could figure out the money for a private basic health insurer. Maybe I won't buy that honking huge new tv and put the money towards my family's health instead. But those are just pipe dreams because the option is not available right now and in the meantime, we see cuts left and right. Alberta Health Services has announced a further 1000 job cuts (600 by not filling current vacancies, and over 500 other services that have not been fully specified yet). Some taking voluntary buyout... but the rest is a mystery as of yet. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's not. We have to wait and see where the jobs get slashed before we know for sure.
There is talk of closing hundreds of elderly-care beds in Calgary and Edmonton. What if my gran was in one of them and I wanted her to stay put? I can't pull out my private insurer card and say 'don't worry, it's covered'. I would have no choice but to find somewhere else for poor nana if she could not safely live with us (history of senile dementia in my family). There are no real choices and options for most Canadaians/Albertans and now I see the US following suit yet again. If it's not working here and the evidence is right in front of their faces, why are they still playing follow the leader? There are so many things going on down there right now that have been tried in other countries but they seem to think they can do it better. Well,,,, good luck with that.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Transparent
There has been a lot of talk about the apparent errors on Recovery.gov listing stimulus money and jobs saved/created in congressional districts that do not actually exist. I have also heard responses such as 'it was human error' and the whole thing was passed off as not meaning anything. Okay fine, there is always human error when entering data into a computer system (ever had an argument with a bank or bill payee? and they chant 'But the Computer Says.....' until you scream?). But you should also think about how democrats would have reacted if this happened under a republican president. Would they just say 'oh it's human error, it's okay' and go on about their business? Doubtful!!! I just thought it wa funny because the heading of the webpage listing 'where the money is going' is actually called Transparency, yet it apparently incorrectly lists where over 6.4 Billion dollars was spent - in 440 districts that do not actually exist. Some have called it 'kinks in the system', which does happen, but shouldn't someone have fact-checked the info before it went on the site? Surely with the millions spent on creating and upkeeping the site, someone could hire a fact checker lol. But the WH response was that typos and code errors do not undermine the information.
Well the point of the website was for the American public to be able to click at any time to see where every dime was spent (according to the president himself) - but that is not happening. Instead they are NOT finding out where billions of dollars were spent. Is it that big a deal or should it be swept under the rug? Just remember that these are the people who say they can organize your health care and do it ELECTRONICALLY because that is much more fast and effiecient. Hmmm. With typos and code errors plus the ever-present human error entering info in the first place - is it going to be the god-send that everyone is hoping for? That's just something to think about.
In other news, I watched a clip last week of Jon Steward (Daily Show) poking fun at people who are constantly talking about the size of the health care bills. He laughed and jokes about it being 800 pages, 1000 pages, 1600 pages, how much it weighed, etc. He seemed to be joking that it didn't matter how big the darn thing was - but I also noted that a lot of his vids were taken out of context. Especially at the beginning when a 1000 page document was released only hours before a vote was to take place. So yes, the size of the document WAS very important because how on earth was someone supposed to take time to read the whole document in time to vote accordingly? If I gave him a 1000 page script 4 hours before his program and said he needed to know every detail inside, he would laugh in my face. So why was he laughing at the senators and congressmen who were complaining about the health care bill? Seriously Jon... you think your viewers are THAT stupid??
Well the point of the website was for the American public to be able to click at any time to see where every dime was spent (according to the president himself) - but that is not happening. Instead they are NOT finding out where billions of dollars were spent. Is it that big a deal or should it be swept under the rug? Just remember that these are the people who say they can organize your health care and do it ELECTRONICALLY because that is much more fast and effiecient. Hmmm. With typos and code errors plus the ever-present human error entering info in the first place - is it going to be the god-send that everyone is hoping for? That's just something to think about.
In other news, I watched a clip last week of Jon Steward (Daily Show) poking fun at people who are constantly talking about the size of the health care bills. He laughed and jokes about it being 800 pages, 1000 pages, 1600 pages, how much it weighed, etc. He seemed to be joking that it didn't matter how big the darn thing was - but I also noted that a lot of his vids were taken out of context. Especially at the beginning when a 1000 page document was released only hours before a vote was to take place. So yes, the size of the document WAS very important because how on earth was someone supposed to take time to read the whole document in time to vote accordingly? If I gave him a 1000 page script 4 hours before his program and said he needed to know every detail inside, he would laugh in my face. So why was he laughing at the senators and congressmen who were complaining about the health care bill? Seriously Jon... you think your viewers are THAT stupid??
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Borrowing a blog post
More stories of the wonders of Canada's Health Care system, where it IS rationed and the proof is all around you. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Little Girl Caught In The Middle Of Health Care Politics from Unambiguously Ambidextrous
Little Girl Caught In The Middle Of Health Care Politics from Unambiguously Ambidextrous
Larry King/Campbell Brown/Al Gore
So I was just watching Campbell Brown's No Bias No Bull on the news and she had a segment making fun of Carrie Prejean's appearance on Larry King Live. Carrie told Larry he was being inappropriate over some questions he asked her, and in another part she started to take off her microphone because the agreement was to not take any phone calls, but Larry King suddenly went to take a caller (i'll see if I can find a link for this later). Brown said something like 'if you make a sex tape, you don't have the right to call anyone inappropriate' and then she had a little laugh and was highly sarcastic.
Five seconds later, tonight's Larry King Live started with Al Gore as his guest. What? No mention from Campbell about what happened a month ago when a journalist was asking Gore about polar bears and global warming - when suddenly the journalist was swarmed and his microphone was eventually turned off? After Gore refused to answer and instead posed another question back repeatedly. Where is Campbell with her sarcasm and rolling eyes on this Larry King Live guest??
It really is quite pathetic. I swear every show on CNN/HLN is an Op Ed stint even though many of them have made disparaging comments about the 'conservative blogosphere'. How are their programs any different from Op Ed pieces in newspapers or on blogs?
Al Gore and journalist Phelim McAleer:
Thanks to http://deceiver.com/2009/10/12/al-gore-stays-cool-as-a-cucumber-in-a-blast-furnace/ for the vid link.
____
Here is a link to the CNN clip of Prejean on Larry King Live. On Campbell Brown tonight, it was reported that part of the agreement of being on the show was Carrie NOT taking phone calls but I can't confirm that right now.
Five seconds later, tonight's Larry King Live started with Al Gore as his guest. What? No mention from Campbell about what happened a month ago when a journalist was asking Gore about polar bears and global warming - when suddenly the journalist was swarmed and his microphone was eventually turned off? After Gore refused to answer and instead posed another question back repeatedly. Where is Campbell with her sarcasm and rolling eyes on this Larry King Live guest??
It really is quite pathetic. I swear every show on CNN/HLN is an Op Ed stint even though many of them have made disparaging comments about the 'conservative blogosphere'. How are their programs any different from Op Ed pieces in newspapers or on blogs?
Al Gore and journalist Phelim McAleer:
Thanks to http://deceiver.com/2009/10/12/al-gore-stays-cool-as-a-cucumber-in-a-blast-furnace/ for the vid link.
____
Here is a link to the CNN clip of Prejean on Larry King Live. On Campbell Brown tonight, it was reported that part of the agreement of being on the show was Carrie NOT taking phone calls but I can't confirm that right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)