The CDC Guy Isn't Filling Me With Confidence

Sorry for the lack of blog content lately, it's been a bit busy at work.

But how about that Ebola? Between the CDC telling us it's all going to be fine and people getting infected, it's not really inspiring much confidence.

For example, here's something the guy in charge of the CDC said the other day:

"I think there are two different parts of that equation," he continued. "The first is, if you’re a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? And the answer is no."

"Second, if you are sick and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? And the answer to that is also no. You might become ill, you might have a problem that exposes someone around you," he said.

So let me get this straight. I can't get Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus who has Ebola. Great. Got it. I feel safe. But immediately afterwards, this guys says that if I have Ebola, I shouldn't ride on the bus because I might give it to someone. Wait, what? I thought we were all good with Ebola people riding the bus. How does that work? You can't catch Ebola on the bus, but you can give someone Ebola on the bus?

Now, I'm kind of making fun of him here, because I see what he's trying to do. However, he's making his point in a horrible way. In the first part, he's saying that your likelihood of getting Ebola from riding the bus is really low, because it's highly unlikely that anyone on the bus has Ebola.

However, in the next part, he's talking about someone who actually has Ebola shouldn't ride the bus. Well, duh. Obviously. But that's apples and oranges. And it's kind of just a stupid way to say "Don't get all worried about this Ebola thing". But here's the problem: I don't think anyone would worry about Ebola very much if we all felt like the guys at the CDC were really worried about it on our behalf. However, that's not really the vibe they're sending out. The CDC guy keeps sending out the "This Is No Big Deal" vibe to me, and they keep screwing up the protocols.

Over at Brad's blog-o-rama the other day, Brad mentioned how in Tom Clancy's books, there were always competent and diligent professionals who were combating the bad guys - specifically in the situation where bad guys use Ebola against the US as a weapon.

I don't think that the current guy in charge of the CDC fits that mold. He just seems so reactive and passive. He's not an assertive kind of guy that I feel confident is going to do all the things necessary to really contain this disease in an aggressive manner. He seems mostly concerned with PR.

Which I'm sure really worries the Ebola virus.

Obama's Big Mistake

Back in high school, I had a friend who was fairly smart. However, instead of working relatively hard and making great grades, he was always looking to circumvent the rules. He spent almost all of his time and energy trying to find loopholes in school rules and regulations.

More often than not, his actions would get him in trouble with teachers and administrators. He constantly pushed back against almost all authority, constantly pushing the envelope of what was allowed. Basically, he spent most of his time and energy fighting the system, rather than trying to work within the confines of the school rules.

It caused a lot of bad blood between him and the school officials over what were essentially unnecessary conflicts. He ended up graduating, but refusing to participate in the ceremony. If my friend had spent his time simply studying and working to get along with people, he would have been a top student, and he would have probably been the valedictorian, speaking at his graduation, rather than skipping it.

I see that same characteristic in our current President.

Ever since he lost his super-majority in the Senate, he's gotten absolutely nothing done. He goes on and on all the time about how the mean ol' Republicans won't work with him on anything, but the fact is, he doesn't want to work with them, either. Accordingly, our President now spends all his time trying to figure out how much he can get done without Congress. He's doing everything he can to simply avoid Congress on almost every issue. He's unilaterally changing the ACA, fighting the Halbig case so he doesn't have to ask Congress amend the law, raising the minimum wage via executive order and so on. His famous "pen and phone" line is emblematic of his mentality to simply fight/ignore the Legislative branch of our government.

This isn't how to win friends and influence Congress. (Or enact policy.) Another example is evident today, in the realm of the climate change argument.

Just today, the President has now decided that he's going to try and do some strange end run around the fact that the Senate has to ratify treaties. Apparently, the President wants to cut carbon emissions in an international treaty, but he knows the Senate won't approve it. Therefore, rather than going to the Senators and trying to cut a deal and give them something in exchange, the President is now just going to try and do what he can without the Senate.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

Our President isn't even trying to convince the Senate to go along with this. They've told him "no", but he's undeterred. He's going to try and figure out some way to enter into a treaty without actually entering into a treaty. That will be quite a trick.

If the President spent half the time actually trying to compromise and work with Congress that he spends trying to come up with ways around Congress, he might actually get something done. He needs to understand that you can't always get everything you want when there's divided government. Out of all the campaign promises he's made and broken (and there's a lot) the number one promise he's broken is that he would be a pragmatic "uniter", ending our bitter partisanship. He's absolutely done the opposite. As I referenced in my last post, steamrolling the ACA through Congress is what created the Tea Party.

For all of the soul-searching that leftists do about how our foreign aggression "creates" terrorists, they sure don't seem to realize how political aggression created the Tea Party.

But instead, this current President looks like he's going to be end up like my friend from high school. He's going to struggle against the system, and he's going to engender lots of bad blood, and ultimately, it's all going to be a big waste of time and effort, never really reaching his potential. At the rate he's going, he'll probably end up skipping graduation to go play golf.

NCAA Reverses Long-Standing Prohibition on Cookie Cake Icing

Over the weekend the University of South Carolina self-reported 22 violations of NCAA rules. One of the violations were impermissible iced decorations on a cookie cakes that were given to recruits.

See, it's OK to give recruits cookie cakes, but if you put some icing on that cookie cake, then it becomes a violation of NCAA rules. Obviously, that rule makes total sense. We can't have cookie cakes and icing, because that would just devolve into chaos.

However, in a stunning reversal of it's long-standing prohibition on iced cookie-cakes, the NCAA has informed South Carolina that icing on cookie cakes will "no longer be a violation".

You can all sleep easy.

Pat Conroy's Letters Purchased by USC

Happy Saturday. Time for coffee.

In southern author news, Pat Conroy's letters, manuscripts, and journals are now art of USC's collection.

“I’m just terrified that there is something in there from my misspent youth that is going to come up,” he said. “I don’t know what’s in there. I collected everything.”

I hope something interesting is in there. Following the rules is boring.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/16/3451537/uscs-new-pat-conroy-collection.html?sp=/99/205/&ihp=1#storylink=cpy

"Female Bikers Forbidden From Selling Cupcakes At Shooting Range"

I don't have anything against females, bikers, cupcakes, or shooting ranges. Actually, I'm fine with all of them. But together?

That's just a weird headline.

"Golf holes the size of pizzas. Soccer balls on the back nine. A mulligan on every hole."

Apparently, some people think these changes would be a good idea for golf.

Those people would be wrong.

Is this the future of golf? I certainly hope not.

“We’ve got to stop scaring people away from golf by telling them that there is only one way to play the game and it includes these specific guidelines,” said Ted Bishop, the president of the P.G.A. of America, who also owns a large Indiana golf complex. “We’ve got to offer more forms of golf for people to try. We have to do something to get them into the fold, and then maybe they’ll have this idea it’s supposed to be fun.”

As an initial matter, I'm not sure that the decrease of the number of people playing golf is a function of golf's decreased popularity. It may simply be a function of demographics.

Let's face it, golf isn't an easy sport to just pick up and play. It's kind of expensive compared to - say basketball. You can't play it anywhere, like with soccer. And the learning curve is very steep.

For instance, just about anyone can step onto a basketball court and start playing basketball with minimal effort. It won't be very high-level basketball, but you can play it fairly easily. With golf, it's quite the opposite. A first time golfer faces a high degree of failure in learning to play. It's very hard to play golf even moderately well compared to other sports. I'm defining "moderately well" as the ability to go casually play once a month and not be looking for your ball in the woods the whole time.

Golf demands work, patience, and discipline. A lot of it. Young people don't get exposed to golf very much, either. Especially when you compare it to soccer, baseball, basketball. Why?

In general, it's not an easy sport to just pick up. Typically, whom do you see out on a golf course? Older guys - I'd guess an average age of 35-40 or so. That's mostly because older guys have more time to devote to practice, more money to buy the equipment and pay to play, and more patience to go through the learning curve.

So, you've got all the older baby-boomer folks kind of dropping off the radar now, and the golf industry is worried that the twenty-something millennials aren't going to play golf. Well, no. Not right now. Give them a few years. After they go through the phase of seeking their dream job of being an artist in Guatemala or something, they'll settle down, have a family, and grow up. And some of them will start playing golf.

You don't need to change the game to make it more "attractive" to twenty year olds. Changing the hole size is utterly ridiculous. The hardest part of golf for a beginner isn't putting - it's hitting longer shots. I'm not sure who came up with the idea of making the hole larger, but they're a moron.

Also, changing the rules is a stupid idea. The rules of golf are not difficult. You hit the ball and count your strokes in a sequence of increasing, positive, integers. Record your score. That's basically it. Yes, there are more complicated rules for golf. But you learn those as you go. No one ever says "Yeah, I don't play golf because the rules are too complicated."

You want to get young people interested in golf? It's not that hard. Start kids early. Golf already does a good job of this with programs like programs like The First Tee. Could golf do better? Sure. But reaching out to younger folks doesn't have to entail radically changing the game. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.

If you can make golf a fun and positive experience for younger kids, they'll develop into young adults who love the game and play. You don't need to start introducing soccer balls on the back nine.

FAA Expects to Change Rule on Electronic Device Use During Takeoffs and Landings

It's about damn time. This has been a silly rule for far too long.

As I've always said: If I can crash a 747 by listening to my iPod, we've got some serious problems.

How to Button your Suit Jacket

Every time I go to Court I see these rules violated by guys who don't wear jackets very often. For goodness sakes, y'all. If you sit down, unbutton your blazer.

Weekend Open Thread - Break the Rules

The weekend is upon us. Don't feel constrained by the man and his rules that keep you down.

The Rules of Bacon

The Ten Commandments of College Football

Clay Travis is on the right track but I would remove #2 and substitute the following:

If you're a guy, and you come into a room or place where other guys are watching a football game on TV, you may ask what the score is. Thou shalt not ask who is playing.

Your man-card shall be revoked it you cannot tell who is playing in the football game simply by looking.