Jimmy Kimmel returned to his late-night show after a lengthy summer hiatus on Tuesday where he hit the ground running by mocking the unvaccinated.
[. . .]
"Dr. Fauci said if hospitals get any more overcrowded they're going to have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed," the host continued. "That choice doesn’t seem so tough to me. ‘Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right in, we’ll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy.'"
That's the real Jimmy Kimmel. He id disgusting. Many of us remember The Man Show on Comedy Central and remember him for the sewer rat he truly is. He used his own son to try to sell himself as a good guy by sporting crocodile tears on TV. First off, cry baby TV hosts? I don't need them. I don't care whether it's Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Jimmy Kimmel or whomever. You cry in an interview that you sit down with Barbara Walters for? That's one thing. You start bawling on air on your own talk show? Grow up.
Jimmy Kimmel is not a health expert. I don't claim to be. This is from Yale University:
COVID-19 can cause severe medical complications and lead to death in some people and vaccination can help protect you and others around you from COVID-19. In certain circumstances, people may be advised by their doctor to receive a specific type of COVID-19 vaccine or to delay vaccination due to immunosuppressing medical treatment or surgery to a future date when immunization is more likely to have an effective immune response. Pregnant and lactating people are encouraged to speak with a healthcare provider about COVID-19 vaccine should they have questions.
Can people with allergies get the COVID-19 vaccine? Yes, in most cases with 2 exceptions:
People with a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to any component of either an mRNA vaccine or the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should NOT receive that vaccine. Many people will be safely able to receive an alternate vaccine. An allergic reaction is considered severe when it is classified by a healthcare provider as an anaphylactic reaction or a person needs to be treated with epinephrine or EpiPen© or if the person must go to the hospital.
If You Are Allergic to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) or Polysorbate
PEG and polysorbate are closely related to each other. PEG is an ingredient in the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna), and polysorbate is an ingredient in the Johnson & Johnson (J&J)/Janssen vaccine. If you are allergic to PEG, you should not get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Ask your doctor if you can get the J&J/Janssen vaccine.
If you are allergic to polysorbate, you should not get the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Ask your doctor if you can get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
2. People with a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to any vaccine or injectable (intramuscular or intravenous) medication should consult with their health provider to assess risk prior to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
More information about allergies and the COVID-19 vaccines can be found on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. The medical exemption request forms must be accessed on the Yale Vaccine Portal, then uploaded once completed prior to being submitted to the university’s COVID-19 Vaccine Medical Exemption Review Committee. Learn more about the exemption request process here.
Everyone else with severe allergic reactions to foods, oral medications, latex, pets, insects, and environmental triggers can get vaccinated against COVID-19.
People with severe allergies require a 30-minute observation period after vaccination, while all others must be observed for 15 minutes. Vaccine clinics have safety protocols in place to respond to any adverse reactions.
If I am pregnant or breastfeeding?
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), the two leading organizations representing specialists in obstetric care, recommend that all pregnant individuals be vaccinated against COVID-19. The organizations’ recommendations in support of vaccination during pregnancy reflect evidence demonstrating the safe use of the COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy from tens of thousands of reporting individuals over the last several months, as well as the current low vaccination rates and concerning increase in cases.
COVID-19 vaccines have been studied in animals both before and during pregnancy and found no safety concerns. Pregnant individuals were included in clinical trials and thousands more have been vaccinated since the vaccines became available. Early data from safety monitoring systems did not identify any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated or for their babies. The CDC is continuing to collect data on vaccinated pregnant people through the v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry.
There are no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in breastfeeding people or on the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion at this time. However, mRNA vaccines are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant. There is evidence of robust secretion of protective antibodies in the breastmilk of people vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines suggesting a potential protective effect for the breastfed infant.
If you are pregnant or breastfeeding you may wish to discuss the benefits and risks of the vaccine balanced with the risks of COVID-19 infection with your healthcare provider. While a conversation with your healthcare provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.
We encourage pregnant and breastfeeding people to discuss COVID-19 vaccination with their health care provider prior to requesting medical exemption. The medical exemption request forms must be accessed on the Yale Vaccine Portal, then uploaded once completed prior to being submitted to the university’s COVID-19 Vaccine Medical Exemption Review Committee. Medical exemption for pregnancy, planning pregnancy or breastfeeding will be granted on a temporary basis and is subject to reassessment. Learn more about the exemption request process here.
Is the vaccine as effective in people with suppressed immune systems? Specific efficacy and safety data are not yet available for people with immunosuppression (weakened immune system) due to medications or chronic illness. People who are immunocompromised are recommended to be vaccinated in most cases as they are at higher risk for severe complications from COVD-19 infection. Those who are vaccinated should be counseled on the potential for reduced immune responses and the need to continue to follow all current guidance to protect themselves against COVID-19. If you are immunocompromised you and your doctor can decide together by weighing the benefits and risks. If you and your health care provider feel that it is appropriate to pursue a request for medical exemption, you must access and submit the form on the Yale Vaccine Portal once completed. Medical exemptions may be granted on a temporary basis and are subject to reassessment. Learn more about the exemption request process here.
Should people with autoimmune diseases receive COVID-19 vaccine?
People with autoimmune conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 infection and vaccination is recommended in most cases. If you have an autoimmune disease, consult with your healthcare provider to discuss the risks and benefits of vaccination. If you and your health care provider feel that it is appropriate to pursue a request for medical exemption, you must access and submit the form on the Yale Vaccine Portal. Medical exemptions may be granted on a temporary basis and are subject to reassessment.
Can children get the COVID-19 vaccine? The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is currently authorized for people 12 years and older. The Moderna mRNA vaccine and J&J vaccine are currently authorized for people 18 years and older. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccination for children here.
COVID-19 Vaccine FAQ for Children 12 -15 Years Old | Yale Health Should I get the COVID-19 vaccine even if I’ve already had COVID-19?
Yes. The extent to which antibodies that develop in response to COVID-19 infection are protective is still under study. If these antibodies are protective, it’s not known what antibody levels are needed to protect against reinfection. Therefore, even those who previously had COVID-19 can and should receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
I was recently diagnosed with COVID-19 can I receive the vaccine?
Yes, for Dose #1 you can be vaccinated four weeks after onset of symptoms or a positive test (whichever is earlier). For Dose #2 you may be vaccinated after you have completed your isolation period. Isolation is for 10 days or 10 days plus 24 hours with no fever and an improvement in symptoms.
Updated August 18, 2021.
So some people are asked to delay vaccination, some people systems may not allow for it at all. I'm vaccinated. My kids are vaccinated, the whole family is. That doesn't make us superior to other people.
I think about C.I. and how, due to her various issues -- including being on chemo -- where her doctors (plural) told her she could not get the vaccination for several months. They were worried about other issues, including the caner and two other issues being treated. So she had to wait until April or May before she got clearance. As soon as she got clearance, she had the first shot and then, four weeks later, had the second one. So, per Jimmy Kimmel, had she needed a bed in ICU prior to the vaccine because she caught COVID, that would have been her fault?
He's a sick piece of trash.
Now there's a whole other group of people he's insulting as well. I don't listen to Dr. Fauci. I think the stupidest thing Joe Biden has done domestically was keep Fauci on the job. Under Donald Trump's presidency, he'd already been part of enough confusion. We needed someone new in the role to signal a new message, a tighter plan, a brighter future. Instead, we've got that holdover who has made one conflicting statement after another. Joe should have 'turned the page' when he became president by selecting someone new for that spot.
If I hung on Facui's words? I'm not sure I would get vaccinated. I hope I would. But I blew him off in the early months of the pandemic when he was saying masks weren't effective. I knew then, immediately, that with a run already on toilet paper, that he and others were worried about a run on masks. That's why we were told not to wear them.
Facui's conflicting and confusing messages did a lot of damage. I would hope that anyone who is not vaccinated but whose doctor tells them that they can get the vaccine will seriously considering getting it but I'm not into punishing people. I think it's horrible what Jimmy Kimmel said and I'm appalled that ABC let that pass for 'comedy.'
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, September 8, 2021. Will their be a reckoning for US politicians as the American people grasp what the war money could have been spent on, meanwhile Iraq prepares to hold elections next month.
At IN THESE TIMES, Sarah Lazare asks what if our priorities in the US had been different over the last two decades:
Twenty years into a nebulous “War on Terror,” the United States is in the grips of a full-fledged climate crisis. Hurricane Ida, whose severity is a direct result of human-made climate change, flooded cities, cut off power to hundreds of thousands, killed at least 60 people, and left elderly people dying in their homes and in squalid evacuation facilities. This followed a summer of heat waves, wildfires and droughts — all forms of extreme weather that the Global South has borne the brunt of, but are now, undeniably, the new “normal” in the United States.
The U.S. government has turned the whole globe into a potential battlefield, chasing some ill-defined danger “out there,” when, in reality, the danger is right here — and is partially of the U.S. government’s own creation. Plotting out the connections between this open-ended war and the climate crisis is a grim exercise, but an important one. It’s critical to examine how the War on Terror not only took up all of the oxygen when we should have been engaged in all-out effort to curb emissions, but also made the climate crisis far worse, by foreclosing on other potential frameworks under which the United States could relate with the rest of the world. Such bitter lessons are not academic: There is still time to stave off the worst climate scenarios, a goal that, if attained, would likely save hundreds of millions of lives, and prevent entire countries from being swallowed into the sea.
One of the most obvious lessons is financial: We should have been putting every resource toward stopping climate disaster, rather than pouring public goods into the war effort. According to a recent report by the National Priorities Project, which provides research about the federal budget, the United States has spent $21 trillion over the last 20 years on “foreign and domestic militarization.” Of that amount, $16 trillion went directly to the U.S. military — including $7.2 trillion that went directly to military contracts. This figure also includes $732 billion for federal law enforcement, “because counterterrorism and border security are part of their core mission, and because the militarization of police and the proliferation of mass incarceration both owe much to the activities and influences of federal law enforcement.”
Of course, big government spending can be a very good thing if it goes toward genuine social goods. The price tag of the War on Terror is especially tragic when one considers what could have been done with this money instead, note the report’s authors, Lindsay Koshgarian, Ashik Siddique and Lorah Steichen. A sum of $1.7 trillion could eliminate all student debt, $200 billion could cover 10 years of free preschool for all three and four year olds in the country. And, crucially, $4.5 trillion could cover the full cost of decarbonizing the U.S. electric grid.
But huge military budgets are not only bad when they contrast with poor domestic spending on social goods — our bloated Pentagon should, first and foremost, be opposed because of the harm it does around the world, where it has roughly 800 military bases, and almost a quarter of a million troops permanently stationed in other countries. A new report from Brown University’s Costs of War Project estimates that between 897,000 and 929,000 people have been killed “directly in the violence of the U.S. post‑9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.” This number could be even higher. One estimate found that the U.S. war on Iraq alone killed one million Iraqis.
Still, the financial cost of war is worth examining because it reveals something about the moral priorities of our society. Any genuine effort to curb the climate crisis will require a tremendous mobilization of resources — a public works program on a scale that, in the United States, is typically only reserved for war. Now, discussions of such expenditures can be a bit misleading, since the cost of doing nothing to curb climate change is limitless: When the entirety of our social fabric is at stake, it seems silly to debate dollars here or there. But this is exactly what proponents of climate action are forced to do in our political climate. As I reported in March 2020, presidential candidates in the 2020 Democratic primary were grilled about how they would pay for social programs, like a Green New Deal, but not about how they would pay for wars.
So much could have been done to help the world but instead that money was spent on war and destruction. Propping up puppet governments that harmed the people we lied to ourselves that our wars were saving. So much money wasted, so much time. Priorities.
And let's be clear, these were the priorities of the establishment, not of the people. That remains the case. Graison Dangor (FORBES) reports:
A sizable majority of Americans believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were “not worth fighting,” according to an AP-NORC poll released Tuesday, a sign of public fatigue in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan after nearly two decades and the continuing presence of 2,500 troops in Iraq.
Americans were asked their opinions on the wars in mid-August—as the Taliban swept into the Afghan capital and supplanted the central government—as part of a wide-ranging poll on national security and the coronavirus pandemic.
Some 62% of respondents told pollsters that the war in Afghanistan had not been worth it, while 63% said the same of the war in Iraq.
That reality goes a long way towards explaining the whoring Andrea Mitchell and others have done over the airwaves with their pretending to care about the Afghans. They didn't care, they were just trying to push back against public opinion. Well paid whores have to earn those checks, after all.
Iraq is set to hold elections next month. Arkan Ali (RUDAW) reports:
As parliamentary elections approach, Iraq’s new electoral law is having an impact on how women are represented in politics.
According to the Iraqi constitution women are guaranteed at least 25
percent of the seats in parliament. Based on the law passed last year, a
seat is reserved for a female candidate in each of the country’s newly
divided 83 constituencies.
In Sulaimani city centre, the Gorran Movement has nominated one woman from its seven candidates.
Based on an agreement with Gorran, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has not nominated a woman in the constituency.
“It’s a dream of every woman in Kurdistan, Iraq and the world that
someday women win votes without a quota,” Rezan Ahmed Hardi, a Gorran
Movement candidate in the Sulaimani city centre. “The quota law is very
good, in my opinion. My goal will be to gain enough votes that even
without a quota I would gain a seat in the Iraqi parliament.”
Elections are supposed to take place next month. Halgurd Sherwani (KURDISTAN 24) reports some ugly realities regarding women candidates:
The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and civil society groups have received reports of politically motivated gender-based violence and hate speech against women running in Iraq's elections, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for UNAMI said on Tuesday.
In a press conference held in Baghdad, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert outlined steps UNAMI will take to ensure that the upcoming Iraqi elections, scheduled to take place on October 10, are free and fair.
Female candidates face increasing levels of hate speech, violence, and blackmail intended to force them to withdraw their candidacy.
"We are working with civil society organizations to monitor and report political gender-based violence and hate speech against female candidates," Hennis-Plasschaert said.
UNAMI? They're so proud of this Tweet that they've Tweeted it multiple times in Arabic and English:
بلاسخارت للشعب العراقي: "الأمم المتحدة معكم. هدفكم هو هدفنا. لرؤية #العراق ينهض ... كبلد يكون فيه لكافة المواطنين الفرصة ليكون صوتهم مسموع ويُكللوا بالنجاح. الخطوة الأولى على الطريق الطويل جداً لتحقيق هذا الأمر هو الإدلاء بصوتكم".
Multiple times? They've Tweeted it four times in a row. They Tweeted other things yesterday but you'll note that their Twitter thread never mentions female candidates.
Hmm. In 2010, I don't think it was the Iraqi voters who overturned their own votes. I think it was The Erbil Agreement that then-Vice President Joe Biden was the point-man on that overturned the results. Maybe don't lecture Iraqis about what they need to do when they all remember that they voted Nouri al-Maliki out but the US government overturned their votes and gave him a second term . . . leading to the rise of ISIS in Iraq.
If you're thinking that they cover the issue of threats against female candidates at their FACEBOOK page, no, they don't.
Meanwhile, as we noted last week, the US government bribed Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to come out publicly in favor of elections. This was US tax dollars. Was it spent wisely? No, not at all. Halkawt Aziz (RUDAW) reports:
In Sadr City, people are disheartened after nearly two decades of empty promises from politicians.
“Let me tell you frankly, I will not vote. Four elections have been held
[since 2003]. We’ve not seen any good come out of them. Each time they
give us empty promises,” said Sadr City resident Dakhil Jabir.
Some parties have withdrawn from the election, though Shiite cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr, who leads the largest bloc in the current parliament, reversed his decision late last month.
Others parties are urging people to vote, saying the ballot box is the way to bring about change.
“People have every right to be hopeless because they see nothing has
been done for them. They’re afraid that the very same faces will
dominate the political sphere again. I can assure you all that change
can be made with your participation. I agree that there could be a
degree of vote-rigging, but this time voter fraud is going to be very
difficult and it will not be like previous elections,” said Mohammed
Tawfiq Allawi, head of the Reform and Change Council.
That's Sadr City. That's Moqtada's strong hold. Or was. Doesn't appear he's got a very strong hold on it right now. If only the residents of Sadr City could be as stupid as the western media outlets, then the residents could be zombies who follow blindly -- that is how the media presents them. On the other hand, here, we've noted this growing disenchantment. And the thanks? Nasty e-mails from REUTERS correspondents who now e-mail to say that their nasty e-mails has gotten the outlet banned from this site. No, you're not banned. It's just your Iraqi correspondents aren't filing anything of note. Their 'big' story this week? It's been on the water issue. Yeah, we covered that last week. Maybe if REUTERS hadn't been too busy trying to sell Mustafa al-Kahdimi as a great leader, they could've dealt with that topic when AP and so many other outlets were covering it instead of playing catch up a week later? Priorities, right?
Many groups have stated that they will not vote in the elections. This includes some members (and some leaders) of The October Revolution. Sura Ali (RUDAW) reports:
A group of about 40 fledgling parties born out of Iraq's October 2019
(Tishreen) protest movement announced on Saturday the formation of a
political bloc, the Iraqi Opposition Forces, ahead of next month's
elections, hoping to create a united front of protest parties who aim to
bring radical change to Iraqi politics.
They called for "providing justice among all the political forces
competing in the elections, pressuring the government to be serious in
creating a fair electoral environment under the supervision of the
United Nations, holding the killers of the October demonstrators
accountable, revealing the fate of the disappeared and unjustly
detained, as well as limiting weapons to the hands of the government,"
according to a statement from spokesperson Basim al-Sheikh.
Nearly two years ago, large angry protests broke out in central and
southern Iraq, permeating most of the Shiite-dominated provinces. The
demonstrations lasted several months and were met with violence and
repression from state forces and militias backed by Iran that left at
least 600 dead and thousands wounded.
The protests forced the resignation of the prime minister, reforms to
the electoral law, and the early elections that are taking place a year
ahead of schedule. Tishreen youth also began organizing themselves into
political parties to contest the elections and compete with political
Islam parties that have dominated Iraqi politics for more than 17 years.
[. . .]
The new parties say their goal is to change the political reality in
Iraq, ending the power of undemocratic parties that have distorted the
system by using their influence to achieve financial and political
gains. But there are very few Tishreen parties participating in the
elections. One is Imtidad, led by Alaa al-Rikabi, a protest leader from Nasiriyah.
Others plan to achieve their goals through means other than the ballot box.
A member of the National House, Muhtada Abu al-Joud, told Rudaw English
on Sunday that his party had announced its complete boycott of the
elections and had begun work on a project to form a national opposition
front.
"The opposition front does not mean that we will be part of the
parliament. We do not intend to enter the political arena, but we will
form a front to pressure the government through various tools, including
political, legal, and international [means]," Joud said.
Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) reports:
Experts are predicting low turnout in October due to distrust of the country’s electoral system and believe that it will not deliver the much needed changes they were promised since 2003.
“The new generation of youth, who are less part of the social basis of political parties, don't really see the point in voting,” Mr Mansour said.
“They don’t believe those political parties represent their interests or basic needs,” he said.
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Of course, they hate Julian
- TV: ABC's disappointing dive
- It's a little -- was it really enough?
- Subway is still the worst
- Tweet of the week
- Music video of the week
- Rose McGowan Calls Out Harvey Weinstein & Alyssa M...
- This edition's playlist
The following sites updated:
-
-
Yebba: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert3 hours ago
-
-
-
TV: ABC's disappointing dive10 hours ago
-
MONARCH10 hours ago
-
Idiot of the week -- early edition10 hours ago
-
Janet Jackson10 hours ago
-
Summer Squash in the Kitchen10 hours ago
-
Joy Harris and a bad radio program10 hours ago
-
-
Chase Rice10 hours ago
-
Charmed10 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment