Who Sang It Better? “Do They Know It’s Christmas” Gets A Star-Studded Remake

Thirty years ago, Band Aid, a charity-minded supergroup comprised of the creme de la creme of British pop (Boy George, Sting, Bono, George Michael, Simon Le Bon, to name just a few) met in a London studio to collaborate on a single to raise funds for the decimating famine in Ethiopia. “Do They Know It’s Christmas?”, which was the brainchild of musicians Bob Geldof and Midge Ure, became the best-selling British single of all time, a record it held for 13 years, and raised over a million dollars for famine relief. The venerable single was re-recorded in 1989 and 2004, again as a fund-raiser for famine. Cut to 2014 and much of the world is petrified of the Ebola virus so the now Sir Bob Geldof and Midge Ure called up the latest batch of hot new British chart-toppers (members of One Direction, Chris Martin, Rita Ora…Adele was a surprising no-show) and the ever-present Bono to record an update on the classic anthem and combat the deadly virus in Africa. While it’s unfair to compare the two since everyone involved donated their time for a good cause, we can’t help but feel this new breed of singers is lacking in both energy and charisma compared to the magic achieved the first time out.

So watch and listen to both versions below, but, more importantly, be sure to donate here.

Here’s the 2014 version.

Here’s the original from 1984.

Hugger-in-Chief: In embracing an Ebola victim, Barack Obama succeeded where Ronald Reagan failed.

Barack Obama displayed inspiring leadership on Friday. He also promoted public health, fought bigotry, and helped calm raging paranoia. His heroic act? He hugged somebody.

Nina Pham, the first person to be infected with Ebola within the United States, had just been declared disease-free and discharged from the National Institutes of Health. Obama is a rational, science-friendly guy, so he knew she wasn’t any danger to him. It didn’t take courage to hug her.

And yet, another modern president failed a similar test. Facing the greatest public health crisis of his administration, Ronald Reagan was not heroic. He was a dithering coward.

The hateful, homophobic, racist response to the AIDS crisis is one of the most shameful episodes in recent American history. Within a few years after the first AIDS cases were reported in 1981, scientists knew the disease was transmitted primarily by sex, blood transfusions, and shared needles.

That knowledge didn’t stop the prejudice and fear mongering. HIV-positive people were fired from their jobs, forbidden from entering the country, kicked out of the military. Jerry Falwell claimed AIDS was “God’s punishment not just for homosexuals” but for a “society that tolerates homosexuals.” William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in a widely syndicated column that people diagnosed with AIDS should have that fact tattooed on their buttocks. Schools refused to enroll children with HIV. When a judge ordered a Florida school to admit young brothers Ricky, Randy, and Robert Ray, their neighbors burned their house down.

Guns vs. Ebola: The Great Republican Hypocrisy

Since the dawn of conservatism, the one belief that’s been a constant is their staunch anti-government stance. This nation fought a Civil War because southern conservatives believed that their states had the right to own human beings as property. These Confederate states seceded from the United States over what they claimed was an “illegal” push by the federal government to end slavery and grant slaves their freedom.

And whether it’s been their opposition to women’s suffrage, desegregation, civil rights, interracial marriage, gay rights or women’s rights, these same states, supported by conservative ideology, have held the constant belief that the government is bad and our Tenth Amendment (states’ rights) matters more than federal law.

When it comes to guns, most conservatives are very anti-government regulation. In fact, if it were left up to most conservatives, we would have little or no regulations on guns. After all, according to many of these people, the reason why gun violence is such an issue in this country is because we need more guns. 

Apparently over 300 million guns aren’t enough.

Any time there’s any mention from anyone at the federal level that we need sensible gun reform (universal background checks, limits on magazine size, the banning of certain kinds of military-style semi-automatic rifles) conservatives and their NRA brethren go berserk. Perhaps their most famous line is the one that makes absolutely no sense – “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” The theory behind that seems to be that once a “bad guy” shoots someone with a gun, then the “good guy” can stop them. This rarely ever happens of course, nor does it help the first victim claimed by the shooter, but why let facts or reality stand in the way of some good old fashioned right-wing gun-loving propaganda?

But when it comes to guns, and the 8-10k American lives lost every year due to gun related homicides, conservatives don’t want the government anywhere near this issue.

However, have 4 people within the United States get diagnosed with the Ebola virus (with only one death among the four), and suddenly many of these same anti-government conservatives can’t get enough of the federal government. In fact, not only can they not get enough of the federal government, they’re wanting the government to do more to regulate travel.

Who would have ever thought, conservatives feverishly pushing for the government to implement more regulations.

Between 8-10k Americans die every year due to gun violence, but we shouldn’t do anything to try to regulate guns. Four people get diagnosed with Ebola and all hell breaks loose.

But here’s a fun fact: Every single American - every single one of us - is more likely to be killed by a handgun today than to catch Ebola. In fact, around 25 people die every single day from gun related homicides.

Look at the right-wing panic following four cases of Ebola (with only one death). Now imagine if 25 Americans per day were dying from Ebola. And with over 300 million guns in this country, don’t even tell me we have a “lack of guns” problem that’s allowing gun violence to run rampant.

Now, are these two situations exactly the same? No. They’re two different threats. One is actually killing 25 Americans every day, whereas the other is a disease that’s typically very hard to transmit unless you’ve been in direct contact with the infected bodily fluids of someone showing signs of having the virus.

Though what I’m trying to do is point to a glaring hypocrisy from the right. They claim the government is worthless and too regulatory – until it’s something they want the government to regulate. Then suddenly they’re big fans of the federal government. Take same-sex marriage for example. Conservatives would love a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

And while it’s rational to be cautious about Ebola, the outrageous and irrational fear-mongering being pushed by many conservatives is laughable. But again, between Ebola and gun violence, which one will claim more American lives today?

Ebola: 0

Guns: 25

In fact, if you look at the over 4k people who’ve died from Ebola in Africa, that’s about on par with how many Americans have died since March (when this outbreak began) from gun violence.

And we won’t even get into heart disease or cancer, which kill over 1 million Americans every year. Two problems that could be greatly reduced if every American had access to health care – another issue conservatives vehemently oppose.

Just imagine how much greater this country could be if we didn’t have to constantly deal with Republican ignorance and propaganda.

Texas Republican sees ACA as tool to combat Ebola

It’s fair to say Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) is not a fan of the White House. In 2011, the far-right Texan suggested Republicans should pursue impeachment against President Obama, not over any high crimes, but because “it would tie things up” in Washington for a while, making governing impossible.

In other words, Burgess isn’t exactly a moderate.

It’s of interest, then, that the Republican congressman now sees part of the Affordable Care Act as a tool that can help fight Ebola. Igor Volsky reported this morning:

“It’s section 4002 in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it’s called the Prevention and Public Health Fund, and this is a self-replenishing fund, at the first of the fiscal year every year,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) explained during an appearance on 660AM’s Mark Davis Show.

“Two billion dollars washes into the Secretary’s offices of Health and Human Services for her to use, do whatever she wishes,” he added, before asking, “But how about we take these $2 billion and we fight this darn disease?”

Obviously, Burgess isn’t approaching this as a fan of “Obamacare.” Rather, he’s saying the ACA system includes a provision called the Prevention Fund, and so long as it exists, perhaps those resources can be used to supplement U.S. efforts to address this virus.

That’s a far cry from an endorsement of the law Burgess has voted to repeal several dozen times, but at a practical level, it’s nevertheless indicative of progress – when a far-right congressional Republican envisions using the Affordable Care Act to help people, rather than demanding the complete annihilation of the law itself, it represents a real shift in posture.

As for the notion that the Prevention Fund is just a $2 billion slush fund for HHS – money that Burgess now wants to see invested in an Ebola response – note that the congressman’s understanding of the relevant provision is mistaken. As Volsky’s report added, the Fund “invests in community and clinical prevention, research, public health infrastructure, immunizations and screenings, tobacco prevention and public health workforce and training.”

To say that the resources are to be used on “whatever” the HHS secretary “wishes” is obviously not the case.

Still, I’m inclined to focus on the positives here. An ACA opponent and fierce White House critic today suggested the Affordable Care Act can help address an Ebola threat. That’s clearing a low bar, but under the circumstances, I’ll take it.

Christian broadcaster: Ebola could cleanse US of atheists, gay people, and sluts

A Christian radio host who enthusiastically looks for signs the world will end welcomed the Ebola virus as a cleansing force.

“This Ebola epidemic could become a global pandemic and that’s another name for plague,” said broadcaster Rick Wiles on his “Trunews” program.

“It may be the great attitude adjustment that I believe is coming,” Wiles continued. “Ebola could solve America’s problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography, and abortion.”

Wiles was enthusiastic Tuesday about the arrival of Ebola, but Right Wing Watch reported that he warned the previous day that President Barack Obama may intentionally spread the deadly virus through a mandatory and mysterious vaccine.

That would somehow then allow Obama to declare martial law and force Americans into FEMA camps, the religious right broadcaster theorized.

“If Ebola becomes a global plague, you better make sure the blood of Jesus is upon you, you better make sure you have been marked by the angels so that you are protected by God,” Wiles warned. “If not, you may be a candidate to meet the Grim Reaper.”

Listen to Wiles’ comments posted online by Right Wing Watch:

Ebola Success Seen With HIV Med

Acting out of "desperation," a doctor in Liberia is reporting success in treating ebola with the HIV medication marketed as Epivir.

Dr. Gobee Logan has given the drug, lamivudine, to 15 Ebola patients, and all but two survived. That's a 7% mortality rate. Across West Africa, the virus has killed 70% of its victims. Outside Logan's Ebola center in Tubmanburg, four of his recovering patients walk the grounds, always staying inside the fence that separates the Ebola patients from everyone else. "My stomach was hurting; I was feeling weak; I was vomiting," Elizabeth Kundu, 23, says of her bout with the virus. "They gave me medicine, and I'm feeling fine. We take it, and we can eat -- we're feeling fine in our bodies." Kundu and the other 12 patients who took the lamivudine and survived, received the drug in the first five days or so of their illness. The two patients who died received it between days five and eight. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases says that theoretically, Logan's approach has some merit. Lamivudine is a nucleocide analog, and other drugs in this class are being studied to treat Ebola.

In the United States, Epivir is typically prescribed as one of the medications in the combination pills Trizivir and Combovir.