It was a surprise that a chance to test the intellectual consistency of the defenders of the Ground Zero Mosque would come so quickly. Those who defend the religious rights of mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal, including President Obama and New York Mayor Bloomberg, should also rally behind Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla. and his plans to burn Korans to commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Gen. Petraeus has asked Dr. Jones to cancel his demonstration, correctly but too narrowly, because it "could endanger the troops and it could endanger the overall effort." Additionally Dr. Jones actions will endanger himself, his congregation and anyone around the world who happens by the resulting anti-American riots.
Dr. Jones proposed actions are insensitive, counterproductive, and in bad taste. The same can be said of the plan to build a mosque near where the twin towers stood. This proposal has already picked the scab of the 9/11 attacks and deeply offends many of the victims' families, the rescue workers and roughly 70% of New Yorkers. The claim the mosque will be a "bridge to peace" is ludicrous, unless "peace" is defined as the offended parties backing down and shutting up. If ground is broken be prepared for demonstrations, counter-demonstrations and boycotts against construction companies. This years-long project will be anything but peaceful, however not likely to be violent or murderous. Contrast that with the riots, mayhem and calls for murder of those who offend Muslims.
President Obama's and Mayor Bloomberg's self-righteous citing of the First Amendment's freedom of religion as a defense of the mosque misses the point entirely. They grandstand their tolerance of religious rights of Muslims when no one was oppressing them. Of course the Muslims have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero if they follow local ordinances. No one is proposing a curtailment of freedom for anyone to worship as they choose. The self-congratulatory way the defenders of this building cite the Constitution shows their collective tin ear. This matter has always been one of decorum, not rights.
The proposed mosque is a provocation, a slap to those who were emotionally scarred on 9/11. Imagine the uproar if someone proposed a Ku Klux Klan Museum across the street from the motel where Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot. Nazi marches evoke the same passion. President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg should recognize that the proposed Mosque invokes the same level of agitation. Dr. Jones is making a similar affront to Islam. Mr. El-Gamal and Dr. Jones have in common the right to do many bizarre and outrageous things but share ignorance of concepts like thoughtfulness and diplomacy.
Any intellectually honest backer of the Ground Zero Mosque should rally behind Dr. Jones and his right to burn The Koran. Further, Mayor Bloomberg should invite Dr. Jones and his yet-unburned holy books to Ground Zero. What better way to celebrate the entire First Amendment than by displaying Dr. Jones' freedom of speech and Sharif El-Gamal's freedom of religion at the same time? After all, the Dove World Outreach Center deserves tolerance too.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sen. Reid City Center Commercial
The following was submitted to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
“That man called every CEO of every bank that I know and said, ‘Look, this is important to my state. Get it done,’” MGM Mirage CEO James J. Murren said of Sen. Harry Reid in a television commercial that attempts to credit Reid for saving City Center. The real history of the project indicates that he is either exagerrating what transpired or unmasks him as a political cutthroat who uses the power of the state to strong-arm private citizens and companies into perpetuating the lending practices that led to our nation’s financial collapse.
The ad would lead you to believe that hapless Murren languished by the phone waiting for the evil bankers to return his calls. Harry Reid, hero of the story, wakes from his slumber and demands that the Scrooge McDucks of the banking world, rolling in their piles of cash and gold, bag up the treasure and ship it to MGM. As if by magic City Center and 20,000 jobs were saved but the real history shows that banks were already deeply committed to the project and demanded that the developers, including MGM, commit more of their own money to City Center.
Perhaps Sen. Reid has forgotten that banks don’t print money. Investors and depositors fund the banks, which in turn, make loans to homeowners and developers. As recent history has demonstrated, they must be careful to scrutinize the ability of borrowers or the banks themselves are prone to failure. Has Senator Reid learned nothing in the last 18 months? Apparently not, because his own ad makes the claim that he used the power of his office to pressure banks into making loans to a project whose partners were embroiled in a legal dispute.
Earlier this year MGM reported that the company was in serious financial trouble which was a surprise to Dubai World, its partner in City Center and subsidiary of the Dubai government. City Center was also facing cost overruns as the original estimated cost of $4 billion swelled to $11 billion as the demand for and value of the 2400 condos they were hoping to sell were rapidly deflating. Additionally construction defects were found in The Harmon, one of the buildings in City Center, which meant it could only be built to 28 stories instead of the intended 49. MGM eventually cancelled the condominium portion of the building and used much-needed cash to return deposits to the holders of cancelled sales contracts.
By March 27th Dubai World had already stopped contributing their share of construction costs and sued MGM citing mismanagement. It was feared that in a short time City Center would shut down and thousands of construction workers would be laid off.
On April 10th the project was saved when Dubai World dropped its lawsuit and the partners agreed to banks’ demands. Accounts of the transaction show that the partners in City Center intended to complete construction but were forced by their banks to contribute more cash as a pre-condition. No mention was made of Harry Reid’s role in saving the project at the time.
We don’t know what Sen. Reid did during the two weeks when City Center was at the precipice, but he claims, “Some said I shouldn’t have pushed so hard. But with 20,000 jobs at stake, I’d do it all over again.” A flyer produced by Reid’s campaign reads, “When he personally told the banks threatening to shut down City Center construction that Nevada couldn’t afford to lose those jobs, they heard Harry Reid loud and clear.”
It is clear that it was in both the banks’ and the developers’ best interests to save City Center and they didn’t necessarily need prodding from Sen. Reid to save their own skins. One of two things happened: Either Sen. Reid applied pressure to the banks and forced them to make a deal that was against their interests, or he did little and the dispute was resolved among the parties themselves.
Nevadans deserve to know who he pushed and how he pushed them. Did he demand that banks loan money to City Center before its partners resolved their differences, or perhaps force bankers to ignore lending regulations? If he made such demands, what did the banks have to fear from Reid if they failed to agree to make such loans? If such threats had been made do they rise to the level of illegality?
It is also possible that this is political grandstanding and is Reid taking credit for something he had little or nothing to do with. After all, MGM and Dubai World had to produce more of their own money before the banks would continue funding, so perhaps Reid’s role was superfluous. In any case, it is revealing of the character of a man who has been so filled with the arrogance of power that he thinks he can tell us all what to do with our money.
If Reid is so brazen to pick up the phone and tell bankers, who hold in trust the savings of millions of people, exactly what to do with their money, what restraint does he show when he tells you how to live your life?
I am pleased that City Center will be completed and think it’s extremely fortunate for the new hires. I congratulate the parties involved for resolving their differences. Sen. Reid, however, should clarify his role in the funding of the project and reveal the nature of the threats he claims to have made to private citizens.
“That man called every CEO of every bank that I know and said, ‘Look, this is important to my state. Get it done,’” MGM Mirage CEO James J. Murren said of Sen. Harry Reid in a television commercial that attempts to credit Reid for saving City Center. The real history of the project indicates that he is either exagerrating what transpired or unmasks him as a political cutthroat who uses the power of the state to strong-arm private citizens and companies into perpetuating the lending practices that led to our nation’s financial collapse.
The ad would lead you to believe that hapless Murren languished by the phone waiting for the evil bankers to return his calls. Harry Reid, hero of the story, wakes from his slumber and demands that the Scrooge McDucks of the banking world, rolling in their piles of cash and gold, bag up the treasure and ship it to MGM. As if by magic City Center and 20,000 jobs were saved but the real history shows that banks were already deeply committed to the project and demanded that the developers, including MGM, commit more of their own money to City Center.
Perhaps Sen. Reid has forgotten that banks don’t print money. Investors and depositors fund the banks, which in turn, make loans to homeowners and developers. As recent history has demonstrated, they must be careful to scrutinize the ability of borrowers or the banks themselves are prone to failure. Has Senator Reid learned nothing in the last 18 months? Apparently not, because his own ad makes the claim that he used the power of his office to pressure banks into making loans to a project whose partners were embroiled in a legal dispute.
Earlier this year MGM reported that the company was in serious financial trouble which was a surprise to Dubai World, its partner in City Center and subsidiary of the Dubai government. City Center was also facing cost overruns as the original estimated cost of $4 billion swelled to $11 billion as the demand for and value of the 2400 condos they were hoping to sell were rapidly deflating. Additionally construction defects were found in The Harmon, one of the buildings in City Center, which meant it could only be built to 28 stories instead of the intended 49. MGM eventually cancelled the condominium portion of the building and used much-needed cash to return deposits to the holders of cancelled sales contracts.
By March 27th Dubai World had already stopped contributing their share of construction costs and sued MGM citing mismanagement. It was feared that in a short time City Center would shut down and thousands of construction workers would be laid off.
On April 10th the project was saved when Dubai World dropped its lawsuit and the partners agreed to banks’ demands. Accounts of the transaction show that the partners in City Center intended to complete construction but were forced by their banks to contribute more cash as a pre-condition. No mention was made of Harry Reid’s role in saving the project at the time.
We don’t know what Sen. Reid did during the two weeks when City Center was at the precipice, but he claims, “Some said I shouldn’t have pushed so hard. But with 20,000 jobs at stake, I’d do it all over again.” A flyer produced by Reid’s campaign reads, “When he personally told the banks threatening to shut down City Center construction that Nevada couldn’t afford to lose those jobs, they heard Harry Reid loud and clear.”
It is clear that it was in both the banks’ and the developers’ best interests to save City Center and they didn’t necessarily need prodding from Sen. Reid to save their own skins. One of two things happened: Either Sen. Reid applied pressure to the banks and forced them to make a deal that was against their interests, or he did little and the dispute was resolved among the parties themselves.
Nevadans deserve to know who he pushed and how he pushed them. Did he demand that banks loan money to City Center before its partners resolved their differences, or perhaps force bankers to ignore lending regulations? If he made such demands, what did the banks have to fear from Reid if they failed to agree to make such loans? If such threats had been made do they rise to the level of illegality?
It is also possible that this is political grandstanding and is Reid taking credit for something he had little or nothing to do with. After all, MGM and Dubai World had to produce more of their own money before the banks would continue funding, so perhaps Reid’s role was superfluous. In any case, it is revealing of the character of a man who has been so filled with the arrogance of power that he thinks he can tell us all what to do with our money.
If Reid is so brazen to pick up the phone and tell bankers, who hold in trust the savings of millions of people, exactly what to do with their money, what restraint does he show when he tells you how to live your life?
I am pleased that City Center will be completed and think it’s extremely fortunate for the new hires. I congratulate the parties involved for resolving their differences. Sen. Reid, however, should clarify his role in the funding of the project and reveal the nature of the threats he claims to have made to private citizens.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Two Little Words
Kanye West grabbed the microphone from Taylor Swift at the Video Music Awards last week during her acceptance speech for best video, obviously because she’s white. West hates white people, country music, NASCAR and all else that is white. His seething hatred of a young white woman who dared to win an award over African-American Beyonce, whose video he touted as “one of the best ever” pushed him to chug cognac and jump on stage. He is secretly behind a Black Power movement that wants to take over all three branches of government and the VMA's by force.
How could anyone possibly know West’s motivations? The same way Georgia Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson knows that Rep. Joe Wilson’s motivation for the “You lie!” comment on the House floor was meant to usher in a revival of the Klan’s putting on “white hoods and ride through the countryside.” “You lie!” means that Rep. Wilson wants to lynch black people starting with the President.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Nancy Pelosi added in response to Wilson and the Tea Party movement, "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.” “You lie!” is Rep. Wilson’s call to arms, words that mean to roust us from our beds to commit murder and mayhem.
"I think it's based on racism," omniscient former President Jimmy Carter said at a town hall, “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president." “You lie!” means the vote doesn’t matter to racist Rep. Wilson and his comment was only made because the President is black; President Obama should never have been inaugurated.
There’s a lot of content in those two words Rep. Wilson spoke from the House floor during President Obama’s speech on health care. He should come out with his own version of Cliff's Notes. I bet he could whittle War and Peace down to two pages. Apparently the Pelosi's of the world don't remember President Bushitler being hanged if effigy at many antiwar protests.
The comment came after Pres. Obama stated that illegal immigrants would not be covered in any health care plan. Maybe we can take the drastic step to ask if the President was lying. The answer is maybe. There is a provision in the House bill that is what Pres. Obama stated, however Rep. Wilson had spent that afternoon attempting to insert teeth into that provision so hospitals could look up whether a patient is in fact here legally. The White House argued the opposite position, in effect making the provision meaningless. If a doctor isn’t allowed to learn a patient’s status how can he determine whether he’s part of the government program? He can’t.
Because of this debate on the health care bill, perhaps Rep. Wilson’s “You lie!” meant just that. We can’t speak to his motivations any more than President Carter and much of the Democrat Party can. It was rude, thoughtless and inexcusable for Rep. Wilson to heckle the President during the speech, an action even more offensive than Kanye West’s drunken babbling. To his credit, Wilson apologized not for the content of his two words but for saying them in a very inappropriate place. His apology was accepted by the President who doesn’t seem to fear being lynched anytime soon.
The Democrats can do far more for race relations by defending the President's statements than by playing the race card.
How could anyone possibly know West’s motivations? The same way Georgia Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson knows that Rep. Joe Wilson’s motivation for the “You lie!” comment on the House floor was meant to usher in a revival of the Klan’s putting on “white hoods and ride through the countryside.” “You lie!” means that Rep. Wilson wants to lynch black people starting with the President.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Nancy Pelosi added in response to Wilson and the Tea Party movement, "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.” “You lie!” is Rep. Wilson’s call to arms, words that mean to roust us from our beds to commit murder and mayhem.
"I think it's based on racism," omniscient former President Jimmy Carter said at a town hall, “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president." “You lie!” means the vote doesn’t matter to racist Rep. Wilson and his comment was only made because the President is black; President Obama should never have been inaugurated.
There’s a lot of content in those two words Rep. Wilson spoke from the House floor during President Obama’s speech on health care. He should come out with his own version of Cliff's Notes. I bet he could whittle War and Peace down to two pages. Apparently the Pelosi's of the world don't remember President Bushitler being hanged if effigy at many antiwar protests.
The comment came after Pres. Obama stated that illegal immigrants would not be covered in any health care plan. Maybe we can take the drastic step to ask if the President was lying. The answer is maybe. There is a provision in the House bill that is what Pres. Obama stated, however Rep. Wilson had spent that afternoon attempting to insert teeth into that provision so hospitals could look up whether a patient is in fact here legally. The White House argued the opposite position, in effect making the provision meaningless. If a doctor isn’t allowed to learn a patient’s status how can he determine whether he’s part of the government program? He can’t.
Because of this debate on the health care bill, perhaps Rep. Wilson’s “You lie!” meant just that. We can’t speak to his motivations any more than President Carter and much of the Democrat Party can. It was rude, thoughtless and inexcusable for Rep. Wilson to heckle the President during the speech, an action even more offensive than Kanye West’s drunken babbling. To his credit, Wilson apologized not for the content of his two words but for saying them in a very inappropriate place. His apology was accepted by the President who doesn’t seem to fear being lynched anytime soon.
The Democrats can do far more for race relations by defending the President's statements than by playing the race card.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
A Lapse in Intelligence
Colonel Steven Kleinman, who has referred to himself as the "most unpopular officer" in all of Iraq, describes the previous administration's support of SERE tactics for interrogation as not only ineffective in securing accurate intelligence, but also as a systematic approach to torture that clearly compromises essential moral values upon which this nation was founded.
SERE, which stands for "survival, evasion, resistance, and escape," refers to a formal, structured group of strategies to resist hostile interrogation. During the period of the Cold War, American service people were trained in SERE in order to resist possible severe, torturous interrogations in situations such as the Korean War, at the hands of the Chinese. The Bush administration re-introduced the flip-side of SERE; that is, it encouraged and supported the very techniques of interrogation that earlier service people had been trained to resist and withstand.
In a recent interview with NPR (All Things Considered, April 23, 2009), Kleinman confirmed that the tenets of SERE had been employed against detainees in Iraq:
"Exactly, and I think a key point that your listeners need to understand, so they can grasp the gravity of the situation, is that the primary objective of that approach to interrogation was not truth … but somebody's political truth. In the Korean War, they actually compelled some of our pilots to admit to dropping chemical weapons on cities and so forth, when in fact that didn't happen. Now, that stands in stark contrast to intelligence interrogation, where the overriding objective is provide timely, accurate, reliable, comprehensive intelligence." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103421778
The Bush administration was well aware that these SERE techniques were not created to extract accurate intelligence; they were employed to make people say things that were not true, and to promote propoganda. These strategies are of little or no use if one's primary objective is to obtain important, useful information to help the young American men and women in harm's way. Colonel Kleinman referred to himself as the "most unpopular officer" in all of Iraq because a culture of systematic torture of detainees had become a deeply penetrated status quo by the time he arrived on the scene, and Kleinman was perceived as an unwelcome enforcer of morality. The standard defense of these tactics by those who in engaged in them was that this was, at the very least, the expected treatment our soldiers would receive from the enemy if they were ever captured. This is a very different justification, this "eye for an eye" reasoning, than the official position that the main purpose of these interrogations was to obtain intelligence.
Our government sanctioned, encouraged, and instituted a systematic regime of torture applied to detainees that not only compromised the safety and well-being of our enlisted men and women by wasting time on ineffective interrogation methods, but also indoctrinated those Americans involved in the torture process in a method of treatment that goes against our core American value of respect for basic human dignity.
Perhaps these SERE tactics were effective, at times, despite what research and experience has shown, but I question whether or not the information obtained through these methods could have been obtained through other, less damaging, means. Because, in the end, what has been damaged, once again, is our reputation and our sense of ourselves as Americans. On April 29th, President Obama addressed these concerns through the following statements:
"Could we have gotten that information without using these techniques?" (a core question) and "Are we safer?" (a broader question)
"Churchill understood...you start taking shortcuts, and it corrodes the character of a people."
"Hold true to your ideals when it's hard, not just when it's easy to." (This was said in reference to our actions against detainees now being used as an Al Quaeda recruitment tool.)
"...stick to who we are, even when dealing with unscrupulous enemies."
And, finally, our current president reiterated a primary focus of his leadership that he thinks about every day, and every night before he goes to sleep:
"I will be judged as a Commander in Chief by how safe I am keeping the people...the best way I can do that is by making sure that we are not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are."
The Bush adminstration should be held responsible for our government's engagement in systematic torture techniques. I support any and all investigations into this extreme and damaging lapse of moral judgement, even at a time when the present administration must deal with more than any other administration's share of moral, economic, and policy clean-up from the past eight dark, horrific years.
SERE, which stands for "survival, evasion, resistance, and escape," refers to a formal, structured group of strategies to resist hostile interrogation. During the period of the Cold War, American service people were trained in SERE in order to resist possible severe, torturous interrogations in situations such as the Korean War, at the hands of the Chinese. The Bush administration re-introduced the flip-side of SERE; that is, it encouraged and supported the very techniques of interrogation that earlier service people had been trained to resist and withstand.
In a recent interview with NPR (All Things Considered, April 23, 2009), Kleinman confirmed that the tenets of SERE had been employed against detainees in Iraq:
"Exactly, and I think a key point that your listeners need to understand, so they can grasp the gravity of the situation, is that the primary objective of that approach to interrogation was not truth … but somebody's political truth. In the Korean War, they actually compelled some of our pilots to admit to dropping chemical weapons on cities and so forth, when in fact that didn't happen. Now, that stands in stark contrast to intelligence interrogation, where the overriding objective is provide timely, accurate, reliable, comprehensive intelligence." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103421778
The Bush administration was well aware that these SERE techniques were not created to extract accurate intelligence; they were employed to make people say things that were not true, and to promote propoganda. These strategies are of little or no use if one's primary objective is to obtain important, useful information to help the young American men and women in harm's way. Colonel Kleinman referred to himself as the "most unpopular officer" in all of Iraq because a culture of systematic torture of detainees had become a deeply penetrated status quo by the time he arrived on the scene, and Kleinman was perceived as an unwelcome enforcer of morality. The standard defense of these tactics by those who in engaged in them was that this was, at the very least, the expected treatment our soldiers would receive from the enemy if they were ever captured. This is a very different justification, this "eye for an eye" reasoning, than the official position that the main purpose of these interrogations was to obtain intelligence.
Our government sanctioned, encouraged, and instituted a systematic regime of torture applied to detainees that not only compromised the safety and well-being of our enlisted men and women by wasting time on ineffective interrogation methods, but also indoctrinated those Americans involved in the torture process in a method of treatment that goes against our core American value of respect for basic human dignity.
Perhaps these SERE tactics were effective, at times, despite what research and experience has shown, but I question whether or not the information obtained through these methods could have been obtained through other, less damaging, means. Because, in the end, what has been damaged, once again, is our reputation and our sense of ourselves as Americans. On April 29th, President Obama addressed these concerns through the following statements:
"Could we have gotten that information without using these techniques?" (a core question) and "Are we safer?" (a broader question)
"Churchill understood...you start taking shortcuts, and it corrodes the character of a people."
"Hold true to your ideals when it's hard, not just when it's easy to." (This was said in reference to our actions against detainees now being used as an Al Quaeda recruitment tool.)
"...stick to who we are, even when dealing with unscrupulous enemies."
And, finally, our current president reiterated a primary focus of his leadership that he thinks about every day, and every night before he goes to sleep:
"I will be judged as a Commander in Chief by how safe I am keeping the people...the best way I can do that is by making sure that we are not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are."
The Bush adminstration should be held responsible for our government's engagement in systematic torture techniques. I support any and all investigations into this extreme and damaging lapse of moral judgement, even at a time when the present administration must deal with more than any other administration's share of moral, economic, and policy clean-up from the past eight dark, horrific years.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Flu
After decades in politics Joe Biden finally said something that made sense, stating that he advised his family not to travel in enclosed vehicles like planes or trains because of the swine flu pandemic. For that he was muzzled by his boss and had to backtrack from his statement.
As the head of the Center for Disease Control said… um, nothing. There isn’t a head of the CDC yet because after 100 days in office President Obama hasn’t gotten around to appointing one. Since Tom Daschle was found to be a tax cheat there is no director at Health and Human Services either and there is still a vacancy for Surgeon General. A Dream Team will surely be assembled to handle the pandemic perhaps by the time it’s over.
While Mexico City is in lockdown and other countries are putting people on alert we trust the judgment of President Obama who says this is a time for concern but not alarm. Aside from some cities cancelling Cinco de Mayo events the only meaningful thing the U.S. and the World Health Organization has done is rename the Swine Flu to Bad Flu Nasty Type A or some such so as not to offend Jews, Muslims and pigs.
This flu could be a quick event with few fatalities or it could be as bad as the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed more than 10% of the population of some countries and perhaps as many as 100 million people worldwide. The 1918 flu like the current Swine Flu caused its victims to have an overreaction of the immune system which tended to kill mostly the healthy in the age range of 20-40. Surprisingly the people in the prime of life who contracted Spanish Flu were the most likely to die, opposite a regular flu that tends to kill infants and the elderly. Back then the double-whammy of the flu and World War I decimated an entire generation of young adults.
There have been many advances in medicine since the Spanish Flu so the mortality rate of the current flu likely wouldn’t be as high in the United States. Developing countries may not be as fortunate.
Since no one in the administration is giving you direction I’ll take a stab at it. Cliché alert: You should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Take some steps to protect yourself in case the virus spreads to your area like wear a surgical mask with an N95 rating as the cheaper cloth masks allow air in through the sides. Wash your hands and use hand sanitizer frequently. Never touch your eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning your hands first. Stock up on food in case you have to stay home for an extended period.
The government could have issued the simple warning that Joe Biden gave to his family. They could have closed the Mexican border and barred incoming air travel but didn’t want to cause a panic or further damage the teetering economy. For that the Obama is risking taking ownership of the pandemic the way George W. Bush took the bullet for Hurricane Katrina.
As the head of the Center for Disease Control said… um, nothing. There isn’t a head of the CDC yet because after 100 days in office President Obama hasn’t gotten around to appointing one. Since Tom Daschle was found to be a tax cheat there is no director at Health and Human Services either and there is still a vacancy for Surgeon General. A Dream Team will surely be assembled to handle the pandemic perhaps by the time it’s over.
While Mexico City is in lockdown and other countries are putting people on alert we trust the judgment of President Obama who says this is a time for concern but not alarm. Aside from some cities cancelling Cinco de Mayo events the only meaningful thing the U.S. and the World Health Organization has done is rename the Swine Flu to Bad Flu Nasty Type A or some such so as not to offend Jews, Muslims and pigs.
This flu could be a quick event with few fatalities or it could be as bad as the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed more than 10% of the population of some countries and perhaps as many as 100 million people worldwide. The 1918 flu like the current Swine Flu caused its victims to have an overreaction of the immune system which tended to kill mostly the healthy in the age range of 20-40. Surprisingly the people in the prime of life who contracted Spanish Flu were the most likely to die, opposite a regular flu that tends to kill infants and the elderly. Back then the double-whammy of the flu and World War I decimated an entire generation of young adults.
There have been many advances in medicine since the Spanish Flu so the mortality rate of the current flu likely wouldn’t be as high in the United States. Developing countries may not be as fortunate.
Since no one in the administration is giving you direction I’ll take a stab at it. Cliché alert: You should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Take some steps to protect yourself in case the virus spreads to your area like wear a surgical mask with an N95 rating as the cheaper cloth masks allow air in through the sides. Wash your hands and use hand sanitizer frequently. Never touch your eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning your hands first. Stock up on food in case you have to stay home for an extended period.
The government could have issued the simple warning that Joe Biden gave to his family. They could have closed the Mexican border and barred incoming air travel but didn’t want to cause a panic or further damage the teetering economy. For that the Obama is risking taking ownership of the pandemic the way George W. Bush took the bullet for Hurricane Katrina.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Economic Effects on Families
It's not just stay-cations, trimmed entertainment budgets, and difficulties meeting the staggering increases of college tuition that are affecting American families. Our current economic situation is causing a spike in domestic violence. http://www.ndvh.org/2009/01/increased-financial-stress-affects-domestic-violence-victims/
Children who grow up surrounded by violence become habituated to its existence. They often become abusers and victims themselves, continuing a cycle that may last for generations. Spousal abuse has not only increased, but also child abuse. Some hospitals are reporting twice as many shaken babies as a year ago. http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20090411/NEWS01/904110357
The American home is becoming, more and more, a stressed-out climate of violence. Elder abuse is also up, and I would hazard a guess that abuse of dependents with disabilities may also be on the increase. http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/02/09/mass_elder_abuse_on_rise/
Cutting spending for social programs and working against initiatives that may help address the roots of these social ills are "anti-American family" actions. Increased funding for education, healthcare, unemployment benefits, and stimulus package initiatives aimed at assisting the ever-growing ranks of the unemployed aim to improve the lives of the children, elders, and parents in the American family. Wasteful spending on "pet projects" does need to be eliminated, as President Obama has stated within the last day or so. But, we need to get our priorities straight. American families are suffering, and so are families elsewhere in the world, due to the crisis in our economy. Our number one priority needs to be on ensuring that the weakest among us do not bear the brunt of the fallout.
Children who grow up surrounded by violence become habituated to its existence. They often become abusers and victims themselves, continuing a cycle that may last for generations. Spousal abuse has not only increased, but also child abuse. Some hospitals are reporting twice as many shaken babies as a year ago. http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20090411/NEWS01/904110357
The American home is becoming, more and more, a stressed-out climate of violence. Elder abuse is also up, and I would hazard a guess that abuse of dependents with disabilities may also be on the increase. http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/02/09/mass_elder_abuse_on_rise/
Cutting spending for social programs and working against initiatives that may help address the roots of these social ills are "anti-American family" actions. Increased funding for education, healthcare, unemployment benefits, and stimulus package initiatives aimed at assisting the ever-growing ranks of the unemployed aim to improve the lives of the children, elders, and parents in the American family. Wasteful spending on "pet projects" does need to be eliminated, as President Obama has stated within the last day or so. But, we need to get our priorities straight. American families are suffering, and so are families elsewhere in the world, due to the crisis in our economy. Our number one priority needs to be on ensuring that the weakest among us do not bear the brunt of the fallout.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea Party
Many of the 2500 attendees of the Las Vegas Tea Party including me wandered around Sunset Park unsure of where to find the focal point. In the hour leading up to the speeches dozens were scattered on the edges of the park with signs facing the road eliciting honks from passersby. More meandered in small groups, heads on a swivel looking for - something. Eventually we drifted toward a radio station van in the far corner of the park. We were obviously inexperienced at being a mob.
Why would so many right-of-center “silent majority” people enter a left-wing world of working themselves into a lather? They weren’t chafed enough to break windows and light fires like the anti-globalization movement (whatever that is) but managed to leave their homes and offices to listen to talk radio hosts and bloggers speak of taxes, deficits and government intrusion in our lives. These people were very angry, but in a lighthearted, jokey way.
A sign reading, “The Problem with Socialism is that Eventually You Run out of Other People’s Money” summed it up for me. Since the New Deal our elected officials have spent enormous sums on social programs and construction projects to buy votes. The abysmal track record of such boondoggles has elicited a collective decades-long yawn from the electorate. What’s changed in the past year is the government is bailing out entire industries with borrowed money and in some cases taking over ownership of private companies. Add in a trillion dollars in deficit spending, more than George W. Bush ever dreamed of, and you leave people wondering where this money will come from. Ask the guy with the “Don’t Tax Me, Bro” sign.
The funds for this bare-bones rally came from one man who paid the $200 permit fee. There was no rented stage, no elected official at the microphone and no marching orders from Fox News as CNN’s Susan Roesgen would have you believe. And definitely no money was spent on signs pointing to the van. The Republican Party wasn’t involved in these efforts evidenced by Chairman Michael Steele’s being denied a request to speak at the Tea Party in Chicago.
This seems to be the beginning of a larger movement as there is another round of tea parties planned for July 4th. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore... if you don't mind.
Why would so many right-of-center “silent majority” people enter a left-wing world of working themselves into a lather? They weren’t chafed enough to break windows and light fires like the anti-globalization movement (whatever that is) but managed to leave their homes and offices to listen to talk radio hosts and bloggers speak of taxes, deficits and government intrusion in our lives. These people were very angry, but in a lighthearted, jokey way.
A sign reading, “The Problem with Socialism is that Eventually You Run out of Other People’s Money” summed it up for me. Since the New Deal our elected officials have spent enormous sums on social programs and construction projects to buy votes. The abysmal track record of such boondoggles has elicited a collective decades-long yawn from the electorate. What’s changed in the past year is the government is bailing out entire industries with borrowed money and in some cases taking over ownership of private companies. Add in a trillion dollars in deficit spending, more than George W. Bush ever dreamed of, and you leave people wondering where this money will come from. Ask the guy with the “Don’t Tax Me, Bro” sign.
The funds for this bare-bones rally came from one man who paid the $200 permit fee. There was no rented stage, no elected official at the microphone and no marching orders from Fox News as CNN’s Susan Roesgen would have you believe. And definitely no money was spent on signs pointing to the van. The Republican Party wasn’t involved in these efforts evidenced by Chairman Michael Steele’s being denied a request to speak at the Tea Party in Chicago.
This seems to be the beginning of a larger movement as there is another round of tea parties planned for July 4th. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore... if you don't mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)