Insurance Thoughts

I was wondering what to blog on since I've not been stimulated these last few days to jot anything down on topics I do not find interesting.... blah. blah. blah... And here I though August was the 'dog days'.

But then I clicked on the link for a commenter at one of my 'daily fares' , my so called blog. Lachlan's been having a spot of bad karma lately, but she's showing her true Midwest spirit by either kickin' ass or taking names. Any way, the commenter, Mark, has a site called Tangent to Reality . So, being the kind and courteous type, I thought I'd check it out and found an interesting topic; one that stimulated that little kernel of a brain... Healthcare Insurance Rant.

Awrighty then...Now this is something that piques my interest. As mentioned previously, I've worked in the Healthcare industry for about 20 yrs. Now while I may not be on the front line of HC (doctor, nurse, MT, MLT, et al) , I am closely tied to them by both marriage (the better half is a MedTech at a local hospital) and career ( PM for Electonic Medical Records division) so I live this shit every day. So when folks have a hard time with Insurance Carriers, I totally understand. I, too, feel they are the parasites of society. After all, while they may profess not to take 'pre-existing' conditions, they will do nothing to prevent illness and disease. In my lab, we just run the tests. We have no control over what is ordered nor why. Yet, most of the time we are the ones required to 'collect' payment. This saves the provider the trouble of having to bill the patient. While propagating the fallacy of the abusive Healthcare Industry... After all, who likes to get a notice from the Lab or Hospital saying their Insurance Carrier has denied 20% of their bill, but since it's been requested by the physician, we are required to perform the requested tests if the required ICD-9 (diagnosis codes).

See our problem? It's the lab who is caught in the middle. . . but the patient suffers if they have to pay a bill they were not expecting and will be more than happy to blame the lab and not the physician who ordered the test!!!

Now a word from our Libertarian sponsor. . . Can any of you tell me just when it became the responsibility of the employer to provide health insurance ? ? ? Anyone??? Well, it came about during FDR's grand scheme of a greater society. But let's think about this...What or who decides the employer is responsible for their employee's healthcare? Shouldn't it be your responsibility? But until the dreaded Insurance Carriers adjust their costs for the self-insured, nothing will happen and all will suffer. Believe it or not we do have the best health care in the world, we just have to pay or supplement the Insurance Carriers to provide it.

Insurance = Legalized Loan Sharking

What Age do You Act? ? ?

Man, do I feel old . . .

You Are 34 Years Old

34 Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

What Age Do You Act?

The Gannon Problem

Has anyone kept up with The Gannon Problem for the White House? AMERICAblog has posted a couple of entries on it with one going into detail of his 'night job'.

I really haven't paid much attention to it, but after checking it out some I find it a little troubling. How did he get access? Who authorized it? Someone is going to take the fall on this, rightly so. I don't care about the sexuality spin on this. I'm more troubled with the fact he was able to have indepth access to the White House using a nom de guerre.

The Right is getting a taste of a pajama party from the Left. I think this shows the power of the blogs, no one is safe anymore. Good!

Who Owns What?!?!?!?

How often have you wondered in this day and age of mega-corporations, who really owns what? What power is concentrated into whose hands? Remember the power of the people when it came to the dissolution of apartheid? It was through the power of divestment.... Just imagine the power... Hummmmmmm.

Oh, sorry. I was just day dreaming of the power.

Anyway, I was checking out the Daou Report when I came across a rather innocuous direct to Will Pitt's site . It was titled Buying Back the Media, One Billionare at a Time . The nugget in the article is the link to Columbia Journalism Review's article on what Corporations own what. Now the limitation with this article is that it is only for Media Corporations, not all Corporations.

Pity...

But it's still a powerful list.

Rafsanjani's Interview with USA Today

As I mentioned before, I spent a couple of years during the late `70s in LA. This was during the Iranian crisis. Many of my friends were Iranian children of ex-pats who barely escaped with their lives. Some were even attacked here by some dubious characters.... So I just happen to have a certain affinity for them.

So, I was more than a little interested in what Rafsanjani had to say last week during an interview with Barbara Slavin (bold added by Docter Zin):

Slavin: Would you be prepared to reopen a dialogue with the United States?

Rafsanjani: The first step has to be from the U.S. part. They have to show positive signs for us so we can believe they are sincere. The main thing would be our assets. That would be the best positive sign. This is a very wrong action that they have betrayed our trust. When I talk about the assets, that was at the beginning of the talks. I was president then. I'm not president now. When I said it, this would be a sign of goodwill to begin the talks.

Slavin: Should Iran show goodwill by using its influence over the Palestinian groups to stop violence against the Israelis?

Rafsanjani: The Palestinian groups do not listen to us. We only help them in a humanitarian aspect like other countries, but they have no obligations towards us.

[...]

Slavin: Isn't your real problem with the United States? You know the Europeans are never going to attack Iran.

Rafsanjani: We say they (the United States) wouldn't dare to attack us and they have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980). Before the U.S. was in Iran, they had all the means here and we threw them out with our bare hands.

[...]

Slavin: What about Iran's connection with al-Qaeda? There have been persistent reports that Iran has several high-level al-Qaeda people under house arrest in Tehran and won't turn them over.

Rafsanjani: Who created al-Qaeda? In fact they (the United States) were the ones who provoked al-Qaeda to come and give us trouble. These are all rumors (about high level al-Qaeda people here). When al-Qaeda was on the run from Afghanistan crossing through Iran, some were arrested and they are imprisoned. Some of them are charged with some actions in Iran.

These folks are a good people, there's not doubt. Unfortunately, the US did mess with them during the Shah's regime as we are want to do some times... But until their radical Shia form of government stops oppressing their folks, we will always be at odds.

Alan Keyes' Daughter

I stumbled on to something the other day at The Daou Report (and BTW, looks like he sold out to Salon... ugh) which I found intriguing.

I find certain folks reprehensible in their actions and deeds and Mr. Alan Keyes is truly reprehensible. The Daou Report pointed to an Oliver Willis site which brought to my attention something I didn't know (surprise!!!) but just floors me.

Seems the Alan Keyes, the rightwingnut, has a daughter who just happens to be a lesbian... This is the man who slams Mary Cheney as a 'selfish hedonist'. My god, the gall this 'man' has!!!

But wait, there's more!!! And this is enough to just piss off a 'normal' person. Seems, and I could be wrong, but from what I've been able to discern from her post, Maya was working for her father after moving from Maryland to Illinois. Well, she was fired from her job and now has been kicked out of her apartment. By her family unit....

So much for Compassionate Conservatives, eh? Now, I can see how a parent would not support a child for such things murder and other hard crimes, but to use a child and then discard them is unbelievable.

For the life of me, I can't understand the phobia some folks have over the gay/lesbian issue. The whole issue of marriage is beyond me. How can anyone think it's wrong for folks to love and support one another? Or deny access to a partner in a hospital? Or divide assets properly? Or, even better. go through the agony of divorce or child custody, which I've seen personally and it's no easier come hetero or homosexual.

Why does it seem these pompous asses have the ultimate 'shame' thrust upon them??? Let's see, we've got Dick Cheney (Mary), Phyllis Schlafly (John), Charles Socarides, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (Richard), and Randall Terry (Jamiel) are just some to name a few. Good for them!!!

Eason Jordan

Sisypean Musings has been keeping tabs on the outrageous comments by Eason Jordan which has been ignored by the MSM....of course. I look forward to the video to refute the 'I never said that...'

The Fight Back

This is the moment we've been waiting for.

Ali has reported a town in the 'Sunni Triangle' has done then unspeakable! They fought back against the Islamofacists!!

Could this be the first sprout of Freedom?

"ALLAH FUBAR!!!"

Ok, I'm taking even the title from Michael King's article, but it can't be beat!! He points to Wizbang for the video, but it really is funny as hell!!!

The ad, a hoax viral ad not unlike last year's Ford Ka web ads that depicted a cat being beheaded and a pigeon being smacked into the street, is making it's way across the internet. The spot shows a man stepping out of a house in a nameless cosmopolitan European city and getting into a black VW Polo (a European-only sedan, similar to the American VW Golf). After driving the Polo through the city, he stops in front of a sidewalk cafe packed with diners. Inside the car, you see that he is a suicide bomber with a bomb vest on and a detonator in his hand. Outside the car again, the bomb detonates, and is completely contained within the car. A muffled "whumpf" sounds as the car remains intact. One diner
looks up at the car casually.

The captioned tag reads, "Polo. Small but tough."

So priceless, even the better half laughed out loud!!!

A World without Israel

Josef Joffe at Foreign Policy has an unbelievably illuminating article on the world if Israel didn't exist. As I've mentioned before, I am an undying believer in the right of Isreal's existence. Those who believe the Arab world would not be rife with strife if Israel was not around just don't have a clue.

Since World War II, no state has suffered so cruel a reversal of fortunes as Israel. Admired all the way into the 1970s as the state of those plucky Jews who survived against all odds and made democracy and the desert bloom in a climate hostile to both liberty and greenery, Israel has become the target of creeping delegitimization.

It's amazing to me that when a country has to repeatedly defend itself against overwhelming odds it winds up becoming demonized. I will accede some of her actions have had a deleterious effect. It is the actions of a paranoid and fearful society surrounded by openly hostile regimes.

The denigration comes in two guises. The first, the soft version, blames Israel first and most for whatever ails the Middle East, and for having corrupted U.S. foreign policy. It is the standard fare of editorials around the world, not to mention the sheer venom oozing from the pages of the Arab-Islamic press. The more recent hard version zeroes in on Israel's very existence. According to this dispensation, it is Israel as such, and not its behavior, that lies at the root of troubles in the Middle East. Hence the statocidal conclusion that Israel's birth, midwifed by both the United States and the Soviet Union in 1948, was a grievous mistake, grandiose and worthy as it may have been at the time.

[...]

Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that what is happening between Israelis and Palestinians is a tremendous obstacle to democratization because it inflames all the worst, most regressive aspects of Arab nationalism and Arab culture. In other words, the conflict drives the pathology, and not the other way around which is like the streetfighter explaining to the police: It all started when this guy hit back.

The problem with this root-cause argument is threefold: It blurs, if not reverses, cause and effect. It ignores a myriad of conflicts unrelated to Israel. And it absolves the Arabs of culpability, shifting the blame to you know whom.

Pathology . . .that says it all. The Arab world can cry all they want about Palestine, but it is a 'strawman' aguemnt. According to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages" that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine."

Now to the hard version. Ever so subtly, a more baleful tone slips into this narrative: Israel is not merely an unruly neighbor but an unwelcome intruder. Still timidly uttered outside the Arab world, this version's proponents in the West bestride the stage as truth-sayers who dare to defy taboo. Thus, the British writer A.N. Wilson declares that he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Israel, through its own actions, has proven it does not have the right to exist. And, following Sept. 11, 2001, Brazilian scholar Jose Arthur Giannotti said: Let us agree that the history of the Middle East would be entirely different without the State of Israel, which opened a wound between Islam and the West. Can you get rid of Muslim terrorism without getting rid of this wound which is the source of the frustration of potential terrorists?

So let us assume that Israel is an anachronism and a historical mistake without which the Arab-Islamic world stretching from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Pakistan, would be a far happier place, above all because the original sin, the stablishment of Israel, never would have been committed. Then let's move from the past to the present, pretending that we could wave a mighty magic wand, and poof, Israel disappears from the map.

What's amazing about this pipe dream? It's if this ever happened the Arabs would still blame all their problems on ghost of Israel.

Civilization of Clashes

Let us start the what-if procession in 1948, when Israel was born in war. Would stillbirth have nipped the Palestinian problem in the bud? Not quite. Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon marched on Haifa and Tel Aviv not to liberate Palestine, but to grab it. The invasion was a textbook competitive power play by neighboring states intent on acquiring territory for themselves. If they had been victorious, a Palestinian state would not have emerged, and there still would have been plenty of refugees. (Recall that half the population of Kuwait fled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's liberation of that country in 1990.) Indeed, assuming that Palestinian nationalism had awakened when it did in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinians might now be dispatching suicide bombers to Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.

There is much, much more. Joffe goes through the five levels of conflict inherent in the Middle East which have nothing to do with Israel. Just remember the term...Pathology...it is the true definition of the Arabs of today.

Don't Change Social Security!!

Wow, according to this quiz by the Healthspan Calculator, I'm expected to hang around until just shy of 70. So, all bets are off!!! Don't touch the eligibility for Social Security!! In fact, move it down some. After all I want to reap what I've sown.

Thanks Kate, you've harshed my buzz . . .

Partisan Pundity for 2004

Q and O refers to Lying in Ponds to bring us the Partisan Pundity for 2004. I can't argue with either site when they award Ann Coulter and Paul Krugman for being the partisan hacks that they are.

For Ann Coulter:

Ann Coulter easily won her second consecutive partisanship title, mostly because of her relentlessly one-sided criticism of the Democratic Party. Her ratio of 70 negative references to Democrats for every positive reference (1058 to 15) is unprecedented in the three years of Lying in Ponds statistics. Ms. Coulter was simultaneously the most positive pundit toward George W. Bush and the most negative toward John Kerry. In addition to extreme partisanship, Ms. Coulter stands out because of her array of nasty personal attacks -- she referred to various Democratic presidential candidates as a "pacifist scaredy-cat", "crazier than a March hare", a "two-faced weasel", a "coward", a "cad and a gigolo", a "low-born poseur", a "poodle to rich women", and "boobs". In addition to partisanship and incivility, Ms. Coulter is a master of deceptive and irrational rhetoric.

For Paul Krugman:

Paul Krugman completed another year as a New York Times columnist, making it five full years of punditry without once finding a reason to write a column consisting mostly of substantive criticsm of any Democrat on any topic or substantive praise of any Republican on any topic. Although Mr. Krugman's utterly predictable criticism of Republicans is unsurpassed, his high ranking also depends on a careful protection of Democrats. He expressed a strong preference for Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, but once John Kerry took the lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Krugman turned on a dime and was more favorable toward Mr. Kerry than any of our 33 pundits. He has carefully avoided any mention of Democratic scandals, adding disgraced former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey to a long list of names which must not be mentioned -- Marc Rich, Al Sharpton, Robert Torricelli, etc. Back in March, I wrote a five part series exploring various aspects of Paul Krugman's amazing record of extreme partisanship.

These two belong together in a padded cell. They are ones who poison the waters of discourse. The shame, the shame...

Iraq Civil War?

Iraq the Model has an entry on the possibilities of a Civil War in Iraq after the elections.

...The theory of the civil war doesn't match any of the facts on the ground and it's based on visions of people who have never lived among Iraqis and have no real-if any-experience in the region.

[ ... ]

Most of such theories are based on the assumption that the Sunni will not approve the outcome of the elections if the She'at got the majority of votes and that this disapproval would take the form of a widespread insurgency in all the areas inhabited by a Sunni majority and then the She'at would be forced to fight to defend their existence and the whole country gets into an endless circle of violence.The above theory looks strong and points out a possibility that can not be ignored (in the eyes of the theorists). I don't call this over-pessimism but I attribute it to a lack of clear vision and to looking at the case from one angle.

[ ... ]

During the past 18 months, the She'a and the Kurds had the majority (about 80%)of seats in the interim government with most of the decision making positions in their hands but that didn't lead to a civil war and I want to remind you here that the voices that are expecting the boycott and the civil war to happen are the same voices that expected the eruption of an uprising when the government decided to attack the terrorists in Najaf and Fallujah but we saw in both cases that only the terrorists who started the war remained fighting in the cities while the people, the citizens of the cities whether Sunni or She'at didn't show any support to the terrorists and left them to fight alone. So why would we now expect the Sunni to join the terrorists in a widespread insurgency?

I think this has touched on some valid points that seems to be glossed over for the negativity by the MSM. I have no doubt the danger the election poses for those who want to participate in the Sunni Triangle. Intimidation is a powerful tool in Iraq today. I can't image the every day folks just trying to survive to make a better country. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't; except this is for real and for keeps. But until the locals stand up and turn in the 'insurgents', their expoitation of the soft targets will continue even after the election.

I do not agree with the opinion that if the Sunni's boycott the vote, it election is invalid. Nor do I agree the Election should be postponed. The Sunni are given the opportunity to vote. If they choose not to vote, that is their choice. They are a minority with a history of oppressing the masses. Now they want to take their votes and go home...Let them.

Domestic Partnerships

Thanks to Daou Report for this.

One of the egregious examples of the second class treatment of same-sex partnerships will be battled in the New York State of Appeals Court. Lambda Legal will be arguing for the surviving partner of a flight attendant that died on board American Airlines Flight 587.

The couple had been together for 21 years, had set up elaborate financial agreements to care for each other, and had been among the first to register as domestic partners in New York State when the option became available in 1994. In 2003 the plaintiff was denied benefits because he failed to produce a marriage certificate.

This is why marriage should be separated from Church and State. If the many church organizations want to deny some people the ability to have a partnership within their organization, fine let `em. But the State should dis-associate itself from the supposed 'moral' dilemma by treating partnership as a legal agreement.

If you get married with the Justice of the Peace, it is completely non-sectarian and should have all the benefits under the law. It's not going to impact little Timmy or little Debbie any more if we have same-sex marriages, oops, partnerships than the inter-racial marriages now logical and legal in our land.

Geez, people . . . get over it!!! What are you suppressing???

Religious Justification for Tsunami

If there's something I love more than college football . . . it's watching religious 'leaders' try to justify God's 'actions' in causing this massive loss of live.

I was watching USC dismantle OU, when during half time, I switched to Joe Scarborough. I landed into a bee hive. He had Jennifer Giroux and Billy Graham's daughter, Ann telling us just how loving God is and that this action will be a beacon of hope . . . I'm sorry. I think Billy Graham is a great man who is nothing like the other TV preachers, but I just wanted to bitch slap BOTH of those brainless twits and tell them to stop spewing such tripe. When normal people hear this nonsense, it should turn your stomach.

If you can't tell, this is where I have a hard time with religion. Having been raised in the Baptist church (hence my affection for ol' Billy) and a current weekly attendee at a Catholic church, yet not a member (I do it for the family), I've heard a lot of religion in my day. This is what has caused me to be believer in Zen... Yet I hear Ann repeat as if she's brainwashed how if we believe in the Cross all suffering will be relieved. Tell that to a man who has lost his wife, had his children ripped from his arms and lost all he's worked for. Jennifer Giroux spouted that it was our life styles of abortion and homosexuality which caused this type of catastrophe. She is the stupidest person alive. God would wipe out hundreds of thousands of Muslim, Buddhists and Christians for the sins of Americans. What arrogance, what an idiot!!!

This is why I can not believe God is a personal God. Jesus may have said God knows every hair on the head of every person, but if that's the case God is not the loving God espoused in the New Testament. No personal God that I know of would allow such mass extinction. This sounds more like the vindictive, vengeful God of the Old Testament. However, even then God always gave the people a chance. I mean if God would give Lot a chance to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if Lot could find 50 good people, ya think God would have given someone a chance to spare South Asia...

I'm sorry, but after an event like this their rationalization of a Just, Loving and Personal God rings hollow. Just as their rationalization of dinosaur or other fossils ring empty by saying God placed them there to test us after the flood. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a God-less heathen, well after reading this some folks may think so... But since I don't believe in Hell, I guess I'm OK!!!!

I do believe in a Divine Power, just not a personal one. It's more like a Supreme Powersource, not an Old Man with a Beard who listens to the prayers of people asking for things. Petition the Lord with prayer??? Petition the Lord with PRAYER!!! That's as bad as having an athlete tell us God helped him win his game!!! Cuz that implies God wanted the other person to lose or maybe it's just that the other person was just not worthy enough....Please.

Sorry to go off like this, but I love discussing religion since it is so personal.

Remember the root of all suffering is desire!

Revolting Example of Exploitation

Alright, I admit it. I may be guilty of hyperbole, but I find the Networks exploitation of the tsunami disaster just disgusting. This cries of the ugly American. Who wants to see Diane Sawyer 'showing' sympathetic cow eyes as she 'comforts' the less fortunate. Better yet, what do ya bet, Dan 'memogate' Rather will repeatedly mention just how 'stingy' the US govt really is...

I just am disgusted at the pandering of sorrow. . .

Puget Sound Politics

Thanks to LGF for pointing to a new site on Puget Sound politics called Sound Politics. I saw Stefan Sharkansky's name in the News Tribune this morning in fact in an article on Sam Reed's handling of this debacle. His site was labeled a "right-wing blog", but so far he's been concentrating on the Washington Governor's race. He brings up some interesting voting anomalies, but I think the fate has been sealed... Gregoire is the new Governor of King County. I mean, she is the new governor of Washington.

Will the Dems Evolve?

Victor Davis Hanson has an offered up his usual insightful opinion this week on how the Democrats must evolve or die. He has pin pointed a fatal flaw in institutional Liberalism.

Those on the Left felt that American democracy and global capitalism did not necessarily offer the rest of the world a much better alternative than either Soviet-sponsored Communism or third-world thuggery. Instead, in this view, American realism favored order, but not spreading liberty or social justice abroad and only managed to promote overseas more of the unfairness and racism that we supposedly suffered from at home.

Everything from Vietnam to Nicaragua was seen through this reductionist prism, assuming a haughty United States at odds with indigenous reformers the world over. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of the capitalist juggernauts China and India, the globalization of the world economy, radical social and economic changes here at home, and the spread of Islamic fascism, none of those old views makes sense anymore.

Growing up in the `70s and coming to political awareness during the `80s, I was acutely aware of this political position since I was on the Left. I felt our actions in Central America bordered on criminal. Hell, I thought of them as War Crimes. The United State's track record in our own hemisphere has been questionable at best. Everything from Guatemala in the 1950s (leading to 36 years of bloodshed) to Chile in the 1970s. I won't even bring up Panama's creation with Theodore Roosvelt's vision of a canal.

Being in California and attending college during the early 1980's, I was very aware of our actions in ALL of Central America. I thought Reagan was the anti-Christ!!! It was so bad I took Russian in high school in anticipation of the inevitable.

So, I understand what VDH is saying and I agree with him 100%!!! The Old Democratic View is archaic and must be revised. After all what have the entrenched Old Left accomplished in this New World?

President Bush was criticized by many Democrats on both practical and political grounds for ostracizing Yasser Arafat, the past beneficiary of a rigged vote. Yet most are silent now about the news that local elections are now taking place for the first time in nearly a decade. Why voting all of a sudden now? Was the president right in seeing the removal of this so-called national liberationist as a key to democratic change on the West Bank?

Where is the Left? Are they still backing the UN, who are anti-Semitic and whose Under-Sec Brahimi recently attacked Israel, again? They remind me of little Pomeranians, big bark and a bigger id.

All this reminds me of Norman Podhoretz's article I thought I blogged about last fall but can't seem to find it... It's a rather lengthy article, but man is it good.

John Maynard Keynes once said that "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." Keynes was referring specifically to businessmen. But practical functionaries like bureaucrats and administrators are subject to the same rule, though they tend to be the slaves not of economists but of historians and sociologists and philosophers and novelists who are very much alive even when their ideas have, or should have, become defunct. Nor is it necessary for the "practical men" to have studied the works in question, or even ever to have heard of their authors. All they need do is read the New York Times, or switch on their television sets, or go to the movies and, drip by drip, a more easily assimilable form of the original material is absorbed into their heads and their nervous systems.

Wow, that pretty much says what's going on with our pseudo intellectuals. It's 'let's see what the NY Times says' before they use their own gray matter.

Where was the "petro-imperialism", we hear as a mantra from the Old Left, when freed the Kosovars and Afghans asks VDH:

Consider further: The United States runs staggering trade deficits with most of the world. Its dollar is at an all-time low. Its postwar international protocols from the World Trade Organization to the United Nations either favor the non-West or look unkindly toward the United States. The American military, at great risk and cost, alone in the world saved Kosovars, Afghans, and Iraqis from tyranny. For all the Vietnam-era rhetoric about American meddling, the elected Karzai and the provisional Allawi are a far cry from the Shah, Pinochet, or Somoza. We are doing things in the Middle East that make no sense in terms of traditional economic or political advantage and yet still bring out 1960s-era stegosauruses alleging imperialism and hegemony.

VDH sums it up with some suggestions:

1. Remember that multilateral inaction whether in the Balkans, Rwanda, or Darfur - is often calculated, selfish, and far more lethal to millions than risky interventions like removing the Taliban and Saddam.
2. Quit idolizing Europe. It was a far larger arms merchant to Saddam than was the United States; it supplied most of Dr. Khans nuclear laboratory; it financed much of the Oil-for-Food scandal; and it helped to create and tolerate the Balkans genocide. It has never freed any country or intervened to remove fascism and leave behind democracy silly American notions that are to be caricatured except when it is a matter of saving Europeans.
3. Stop seeing an all-powerful United States behind every global problem. China is on the move and far more likely to disrupt environmental protocols, cheat on trade accords, and bully neighbors. The newly expanded Europe has a larger population and aggregate economy, stronger currency, and far less in trade and budget debts than does the United States and is already using that economic clout for its own interests, not global freedom from dictators and autocrats.
4. Don't believe much of what the U.N. says anymore. Its secretary general is guilty of either malfeasance or incompetence, its soldiers are often hired thugs who terrorize those they are supposed to protect, and its resolutions are likely to be anti-democratic and anti-Semitic. Its members include dozens of nations whose odious representatives we would not let walk inside the doors of the U.S. Congress. The old idea of a United Nations was inspiring, the current reality chilling.
5. Stop seeing socialists and anti-Americans as Democrats. When a Michael Moore compares beheaders to our own Minutemen and laments that too many Democrats were in the World Trade Center, he deserves no platform alongside Wesley Clark or a seat next to Jimmy Carter or praise for his pseudo-dramas from high Democrats. Firebrands like Al Sharpton and Michael Moore are the current leftist equivalents of 1950s right-wing extremists like the John Birchers. They should suffer the same fate of ostracism, not bemused and tacit approval.
6. Ignore most grim international reports that show the United States as stingy, greedy, or uncaring based on some esoteric formula that makes a Sweden or Denmark out as the world's savior. Such "studies" always ignore aggregate dollars and look at per capita public giving, and yet somehow ignore things like over $100 billion to Afghanistan and Iraq or $15 billion pledged to fight AIDS in Africa. These academic white papers likewise forget private donations, because most of the American billionaires who give to global causes of various sorts do so as either individuals or through foundations. No mention is made of the hundred of millions that are handled by American Christian charities. And the idea of a stingy America never mentions about $200 billion of the Pentagon's budget, which does things like keeping the Persian Gulf open to world commerce; protecting Europe; ensuring that the Aegean is free of shooting and that the waters between China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are relatively tranquil; and stopping nasty folk like the Taliban and Saddam from blowing up more Buddha monuments, desecrating Babylon, or ruining the ecology of the Tigris-Euphrates wetlands.

Wasn't it Churchill who said democracy was the worst form of government, but better than all the rest? That goes for capitalism as well. Sure you're going to find sleeze balls taking advantage of others, but where is most of the money coming from to help those in South Asia? From those of us who are free. We can only hope the entrenched Liberal Democrats can evolve into a viable party to off set the dinosaurs in the Republican party. After all, dinosaurs are every where!!!

WaPo Article on Bush "Insensitivity"

I couldn't believe what I read yesterday in the WaPo article Yahoo! News - Aid Grows Amid Remarks About President's Absence, but then after digesting it I found I was naive. After all, it was pointed out just how sensitive Clinton is/was and this implied just how callous Pres. Bush really is!!!

After all:

Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.

[...]

Usually only about 10 percent of the final aid tally is given in the initial response to a natural disaster, with the bulk of aid provided after an assessment of long-term needs, according to the State Department. "We know the needs will be greater. This was a disaster of almost unimaginable dimension, and it's going to require massive support for some time," State Department spokesman J. Adam Ereli said.

And yet:

Gelb [Ed. - Thanks to Wizbang for noting Gelb was a senior member of Kerry's Foreign relations team] said what appears to be a grudging increase in effort sends the wrong message, at a time when dollar totals matter less than a clear statement about U.S. intentions. Noting that the disaster occurred at a time when large numbers of people in many nations -- especially Muslim ones such as Indonesia -- object to U.S. policies in Iraq, he said Bush was missing an opportunity to demonstrate American benevolence.
"People do watch and see what we do," he said. "Here's an opportunity to remind people of the good we do, and he [Bush] can do it without changing his policy on Iraq or terrorism."

My heart goes out to those in Southern Asia. I've seen the home vids and it truly is amazing. It's not like Hollywood. This not a 100 ft wall of water, but the devastation is from a 10 to 20 foot wave. Most people just don't realize the power of water. I've been in the Pacific trying to body surf in high waves and you just get pounded trying to get out. But the energy from the tsunami is an amazing force.

But to have the U.N. cry about the US 'stingy' offerings is pathetic. Not all of our donations are through the auspices of our govt. We give so much to the Red Cross and Catholic Relief as well as many other organizations. For them to complain that our per capita donations do not live up to their wants after their UN-for-Food scandal is beyond the pale...

God Rolled His Eyes

Michael Totten pointed me to an excellent article, from which I copied the title, about what I just blogged the other day.

One side says that religion is under attack in America.

Another side says America is under attack from religion.

I say both sides are trivializing faith and the First Amendment. And
what would God say? I think He would roll His eyes.

There are too many places on this earth today where religion is most certainly under attack: start with China. There are many nations under attack from religion: start with Iran and Saudi Arabia. And, Lord knows, there are too many places where people are attacked because of their religion: try being a Jew or a Christian in the wrong place; try being the wrong flavor of Muslim in the other guy's turf.