Is There a War on Christmas?

That was the question asked by the Chicago Sun Times in their editorials section. Andrea Sarvady argued that there is no war. Like most secular progressives, she made Bill O'Reilly the issue in her arguement that so called war on Christmas is overblown.

It's the "war" Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly and his "cultural
warriors" battle every December, trying to save Christmas. Frothing at the mouth for hours of air time, O'Reilly extrapolates from various church vs. state skirmishes and politically correct marketing efforts that there is a national conspiracy to eradicate Christmas.

It's ironic, because what this avowed patriot is actually railing against
couldn't be more American: the First Amendment.

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, explains the guiding principle -- simply, to "treat people of all faiths or none with fairness and respect." Therefore, holiday programs "shouldn't make any students feel excluded or identified with a religion not their own." Religious music shouldn't dominate a choral program, but can be included. Public seasonal displays should contain both secular and religious elements.

This is a peculiar perspective for several reasons. It starts with her peculiar interpretation of the first amendment. Here is the text from the Constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now, I must have missed the part where it is against the first amendment to make someone feel uncomfortable. Second, Christmas is a federal holiday. Now, Ms. Sarvady would apparently have us celebrate this FEDERAL holiday without any mention of it anywhere in public. Third, O'Reilly isn't against displaying religious symbols from all the holidays of the season. He just feels as though Christmas shouldn't be singled out and not displayed. Here is how he put it.

The usual Christmas deniers are appalled the ACLU is not going to sue anybody this year. And that's because they lose almost every time they drag Christmas into court. And even those pinheads are tired of wasting money.

In Wisconsin, the state assembly has voted to restore the name of the
"Christmas tree" to the "Christmas tree". That's because they changed it to the "holiday tree". On Capitol Hill, the House voted yesterday 372 to 9 to recognize the "importance of the Christmas tradition and to condemn bigotry against Christians." And those who voted against that Ackerman and Clarke of New York, DeGette of Colorado, Hastings of Florida, McDermott of Washington state, Scott of Virginia, Lee, Woolsey, Stark of California.

So all over the country, the sights and signs of Christmas are on display. Few department stores are telling employees not to say a "Merry Christmas." And the Taliban like oppression of the holiday has largely ceased, but the SPs are not happy about that.

Sarvady's arguement totally falls apart for me with these next two points...

Some school and city officials choose to excise the holidays completely in order to avoid offense. Haynes, a consultant to school districts, feels that year-round education on various religions is a more effective way to mitigate the "December Dilemma."

Though well-versed on all sides of the issue, he still doesn't understand the attack on more all-encompassing greetings like "Happy Holidays," saying: "People who use that expression are just trying to be kind."

...

One of the more insidious aspects of this trumped-up "war" is an eagerness to blame everything on what Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council calls "overzealous secularist officials." Clever. Pretend the separation of church and state matters only to secular leftists and the rabid right won't sound like they're trying to propagate a religious crusade.

Isn't it amazing how someone supposedly stands up for the first amendment in one breathe and then finds nothing wrong with schools taking away everyone's ability to express their religious beliefs in the other? How exactly is this in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the first amendment?

Some school and city officials choose to excise the holidays completely in order to avoid offense...

I guess in the world of Ms. Sarvady taking away every religion's right to express itself is protecting the first amendment. Like I said, I didn't know that offending someone was a violation of the first amendment. Then Sarvady uses this strawman arguement.

Pretend the separation of church and state matters only to secular leftists and the rabid right won't sound like they're trying to propagate a religious crusade.

What's clever is pretending as though the separation of church and state is anywhere in the Constitution. The phrase the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, it was first used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter
written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [7]

This so called wall is not and never has meant to be to stop any and all religious expressions in the public square. The first amendment is supposed to keep Congress from favoring one religion over another. Now, some might argue that making Christmas a federal holiday violates that principle, however that is found nowhere in Sarvady's arguement. Since she knows that removing Christmas as a federal holiday is frankly a non starter, she makes all of these other arguements. Arguements that only make sense in the alter universe of the secular progressive.

The Changing Political Dynamics Surrounding Grady Hospital

From a purely political junkie level the current dynamics surrounding Grady Hospital are absolutely fascinating. Here is a quick run down. Late last month, the board at Grady Hospital approved a plan to go quasi private and asked, or demanded depending on your perspective, for roughly half a billion dollars in order to stay solvent. Then, not two weeks later, the JCAHO threatened to cut off Grady's national accreditation. Now, let's take each one at a time and then look at them together.

I believe the board is playing a huge political game of chicken with the Georgia legislature. I believe this plan does NOT have the best interest of the hospital in mind whatsoever. While that is certainly important, it is unfortunately a side issue in this political battle. As a friend of mine once put it

Grady can't shut down because who would take care of all the poor folks then

Without the money called for in this plan, Grady WILL shut down. The powers that be know this, and I have said as much. While Grady Hospital has had a long history of corruption and mismanagement, much of the power structure has continued to boldly and brazenly manage it in much the same way that has landed it in its current state. The reason for this is of course quite complicated, however it is due in no small part to Grady's vital role in Georgia health care system and society at large. Remember, Grady Hospital is among the largest in the world and is overwhelmingly responsible for taking care of most Georgia's poor folks. Without it all of the many "nice" hospitals in the area would have to take care of those folks.

I have fallen in love with the Latin phrase, Res Ipsa Loquitur. (The facts speak for themselves) Given Grady's long and sordid history with corruption and mismanagement, the fact that most of the power structure in Georgia never tried to really stop it tells me that most people don't much care as long as some other entity was taking care of those that no one else wanted to take care of, THE POOR. I believe the powers that be are counting on the exact same dynamic now. I believe the only thing most of the power players in Georgia want to avoid is for the poor folks to be dropped on the rest of the health care system. As long as they are Grady's problem, in my opinion, most everyone else turns a blind eye.

Thus, we have this game of chicken. The legislature doesn't want to hand Grady Hospital anymore money. They must know that the systemic problems currently going on at Grady aren't going to be solved with this plan, however without an infusion of cash, Grady shuts down. The powers that be at Grady are counting on the legislature blinking first. The legislature meets again in January so, for now, that part of the story is on hold.

Enter the JCAHO. Just last week they publicly threatened to revoke the accreditation of Grady Hospital. To put this move in perspective only one hospital, King Hospital in California, has ever actually lost their accreditation. Many of allies on this story have extolled this move as pivotal. I am a lot more skeptical. There must have been the same kind of excitement when State Senator Charles Walker was convicted of 127 felonies at Grady and beyond. Yet, he, along with his daughter and the companies they ran, were the only ones that were convicted, and of course he got the absurd sentence of ten years. In 2004, the department of Health and Human Services conducted an investigation that concluded this...

the conditions at Grady Hospital pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and safety of the patients

That was pretty damning however besides the then CEO, Dr. Andrew Agwunobi, no one lost their job as a result of this report and the power structure stayed in place despite its damning findings.

Even in the late 1990's, Georgia Attorney General found Grady Hospital guilty of Medicare fraud. All of these were opportunities lost to clean up the corruption at Grady Hospital. The reason it didn't happen is also quite complicated, however I believe much of the blame goes to the media in Atlanta, headed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

In each of these stories, the truth is quite complicated and it was never fully explained to the citizens of Georgia. For instance, in the case of the HHS report, the report itself was damning, however how many people know the specifics of the report? Four departments were singled out: oncology, cardiology, General Surgery, and obgyn, in the report. Each of these departments had heads. None of these people lost their jobs because the specifics of the report weren't ever reported properly in the media. Furthermore, the heads of these departments had one boss, the Chief Medical Officer. His name is William Casarella and he has since been promoted within Emory University. This also happened because the media didn't properly report the specifics of the case. All people knew, if anything, about the investigation was the conclusion. While that was damning enough blame was impossible for a layman to determine without understanding the specifics as I now explain them.

In the case of Medicare fraud in the late 1990's, three departments were also identified: cardiology, obgyn, and oncology. Again, these departments have heads and a Chief Medical Officer above them. All of them including the CMO should have been and would have been fired if the media had properly exposed that case. As you can see the same departments are now coming up in multiple reports. No one outside the Grady structure knows this because the media, either through incompetence or worse, doesn't report the specifics of each case.

There is one other case that the media did an atrocious job of reporting. That is the case of Dr. Sam Newcom. He was for about a year, the head of Oncology at Grady Hospital and Emory University Professor. He tried to speak out about the corruption and poor patient care at Grady Hospital and he was fired and ultimately paid off and silenced, but before that he wrote an article entitled Fighting Class Cleansing at Grady Memorial Hospital. You won't find this article in any mainstream Atlanta publication. As head of Oncology, you would be right in concluding that much of his indictment centered on his own department. In other words, oncology is the subject of a great deal of indictment from people of varying motivations and knowledge.

Nothing much has happened to clean up the oncology department and that is because the media has been asleep in reporting the specifics of what is going on at Grady.

Then, there is Emory University. When the heat gets hot on Grady, Emory does a great job of distancing itself. In fact, they are doing their own disappearing act now. The truth is that they are for all intents and purposes one and the same. Each of these departments indicted by several different groups was run and almost fully staffed by staff at Emory University. The Chief Medical Officer, Dr. William Casarella, during much of this malfeasance has since been promoted within Emory. In other words, when there is sytemic problems at Grady Hospital, the blame must be laid at Emory University since it is staffed overwhelmingly by Emory professors and students. When Dr. Newcom indicted oncology, he was indicting his own colleagues since oncology is overwhelmingly staffed, like most of Grady Hospital, by Emory University personnel.

Now, what about the JCAHO findings? We know they are threatening to cut off accreditation however why? That, we don't know because for reasons unknown (I plan on calling the JCAHO on Monday for further explanation) the specifics of the findings aren't known. We can assume that multiple specific departments are the cause of it. It might be oncology, General Surgery, obgyn, cardiology, etc. The heads of any of the departments involved must be removed. If your department contributed to an investigation that ultimately lead to the accreditation of your hospital being threatened, THAT IS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL, in my opinion at least. The current chief medical officer, Curtis Lewis, must be removed. If you are overseeing a hospital and the hospital is threatened with the removal of its accreditation, THAT IS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. The Current CEO of Grady Hospital is Otis Story, Sr. He must be removed for the same reasons. In fact, the entire board ought to be removed, however the board is overseen by Vernon Jones, and anyone that knows anything about Jones knows not to expect that to happen. Of course, how many Georgia folks know the real story behind Vernon Jones? That would require the media in Georgia to actually competently report the whole truth.

This whole case proves why the first amendment, the free press, is first not second or tenth. I hope everyone sees what happens when the media itself cedes its own freedoms and doesn't bother to report the whole truth. In order for this cycle to stop, the whole truth of the JCAHO findings must be reported by the media in Georgia. The media must keep the pressure on until all parties are held responsible. That is what has to happen.

Here is what will probably happen. There will be no more then a few more articles in the AJC about this report. Anymore reporting will be on the eventual deal made between Grady and the JCAHO, a deal that will no doubt be made in some back room. The major media in Georgia will NOT reveal the specific departments responsible for this latest investigation. They won't name names and they won't demand for heads to roll. Finally, they won't call Emory out when they distance themselves. Emory University will throw its significant weight around the Georgia Legislature and no one will report it. Grady will be given a golden parachute and none of the obvious systemic problems I have pointed out will ever be reported on or addressed. I hope I am wrong and I will be watching.

For more information on this case, please read this article. Also, please read the recommendations that my colleagues have come up with and compare them to the current plan.

Analysis and Reaction to Mitt Romney's Speech

Mitt Romney gave a speech many believed he needed to give discussing his faith. I didn't hear it or see it so I will act merely as a sort of weigh station of news and reaction to it.


Power Line has audio of the speech and a full transcript.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

The view from the right blogosphere was generally impressed.

He appealed to religious liberty, the liberty that America was founded on. He pointed to what a lack of religious freedom can lead to. And I think he did an excellent job of showing Americans that he is indeed an ally in the fight for the collective faith of all Americans and the religious freedoms we too often take for granted.

The right punditry was more balanced.

There was much in the speech that evangelicals and other religious conservatives will find to their liking. First, there was Romney's treatment of religious liberty. He said it is an inalienable right "with which each is endowed by his Creator." He implied it is, amongst all our liberties, the very first. Romney said he understood the religion clause of the First Amendment as being fundamentally about securing "the free practice of religion" and pointed out that while achieving religious liberty has been a long and arduous process, its benefits--"diversity of cultural expression" and "vibrancy of .  .  . religious dialogue"--are evident and contrast sharply with what you find in Europe, where established churches seem to be "withering away."

Second, Romney took a whack at those (unnamed) who take "the notion of the separation of church and state .  .  . well beyond its original meaning" by seeking "to remove from the public domain any acknow-ledgment of God." It is, he said, "as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America--the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Romney called for public acknowledgments of God--"in ceremony and word." God "should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places." Romney even managed to work in a reference to judges, saying we need jurists who will stick to original meaning and let stand, for example, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Third, Romney affirmed that religion is a force for the nation's well-being. "No movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people," he said, citing as examples abolition in the 19th century and civil rights in the 20th. He also mentioned "the right to life itself," a movement not yet finished--and clearly of importance to many Republican primary voters.

The rest of the punditry was a lot more mixed. Here is some from E.J. Dionne.

Romney's speech at the George H.W. Bush library in College Station, Tex., was by turns brilliant and frustrating, inspiring yet also transparently political in its effort to find the precise balance that would satisfy Republican primary voters.

When he spoke of the dangers of subjecting candidates to doctrinal investigations, Romney had perfect pitch. His opponents -- particularly Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister who is reaping a great harvest of evangelical Christian support in Iowa -- should join him in warning against religious bigotry.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," Romney said. "To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

There was also his poetic assertion that "we do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

But in light of all this, it was a neck-snapping moment when Romney declared: "What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."

With those words, Romney legitimized the most fundamental test being imposed on him in some evangelical Christian quarters. He was telling them he deserved an "A" on the religious exam they cared about most. He has every right to declare his faith in Jesus, but didn't his profession, in this context, undercut his central and proper contention that a candidate should not be asked to "describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines"?

Here is one from the Salt Lake Tribune...

The Creator] should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.

Clearly a nod to religious conservatives who are pushing for religious expression in the public sphere.

So many of the [European] cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.

This speaks to the fears of the religious right that if they don't protect and promote religion now, America will go the way of secular Europe.


Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom. . . . killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood.


This is pure religious right rhetoric, but it is also offensive to Muslims to use "Islamists" as a term of fear and horror.


We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

The "symphony of faith" may be Romney's best metaphor, but critics are already using it against him, pointing out that humanists, agnostics and atheists seem to be excluded from playing.

Finally, just for fun here is the view from the Kos.

He didn't say the word "Mormon" once, I don't think. [UPDATE II: Final word count score -- Mormon: 1; Muslim/Islam/jihad: 5] So to the extent that you bought the hype and tuned in because you had genuine questions about the LDS church, you came away empty-handed. And possibly with the nagging feeling that Romney's hiding something after all.

What the speech did succeed in showing is that the Romney operation is the nearest successor (to date) to the Bush operation in its willingness to play the press corps for suckers. Promise a "major address" on some pressing issue, play the expectations game according to the Conventional Wisdom -- that is, raising the stakes by having surrogates use back channels to inflate expectations about the importance of the substance to be addressed -- and then turn it all on its head by delivering nothing of what was promised, and daring the press corps to write their stories with their pants down, having played into the game of promising something big.

The other master stroke here was the choice of venue: the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. That puts the Romney name next to the Bush name in the papers -- a grab at the mantle, if people will just look past the "H" -- and it allows Romney to deliver what was essentially Republican religionist pablum (I believe in God, He should be on our money, plus we need "our kind" of judges) from behind a podium bearing the presidential seal. A media consultant's dream come true, and what should be a fat bonus for the advance team (but they never get the money).

The World After the NIE Report

If anyone wants to know what a brave new world the internet and 24 cable news has created they only need to look at the dynamics created by the release of the National Intelligence Estimate in regards to Iran's nuclear program. Six or eight years ago I would venture to guess that many in government wouldn't know anything about any NIE report. Now, the NIE is subject to water cooler discussion and is being used as spin material by politicians as far away as Iran.



The problem with this brave new world is that most of the people in it know just enough to be dangerous. First, as Fred Thomspon rightly points out, we should have a healthy skepticism toward this report.

The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism. Our intelligence community has often underestimated the intentions of adversaries, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea. And are all of the CIA detractors now going to take intelligence pronouncements at face value? It's awfully convenient for a lot of people: the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago: and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary

Second, if the report is right, then the reaction is almost entirely spin and in no way relates to reality. There is a great deal of irony that most of the same people that are using this report to attack Bush for some sort of perceived misleading statements also attacked Bush for lying about Iraq. The final NIE report on Iraq painted a scary picture in which the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was seeking a plethora of WMD programs. Even though that particular report concurred with the picture the President gave, that didn't stop his opponents from claiming that he lied about Iraq's WMD's. Now, most of the exact same people that ignored a previous NIE report to claim he lied are using another NIE report to claim he is now lying. They simply can't have it both ways. Either the NIE is the gospel or it isn't.



Finally, if this report is accurate, then it in fact validates Bush's entire foreign policy strategy. The NIE report says that Iran halted their nuclear program in 2003. Unless you are a believer in strange coincidences that means Iran stopped their program because they noticed their neighbor to the West was getting bombarded because of his own WMD program. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did in fact put tyrants and despots on notice and it changed their behavior. Remember, Lybia also gave up its WMD program in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

Here is another view...

What did that pressure consist of? In the fall of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency had not yet referred the civil Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. That happened in 2006, and the Security Council finally agreed on (weak) sanctions later that year. In the fall of 2003, the European Union had barely swung into action with its negotiations--which have gone nowhere in four years. The quasi-urgency displayed by both the IAEA and the EU in late 2003 was a result of fear that unless they got engaged, the United States might act unilaterally and militarily. Why such fear?

Much as the U.S. intelligence community, the IAEA, and the EU might prefer to forget it, we did overthrow Saddam Hussein in April 2003. As Rosett puts it, that "was the year in which Saddam Hussein became Exhibit A of the post-Sept.-11 era for what could happen to terror-linked tyrants who ignored America's demands that they abjure weapons of mass murder."

Did anyone notice? Muammar Qaddafi did. Libya, in late 2003, gave up its nuclear weapons program (which was, incidentally, more advanced than the IAEA believed) and invited U.S. experts in to dismantle it.

Perhaps Iran's mullahs also noticed. Perhaps they noticed, too, a large U.S.-led military force just across their border.

Why then are some using this as bludgeon against Bush? Here is how Joe Biden put it...

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) Tuesday asserted that President Bush is not leveling with the country when he says that he did not know in mid-October that U.S. intelligence services believed at that time that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated
on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.

So, when accusing the sitting President of lying about matters of national security, Biden uses nothing but supposition. Of course, he isn't alone. Most of the entire MSM has claimed this.
Criticism was coming from nearly every single quarter.

The new National Intelligence Estimate — which says Iran had a nuclear weapons development program, but halted it in 2003 — made President Bush's week play out like a sad country song. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was smiling and called the report a victory. Rush Limbaugh blasted the report as a product of administration sabotage. And Democrats were accusing the president of being a flip-flopper.

The NIE drew fire from nearly all sides, including anti-war Democrats in Congress, foreign leaders the administration needs to hold the line against Iran, and conservatives usually supportive of the administration.

The root issue for many critics comes down to credibility: Credibility of the estimate, credibility of the intelligence community that developed it and the credibility of the administration for whom those agencies work. Bridging that credibility gap might prove difficult for an administration heading into its final months.

The most absurd criticism came from those that claimed this would slow down "Bush's rush to war". First, the only rush that Bush had to go to war with Iran was in the minds of the people that claimed he had it. For the last six years the only thing Bush has done is go back to the UN for an endless stream of useless sanctions. If anything Bush hasn't been tough enough, not too tough. Second, to claim that this proves that Iran isn't the threat that Bush claims is to ignore all reality. First here is how some of those think.

To be sure, the first reaction to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is simple relief — the Bush administration is less likely to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive military strike against a nuclear program that doesn’t exist.

But then there are the second and third reactions, which are nearly as important in providing context. Matt Yglesias, for example, reminds us that in 2003, Iran reached out to the U.S. in order to strike a sweeping peace deal, which would have led the country to give up on a nuclear program that they then-realized would be too hard to develop. Bush wasn’t interested.

For anyone to treat Iran as anything short of a sociopathic regime that needs to be isolated and confronted until they understand that confrontation will only lead to their destruction is to ignore reality. Let's review some of the things Iran has done in the last couple years.

One of their proxies started a war in Lebanon with Israel. Another proxy started a war in Palestine with Israel. It is Iran that is responsible for the much of the alphabet soup of explosive devices currently killing our soldiers in Iraq . Let's not forget that the Iranians crossed into international waters, took fifteen British sailors hostage, and then paraded them on television for propaganda purposes. To claim that Iran is not a menace because some government report claims they halted their nuclear program (though interestingly not their uranium enrichment) is to ignore Iran's actions over the last few years. Iran is a menace. If this report is accurate then it proves that the only way to deal with them is with a hammer.

What is frustrating to folks like me is how the White House is again bungling the media handling of this report. Even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency you aren't hearing much response to much of this absurd criticism.

There you have the brave new world of the MSM and the NIE report. It is complicated by nature as the NIE report is really not meant for layman. That said, most people are asking all the wrong questions and coming to all the wrong conclusions. It is nothing short of absurd to have the same Joe Biden accusing Bush of misleading on Iraq, all the while ignoring the NIE report, and misleading on Iran, all the while treating this NIE report as the gospel. It is shameful that the MSM has focused solely on perceived misleading statements without even a thought that this report actually confirms Bush's policies.

Finally, and to me most importantly, it is no less shameful that the Bush admin allows all of this to happen even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

JCAHO Threatens to Shut Down Grady Hospital

The Atlanta Journal Constitution (which I believe to be a suspect news organization) broke this this morning...

As if things weren't bad enough for the financially strapped Grady Health System, now the hospital faces a list of criticisms, including issues with patient care, that put its national accreditation at risk.

In a five-day inspection last week, the Joint Commission —- formerly the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations —- identified "numerous
requirements for improvement," according to a statement issued by Grady on Monday. Hospital officials gave no details about the kinds of shortcomings inspectors found.

Dr. Christopher Edwards, vice chairman of the Grady board, said the report cited "opportunities for improvement in various areas, including patient care."

Anyone who has been reading my work, knows that the tone of this article is wrong. It is frankly long past time that the powers that be, be held responsible for the mess at Grady. Keep in mind that about three years ago, the HHS conducted an investigation that concluded this about the patients at Grady Hospital...

there is an immediate and serious risk to the health and safety of the patients

Obviously, it can't get any worse than that for a hospital. Now, three years later the hospital needs an injection of half a billion dollars to stay solvent. Before that, Grady Hospital was convicted of Medicare fraud. State Senator Charles Walker committed so much criminality at Grady and beyond that he was ultimately convicted of 127 felonies. I am fond of the Latin phrase Res Ipsa Loquitur (the facts speak for themselves), and in the case of Grady Hospital, Res Ipsa Loquitur.

One only needs to do a Google search to discover that there are serious and systemic problems at Grady Hospital that frankly, in my opinion, warranted intervention from authorities long ago. Given the current crisis and latest report from JCOHA, it is clear that proper steps weren't taken in response to the report from HHS about three years ago. I hope that this latest episode winds up with a different result.

Here is the so called inside baseball on how this transpired. Much of the credit should end up going to Ron Marshall of the Grady Coalition. He sent letters for years to JCAHO complaining about stonewalling on the part of Grady staff as far as open records requests and in answering their many questions on a whole host of issues related to corruption, poor patient care, and effective hospital management. Here is an example of an email that he sent that I got a hold of...

Mr. Bressler,>> YOU often appear not to have the evidence we have presented to you> over the years. We hope you have protected all documents we have sent> to you from spoilage.>> NATIONAL WITNESSES: THE GRADY SYSTEM HAS FAILED> Because of the severe suffering at Grady, we cannot rest until JCAHO> violations are stopped. We are bringing on board new witnesses.

Dr.> Linda Peeno, formerly a top executive at Humana, has analyzed the> situation and finds that this is a breakdown of the medical system.> Peer review is an essential part of the system to protect patients.> Bad faith peer review effects the medical judgements of all doctors> in the system, and leads to systematic poor medical care. Testimony> demonstrates it is impossible to deliver minimal standard care when> peer review has been subverted.>> CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES> We will be meeting with Congressional allies next week, and we will> be holding a press conference. We hope we receive a statement from> you by noon, Tuesday that you will implement a plan to enforce JCAHO> regulations at Grady.>>

GOOD FAITH PEER REVIEW IS ESSENTIAL TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM> I know you do not want to enforce peer review standards. However, I> don't see how you can enforce any standard if bad-faith peer review> is being used to hide malfeasance at the hospital. Peer review is> part of a system to protect patient care. If peer review is> subverted, doctors and staff are unable to speak up for patients and> to enforce patient care standards. The whole system is stood on its> ear. I hope you will reconsider your position and enforce JCAHO's own> standards. Grady has violated each of the provisions you outlined in> your last letter.>> BAD FAITH PEER REVIEW HAS BEEN CORRUPTING THE MEDICAL SYSTEM FOR DECADES> This has been a horrible problem for years.

Verner Waite wrote to you> about widespread violations in peer review leading to patient harm> ten years ago, and you did not respond. It is our position that you> must enforce all standards, especially peer review standards, that> impact patient care. This is at the core of your function.>> BAD FAITH PEER REVIEW IS CORRUPTING POLITICS IN GEORGIA> We have presented extensive evidence, including evidence from an> assistant DA, that the huge amounts of money stolen from Grady has> perniciously influenced Georgia politics. The 142 felony count indictment against Senator Walker was based in large part of his corruption of Georgia's hospitals by corrupting its peer review system. Bad faith peer review is a cancer on the body politic of the> entire state. Bad faith peer review can only be
stopped by JCAHO.> JCAHOs failure to enforce its standards is harming the entire state.

HOWEVER, EVEN IF YOU WILL NOT ENFORCE YOUR OWN STANDARDS, PLEASE AT>LEAST MAKE GRADY CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IT HAS ADMITTED IN MORE THAN THIRTEEN AREAS. GRADY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT HOSPITAL IN THE SOUTHEAST THAT SERVES> MINORITY PATIENTS. PLEASE TELL US IF YOU WILL ENFORCE YOUR STANDARDS> AT GRADY.>> 1. For your convenience, we have created a database showing how> violations in JCAHO policy at Grady have resulted in severe patient harm over the last five years: http://www.geocities.com/ron_marshall21/

2. We also document how Grady has retaltiated against witnesses to> prevent you from getting evidence: http://www.geocities.com/ron_marshall21/

3. We summarize severe corruption and its impact on patients:


4. We summarize witnesses available and ethics violations:

5. Current staff document new retaliations, and JCAHO violations. The staff fear to
speak to you.

6. Patient care is greatly compromised.THE HARMS TO GRADY'S PATIENTS ARE STAGGERING. PLEASE RULE ON OUR> COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY.> A BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE UNETHICAL PRACTICES IS NEEDED NOW.> ROBERT BROWN AND PAUL HOWARD MUST RESIGN.>> Thank you. We know this is a lot of information, but all of it has> been sent to you
previously. This is but a portion of the documents> already in your possession.>> Ron Marshall> George Anderson> The New Grady Coalition

While many of the names are probably unfamiliar, please note this particular email is one of many over several years. Clearly, Grady refused to respond to good faith efforts to address issues that years later JCAHO has finally gotten around to forcing them to address.

I hope that everyone grabs the bull by the horn in this situation and takes steps to institute the sorts of institutional changes that are necessary to rid Grady of the culture of corruption that seems so apparent to me. Here is the plan as set by the Grady Task Force. If anyone can make sense of it, let me know because I can't. Here is the plan me and my allies have developed. I hope that everyone has a chance to read it. The time for Grady Hospital is critical, and it is time for real solutions.

For reference on how Grady Hospital got to such an extreme point you can go to this tag, or you can read this summary.

In the News

Two sociopathic leaders were involved in elections. In Russia, Vladimir Putin's party secured a victory. Here is the important part.

Mr Putin has said a strong result would give him the authority to retain
political power after his presidential term ends next year, possibly as prime
minister.

No one can underestimate this guy's evil and cunning under any circumstances. He has used the price of oil to gain extra power and he has his sights set on damaging our country. I believe that Bush's biggest mistake was looking into this man's eyes and not seeing the cold blooded evil of a former KGB agent, but rather goodness.





Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, lost in his appeal to rule for as long as he wanted. The race was tight however in the end he lost 51-49 percent.

Voters in this country narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday.

It was the first major electoral defeat in the nine years of his presidency. Voters rejected the 69 proposed amendments 51 to 49 percent.

The political opposition erupted into celebration, shooting fireworks into the air and honking car horns, when electoral officials announced the results at 1:20 a.m. The nation had remained on edge since polls closed Sunday afternoon and the wait for results began.

The British teacher in the Sudan that "dared" to allow one of her students to name their teddy bear Muhammad has been released from jail.

Sudan released a British woman given a presidential pardon today after being jailed for insulting religion and handed her over to British officials, an embassy spokesman said.

"We can confirm now she’s in British embassy custody and our officials are with her," Omar Daair told AFP by telephone refusing to give any further details on her precise location.

Teacher Gillian Gibbons was arrested eight days ago and sentenced to 15 days in prison on Thursday for insulting religion by allowing children at an English school to name a teddy bear Mohammed - the same name as the Muslim Prophet.

Hey, she "only" had to spend eight days in jail for her "crime". Here is a new twist. I don't know if I should be impressed by her courage and tenacity or wonder about her sanity.

The British teacher jailed for naming a teddy bear Muhammad has said she wished she could stay in Sudan.

Gillian Gibbons, who faces deportation when she is released, said: "I'm really sad to leave and if I could go back to work tomorrow then I would."

In a statement issued through her legal team on Saturday, she added: "I'm fine, I'm well, I'm very grateful to all the people who have been working on my behalf. I know so many people out there have done so much. I want people to know that I have been well treated and especially that I am being well fed."

I have a friend who is 23 years old. She is always apologizing to me for what are frankly trivial things. For instance, she sent me a text message meant for someone else. She apologized later. I keep telling her that apologizing for trivial things is a sign of weakness and also it clouds the issue when you have something that you actually should apologize for. This faux outrage over nothing of course clouds the issue in the same manner. It is frankly obscene. Their fellow Muslims cut off people's heads in the name of their beloved religion and they choose this to get outraged about.

It only took the New Republic almost five months but they have finally figured out that Scott Thomas' work shouldn't have been published. For all those that haven't followed this story, Scott Thomas wrote a few pieces in TNR about horrors he claimed to have seen in Iraq. The stories were suspect and with little or no outside sourcing besides his word. Bloggers immediately picked apart the story for mistakes and inconsistencies. There were plenty and it became obvious in almost no time to most observers that Thomas was a fraud. It took TNR about five months to join the rest of us.

For months, our magazine has been subject to accusations that stories we published by an American soldier then serving in Iraq were fabricated. When these accusations first arose, we promised our readers a full account of our investigation. We spent the last four-and-a-half months re-reporting his stories. These are our findings.

When Michael Goldfarb, a blogger for The Weekly Standard, left me a message on a Tuesday afternoon in mid-July, I didn't know him or his byline. And I certainly didn't anticipate that his message would become the starting point for a controversy.

A day earlier, The New Republic had published a piece titled "Shock Troops." It appeared on the magazine's back page, the "Diarist" slot, which is reserved for short first-person meditations. "Shock Troops" bore the byline Scott Thomas, which we identified as a pseudonym for a soldier then serving in Iraq. Thomas described how war distorts moral judgments. To illustrate his point, he narrated three disturbing anecdotes. In one, he and his comrades cracked vulgar jokes about a woman with a scarred face while she sat in close proximity. In another, a soldier paraded around with the fragment of an exhumed skull on his head. A final vignette described a driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle who took pride in running over dogs.

Goldfarb said he had been contacted by tipsters who thought these scenarios sounded concocted by a writer with an overactive imagination--or perhaps by a total fabulist. He asked for evidence that might answer these complaints, "any details that would reassure that this isn't fiction." Among other things, he wanted the name of the base where the author had mocked the disfigured woman.

The same afternoon, we contacted the author, asking permission to answer Goldfarb's queries. We thought we could provide details that might answer these concerns without revealing the author's identity and violating the compact we formed when granting him a pseudonym. He agreed. I told Goldfarb that the insults to the woman had occurred at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon. A day later, Goldfarb sent a link to an item on the Standard blog. It quoted an anonymous source who said the story sounded like a collection of the "This is no bullshit ... stories soldiers like to tell." Goldfarb called on the military blogosphere to do "some digging" and for "individual soldiers and veterans to come forward with relevant information."

Paul Krugman makes what would be a laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous, contribution to the mortgage crisis. He actually blames the concept of mortgage backed securities for creating the crisis. There is too much to break down here, however Krugman fails to mention that mortgage backed securities created an opportunity for millions of poor folks to own property they never would have. To blame financial innovation for a crisis is frankly the height of irresponsibility and class warfare. It is nothing short of dangerous.

A fresh batch of polls are out in Iowa and for the first time Huckabee leads in the RCP average. His momentum is real. He shouldn't be underestimated, and neither should the power of charm and charisma, which he has in spades. A second poll in a row has Obama leading as well. Obama also now leads in the RCP average. Again, the power of charm and charisma cannot be underestimated...Obama has it in spades and Hillary...well she has Bill.

A Massachusetts Law, A Massachusetts Non Law: The Case Study Against Secular Progressivism

Jessica Lunsford was a nine-year-old girl who was abducted from her home in Homosassa, Florida on February 23, 2005, then raped and murdered by 47-year-old John Couey. The case sparked controversy and in many ways it created the sort of critical mass necessary for serious and meaningful action against child predators.

In its aftermath, Jessica's Law was created first in her homestate of Florida and then (especially with the backing of her father Mark Lunsford and television bloviator Bill O'Reilly) throughout much of the rest of the country.

Here are the main components of Jessica's Law:

a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison[1] and lifetime electronic monitoring[2] of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole.[3]

Currently, only seven states have no intention of passing any form of Jessica's Law: New Jersey, Hawaii, Wyoming, Colorado, Vermont, Idaho, and Massachusetts.

In fact, Massachusetts' record on child predators is so weak that it is downright scary and dangerous for children.

in June 1999, George Roy was charged with sexual assault of a four-year old girl
in Springfield. Roy had been given a two-year suspended sentence with probation
in 1991, but never registered as a sex offender, although he had been registered
to vote all the while.

In June 1999, Michael Vick, a Lynn man with a history of convictions for breaking and entering and sex offenses was arrested for molesting a four-month old boy in Revere. A judge had lowered Vick’s bail in an October rape case from $25,000 to $5,000 in February, because the District Attorney did not take the opportunity to show the court that Vick was dangerous. The DA said that he did not want to harm the child victim in a dangerousness hearing, but a court official told Massachusetts News that a judge might have granted the petition even without the testimony of the victim. "An attempt should have been made by the District Attorney," the official said.

In November 1998, Eben Hoyt was arrested for dozens of child rapes while on
probation, and while registered as a sex offender. Hoyt, a former Methuen school bus driver, pleaded guilty to molesting an eight-year old in 1996. He plea-bargained to avoid prison and was placed on probation.

In January 1999, a twice-convicted sex offender was arrested for raping a four-year old boy in Northboro.

Last fall, Frederick Wyatt used a 1994 Massachusetts law that allows convicted sex offenders to persuade a jury (rather than a judge) that they are no longer sexually dangerous. Wyatt refused treatment during his fifteen years in the Bridgewater Treatment Center for the Sexually Dangerous. State officials warned that Wyatt remained a danger and called for stronger criminal penalties and sex offender registration laws. Wyatt moved to Ohio after his release.

This April, Brian Nagle, who had been convicted of sex crimes in 1987 and 1996, and was registered as a level III (most dangerous) sex offender, raped a six-year old boy in Amesbury, was sentenced to life in prison, but will be eligible for parole after fifteen years.

Currently in Massachusetts, the guidelines for sexual assault against a child under thirteen is an absurd three years in prison. That's because, in the absurd view of the secular progressives that run the states, child predators need treatment not punishment.

Now, while the state of Massachusetts seems to be quite lax when it comes to child predators, they are quite gung ho in protecting children from other "abuse": spanking.

Kids out of line? Spanking might not be an option in Massachusetts if a proposal takes hold in the state legislature.

The proposal, submitted by a nurse, would ban corporal punishment, including spanking, in all cases for children under 18 unless it is to save them from danger. Parents would face charges of abuse or neglect, according to The Boston Herald.
Click here to read the full report in The Boston Herald.

A hearing and debate is scheduled in the State House on the measure Wednesday, the paper reports.Democratic state Rep. Jay Kaufman introduced the measure on
behalf of the nurse, but isn't taking a position on it.

Here is another view of the proposed law to ban spanking by parents of their children.

Massachusetts lawmakers say a proposed measure that would ban parents from spanking their children, even in their own homes, is a way to protect kids from abuse. But many parents believe it's an example of government run amok.

In all 50 states, parents are legally allowed to spank their children. But in 29 states it's illegal for a teacher to practice corporal punishment, including spanking.

A Massachusetts nurse is hoping to change that and make the state the first in the nation to ban corporal punishment at home.

"I think it's ironic that domestic violence applies to everyone except the most vulnerable  children," said Kathleen Wolf, who wrote the bill.

I am not necessarily a huge fan of spanking, however it is not only ironic but downright shameful that a state moves quicker to stop parents from deciding for themselves what punishment their kids should have than they do from protecting children from actual child predators.

Such is the absurd and perverse world view of the secular progressives. In their world, all criminals need treatment not punishment. At the same time, parenting decisions are taken away from the parents and controlled rather by the states. In some sense, child predators have more rights than parents.

Make no mistake, this is exactly the culture war that O'Reilly was talking about in his book Culture Warrior. If anyone wants to know just how the world would look if the secular progressives ever got power, they only need to look at the absurd dichotomy of these two areas in Massachusetts.

No Mike King...You're Out of Touch (UPDATED)

Here is the latest column by AJC columnist Mike King.

It takes a special kind of arrogance for the Fulton-Dekalb County Hospital Authority to stiff Emory and Morehouse medical schools out of $63 million and then demand the schools keep sending doctors to Grady Memorial Hospital. As a condition of turning over the hospital to professional management, the authority demanded that Emory and Morehouse give a written guarantee they will continue their residency and teaching programs at Grady. The money for those programs comes almost entirely from the state and federal governments, but the Grady board has kept much of it in recent years to use for other expenses. The hospital's mismanagement is now threatening the quality of on-the-job training both schools offer. It's one thing to ask Emory and Morehouse to renegotiate the debt, which both have said they are willing to do. But demanding it, as well as a promise that they won't cut back their programs, reveals how truly out of touch with reality the authority can be.

Now, really quickly, here is a run down for those that haven't been following this story. He is speaking of Grady Hospital, which is one of the largest hospitals in the country. It services the poor and is in such dire financial shape that it needs somewhere in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars to stay afloat. Emory and Morehouse provide much of the staff at the hospital (with Emory providing most between the two) and each university gets paid for providing the staff. According to King, Grady wants to not only be relieved of their yearly obligations but they insist that each university's staff remain on duty. Grady is a public hospital so ultimately it is "owned" by the folks. Lastly, and this is quite important, Grady is designed for the very poor or indigent, and by its sheer size it services almost all of the poor folks in Fulton, Dekalb and frankly many other counties. Without it, all the nice hospitals that treat wealthy folks in the area would have to treat these poor folks as well.

Now, I won't argue that arrogance is a trait exhibited by several folks in this mess, however if this is what he is focused on, he really is out of touch. First of all, there are plenty of people out there that believe that Emory and Morehouse should be paying Grady for use of their hospital, not the other way around. (for a full summary on this story including an explanation why Emory and Morehouse should be paying please follow this link) Thus, by demanding that staff continue to work without payment, seems, to many, only fair. Second of all, Grady is near financial collapse and it may take up to half a billion dollars in order to save it. Given that staggering figure, is the important point really whether someone is asking or demanding that debts be forgiven. After all, if Grady needs half a billion dollars, Emory and Morehouse can get in line with a plethora of creditors.

Ah, but unlike most creditors, Grady expects, not asks, these two to continue providing services. Of course, they expect that Emory and Morehouse staff continue to work. Emory and Morehouse account for almost the entire staff. Without them there is no hospital. Without Grady, the poor in Fulton and Dekalb have no place to be treated. If Grady is no longer the whole entire medical system in Fulton, Dekalb and beyond is in serious crisis. (Without Grady some of the hospitals for the affluent would actually have to treat these folks and no one can have that now can they)

Second Emory and Morehouse need Grady a lot more than the other way around. First, Grady is a public hospital so it really belongs to the people. If the folks want it kept open, they WILL infuse it with cash one way or the other. On the other hand, Morehouse uses Grady for nearly all of its medical school and residency training. In other words, without Grady there is no Morehouse medical school. Emory maintains several for profit hospitals however the bulk of their training is also conducted at Grady. Furthermore, Grady is the main selling point to perspective Emory medical students. Grady is one of the biggest hospitals in the country and the world, and going to Emory medical school allows perspective medical students to train there. In other words, without Grady, there is not Morehouse medical school. While there is an Emory medical school, it goes from being an elite school, to the equivalent of EastWest Texas State Community College Medical School. (please, no one be offended, I made the school up but we all know that the more words before and after the State in question the worse the school is)

Thus, of course the powers that be at Grady expect that debt not only be forgiven but that staff continue to work. They hold all the power.

Given all this we can see why they are so arrogant, but frankly this is all besides the main point anyway. King's piece is frankly most atrocious, in my opinion, because it focuses on side issues like demands over requests. King refuses to examine why Grady insists on going private and how that will impact the hospital and the tax payers. (Fortunately, you can count on this blogger to give you the straight scoop on all issues related to Grady and their plan for going private is just one of those issue. So for more info on the plan to go private please click here) By focusing on the arrogance of a group that has frankly shown nothing but arrogance for more than a decade, he really shows a total lack of understand of the issue.

The issue isn't whether or not some people are arrogant. They are and it matters very little, except to explain past, current and likely future behavior. The issue is what to do going forward. It appears obvious to me at least, that the reason the powers that be want to go private is so that their malfeasance can be even more easily hidden. Yet, that possibility isn't even mentioned. In fact, Mike King contributes absolutely nothing of substance to a debate that should be at the front of most Georgians' minds. It should be the AJC leading on this story. It isn't. In fact, if I am right, the AJC is actively participating in the corruption. That may explain why King's only contribution to this debate so far is well, so lame.

Finally, I have heard from the grapevine that Ron Marshall, of the Grady Coalition, wrote a piece that was supposed to counter King's in the AJC, and the AJC refused to publish it. No such refusals will be here. Here is Marshall's piece...

It does not surprise me that Grady voted to go private. This has been in the plan to privatize all major funding resources in America to control how money is being spent and who receives it. Look at Iraq, since when do we hire a private force to protect public interest? This has never happen in the history of war. Who benefits from privatization?

Grady changes have started the wheel of genocide. A whole community will parish (poor people and poor accident victims) in the name of profits. Not to mention the land deals that will be made. We have put a price on human life. Not only have we put a price on the life of an individual we allow the health care system to pick and choose who get’s treated and how much treatment they as humans receive. Animals get treated better than people. Throw a dog in the street and see what happens.

Our Governor had the nerve to pray for rain. The prayers should be for humanity as well as for the salvation of human life and for the protection of our planet. Now we have really fallen off the path of survival.

What’s still hidden in all of this is how did this happen and who is responsible for what happen. This has never been asked. If it has there sure has been very little said about the accountability of the officials who oversee Grady and the official who appoint the board that put Grady in this position. Why is the public being denied
access to records that will show where all the money went or is going and who is receiving it? This is not new and it seems to happen like the migration of geese heading south every year.

Only one person was sent to prison for stealing from Grady, Charles Walker. Walker did not steal all that money by himself. He had to have help. Somebody signed the checks and somebody got paid to keep it quiet. Why wasn’t there an investigation
conducted to find the accomplices. This is like a private (secret) Mafia, they sacrificed one to save the rest. I notice Walker has not turned on his accomplices. Is there money waiting for him when he is released?


Is having cover-up money pay for a pass as Emory has shown. They have clearly had their way with Grady’s funding with a sweet heart contract. Does being a politician automatically give you a pass when crisis’s after crisis’s shock after shock that cost tax payers millions without having them be accountable time after time.


Now we had an explosion in south Georgia and Grady no other but Grady is in the front again. The needs are clear, human lives are at stake. Is there no other real time event that shows Grady at its best.

So to feel anything is like watching killings and brutality between 6-11pm live on the news or a television program. You get use to it. The fight for justice and accountability has only hit a bump in the road, we must be protectors of justice and righteousness and we will accelerate ahead of corruption. Buckle-Up.

Many of the things he says have also been said here. It's too bad that Marshall needs my blog in order to get his message out. You can contact the AJC here about any of the plethora of issues I have raised.

(Update)

I realize that anyone that tries to pick up the story of the crisis at Grady Hospital is likely to get lost in its many mazes. Thus, if this story is your first exposure to it, it is likely you have dumbfounded look on your face. Thus, I have put together a summary of the entire fiasco that tries to put all of its moving parts together in one piece. Please read it for guidance. Then, the dumbfounded look will be removed. Also, please check out the recommendations that I and my colleagues have put together for fixing Grady Hospital.

CNN and My New Favorite Latin Phrase

I received an email from the conservative blog, Redstate, entitled "Heads need to roll at CNN". Here is the article that Redstate linked to in the email.

Our own Dan Spencer made USA Today today in an article by Jill Thompson.Only
if you check our front page, we don't have a contributor named Dan Spencer; well, we do, but he does not write under his name. You actually have to dig around on the web to find out Dan's real name. Good for USA Today for being competent.

Contrast that with CNN last night. Not only did they allow Keith Kerr's question, they invited him to the debate. Had they bothered to research, they would have discovered his connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign. He's a member of the LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee and co-chair on Hillary's National Military Veterans group. He also was an active John Kerry supporter in 2004.

And last night Anderson Cooper willingly gave Mr. Kerr the Democratic activist a soapbox. Anderson has yet to apologize for either his willing participation or incompetent handling of the situation and failure to research.

The fallout from this story continues. Michelle Malkin reports today that the muslim girl that claimed that our reputation in the Muslim world has suffered as a result of the invasion of Iraq was a previous intern at CAIR. The number of non Republican questioners continues to grow each day.

For anyone not following, during Wednesday's Youtube debate hosted by CNN, several questioners turned out not to be Republicans or Independents, but in fact supporters of Democratic candidates. The most infamous was the gay general that scolded the candidates for not believing the military wasn't professional enough to serve with openly gay officers. His situation was even more peculiar because he was in the live audience and he spoke after the candidates answered his video question.

What is most embarrassing for CNN is that bloggers discovered most of the malfeasance in nearly real time. If the story is accurate, Anderson Cooper was told by Bill Bennett during the debate that bloggers had discovered the error.

To me, it really matters not whether or not CNN knew ahead of time that these questioners weren't Republicans. There are only three possible scenarios as far as this situation is concerned vis a vis CNN. They were either corrupt, incompetent, or even both...res ipsa loquitur. None of those scenarios shines anything but a terrible light on CNN. A couple months back CNN took a terrible ratings hit when when they tried to create controversy where none existed when they claimed that comments that Bill O'Reilly made about a Harlem restaurant were racist. They had a special about Iraqi insurgent snipers that many called nothing short of a snuff film. They even admitted soft balling the Hussein regime for years in order to gain access.

Suffice to say, their reputation doesn't need anymore hits. The simple fact of the matter is that heads absolutely need to roll on this and plenty of them. If we don't see heads roll, they will perpetuate the perception that this creates that they have a liberal bias. To me there is nothing to think about here. It isn't as though someone was late for a meeting or spent too much time on personal phone call one day. Several people, who weren't supposed to be asking questions at a major Presidential debate, were allowed to ask questions. Anyone who was responsible for vetting the questions and their superiors hve to be fired. There are no second chances for embarrassing the network on live television. If bloggers can figure these things out, then paid staffers have to or be removed. Like I said Res Ipsa Loquitur.

The other part of this story is the near blackout of its coverage by the rest of the media. I couldn't find anything on MSNBC. I couldn't find anything in the New York Times, There was something in the Washington Post though it is on conservative blogger's Ramesh Ponnuru's blog...not exactly top billing. I also found nothing in the Boston Globe. I could probably do this with most MSM newspapers and networks and if I had the time I would. I think you all get the idea. Most newspapers and networks have stayed relatively away from this story.

The New York Times for instance had a negative story about Iraq, Rudy Giuliani, and a story about the teacher in Sudan, on the front page. I won't say those aren't important, however a major network allowing multiple people to slip by their radar in a live debate is just as important. For their to be a near blackout of this story in the MSM...well that goes by the same Latin phrase, Res Ipsa Loquitur.

A Sad Story About a Mortgage Broker

Here is how my August went. I started out with ten loans that I thought I was going to close. Five of them were with one borrower which is one reason why things unraveled the way they did. My borrower has an excellent credit profile. He holds onto nine mortgages, a car loan, a couple student loans, and several credit cards and never in his life has he been late on anything. Now, because he has so much outstanding credit his score is good not great. Also, he is in sales and owns multiple properties so it is virtually impossible to ever show any documentation to verify his income. Still between his strong credit and the fact that he has money in the bank, his loans were always difficult but doable.

Right around my thirty third birthday, his loans started dropping one at a time. The worst thing about it is that they were dropping for newly made up reasons. While he had money in the bank, it wasn't "congruent" to the amount of money I claimed he made. In other words, he didn't have enough money in the bank for the amount of money I claimed he made in income. While this is a reasonable way of judging things, it was NOT any of the bank's guidelines when I submitted the loan.

I kept trying to find new banks for his loan. I found one and the next day they announced they were shutting down operations. I found another and they changed guidelines right after I found them. I finally found one that I thought would work. They fumbled around with it for five days. Then, while I was driving to a wedding in Minnesota, I got the news on Blackberry that they too were denying the loan, and also because his so called liquid assets weren't congruent to his income.

By the end of the month, the ten loans I thought I was going to close wound up being zero and this is a story that most mortgage brokers will tell you about the month of August and even into September. In those two months, banks were looking for reasons to deny loans. It was near impossible to close anything, and thus, it was near impossible to do what I had dedicated the last six years of my life to. The industry was in turmoil and there was confusion and fear everywhere. Almost no one was sure they would even stay in the business and no one knew what would happen next.

I bet I know your reaction. Who cares? You are a scummy mortgage broker and your excess brought this upon yourself. I have no sympathy for you and I hope that your next year is like August. If you think this way, then ask yourself why you sympathize with the people in this article.

This is an article about people about to face foreclosure. There stories are no less heartwrenching, but frankly no more. If you think it is tough facing the reality that you can't afford to pay for your house, try facing the reality that your industry is in such a state of chaos that you can probably no longer afford to be in it. Losing a house is bad, however losing a career is much worse.

Yet, there is NOT one article about any mortgage broker and the difficulties we have faced in these months. That is despite the fact that our stories are no less poignant. That's because unlike homeowners we aren't sympathetic.

Thus, newspapers like Chicago's Daily Herald, and this one from the New York Times, print stories in which borrowers are portrayed as empathetic victims. Their stories are heartwrenching and we are supposed to feel sorry for them. No one feels sorry for the mortgage broker, even though it is no less heart wrenching to watch your career go up in smoke.

That is frankly not the point. I don't much care if anyone has sympathy for me or my industry and I certainly could care less if any newspaper ever wrote a sympathetic piece about us. Unlike the borrowers, most of my industry could care less if the world has any sympathy for us and we don't seek attention at these times. The reason for this piece is that policy is being determined based on the misleading narrative that borrowers are sympathetic and mortgage brokers and banks are bad. Policy can't be determined based on this principle. Yet, newspapers are hammering this theme home.

The politicians are responding. They have responded with H.R. 3915, which attacks predatory lending, and provides even more protection for borrowers in case they go bad on the loan. In other words, based on the narrative that borrowers are good victims and brokers are evil predators, the pols will design a bill that protects the borrower and punishes the broker.

While this may be good politics, especially when it is egged on by the media, it is terrible policy. Borrowers signed paperwork and they agreed to certain conditions. They aren't meeting those conditions, and now the legislature wants to provide extra protection in case they won't meet those conditions. That is called a moral hazard.

It is hard to know exactly how the final version of H.R. 3915 or its equivalents and cousins will look like, however there have already been several scary things being floated. For instance, Senator Dick Durbin wants to allow for bankruptcy courts to be able to renegotiate the terms of mortgages. In other words, if you go into bankruptcy, you will be rewarded with a better mortgage.

The borrower is actually able to sue the securitizer, Wall Street, if their loan goes bad, and the borrower is afforded all sorts of new protections if they go bad on a loan. Here is the language vis a vis securitizers...

Assignee/Securitizer Liability (does not extend to trusts and investors): Subject to exemptions below, for loans that violate the minimum standards (reasonable ability to repay and net tangible benefits), a consumer has an individual cause of action against assignees and securitizers for rescission of the loan and the consumer’s costs for rescission.

Here is the language vis a vis foreclosures...

When the holder of a mortgage loan or anyone acting on behalf of the holder initiates a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure, (1) the consumer who has a rescission right under this bill may assert such right as a defense to foreclosure against the holder to forestall foreclosure, or (2) if the rescission right has expired, the consumer may seek actual damages (plus costs) against the creditor, assignee, or securitizer.

This is a moral hazard and it is dangerous. If you give people an incentive to go bad, that is exactly what they will do. This is happening because newspapers are perpetuating a narrative. It is a narrative that gives politicians a political angle. None of the narrative is rooted in reality mind you. The reality is significantly more complicated. The reality is something that politicians and their partners in the media have no desire of discovering. Instead, they will pass laws that fit the narrative and perpetuate the very problems they claim to be attacking.

Here is the problem. They create vague concepts that fit their narrative. They are concepts like "predatory lending". Here is the problem with that concept.

There is no specific definition about what exactly predatory lending entails, though most observers believe that the description applies when lenders take advantage of borrowers by charging high interest rates and consider only the value of a borrower’s assets, as opposed to what the borrower can afford to pay.

In other words, politicians have created a concept they can't define. It is there solely to make them feel good and also so they can tell the masses they attacked the bad guys. The problem is that in my business there is only one practical effect of vague and undefinable concepts,

YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED ENOUGH PAPERWORK YET

That's right. The practical effect of all of the legislation that is currently on the books is even more paperwork to sign during the process. Anyone who has closed a loan knows how much attention you pay to the paperwork you already sign, and now you will sign even more.

Why does this happen? That's because politicians are responding to political not policy opening, and that opening is created by one sided heart wrenching pieces in which certain groups are painted as victims and others as villains.

Imagine how much different the legislation would be if every newspaper published stories like the one that started this piece. They would of course be no less dangerous, but they would be different.

Why Do So Many Go Hungry?

That is the title of Anna Quindlen's latest column. It is a problem she lays directly at the feet of government and this administration in particular.

Poverty has not been discussed much by the current administration, which was
wild to bring freedom to the Iraqis but not bread to the South Bronx.

In the view of Quindlen, and many like her, poverty is a problem for the government to resolve. Poverty is just one of many problems that folks like Quindlen think is the responsibility of the government. Many times they frame the arguement into one of moral responsibility. Here is a comment from an individual of like mind to Quindlen from another of my diaries.

In the name of Jesus, what is wrong with helping to provide for the common good? Did Jesus say at the sermon on the mount, "Blessed are those financially well off enough to pay for private medical insurance?" Did He say "Blessed are the ones who only serve their self interests?"Since when did health become a privilege? Does the Declaration of Independance say "...the privelage of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...?"

Doesn't the Constitution say "...promote the general Welfare...?"I'm sorry I have to disagree with the naysayers who whine about their tax dollars going to pay for the general welfare of our society and our health. That's not big government that's responsible government. That's not the government intruding into your life. That's the government helping its people. A government is only as effective as the people who run it. And as long as we continue to sit idly by and let it "run itself" it's only gonna get worse. If we take the government back into our own hands as a real American society we can curb the corruption
that has left us with unregulated pharmaceutacle pricing practices, and rediculous malpractice insurance premiums that doc's have to pay and pass the cost onto the patient to stay afloat.

Quindlen, not surprisingly, frames much of the rest of her arguement with allusions to Jesus as well. Jesus, of course, meant personal charity not charity taken forcefully by the government. Neither Quindlen, or this commenter, ever extol the virtues of personal charity. Instead, all those things that Jesus wanted for citizens to do for the less fortunate, those like Quindlen want the government, through our tax dollars, to do for everyone.

It is this sort of moral arguement that brought us such government programs as the ponzi scheme known as social security. It brought us Title IX, the Federal Farm Board, Medicare, the Endangered Species Act and many other well intentioned and ultimately counter productive and bloated government programs. In fact, the Great Society, the mother of all government programs, was supposed to end poverty and hunger forty years ago. Despite its obvious failings, Quindlen believes that it still government's responsibility to feed the homeless, and federal government no less. I had a similar argument with a liberal friend of mine about socialized medicine. In his defense of socialized medicine, he asked why, in America, everyone doesn't have the right to free quality health care. (To which I responded that the only rights we have in America are those enumerated in the Constitution) It is this sort of EMOTIONAL arguement that liberals have been using, effectively many times, to convince the public that it is government's role to solve many of our problems: hunger and health care included.

In my business, mortgages, there are two sorts of people: emotional and logical. The logical borrowers are always easy to deal with. They are convinced by the numbers because numbers are logical. The numbers always tell the story in mortgages. If I have a good deal for someone, the numbers will speak for themselves and logical people will always find the answer in them.

Emotional people, on the other hand, are loose cannons. Anything can set them off and you appeal by pushing their so called button. You sell to them by appealing to their basest emotion, and of course, figuring that out is the trick. They of course can be set off by anything. I once had an emotional borrower flip out because an appraiser still hadn't called an hour after they were supposed to. Given that a reasonable mortgage process can take up to a month (and an unreasonable one even longer) you can see what a tight rope an emotional person can be through such a process.

As far as politics is concerned, Quindlen and her ilk, occupy the emotional end of the spectrum. (I pointed out recently how the NY Times used such an emotional arguement in mortgages) Remember, it was the Democrats who trotted out Graeme Frost (just look at the picture, are you really going to say no to him) during the SCHIP debate. There is of course no rational or logical reason for expansion of government, especially into things not found in the Constitution, so the only arguement left is emotional.

There are two problems with those that use an emotional arguement. The first is that it is usually wrong. The logical arguement is the sensible one, and if someone could make a logical arguement, they would. The second problem is that most people aren't sophisticated enough to realize this. That is why the Dems are winning the SCHIP debate. It is why faulty government programs like social security, Medicare, and the Federal Farm Board become law. While there maybe no logical reason for having them, they can be sold by appealing to emotion. Most of the folks, just aren't frankly smart enough to realize what is going on, and ultimately they get sold a bill of goods.

Finally, if we all truly believe in the philosophy of Jesus, we wouldn't need government programs to solve any of these problems. Thus, here are some ways YOU can help the poor and homeless in my hometown of Chicago. If you don't live in Chicago, then Google your hometown like I did mine.