Blogger ignites firestorm in Dillingham, leaves her job Public outrage over comments sparks her resignation

Anchorage Daily News

When Eileen Goode launched a blog last fall about her new life as a public radio reporter and news director in Dillingham, she started with a few jokes about drinking and fishing and incest.

"I love living in a place where I can be treated as a respectable personage simply by dint of being sober, employed and totally uninterested in having sex with relatives or children," she wrote.

Goode figured she was mainly writing for herself and her friends back in New England. Describing this strange new place for her mom, or her sister.

For a long time, she was right. But last week, Goode's adopted Alaska town came across the blog too. Her neighbors weren't laughing, and now Goode is out of a job.

The 28-year-old resigned from KDLG on Monday morning, she said, after a firestorm of outrage over the sometimes serious, sometimes mocking jabs she made at the town over problems like alcoholism and sexual abuse on her personal blog, titled "Chilly Hell" and subtitled "I'm in Dillingham Alaska -- What's Your Excuse?"

In some posts, Goode accused the community of a general failure to acknowledge and deal with its problems.

Shannon Swift, a 21-year-old who grew up in the region and was one of the first to notice the blog, says that's baloney.

"She says she's shedding light on the situation, what we're ignoring and neglecting, but really there's so many people in this region, and in this town especially, that have given their lives to those issues," said Swift, who works summers at the local hospital.

Goode stands by the blog and doesn't plan to take it down. What she said about accountability and alcoholism in Dillingham is true, she said in a phone interview Monday, even if she said it in tasteless ways.

"If we scream at anybody who says it's bad when these things happen, then they're going to just keep happening," she said. "What I said I said in a monumentally stupid way, because all I successfully did was make people madder than inclined to listen to me."

Goode, who says she previously worked as a reporter in Massachusetts, began working for KDLG in December 2007. A public radio station owned by the local school district, KDLG operates out of the high school building and reaches as many as 7,000 listeners in the Bristol Bay region, said station manager Rob Carpenter.

As a reporter and then news director, Goode wrote and edited stories and read the news on the air. When she resigned, she was making just less than $40,000 a year, she said.

Partly out of boredom, she started blogging last year. Unlike many bloggers, Goode didn't write daily updates. She took long breaks from writing, and when she did write, the posts were lengthy, profane and often bizarre stream-of-consciousness essays. Topics ranged from "Battlestar Galactica" to the misery of early morning radio shifts to a surreal 5,000-word rant about whether she should cut her toe off.

"I didn't think that many people were going to read it," Goode said.

That might have held true at first, but it changed last week. By Thursday or Friday, someone had begun circulating an anonymous e-mail quoting the most inflammatory passages.

By 1 p.m. Friday, a copy had reached Goode's inbox too -- forwarded by the mayor, she said.

Carpenter, the station manager, got three dozen unhappy e-mails and phone calls, a landslide for the small public radio station.

In addition to lines describing Dillingham as home to "sexual relations with relatives" and people "passing drunk women around like poorly rolled joints," the most controversial looked back at the death of a 21-year-old EMT the day before Thanksgiving.

Goode wrote that, at the time, she'd been bemoaning the lack of news.

"Is it too much to ask for someone to die tragically?" she asked on her blog. She went on to describe how, soon after, the woman was found outside, freezing, by a skier and never recovered.

Her death was sad but it wasn't a tragedy because it could have been prevented, Goode reasoned on her blog.

"Whatever it is that makes everyone here everyone else's cousin doesn't seem to make people particularly inclined to watch out for the safety of their very intoxicated friends," she wrote.

Candy Miller graduated from high school with Kim McCambly, the woman who died. McCambly was aunt to Miller's stepdaughter.

"How dare she say it wasn't a tragedy," Miller wrote in an e-mail to the Daily News. "When I have to look into my little girl's eyes as she (is) crying for her aunt it's just heart breaking."

"Not everyone in this town drinks or does drugs or commits sexual crimes," Miller wrote. "There are good people here that raise families and work very hard to make a living and support themselves."

Goode said the station manager told her on Friday afternoon that he wanted her off the job. For his part, Carpenter says Goode was never asked to resign.

Either way, many of Goode's former listeners are happy to see her go.

Over the weekend, a man pushed her in a ditch, but later apologized, Goode said. A local bar refused to serve her. On Monday morning, she resigned.

"The first rule of living in a small town is, No. 1, be polite," Goode said. "And I wasn't polite."

See Goode's blog atwww.chillyhell.blogspot.com.

Pitts Bill Could Be Nuclear Energy Game Changer

Today July 31, Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced the Streamline America's Future Energy Nuclear Act, which brings a fresh approach to U.S. nuclear energy policy. Instead of the well-worn subsidy-first approach that often dominates congressional attempts to support nuclear energy, Congressman Pitts's bill focuses on reforming the arduous regulatory and policy environment so that the nuclear renaissance can flourish.

Puts Nuclear Energy on the Fast Track

The current permitting process to build new reactors is a product of a streamlining effort established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, but it is still proving to be too slow. The SAFE Nuclear Act, while not taking resources away from those that choose to pursue the current four-year permitting schedule, would create a second permitting track that would allow for a permit to be issued in approximately two years.

The SAFE Nuclear Act would allow permit applicants that meet certain conditions to enter into the expedited program. To be eligible, applicants must:

* Construct a reactor in which the design has already been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC);
* Build the new reactor on or adjacent to a site where reactors already operate;
* Not be subject to any NRC actions to revoke operating permits; and
* Have submitted a completed combined construction and operating license permit application (COLA) that has been docketed by the NRC.

The expedited process would entail the issuance of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) within 12 months of the application being docketed and the final EIS within 18 months.

Further, hearings over contested application issues would begin once the draft EIS is issued rather than after the final EIS. This would allow the NRC and applicant to resolve contested licensing issues within 24 months of the application being docketed.

The bill also calls for the Safety Evaluation Report, NRC's application technical review report, to be completed within 18 months of the application being docketed. While such timeframes would be tight, with close coordination between the applicant and the NRC, it should allow for a significantly shortened process.

A Foundation for a True Nuclear Renaissance

The SAFE Nuclear Act would also lay the groundwork for a true nuclear renaissance. For the United States to reestablish its leadership in the commercial nuclear sector, it must begin researching, developing, and commercializing new nuclear technologies. The SAFE Nuclear Act would move toward that end in a number of ways.

It Would Open the Marketplace to New Technologies. First, the bill begins to break down one of the primary obstacles that new reactor technologies have in entering the marketplace: a lack of regulatory support. The current NRC does an outstanding job of regulating large light-water reactors, 104 of which operate in the U.S. today, but it performs inadequately in developing regulations that would allow new technologies into the marketplace.

Without this regulation, new technologies are effectively banned because customers are hesitant to buy reactors that the NRC will not regulate, and the NRC does not want to put its resources toward a reactor technology that has no customers. The result is that new nuclear technologies are at a severe disadvantage.

To begin changing this, the SAFE Nuclear Act would direct the NRC to develop a set of guidelines for technology neutral nuclear plant designs. Instead of mandating that a specific nuclear technology be wedded to a specific plant design, the new guidelines would allow for other nuclear reactor technologies to be used in a nuclear power plant, creating a significant step toward building a more diverse and competitive nuclear industry.

It Would Develop Human Resources. To better regulate a growing and diverse nuclear industry, the NRC should develop a new generation of regulators. It is not enough, however, to simply pluck technology-specific experts out of industry or academia. Not only should the NRC have technical experts; these experts should also be trained as regulators.

To ensure that the NRC has ample human resources to support its new regulatory direction, the SAFE Nuclear Act would direct the commission to focus a portion of its educational funding on developing the regulatory and technical expertise that it will need for a more diverse future. It also directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to devote some of its educational funding toward the same end.

It Would Create a National Nuclear Energy Council. No comprehensive policy on nuclear energy issues exists at the federal level. The result is often a confusing application of policy in real-world situations because multiple government stakeholders, such as the DOE and the Department of State, often have different interpretations of different issues. Having an entity to coordinate the federal government's policy with the needs of the nuclear industry could prove invaluable.

It will be critical, however, that the council not devolve into a subsidy development organization. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already established substantial subsidies--such as loan guarantees, production tax credits, and insurance against government delays--to help mitigate some of the risk of initial investors. Expanding subsidies would simply lead to government dependence, higher prices, and less innovation.

It Would Expedite Existing DOE Programs. Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010) and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) are the DOE's top nuclear development and commercialization programs. The SAFE Nuclear Act would efficiently bring both to fruition.

NP2010 began in 2002 as a public/private partnership to bring an advanced light-water reactor on line by 2010. This is not close to happening, but the program has made significant progress toward addressing the technical and regulatory challenges that faced the industry at the program's inception. The SAFE Nuclear Act would fully fund one more year of the program but then brings it to an end, which would allow the program to meets its goals without transforming into a corporate handout.

The SAFE Nuclear Act also accelerates NGNP, which is a public/private cost-sharing technology development program that focuses on high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology. Unfortunately, the program relies on a nine-year licensing timeline that would not allow for a new HTGR reactor to come on line until 2021. The SAFE Nuclear Act calls on program managers to develop a funding and development schedule that would allow for the program to conclude as early as 2015.

A New Era of Nuclear Energy

The SAFE Nuclear Act represents a turning point in American nuclear energy policy. Instead of using subsidies to help make nuclear energy more competitive, the SAFE Nuclear Act puts forth a set of economically sound, market-based proposals. While subsidies might give the United States a handful of rectors, the market-based policies proposed in the SAFE Nuclear Act would put the U.S. nuclear renaissance on the fast track.

An old dog keeps his teeth, hoorah

borrowed from Washington Times July 31,2009

Wesley Pruden (Contact)

OPINION/ANALYSIS:

No wonder the Democrats are dazzled, frazzled and confused. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are sitting on enormous majorities, but they're at the mercy of an obscure conservative congressman from rural Arkansas and a tiny band of Democratic dogs, some blue and some ol' yaller posing as the more fashionable blue. Bow, wow.

The Democrats are trying to stuff a health care scheme down the throats of Americans who clearly don't like it, don't want it and can't pay for it, and Mr. Ross and his Blue Dogs have stalled it, forcing changes that might make it palatable, or at least less toxic. But now that maybe it's not as bad as it could be, the liberals - who want to be called "progressive," having ruined the label "liberal" - say they don't want it, either.

President Obama, who insisted for months that he had to have his health care "reform" by Aug. 7 or Saturn would collide with Pluto, suddenly insists that there was never anything magic about a date in August. Everybody is free to toil at leisure. Any time in October will be perfectly OK with him. But his leige men in Congress are singing hymns in a different key. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, met reporters Thursday and risked bustin' his galluses, such was the chemical purity of his dudgeon.

"That is a deadline that you created," he told the reporters, his face weary with worry, fatigue and frustration. "It's not like we don't have a product ... the mere fact that this wasn't done by last Friday or by 5 o'clock doesn't mean we're not going to get a quality product."

For her part, Nancy Pelosi, who a fortnight ago mocked the Blue Dogs with a boast that "we've got the votes," rails that "the insurance companies are the villains."

Sen. Richard Durbin, a Reid deputy, dutifully agreed. "There are people out there with a lot of money at stake in this debate," he said, darkly. "The health insurance companies are some of the most profitable businesses in America. By fighting 'change' they're protecting the bottom line." (A business making a profit is practically un-American this season.)

Her handsome Democratic majority has flushed and scattered completely out of Mzz Pelosi's control. The "progressives," who thought that by the Fourth of July they would have America remade in the image of France, or at least look at lot like Luxembourg, can't understand why they haven't.

"I don't think it would pass the House," says Rep. Barney Frank of the compromise. "I wouldn't vote for it."

Neither would Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic majority leader, if he means what he says. "We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn't have a robust public option," he says, "and this plan doesn't have a robust public option."

What Messrs Frank, Hoyer and their like-minded colleagues want is a government scheme that would eliminate private insurance, later if not now, and this is what Mike Ross and his Blue Dogs appear to have stalled, for now if not later.

Like his congressional partisans, the president has been stung by the common sense that has become a rising tide not so slowly sinking the Democratic scheme. Like the effective pol he is, the president understands that once Congress goes home for its long summer recess the tide of common sense will gather lethal force.

"First of all," the president told a selected audience in North Carolina, "nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. I'm tired of hearing that. I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody, you know?"

That sounds promising, but growing numbers of Americans just don't believe him. A poll for the New York Times-CBS News, out Thursday, shows public skepticism of the Democratic health care scheme - and worse, skepticism of the president's ability even to shape the debate, growing significantly. An earlier Gallup Poll showed the president's approval rating dropping to 53 percent, and Rasmussen puts the president's approval rating at 48 percent, the first time his approval rating has fallen below a majority.

It's just hard to trick an old dog.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Obama loses immigration allies

If only it were true, and the legally registered Hispanic immigrants who could and would vote for Obama again abandon him.

Crossposted at Washington Times
by Stephen Dinan

Three years after President Obama marched alongside Hispanic and immigrant rights activists, they took to the streets Wednesday to march against him, saying he has betrayed them by embracing George W. Bush administration efforts to stem illegal immigration.

Activists marched in Los Angeles and picketed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's appearance in New York, angered over the administration's recent embrace of an electronic verification system for employers and a program that allows local police to enforce immigration laws.

The protests highlight the tough political spot Mr. Obama faces: He enjoyed strong support from Hispanics in last year's election, but activists say he's now risking their support in the future.

"I see the sense of betrayal creeping up," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, which organized the protest against Ms. Napolitano.

The coalition said the administration is using the right words on immigrant rights but taking the wrong actions to boost enforcement.

"A lot of people see the actions of Secretary Napolitano going in the opposite direction of the reform President Obama promised," she said.

The protests erupted as a report by the Center for Immigration Studies says stepped-up enforcement since 2007 has helped cut the illegal immigrant population in the United States.

The group advocates the reduction of illegal immigration through strong enforcement measures.

The report, being released Thursday morning, says the illegal immigrant population peaked at 12.5 million in summer 2007, or just as Congress was debating a legalization program, but has since fallen to 10.8 million.

Steven A. Camarota and Karen Jensenius, the report's authors, said the fact that legal immigration has not declined shows that enforcement, not the economy, is responsible for the decline in illegal immigrants.

The authors said the electronic employment verification known as E-verify and the police enforcement program were among the key enforcement tools that expanded after 2007 and contributed to the drop.

Speaking in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Ms. Napolitano defended the White House's decision to move forward with a crackdown on illegal immigration.

"We are expanding enforcement, but I think in the right way," she said.

In particular, she defended the local police enforcement program - known as 287(g) because of the section of law that authorizes it - saying it was created by the Clinton administration but went astray. She said the Obama administration has taken steps to add accountability and protections to the program and to push local police to focus on dangerous criminal illegals.

As former governor of Arizona with experience handling this thorny issue, Ms. Napolitano is supposed to help Mr. Obama navigate immigration by helping him craft an enforcement strategy in the near term even as she helps him push Congress for a broader bill in the long term.

Mr. Obama has called for a broad immigration agreement that legalizes most illegal immigrants. He voted for both legalization bills in both 2006 and 2007, and during last year's presidential campaign Mr. Obama repeatedly told Hispanic audiences that he was proud to have marched with them during the nationwide immigrant rights marches on May 1, 2006.

Immigrant activists suffered a similar disillusionment under Mr. Bush, who supported the 2006 and 2007 efforts to overhaul immigration but, after they failed, said he would instead boost enforcement.

Ms. Hong said the Obama administration is using all the right words about backing a broad immigration bill but is taking "massive enforcement actions."

She also said stepping up enforcement of "dysfunctional and unenforceable" laws is not a solution, and said the activists hope to push Mr. Obama away from enforcement and back toward his campaign promises.

"Today was the one event that we didn't want to have," she said. "We didn't want to be protesting President Obama's immigration policy and Napolitano's policy, it really pains us to be picketing."

One immigrant rights group said it expects Democratic senators to introduce legislation this week rolling back some of Mr. Obama's new enforcement plans.

Republicans have had mixed reactions to Mr. Obama's immigration efforts, but on Wednesday they praised him after the New York Times reported that his administration would not issue rules that would allow immigrants being detained to challenge the conditions of their detention.

"This decision will prevent a flood of frivolous lawsuits aimed at paralyzing the detention system," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

But Ms. Hong and other activists blasted the move, saying that if Mr. Obama continues to pile up enforcement without any action on legalization it will cost him politically.

They pointed to several recent studies that questioned the costs versus benefits of the local police enforcement program and that accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of violating immigrants' rights in home raids.

Frank Sharry, executive director of advocacy group America's Voice, said frustration with the Department of Homeland Security is growing, adding that while Ms. Napolitano has taken some positive steps "she needs to pay attention to the growing chorus of voices ... that are calling for reform of current enforcement strategies and swift action on comprehensive immigration reform."

"Not doing so could carry a heavy political cost for the administration," he said.

Need a Student Loan? Boy, does Uncle Sam have a deal for you.

by Andrew Ferguson
Borrowed from Weekly Standard


The House Committee on Education and Labor is having a busy summer. (Everybody in Washington is having a busy summer!) Earlier this month, for example, one of its essential subunits--the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education and Healthy Families and Communities, or SECESEHFC--held lengthy hearings to determine new ways the United States Congress might accomplish one of its many important goals: the "Prevention of Bullying."

The subcommittee chairman, a congressman named Kildee, from Michigan, pointed out that last year, fully 75 percent of schools in the United States had reported an incident of bullying or worse.

"One incident is one too many," Kildee said, thoughtfully if not originally. "We must do something immediately to address this widespread problem."

With the "prevention of bullying" safely in the solution pipeline, the committee went on to do something immediately to address another widespread problem. Apparently college students are getting private loans to fund their education. Last week the committee approved a bill that will put an end to all that.

The committee's vote accelerates a process that was begun under President Clinton. In 1994, Congress approved his idea of a Direct Lending Program for students who needed to borrow money to go to college. Before then the government had merely guaranteed student loans, which were originated and serviced by private banks selected by the government. The guarantee ensured that the "private" loans made huge profits for the banks, regardless of interest rates or default rates.

Guaranteed loans are a textbook example of crony capitalism or (if you prefer) corporate socialism: The government assumes all the risk while doling out contracts to favored businesses, who then reap the profits. With student loans, the lender gets preening rights in the bargain, marketing itself as a Merchant of Dreams, a benefactor of America's youth, a sweet-tempered Mr. Jaggers to a nation of eager Pips. In truth, the only people who like the system of guaranteed loans are the student loan industry--now handling more than $90 billion a year--and the congressmen whose districts contain large numbers of people who work in the student loan industry.

Direct lending eliminates these unctuous middlemen by encouraging students to borrow money directly from the federal government. The program semi-satisfies libertarians, who dislike cronyism, and thrills liberals, who believe the noble goal of universal college education should be uncorrupted by the yuckiness of money making. Liberal backers of direct lending believe, in effect, that there's room for only one Merchant of Dreams around here, and it better be the federal government. Moreover, direct lending saves the government money--no really, it does--by reducing fees and other handling costs, savings which can then be passed on to the poor borrowers, though they never are.

The bill that passed out of committee last week completes the triumph of Clinton's program. The grandly titled Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 does away with the federal guarantee for student loans and brings them all under the care of Congress and the federal Department of Education, saving (say the committee's accountants) nearly $10 billion a year. The committee plans to rechannel more than half those savings to purposes other than financing higher education. But for a college student trying to make tuition, the most dramatic consequence is that federal direct lending will soon be the only kind of lending there is. Washington will be the lender of first and last resort.

Some students--or more likely, their parents--still take out private bank loans with no federal guarantees. This accounts for about 14 percent of the student loan market. But it's unclear how long that corner of the market can last, as the federal government slowly crowds out truly private lenders by offering customers lower interest rates, greater discounts, and easier eligibility rules. Most likely the private lenders will abandon the field altogether, and the last chance to build a genuinely competitive market in college loans will be lost.

Few will weep over that vanished opportunity--until, perhaps, they see what Congress does with the new power that has fallen into its lap. For whatever else the monopoly in direct lending accomplishes, it will greatly expand the number of young people who find themselves entangled with, and ultimately beholden to, the vast system of rewards and rebukes that the federal government has at hand. More than 65 percent of college students borrow money to go to college. That's a lot of guinea pigs.

We already have a foreshadowing of the possibilities. Congressmen are tinkerers, and they have been tinkering with federally backed student loans for years, hoping to push borrowers into doing things that congressmen find pleasing. The most interesting of their ideas was signed into law by President Bush. This shouldn't be a surprise, since by his second term Bush had proved a pretty ambitious tinkerer himself. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007--such big titles you have, grandma!--was designed to let college students know what they should do once they got out of school.

Student borrowers can have their federal loans forgiven after 25 years, on the condition that they make a single minimum payment every 360 days. This is already a significant inducement to acquire a federal rather than a private loan. But the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program goes a step further: You can have your loan forgiven after only 10 years, vastly reducing the total amount of money you pay for your college education--to below $5,000 in some cases--on three conditions. Your loan has to be handled directly by the government, with no contamination from private lenders; you have to meet a schedule of monthly minimum payments; and upon graduation you have to get the right kind of job.

The right kind of job turns out to be what's loosely called "public service." In common discourse public service is already an elastic term, used mostly as a form of self-flattery, but seldom has the euphemism been stretched quite so far as it was in Bush's bill. Work for the government, any government--whether as an actuary, a diplomat, or a teacher; a social worker, a fighter pilot, or a forklift driver--and you qualify for the loan forgiveness. You qualify, too, if you take a job with any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization: the Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Rainbow Coalition, the Transgender Law and Policy Institute, even, theoretically, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't matter if you're an agitator, lawyer, lobbyist, congressional aide, or a pavement-pounder hectoring passersby into signing petitions for Greenpeace. The important thing is, you can't be helping anyone turn a profit.

The first loans won't be forgiven till 2017, so there's no telling yet how many people are taking advantage of the program or how much it will cost. But it's clearly designed to cast a very wide net. Indeed, its definition of public service is so broad that only a certain kind of graduate would be denied this splendid perk of an almost-free education: the idiot who went to work in the world of buying, selling, inventing, making, and producing.

Though Bush couldn't have known it, his program anticipated the age that dawned this January. It fits the ambitions and tastes of the Obama era, especially as summarized on several occasions by the first lady. She and her husband are perhaps the most famous student-loan borrowers in history. She speaks often of the torment of living under the debt load they had accumulated in college (Princeton, Columbia) and law school (Harvard). In remarks first reported by Byron York in National Review, in February 2008, she was particularly graphic. Thanks to their student loans, the Obamas found themselves "struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids."

What placed them in this position, Mrs. Obama said, was their decision to "move out of the money-making industry"--both had worked in corporate law--"into the helping industry." Again, the term "helping" is loosely defined: After leaving their law firms, he went to work for the Illinois state senate, she to Chicago city government and then a nonprofit hospital. "We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she said.

Recently she expanded on the theme. "I went from college to law school to a big old fancy law firm," she told a group of Americorps workers, "where I was making more money than both of my parents combined." But then came a revelation. "I had to ask myself whether, if I died tomorrow, would I want this to be my legacy, working in a corporate firm, working for big companies? And when I asked myself the question, the resounding answer was, absolutely not."

How great their struggles were, and to what extent the struggles were aggravated by college-loan payments, are open questions. From the time they left their money-making days behind, according to tax returns, the Obamas never had a combined yearly gross adjusted income of less than $207,000. Usually it was much more. (During those years in the helping industry, the Obamas donated 0.9 percent of their income to charity, presumably because, as the old saying goes, "we gave at the office.") By 2005, Mrs. Obama alone was making $315,000 a year as an industrial helper, directing "community affairs" at her hospital. Except for the bad timing, she could have had her loan debt scrubbed by President Bush's program.

One justification for the program is that people in the helping industry need the financial help, because of their low pay. But most people would consider the Obamas' income pretty good money. It turns out that public service, even strictly defined, doesn't necessarily require financial sacrifice. Neal McCluskey and Chris Edwards, of the libertarian Cato Institute (one of those public-serving nonprofits), have tried to show that government work, including public school teaching, compares favorably with work in the private sector, whether you count wages, benefits, or both. Using data from 2004, Edwards found that the average federal worker earned an average of 56 percent more than the average employee in the real economy.

So if public servants don't need their loans forgiven any more than do debtors in the private sector, what's the point of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program? Why provide an incentive for graduates to steer clear of the private workforce? Mrs. Obama's remarks capture the spirit behind the program. The implication isn't merely that nonprofit jobs are admirable. It's that they're always and everywhere more admirable than jobs in the world of commerce.

The logic closes like a pincer: The only loans available to students will be from the government; and the only way to get the most favorable terms on the loans will be to do what the lender likes. Of course, you don't have to work for Greenpeace or Amnesty

International or AmeriCorps. But if you don't, you'll pay every penny of your student loan, plus interest, while your friends who made the right decision won't have to do that. No one's making anyone do anything. It's not a threat, it's a nudge. It's not an ultimatum, it's a suggestion. And it's certainly not bullying. Bullying is about to be made illegal.

A Post-Racial President?

Thomas Sowell's writings may be read on Real Clear Politics as well as Pajama's Media. I would not be surprised if he is on Obama's Uncle Tom list for his independent views.

Borrowed from Today's Politico.


July 28, 2009

By Thomas Sowell

Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a "post-racial" era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That is quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular
things-- about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied-- all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he actually did after getting elected.

Those who were shocked at President Obama's cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being "stupid" in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama's 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.

With race-- as with campaign finance, transparency and the
rest-- Barack Obama knows what the public wants to hear and that is what he has said. But his policies as president have been the opposite of his rhetoric, with race as with other issues.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama pushed the "racial profiling" issue, so it is hardly surprising that he jumped to the conclusion that a policeman was racial profiling when in fact the cop was investigating a report received from a neighbor that someone seemed to be breaking into the house that Professor Gates was renting in Cambridge.

For those who are interested in facts-- and these obviously do not include President Obama-- there has been a serious study of racial profiling in a book titled "Are Cops Racist?" by Heather Mac Donald. Her analysis of the data shows how this issue has long been distorted beyond recognition by politics.

The racial profiling issue is a great vote-getter. And if it polarizes the society, that is a price that politicians are willing to pay in order to get votes. Academics who run black studies departments, as Professor Henry Louis Gates does, likewise have a vested interest in racial paranoia.

For "community organizers" as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama's background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.

To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Not only Barack Obama's past, but his present, tell the same story. His appointment of an attorney general who called America "a nation of cowards" for not dialoguing about race was a foretaste of what to expect from Eric Holder.

The way Attorney General Holder has refused to prosecute young black thugs who gathered at a voting site with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters, speaks louder than any words from him or his president.

President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court is, like Obama himself, someone with a background of years of affiliation with an organization dedicated to promoting racial resentments and a sense of racial entitlement.

An 18th century philosopher said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act I am forced to take it off." Barack Obama's mask slipped for a moment last week but he quickly recovered, with the help of the media. But we should never forget what we saw.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

July 27, 2009 Impersonating a Victim

Borrowed from American Thinker

July 27, 2009

By W. R. Wansley
This past March 29th, Professor Henry Louis Gates was being interviewed in front of a small group by Walter Isaacson on C-SPAN's Book TV. Thirty-three minutes into the discussion about his new book on Lincoln, Professor Gates began a detailed account of his own genealogy. He said that in doing so he had discovered he was about "50% white". He said that this was quote, "To my astonishment and horror...".

He continued by saying that he had subsequently sent his DNA off to be tested. This time, upon finding out he was "57% white", he said again, "to my horror .... I was becoming more white by the minute". To this Gates, Isaacson and everyone else there chuckled.

Something tells me that if Mr. Isaacson had said that he also had sent his DNA off and found that to his "astonishment and horror" he was 57% black, no one would chuckle, least of all the Professor of African American Studies at Harvard, Dr. Gates.

This diminutive man is the epitome of intellectual elitism. He goes on book tours touting books he has written. He lectures at symposiums on race. He travels for pleasure. He is vaunted and toasted where ever he goes. He loves to talk about where he dines and drops a "Martha's Vineyard" or the like, in conversation here and there. Except for his being slightly handicapped -- he walks with a cane -- he is living a charmed life. He is embraced by his mostly lily-white fellow liberal elites. He makes a good living -- inside work with no heavy lifting.

He is good friends with none other than the President of the United States and so much so that the President will lurch to his defense -- with prejudice. He can publicly disrespect an officer who was called to protect his property. He even, it is now known, has a get out of jail free card.

The Gates arrest fiasco has put into sharp focus the difference between class and race in America. It has also contrasted the pseudo victimhood of Gates with the legitimate victims of Jim Crow. His defenders try playing the tattered race card but it doesn't work this time. "Black men are arrested in greater proportion than whites", they squawk. If Gates is indicative, now we know why.

We have now all heard the verbal abuse Gates hurled at the officer -- who was called to protect his property. Gates theatrical reaction to the situation: "This is what happens to a black man in America!" What? Returning to your posh residence from your trip to China and having a neighbor look out for you by reporting suspicious behavior in your upper-crusty neighborhood and having a white public servant come check on your place for you -- is that what "happens" to you in America, Dr. Gates? Swing low sweet chariot.

Immune to embarrassment he continues undaunted. When he is asked by the officer to step outside, Gates articulately replies, "I'll step outside with yo'-mama!" The words of his repartee ring hollow -- even pathetic. And funny too -- but alas I am laughing at him not with him. What a joke.

Until now I have thought highly of Dr. Gates. Regrettably he has been unmasked as another successful black man unable to come to terms with a country that has given him so much, but he is required to hate as part of the milk-the-guilt charade. He now reminds me of Jeremiah Wright, a man who lives in a million dollar mansion in a gated community where he continually smolders with hatred for the country that has "persecuted" him so.

The President, Gates and Wright: three conspicuously successful black Americans irritably fixated on race. Perhaps Wright is dealing with some of these same white genealogy issues as Gates and the President -- pray tell?

Gates must believe using such colloquialisms as "yo' mama" gives him some sort of black victimhood authenticity. What a fool. In reality, he is a member of the American aristocratic class. As a victim, he is an imposter.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/impersonating_a_victim.html at July 27, 2009 - 02:34:56 AM EDT

Why Amy Fears Obamacare by Veronica DiPippo

Veronica DiPippo

Veronica is a filmmaker and writer. Her film DANDELION DHARMA -- currently on the festival circuit -- won the Audience Award for Best Live Action Short at the 2009 Palm Springs International ShortFest. DiPippo’s screenplay writing assignments have included developing and writing original and adapted works for studio and independent producers. She has written and directed short films including “Nightsweats,” which premiered at the DGA, went on to screen at several festivals, and garnered nominations for Best Short at ShockerFest and Syracuse International Film Festival. An award-winning playwright, numerous productions of DiPippo’s plays and one-acts have been produced at theatres in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Maine. Theatre directing credits range from original works such as “Sins of the Father” (at the Met Theatre) to classics like August Wilson’s “Fences” (for Theatre 40, Los Angeles). DiPippo is a partner in inde film production company Crunch Entertainment where she is currently developing a new feature project and an animated web series. She is married to Crunch producer Marc Aramian and is a member of the Writer’s Guild, Women In Film, and the Alliance of Women Directors.

Most liberals claim to be more “compassionate” than the rest of us. Currently, the “health-care crisis” has topped the left’s “Top 10 Moral Outrages” list. Suddenly, cries to free the latest victim class du jour (”the 47 million”) from their uninsured bondage can be heard from lib lips coast to coast. Whipped to a frenzy by Barry “the sky is falling” Obama, the MSM, ACORN and Nancy Pelosi are pushing hard to change the face of American medicine before their political capital evaporates. Why more people aren’t wary of a President who, with every (daily) speech, reveals himself to possess a disturbing tendency towards exaggeration, distortion, and outright lie, is beyond me. Bush may have practiced lying as a science, but this man does it as an art. This is the guy, after all, who - with enough hoden to make even a Stasiland apparatchik blush - dubbed 2010’s bloated, pork-laden, crony ass-kissing, $3.55 trillion budget as “a new era of responsibility.”

Yes, I know. Our current system IS unquestionably in need of reform and there are several excellent ideas out there for accomplishing this. But reform is not what this administration has in mind. While our transparency-reneging officials regroup for the next assault on our individual liberties, Americans need to ask themselves one, simple question: WHAT THE HELL IS THE RUSH? We are, after all, dealing with something that will eventually impact the lives of every single man, woman and child in America. And yet, Congress is being pressured to pass legislation - a kind of ‘gateway drug’ to socialized medicine - in the form of an unread bill roughly the size of Atlas Shrugged minus any of that distinguished novel’s wisdom.

But, where the agenda-driven are concerned, what’s reason got to do with it? As we careen towards socializing private health care, let’s all just ignore the fact that the fastest growing sector of nationalized health care systems (e.g. Canada, UK) is privatization. Why? Ask Canadians. In a recent poll, 59% of Canadians believed their health care system required “fundamental change,” a theme that is echoed throughout all nationalized health care countries. France, voted nombre un by the U.S.-bashing World Health Organization, offers a “universal plan” that is so wanting, 92% of French citizens purchase additional private insurance. The French pay about 13% out-of-pocket costs for health care each year (roughly what we spend) with most services requiring a 10-40% co-pay. So, basically, the French have a structure similar to ours, but lacking our level of care, our choices, timely access to a doctor and the latest technological advancements. But, of course, they’re superior because…well, they’re French.

And where did America rank on this infamous, widely debunked W.H.O. survey? Thirty-seventh; just below Costa Rica and above Slovenia. The last time I checked, I didn’t notice tens of thousands of people flying to Costa Rica for surgery. But, when severely biased organizations use such subjective concepts as “fairness” to rank a country’s health care, one shouldn’t be surprised. Oddly, the W.H.O. didn’t seem bothered by “fairness” for little things like - oh, let’s say - survival rates from cancer. In the U.S., roughly 66.3% of women diagnosed with cancer survive at least five years. And in far-superior Europe? 60.3% in Sweden, 49.8% in Italy, and 44.8% in Great Britain. What exactly the W.H.O. believes is “fair” about relegating cancer patients to sub-standard treatment and shorter life spans is unclear.

One of history’s oft-repeated patterns is that politicians who seek to obtain unlimited power concoct emotional frenzies that will appeal to people who are easily misled. In this case, the misled are those whose path to moral superiority is forged by ‘compassionately’ dispensing the federal largess (i.e., someone else’s money) to the latest victim class. It is then - through the manipulation of these misled folks - that the politicians’ ultimate goals can be achieved. We have all seen this tactic used by both sides of the aisle. We are seeing it being used right now to sell a big-ticket, big-gov health care “cure” that will eventually kill. Yes, kill. But more on that later.

Currently, the selective moral outrage of the left focuses largely on the so-called “47 million” Americans I mentioned earlier. Never mind the fact that “47″ represents a fluid number consisting largely of: (1) people who are between jobs and will regain their insurance once re-employed, (2) people who are already availing themselves of a variety of public options, and (3) people who earn over $50,000 per year and can well afford insurance but choose not to purchase it because they’d rather blow their dough on sushi dinners and a swanky new, fully loaded iPhone. In other words, this number, constantly trumpeted by the media to appeal to the emotion-over-reason crowd, is like saying “OMG! 100,000 people go to bed hungry each night in Hollywood!” and not bothering to mention that 99,999 of them are size one starlets starving themselves down to a size zero on purpose. The actual number of the “chronically” uninsured falls closer to 10 million. So, in the name of ‘compassion’ for 3.33% of our population, we must now turn the entire medical profession on its head, negatively impact those who are currently insured, eliminate individual choice, and turn all our life and death decisions over to a government appointed panel whose primary goal will be to limit care and cut costs.

Oddly, these same ‘compassionate’ ones who get their undies in a bunch over “the 47″ appear unmoved by the tens of thousands of patients who flock to our shores from around the world each year because their socialized systems have failed to provide them with comparable medical care. Where’s the empathy for cancer-diagnosed Canadians who flee to America because they know their annual cancer death rate is 70% higher than ours? Or for people waiting months for “non-urgent” surgeries such as cardiac catheterization? And, as for the all-important “fairness” that socialized medicine supposedly brings, according to a comprehensive 2005 report on nationalized health care by the Cato Institute “…access to health care in a single-payer system is far from equitable; in fact, it often correlates with income - with rich and well-connected citizens jumping the queue for treatment….In particular, the elderly, racial minorities and those in rural areas are discriminated against.”If Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer takes a turn for the worse, does anyone honestly believe he’ll cue up at the back of the ever-growing Massachusetts’ health care lines?

Sadly, I’ve never sensed even a glint of awareness from the left that, should America be converted to a system of socialized medicine, an entirely new, and highly legitimate, aggrieved class will emerge within our borders. I am speaking of those with chronic, life-threatening illnesses.

If you don’t believe me, just ask my friend Amy.

Amy was born with Cystic Fibrosis (”CF”), which is “a life-threatening, genetic disease that causes mucus to build up and clog some of the organs in the body, particularly the lungs and pancreas. The thick mucus also causes bacteria to get stuck in the airways which causes inflammation and infections that lead to lung damage.” Amy just received her MBA from a top-tier university. She has suffered from this illness throughout her entire 27 years of life. She is a vibrant, funny, attractive, dynamic, disciplined, hard-working person. She also volunteers as a spokesperson for the CF Foundation to help educate younger patients about the importance of staying on track with their meds, and getting enough rest and exercise to maintain lung capacity.

I recently sat down and asked her what it was like growing up with CF.

Amy: “Growing up in L.A., it’s very easy to get caught up in materialism. CF has helped to keep me grounded and close to my family. My parents didn’t have college educations. They worked enormously hard to make sure there was enough money to pay my medical bills. They had insurance, but it wasn’t cheap. We didn’t go on the vacations that other families did or drive the fancy cars. When I got older I realized it was a very calculated decision. To work hard, save, and spend as little as possible to make sure I got the best medical care available.”

And the U.S. doeshave the best medical care available in the world. Which is why, when Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, needed heart surgery in 2007, he opted for an out-of-network hospital…in Cleveland, Ohio. In fact, the world-famous Cleveland Clinic receives thousand of patients from 80 countries each year who, like Silvio, don’t feel their homeland’s heart surgery practices are quite up to snuff. Nor, for that matter, are their diagnostic procedures. For example, the U.S. has 8.1 MRI machines per one million citizens, while countries like the U.K. only have 3.9 machines per million, hence the Brits wait months to discover what ails them. As any truly ‘compassionate’ person knows, early detection of a disease is critical for treating it. This is one of the reasons why survival rates from life-threatening illnesses are so much higher here than anywhere else.

Amy: “Average life expectancy in the U.S. today for a CF patient is about 37. It’s also around that number in Canada, much of which can be attributed to our advancements here. Our companies do the research, spend the billions, create the innovations, and then Canada gets them…for less! As for CF life expectancy in other countries: Germany is 35, the U.K. is 31. And, in Ireland, it’s even lower.”

Can anyone possibly doubt that these reduced life expectancy numbers are directly related to the quality of care received? There’s no doubt in Amy’s mind.

Amy: “Most advancements for CF have taken place here in the U.S. And these advancements go on to help the rest of the world. Pulmozyme, the first CF-specific medication, was developed by Genentech in San Francisco. Many of the devices I have, they don’t have overseas. For example, I have a special vest that shakes me to help break up the mucus in my lungs so I can cough it up. When, as an undergrad doing an internship in Switzerland for three months, my vest broke, I went to a doctor. I was shocked to discover they didn’t have it over there. The doctor told me their “research” said that it wasn’t useful. Well, I not only have the clinical trials that say it is, I have the personal experience to prove it. Without this device, I’m dependant on someone else patting me on the back several times over the course of a day in a specific way. Which means there goes my independence. Without this vest, if I wake up in the middle of the night and I’m having trouble breathing, I have to wake someone else up. And what if I’m alone?”

Question to ‘compassionate’ liberals: If you had Amy’s disease, which country would you rather live in? If you answered “Canada,” you’re probably one of the people out there who “knows someone who lives in Canada and loves their health care.” Well, if it’s so ab-fab north of the border then why do 7 out of 10 Canadian provinces send a portion of their breast and prostate cancer patients to the U.S. for treatment ? Due to the lack of capacity, Canadians spend $1 billion on health care here in the U.S. each year. And how does socialized medicine affect research and development?

Amy: “Here in the U.S. we have some medications in the pipeline that - if they’re allowed to come to fruition - may have the ability to halt my disease from damaging my lungs any further and significantly extend my life.Unless, of course, under a nationalized health care system, these meds end up being scrapped.”

Whoa. Did she just defend “Big Pharma” - the left’s favorite whipping boy, second only to Walmart? It is hypocritical in the extreme that Big Pharma-bashing libs expect to be compensated fairly for the services they provide - just ask any teacher if they think they deserve a raise. Why is it then that, when it comes to prescription drugs, fair compensation is somehow amoral? Hollywood looks for maximum profits on their investments, and does anyone criticize them for it? After all, the $100 million they invest in a movie could buy a lot of mosquito nets in Africa. But do we expect Hollywood to cap their ticket prices, hand out massive freebies and - when their films yield record profits - demand that they give those profits away? Of course not! Then why do so many Americans vilify drug companies for actually wanting to make a profit for the pension funds, municipalities and citizens who own their stock?

Amy: “If you’re investing, on average, one billion dollars to come up with a product, you need to make sure you’re going to get that money back. If companies don’t see a return on their investment they will either put their efforts elsewhere or cease innovating. One of the best examples of this has been in AIDS drugs. The country of Brazil went to Abbott laboratories. They had an AIDS drug, and Brazil said either sell this to us more cheaply or we will break your patent, reverse engineer your drug, and sell it ourselves.And, since this happened, the amount of dollars going into AIDS research has plummeted. Companies are afraid of governments that will bully them into lowering their prices so much that they won’t be able to get a return on their investment. If this keeps up, we’ll end up seeing more drugs like Viagra or Botox on the market because consumers are willing to pay cash for them. More companies may end up going down that line instead of focusing on drugs that can prolong human life. I think the pharmaceutical industry is bracing itself. They see what’s on the horizon.”

Perhaps, by now, you’re getting the feeling that Amy isn’t exactly a fan of Obamacare?

Amy: “I am violently opposed to government run health care. I would be very concerned under Obamacare for those with chronic illnesses as well as the general population as a whole. The quality of care will decrease, period. It really scares me - people’s lack of general understanding of what really happens from a broader economic view when the government gets involved. We have many examples of the government controlling various aspects of our lives and how it hasn’t worked. My friends in Europe and Canada - I don’t know if it’s because they don’t seek out the information, or because their governments withhold the info, so as not to make them upset - but they just don’t realize the difference in care. Socialized medicine will either lower a CF patient’s life expectancy, or, at the very least, keep it stagnant. Stagnation would be a best-case scenario, if we didn’t actually end up taking steps backwards.”

And, as for the cost of “free” health care? Ever heard the old cliché that “nothin’s free?” Taxpayers will end up doling out billions and still end up with massive liabilities like the ones we already have for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Obamacare would impose a host of big, new stealth and direct taxes that will affect everyone regardless of income level. In essence, we’ll all be paying more and getting less…and less…and less. Which is one reason why insurance, though imperfect and in need of free-market reform, is still a “no-brainer” for Amy.

Amy: “My total out-of-pocket costs per year are about $12,000. I take 18 prescription meds per day. Plus I co-pay on all doctor and hospital visits. A lot of people would say that’s too expensive, but my attitude is: “I don’t HAVE to do my meds, I GET to do my meds.” There are so many around the world with CF that don’t have access to these treatments and don’t have the quality of life or life expectancy that I do. And, as for State Medicaid, the care just isn’t as good as mine. They can only see one doctor, so they can’t explore options or get a second opinion. They also have a much more limited prescription drug plan. I had rather live in a shack and walk everywhere and not have a car and eat Ramen every day than not have my health insurance.”

Absurdly, Obama claims that “if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.” At face value that seems a pretty darned direct statement to me. But, in Obama-speak, it requires a White House spokesman to interpret its “subtleties.” In reality, millions of Americans like Amy will eventually be forced to abandon their plans and hop on the government health care bandwagon. Their way or the highway. Like Amy, I pay for my health insurance out-of-pocket and have done so for much of my adult life. Is it ‘compassionate’ to make me pay Medicaid and Medicare for others while not allowing me tax deductions to help pay my own medical expenses?

Amy: “If I could say anything to supporters of national health care, it would be: Do the research with your head instead of your heart. I know it feels good to think you’re morally superior by believing that the government should give everyone health insurance for “free.” But it’s not free. Not at all. It’s very, very costly in more ways than just tax dollars. It means stifling innovation, reducing everyone’s care, and, ultimately, hurting the very people you’re intending to help.”

If anyone would like to make a donation to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, go to: http://www.cff.org/GetInvolved/ManyWaysToGive/MakeADonation. Among other things, this wonderful charity’s unique business model incentivizes smaller biotech companies to develop innovative treatments for people with CF. Ninety cents out of every dollar goes directly towards helping people like Amy live better lives.

Where did it all start?

Endulging Crazyness, No Wonder I Thought Everyone Was Nuts!

borrowed from American Thinker

July 26, 2009

By James Lewis
I'll bet this has happened to you. Some friend or relative is a little bit nuts -- maybe they just are, or maybe they have been burned by painful experiences. So they get very anxious about imaginary threats and outraged by imagined injustices. Maybe they're paranoid because they're smoking dope, or they drive drunk because they're young and stupid and think it's cool. Or maybe they're just jealous of people who look happier, or prettier, or have better toys. It's just ordinary human folly.

And to keep the peace, we indulge their craziness.

That's our biggest mistake. That's why we are in such trouble as a people and a culture.

We have been taught to indulge craziness. It's supposed to show that we're "compassionate". Psychiatrists know this: If you let crazy folks set the rules, you have to get crazy right along with them. It doesn't matter if your client is crazy for good reasons. The cause doesn't matter one little bit. Good therapists are taught never to indulge craziness, because that just makes everything worse. Alcoholics Anonymous has long understood exactly the same thing. Real compassion doesn't mean joining people in the pits. That just means that you get two crazy people instead of just one. And then you get more and more, as the phony compassion spreads.

Our culture is now actively teaching racial paranoia to blacks, gender paranoia to women, and abuse paranoia to everybody with a beef. All those exaggerated fears and phony fits of rage have been cynically whipped up by the Left to grab more power. That's their Compassion Fascism. The rest of us go along, because we don't want to be bothered to stand up against it. But in the aggregate, over time, we have become a culture driven loopy by race, gender, and group paranoia. We have adopted the madness of the most race-obsessed people, and made them rich. Over time, they have worn down our sanity, so that our culture has literally gotten crazy.

Obama's first crazy-making person was probably his father substitute in Hawaii. By all accounts Frank Marshall was a race-obsessed black guy. It's not that he was wrong to feel angry, at the time. There were a ton of injustices against blacks. It's rather that he turned his pain into fanatical campaign of hatred, spreading it around to everybody else. That was Obama's first father figure in Hawaii.

Enter Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama: All of them built fame and wealth on paranoid race politics. Enter Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Barbara Boxer (I'm no lady, I'm a Senator!), and an endless Conga Line of victim feminists. Look what those folks have done to Sarah Palin -- a high-tech lynch mob, driven mad with envy of Palin's good looks, popularity and joie de vivre. In the universities raging feminists, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Queer Studies nabobs -- among others -- have exploited the career specialty of victimology. It's a standard way to get tenure and promotion -- by slander, rumor-mongering and intimidation. We've seen the faculty lynch mob at Duke U going after white lacrosse players. At Harvard, it's how the Left fired Larry Summers for daring to tell the truth.

Summers used to be a respectable economist, more or less, but now he is toeing the mendacious Obama line on the economy. Is it possible he was just burned at Harvard? Maybe Larry learned fear of the lynch mob at Harvard U, and Obama now has him under his thumb.

You see fear in the eyes of white guys around Obama. Brian Williams has his eyes cast down. Tim Geithner has this little head bow, looking at Obama with fear in his eyes while keeping his head bowed down. They look for all the world like Step ‘n Fetchit. That's all very amusing for purposes of racial revenge, but it means Obama is surrounded with lying commissars who fear to tell him the truth. Michelle is even scarier than hubby, and must be a terror in the White House. It was Michelle who got IG Walpin fired from her private playpen, Americorps. It's Michelle who is the child of the Chicago Machine, after all.

So this White House really does have Czars - Obama being Numero Uno -- and a Czarina -- Michelle, who supports the atmosphere of intimidation. If Obama seems badly out of touch with reality, the answer should be obvious: By spreading fear he guarantees that his commissars will lie to him. That's how the Roman Caesars drifted more and more out of touch as they gained more and more power. It's how Europe's monarchs managed to live in isolated splendor, totally in a glass bubble. It's how the Chinese and Japanese courts began to live out a Noh play.

Humans have a hard time facing reality. Power-hungry people drift into their own fantasy world by cutting off the truth-tellers. This is the most fantasy-driven administration in US history. That will be their downfall, as we are already beginning to see right in front of our eyes.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/indulging_craziness.html at July 26, 2009 - 02:23:55 AM EDT

Would you buy a truck recommended by this guy?

John Mellencamp Tells Us That Freedom Of Speech Shouldn’t Apply To Mean Ol’ Bloggers
By Pilgrim
I’ll admit I used to like this guy.

But since 9-11 he’s shown that he’s just another spoiled entertainer who thinks he knows what’s best for us, right down to our First Amendment rights:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,” he continued. “Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech — to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an asshole whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. …

Let me address the three parts of his leftist rant that I’ve highlighted above.

First off, John boy, the closest you’ve ever come to a uniform is when you go to a McDonald’s. Don’t sit on your gilded stage and presume to lecture us about what far better men and women than you are or ever will be have died for.

Second - free speech is only for the collective and not the individual? That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard an American say. Let’s only practice free speech in crowds where we can all be heard - and monitored. Good, John. Halfwit.

Third, yeah, I can be an asshole whenever I want whether you like it or not. In fact, I hope you don’t like it. I have that right. Unlike you, however, I consciously avoid doing so, but in your case I’ll make an exception, you babbling, spoiled, liberal fool.

By the way, I linked Cuffy over at Perfunction because they do a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy of this imbecile and slicing and dicing him. Click over and enjoy. Mellencamp says much more that’ll get your blood pressure up.

In the meantime, I have several Mellencamp CD’s that I have absolutely no further use for. They’ll make nice targets. Now, that’s entertainment.

First Amendment, meet Second Amendment.

Last but not least why should we listen to this guy at all check what DRIVE he promotes. Lotta good he did.

My Strong Opinion about Gates/Crowley incident!

I have borrowed another article form Pajama's Media, and I have also included my comment about the article which I have written in the comments section of Pajama's.

After a moment I realized that perhaps it might be too risque for PJ. to print my comment so I have included it here on my own blog at the end of the article.
Take note that I request folks who comment on my blog to keep the racism out.

I must admit this incident has angered me terribly and and I have taken license to push the envelope about as far as I would personally tolerate it on my blog when it comes to personal or racial comment.

My comment is meant more to point out that these things still exist and it is NOT initiated from most sensible whites. But emanates from insensitive and socially dysfunctional others who feel it is some sort of personal protective knee jerk.

A reaction without proper thought perhaps and most of the time an unconscious approach to the situation at hand. And if I am wrong here then the only other thought is that it is they who are really the racists, and really do hate life and white people.

It is folks like Gates and Rev Wright, who see racial progress as a threat to their very existence as a symbol of what it means to be black in America. It is my subjective accusation they carry their prejudice for personal gain and racial equality be damned.

And yes I admit I did add my own personal attack in my comment which I am leaving in for your critique. I just had to vent. But I qualify that as mostly sarcasm and meant a bit more lightly based on Gates' own comment about his height. Being short of statute myself I just know by those photos it would be a hard to hit 5'7' for this man. License be damned you can put what you want on it as long as it is close.

PJ Article
And yet more to fuel the debate Patterico

The Gates Arrest: Sgt. Crowley’s Nightmare Is All Too Real

Posted By Jack Dunphy On July 25, 2009 @ 12:34 am In . Feature 01, Crime, Politics, Race Issues, US News | 92 Comments

I had a terrible nightmare last night: I dreamed I was driving along in my patrol car when I responded to a fairly routine radio call. Someone had reported a possible burglary, and when I went to the home to investigate I encountered not the burglar I was led to believe I would find but rather the home’s resident, an Ivy League professor who, while indignantly challenging my authority to inquire into the reported crime, couldn’t resist doing so without calling my intelligence into question, accusing me of racial bias, and even going so far as to insult my sainted mother. When the verbal provocations escalated further and crossed the line into illegal conduct, I slapped the handcuffs on the man and hauled him down to the station house. A frothing media maelstrom then ensued, with reporters clogging the streets outside my home and traipsing across the lawn and through the shrubbery with their cameras and their boom microphones and their incessant, impertinent questions. Finally, the president of the United States was on television telling the entire world how stupid I am.

Then I woke up.

I am in a sense fortunate in that I work in an area where I’m as likely to encounter an extraterrestrial as an Ivy League professor, but like most police officers I can nonetheless sympathize with Cambridge Police Department sergeant James Crowley, for whom there will be no waking from the nightmare for some time to come. But, except for the notoriety and lofty position of the reported “burglar” (one of America’s preeminent black scholars, and all that), the scenario presented to Sgt. Crowley is fairly typical, one that every cop has experienced many times. A well-meaning neighbor has seen something she perceives as out of the ordinary and has asked the police to investigate. If more people were disposed to act this way, America’s crime rate would plummet overnight.

The first question to be asked about Sgt. Crowley’s initial response is, was it lawful and reasonable? Clearly it was both. A cornerstone U.S. Supreme Court decision, [1] Terry v. Ohio, held that an officer may stop and detain a person he reasonably believes to be involved in criminal activity. Here, Sgt. Crowley answered a citizen’s report of a possible burglary. Such reports are granted a presumption of reliability under the law, so Sgt. Crowley was on solid ground in approaching the home and, upon seeing a man inside who matched the description provided by the witness, asking him for his identification. A police officer responding to such a report must, for his own safety, assume the report to be accurate until he can satisfy himself that it isn’t. The cop who blithely handles every call assuming it to be a false alarm will likely not survive to handle many of them. In fact, many police officers faced with the identical facts would likely have ordered Henry Gates out of the home at gunpoint.

Sgt. Crowley did not go so far as that (imagine the furor if he had), but he exercised a measure of caution by following Gates into the home as Gates retrieved his identification. Gates insists Crowley needed a warrant to enter the home but he is mistaken, as even the most liberal judge would find that Crowley was faced with sufficiently exigent circumstances, viz. a possible burglar who may have attempted to arm himself or flee, to justify a warrantless entry.

Mr. Gates, who [2] admits he asked his limo driver to force open a stuck door, is surely accustomed to a certain amount of bowing and scraping in the circles in which he travels, and it must have come as a shock when he was surprised by a cop who neither knew nor cared that he occupied such an exalted position. He apparently never stopped to consider that he and his driver may have been seen by someone who would misinterpret their actions and report them to the police. No, to Mr. Gates the first and only explanation for the sudden appearance of a white police officer at his doorstep was that the cops had come to hassle him because he’s black.

The next question is whether Mr. Gates’s language and behavior that Sgt. Crowley described in his police report fell within the proscribed conduct of the Massachusetts statute against disorderly conduct. This is where the two accounts diverge most dramatically. Mr. Gates [3] addressed the issue with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, who, reading from the [4] police report, said, “[Sgt. Crowley] described you as behaving in a tumultuous manner.”

“Yeah,” Gates responded with a chuckle, “look at how tumultuous I am. I’m five foot seven, I weigh a hundred-fifty pounds.” He said this as though it’s inconceivable that someone of those proportions might behave in manner that could be characterized as “tumultuous,” an assertion that any police officer, and for that matter just about anyone not affiliated with an Ivy League university, knows is preposterous. That Gates’s behavior at the scene of his arrest might differ from that which he exhibited on a nationally televised interview was an issue that went unexplored.

But there is a way we might learn, as best we may, of what really occurred that day on Harvard Square. Mr. Gates says he’s considering a lawsuit against Sgt. Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department, during which, one presumes, we would hear testimony from all the various parties and witnesses. If Mr. Gates is to prevail in such an action he would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Sgt. Crowley fabricated the case against him, and did so in the knowledge that the incident had been witnessed by several other police officers, including a black sergeant from his own department and some officers from the Harvard campus police with whom he is presumably unacquainted. Also called to testify would be the woman who made the initial call to the police and some or all of the “at least seven other passers-by” referred to in the police report. And the arrest, which was undoubtedly vetted all the way up the police department’s chain of command, was nonetheless allowed to proceed despite the certain knowledge that Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree and a phalanx of briefcase-bearing shiny suits would soon descend on the police station and start tossing about their habeas corpus this and their mens rea that, and that they would spare no effort or expense in ferreting out any weaknesses the case may have.

Sure, professor, Sgt. Crowley made it all up. Arresting Mr. Gates may have been arguably imprudent, but it wasn’t illegal.

If I may presume to offer Sgt. Crowley a bit of advice, I would encourage him to invest in a small digital tape recorder such as the one I carry while on duty. I have done so for many years and it has often proved invaluable, as in the case when some of my colleagues and I were accused of all manner of heinous conduct by a young man we had arrested for carrying a gun. Among the allegations was that we had used the notorious “N-word,” which, though one can’t walk a block in some parts of Los Angeles without hearing the denizens use it a dozen times, is nonetheless held as a near-capital offense when spoken by a police officer.

The time came for my interview with the internal affairs investigators, for whom I played the tape. It revealed, among other inconsistencies in my accuser’s tale, that it was he and not we who had so liberally used the accursed word, and that he used it, in the span of about 45 seconds, as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, and as something of an all-purpose interjection, a linguistic feat I suspect I may never see equaled. I was cleared of the charge, but I still listen to that tape every now and then just for its entertainment value.

Sgt. Crowley, you can pick up one of those recorders for less than a hundred dollars. Don’t you wish you had bought one earlier?

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

My comment .

gary:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

What we have here is ANOTHER case of reverse racial prejudice. Not all that uncommon among sixty’s type activists and their clones.
Mr. Gates is nothing more than a narcissistic,leftist academic who pales in stature when it comes to putting his life on the line for his beliefs compared to Officer Crowley.
He knows that most of the time guilt ridden white liberals cringe at being called a racist, but boy did he get a surprise. Mr. Gates also suffers from too much of himself and a napoleon complex. It would be my bet that perhaps with lifts on he is 5′7″ but not in his bare feet on any given morning. This leads one to wondering that perhaps other myths about the African American prowess might not also be true in Gates’ case. Thus leaving him with another personal complex hard to overcome in his circle of x panthers.
He is obviously not the grateful type seeing as some white cop was there in record time and looking out for his personal safety. Had the black officer walked into the room first I wonder if his reaction would have been the same. In this case I believe it would have been. Only the words would have been directed at the Uncle Tom for trying to be white when all he would have been doing is do his job to protect and serve.
Professor Gates might feel more at home in the Roxbury section of Boston. At least there he would be surrounded by many of his linguistic peers.That is if he can put up with a few Puerto Ricans as well hey vato! Right on Bro!

Patterico

Write a Comment

Borrowed from Todays Politico
First my own Observations.

Either Obama does not know his place as Commander in Chief of the most prestigious and powerful nation on earth ever, or he simply has no respect for the position.

I beg to think it is the latter.

I personally have not accepted him as MY president and I cannot bring myself to do so. In my mind he is just there and will have to be tolerated until he is no longer there.

But as each small detail goes unnoticed by the mass of "convenient idiots" I become more and more disturbed as to just who, he BOH thinks he is representing.

There is really something extremely surreptitious about how he presents his image for all the world to see.

Referring back to my days as a "spook" body language sometimes is the only means of communication to others when in a hostile environment. Is that how Obama feels? That he is in a hostile environment?

Every subtle inflection, and every parst

POTUS and FLOTUS at the Marine Corps Evening Parade
By: Carol E. Lee
July 25, 2009 08:01 AM EST

POTUS and FLOTUS at the Marine Corps Evening Parade, where POTUS was the guest of honor.

POTUS, FLOTUS and a Marine got into the limo outside the White House residence at 7:45 p.m. Motorcade arrived at Marine barracks in southeast DC at 7:53 p.m.

POTUS addressed a small group of Marines and family after arriving. Pool was not permitted to be present for his remarks, which our handlers said have same press procedures as Embassy staff visits, which are traditionally closed press. Pool could vaguely hear a well-miked POTUS from the 5-by-30 foot patch of grass where we were set, but was unable to make out anything he said.

POTUS and FLOTUS, along with the Commadant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, and his wife, entered the yard where the parade was held at 8:50 p.m.

POTUS, FLOTUS and the Conways walked down the center walk, flanked with grass, to their front row seats in the bleechers. POTUS's seat was second one in from the walkway. POTUS greeted Gen. James Jones, whose seat was directly behind POTUS's. FLOTUS gave Jones a kiss on the cheek.

Conway sat next to POTUS on the left, then FLOTUS, then Conway's wife. In the seat to POTUS's right was the Colonel of the DC barracks, Col. Andrew H. Smith.

First the President's Own Marine Band performed. Their opening number was titled Chicago Tribune, which made POTUS smile - and the audience laughed - when it was announced. Then they played Stars and Stripes Forever.

After they finished and the lights dimmed, POTUS leaned in to say something to the Colonel of the barracks and stuck his hand out. They shook hands and chatted briefly - your pooler, still on the swathe of grass a short distance away, couldn't hear anything that was said.

Then there was the presentation of the colors. POTUS did not salute as the color guard took its place, as Conway and Smith did.

There were drill routines and more tunes from the Commandant's Own Marine Band. And, a cameo from Lance Corporal Chesty XIII - the English bulldog mascot of the barracks.

At 10:03 POTUS walked out to the center walk with Colonel Smith and Commandant Conway for the Commandant's review. The band played the National Anthem. POTUS put his hand on his heart.

During the review POTUS seemed to struggle to figure out if he should salute when the Commandant and Colonel did. At first he went to lift his right hand but stopped. The next time the Commandant and Colonel saluted POTUS saluted quickly, like he does when boarding Marine One, while the Commandant and Colonel held theirs. At one point the Commandant and Colonel saluted, and POTUS did quickly. But this time the Commandant and Colonel held their salute for a long time. POTUS kept his hand at his side for a bit. Then at one point he put his hand on his heart. Then it was back by his side.

At 10:18 the parade ended and POTUS and FLOTUS greeted the Color Guard and other Marines in the center walk.

POTUS and FLOTUS even bent down to pet the mascot, Lance Corporal Chesty XIII.

POTUS and FLOTUS posed for a photo and exited to cheers at 10:25 p.m.

Motorcade was moving at 10:39 p.m., arriving back at the White House about 8 minutes later.

We have a lid. Your pooler apologizes in advance for any military terminology she screwed up in this report.

A very specific point of view on Obama's personal prejudice

Here is an interesting artilce from a fellow Nevadan I borrowed from American Thinker.

Obama's a Racist !
By Kelly Anderson Wright
Yes, I said it: Obama is a racist. As the white, conservative mother of black/Mexican/white children, I know a racist when I hear one. So is his buddy, Henry Louis Gates. Don't let these two Ivy League-educated, erudite, distinguished black men convince you that only whites can be racists. Believe me, these two men are the worst kind of racists: black and elitist.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a racist is someone who believes "all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups." When Sgt. Crowley investigated a possible burglary at Prof. Gates' Cambridge home this week, Gates met a white cop at his door and evidently assumed Crowley was a bad cop, a rogue, a racist cop who would treat him differently than any other suspected perp, just because he was black. That's racism, folks! What did Gates do when faced with a police officer investigating a burglary in his home? Was Gates polite and courteous to the cop? Did he cooperate and step onto the porch out of the darkened home so Crowley could see his face and ID? Did he calmly explain why a passerby saw him breaking in, if, in fact, it was his own house? Did he speak or act like the esteemed scholar and professor his ID claimed him to be?

Nope. He was belligerent, accusatory, uncooperative, irrational and defamatory, throwing racial slurs at the white officer, even insulting the cop's mother (as in, "Yo momma is so..."). If ever a man did NOT act with Harvard professorial dignity and decorum, if ever a black man acted like a thug from the ‘hood, Gates did. Is it any wonder Officer Crowley asked for more ID, one that actually listed that house as his address, or asked for another person to corroborate Gates' identity? I would, wouldn't you?

And when Gates refused, and became so incensed and insulting to the Sergeant who was there to protect his property that a crowd grew around his house, was Crowley supposed to allow this kind of behavior, just because Gates was black? No. He arrested Gates for disorderly conduct, as he was trained to do. Last time I checked, police arrest people regardless of race when they act like crazy people in the presence of peace officers.

So why is President Obama a racist? Because he, like his friend Gates, automatically assumed the white police officer "acted stupidly." BO assumed it was the white officer's fault, because, of course, we all know white cops are racist, right? And later, when he slightly retracted his statement, he still felt the need to say, "It would have been better if cooler heads had prevailed." By now he knew the facts, that his friend Gates had lost his mind and acted like a fool, but he assumed that Sgt. Crowley similarly lost it and "got all up" in Gates' face, because, of course, that's what all white cops do.

But this white cop didn't, because he's not just any cop, he is an expert at managing racial incidents just like this one became, because of Gates' racism. Friends and fellow officers of all races say Sgt. James Crowley is calm and reliable in situations racially hostile situs, because he was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach recruits how to avoid racial profiling, and Crowley has apparently been doing a stellar job at it for 5 years.

But Gates and our esteemed president didn't know that, did they?

So, who are the racists in this story? Gates accused a decent, decorated, above-reproach police officer of being a racist rogue cop, just because he was white. What did our esteemed "black" president do? He immediately took Gates' side, because he's a friend and black! Um, Mr. President, I thought you were going to help erase the racial lines that divide us? Shame on you for taking sides on something you admitted you knew nothing about, for commenting nationally on a small, local issue well beneath your pay grade, and for showing us all that you are not that different that the racist Gates who believes all white cops are bad cops, just because of their skin color.

Mr. President, you are a racist. Shame on you.

Kelly Anderson Wright is a business owner, mother and writer in Reno, NV. She is a contributor to freshconservative.com. Her email is pray4sneaux@yahoo.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_a_racist.html at July 25, 2009 - 02:33:59 AM EDT

Miley Cyrus apologizes joins Communist Party

Miley Cyrus has finally apologized for the racially offensive photo that came out last week. To show how sorry she is, Miley has joined the Chinese Communist Party.

In the photo, Miley and several other white children are making “Slant-Eyes” at the camera, sitting around a young Asian man. Debate has raged as to whether the photo is racist, or just a joke among friends.

Miley Cyrus, the Disney sponsored television star, has finally given in to pressure from her sponsors and issued an apology on her website. In her blog she states:

“I have learned a valuable lesson from this and know that sometimes my actions can be unintentionally hurtful. This is why I have decided to join the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China. This will put an end to any argument or pain I’ve caused. It’s the People’s Party, right?! Live it up! Loves, Miles.”

Beijing has since lifted their ban on the young starlet. Miley Cyrus is expected to begin work as a junior aid in the Politburo within the month.

After being reminded that there are other Asian countries besides China, young Cyrus sent aides to adopt several children from different countries and have them delivered to her father’s estate. The children will star in a Hannah Montana spin-off show set to air next year.

Blue Dog Democrats Raking In Cash

The House Blue Dogs, the fiscally conservative group of 51 House Democrats, have raised more than $1.1 million for their political action committee this election cycle, putting it on track to break all previous fundraising records, according to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity.

"Whether the subject is health care reform, climate change or pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, almost everyone, it seems, suddenly wants to talk wtih the Blue Dogs," the Center said. "As their clout has expanded, fundraising has grown too."

The study also found that nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC's contributions this year have come from three sectors: health care PACs, energy PACs, and financial services PACs.

The Meds best kept secret

Borrowed from Weekly Standards next week issue

Rosh Pina, Israel
Perhaps nowhere else on the globe does there exist a greater discrepancy between perception and reality than Israel. The press portrays the country as a savage land racked by war and terrorism, and many outsiders have the impression that Israelis live their daily lives cowering amongst endless cycles of violence. The reality, though, is a country of 7.4 million people whose stock market and economy are humming along quite nicely (at least in contrast to the rest of the globe) and whose citizens revel in their chic Mediterranean lifestyle.

Anita Blum can't remember the last time her deluxe 100-room resort wasn't fully booked for the weekend. The Hotel Mizpe Hayamim is a well-appointed spa in the Galilee, two hours north of Tel Aviv, and suites go for $500-plus-a-night. Blum charges extra for the therapies--a Thai herbal massage runs $100--and enjoys a 75 percent occupancy rate year-round unchanged by the recent hostilities in Gaza and the world economic crisis.

As you wander around the luxurious grounds and drop $75 on a lunch of beef carpaccio and veal entrecôte with organic vegetables, it's hard to think of Israel as a nation at war. And the guests aren't just the latest batch of Israeli high-tech millionaires. While Blum sees her share of the very rich--she has a helicopter pad, after all--she counts soldiers, schoolteachers, and university students, among her legions of happy clients.

In Israel, life goes on. The Western newspapers just don't notice. They follow instead on a few hackneyed storylines:

n Policemen dragging unwilling Israeli settlers out of their homes.

n Hamas (or Hezbollah) terrorists in menacing black scarves waving machine guns, a subset to the lingering "Palestinian issue."

n Yet another rocket landing near a primary school in Sderot.

n Noisy--and often corrupt--politicians trying to form a coalition amidst a dysfunctional, if vibrantly democratic, government system.

These narratives are real, important, and poignant, but they are only part of the story of a country that has seen 20 years of uninterrupted economic expansion. (Well, mostly uninterrupted. The 2001-02 Intifada and the current economic meltdown took their toll.)

Israel, of course, faces tremendous obstacles. It's tiny, surrounded by enemies, and lacking in natural resources. It has a growing and undereducated Arab population of some 1.45 million whose meager earnings add little to Israel's annual GDP of $199 billion. (Even with its mostly unskilled Arab workforce, Israel's per capita income is around $27,000, on par with those of New Zealand and South Korea.) And there are the 700,000 or so in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community who generally don't pay much in taxes or serve in the army but shamelessly mooch off government welfare. Then there are Israel's major trade partners, who have taken a beating in the global economic crisis, exacerbating Israel's chronic trade deficit. There's also been a notable slowing in Israel's high-tech sector in the last two years. And, with Iran threatening to go nuclear, Israelis fret about their very existence.

But these stories miss the bigger point: Israel today has become a vibrant, functioning jewel of a nation tucked into the eastern flank of the Mediterranean. Tel Aviv looks more like San Diego or Barcelona than Baghdad or Kabul. On a recent five-mile run along Tel Aviv's Gordon Beach, I saw Israeli yuppies cycling the boardwalk on $1,500 Italian mountain bikes, teenagers in full-body wetsuits surfing the breakers, a deep-cleavaged Russian model (nobody seemed to know her name) doing a photo shoot in a skimpy bikini whilst middle-aged Israeli men with potbellies and hairy chests shamelessly gawked, rows of high-priced yachts docked at the Tel Aviv marina, an endless stream of private planes on final approach to small Sde Dov Airport, and two Israeli soldiers in drab green uniforms making out in the sand and drinking Heineken. A nation at war? It seemed more like high season at Coney Island.

"Some first-time visitors are certainly surprised when they don't find tanks and camels in the streets," reports Hanna Munitz, general director of the Israeli Opera. Israel has a world class cultural scene. Want to see Franco Zeffirelli and Daniel Barenboim? No problem. The Alvin Ailey Dance Company visits. The opera plays to audiences at 97 percent capacity. "Just once, another opera manager told me she wouldn't bring her company to Israel because we were 'babykillers' or some nonsense," says Munitz, "but, even at lower pay, we attract the best talents from around the globe. They love coming here!"

It's not only culture. Israel enjoys top universities, upscale restaurants, million-dollar homes, hoity-toity architecture, and the like. Take the economy. In the fourth quarter last year, when the global economy went all to hell, Israel's annual, quarter-over-quarter rate of GDP was only off 0.5 percent, the best figure in the industrialized world. (The United States was off 6.3 percent and Japan 12.1 percent.) "Think about the resistance of our economy in recent times," suggests Zvi Eckstein, deputy governor of the Bank of Israel. "Our prime minister [has a stroke]. The war in Gaza. The war in Lebanon. The government gets replaced. But we've maintained a stable macroeconomic structure and a strong high-tech sector."

What's the secret? Ayelet Nir, chief economist at IBI, an Israeli investment firm, lists six major reasons Israel's economy has done well of late:

n A very conservative banking system--without most of the complex and problematic financial instruments found in the United States.

n No mortgage crisis in a country where putting 50 percent down isn't unusual, and banks often ask for guarantors.

n A current account surplus since 2003.

n Negligible inflation.

n Prudent governmental fiscal policy.

n Healthy integration into the world economy.

Last year, 483 Israeli high-tech companies raised a whopping $2.08 billion from local and foreign venture capital investors. (Only U.S. companies raised more.) All the major tech players--Google, Microsoft, IBM--have large research centers in Israel. They go where the talent is.

Take the case of Isaac Berzin, an Israeli inventor and chemical engineer named by Time magazine last year as one of the world's 100 most influential people. He's an MIT-affiliated scientist who discovered a process to extract renewable energy from seaweed and could live anywhere in the world. He and his wife, along with their three daughters, chose Jerusalem. Berzin still has to do his annual stint in the army reserves--where, he complains, he knows the "smell of every dirty sock" in his unit. But Berzin thinks the mandatory military service is very positive for Israel. Virtually every high school senior in Israel takes a battery of tests before being assigned to a military unit. Israel's best and brightest are tapped at this early stage and sent to elite units. Alumni from these elite units form a natural pipeline into Israeli high-tech firms. Think of it as a mixture of Harvard Business School and the Marine Corps.

"Everybody knows everybody else's business," explains Elisha Yanay, the cigar-chomping president of Motorola in Israel. "That leaves no room for B.S. Résumés mean very little in our country. In a few phone calls, you can strip anybody bare--how they did in kindergarten, their military service, whatever. Pretending in our country is just not possible." Israel is today "the third-hottest spot [after Silicon Valley and Boston] for high-tech venture capital in the world," adds Yanay. "We have only 7 million people but make enough noise for 70 million."

Not all of Israel is noisy. The Tel Aviv stock market, in particular, seems one of the world's best-kept secrets. In the last 12 months, amidst the global meltdown, the Tel Aviv-100 has slumped only 15 percent. (By contrast, the U.K.'s FTSE 100 Index is down 24 percent, Japan's Nikkei 225 is off 28 percent, and the S&P 500 Index is down 31 percent.) Some of the Israeli market's resiliency is certainly driven by the continued success of Teva Pharmaceuticals, the massive Israeli generic drug firm, market cap near $42 billion. (Teva's former CFO Dan Suesskind jokingly refers to what he calls the "regret curve"--that is, people who look at the chart of Teva's share price over time and regret not buying the stock.) "Most countries I know would be happy to trade positions with us, at least on the economic front," reports Ben-Zion Zilberfarb, professor of economics at Bar-Ilan University. "Our recession ought to be milder."

And it's not just Israelis who are taking advantage of the boom. A year ago, Carlos Arroyo was whipping passes to Dwight Howard and leading the Orlando Magic into the NBA playoffs. Now it's approaching midnight on a Monday night; Arroyo is just off a nifty 17-point, 4-rebound, 4-assist outing. He's chatting in the bowels of the Nokia Arena about his new life. He's glad to be out of Orlando. "What I really like about this place is the chic, cosmopolitan lifestyle. You go the supermarket, you find amazing food." What city is he talking about? Los Angeles? Toronto? Try Tel Aviv.

Last year, Arroyo accepted a multimillion-dollar offer to play for Israel's best basketball team, Maccabi Tel Aviv, when he could have been suiting up against LeBron and Kobe. Earlier in the year, he told a visiting reporter, "The restaurants [in Israel] are fantastic. There is this one particular Italian restaurant my wife really likes." (Much as he likes Tel Aviv, Arroyo will probably be moving on during the offseason as he and the Maccabi coach didn't mesh.)

Chloelys Restaurant in Tel Aviv is typical of the culinary boom Arroyo's wife so admires. The restaurant's wood flooring is imported from Brazil, its bricks from Belgium, and chef Victor Gloger keeps 7,000 bottles of wine in his cellar. The businessman's special (gilt-head bream fillet on grape leaves with Bulgarian cheese filling) runs $32. On a Monday, the place was jam-packed with wheeler-dealers in open-necked shirts, staid Brooks Brothers-clad business types, college students apparently fortified with Daddy's credit card, and the wife of the Belgian ambassador.

As religious Jews congregate in and around Jerusalem, hip Israelis flock to Tel Aviv. They joke that it's "the new city that never sleeps." Just ask Baltimore-born black rapper Joel Covington, a self-professed Jew--go figure--who performs under the stage name Rebel Sun: "I can take you out on Monday night at 8 P.M., bring you home at 8 A.M., and you'll never see a dull moment. If you want to party in Tel Aviv, just bring a toothbrush and an extra pair of underwear--you never know what you'll find."

One thing that Tel Aviv residents can't find is a cheap place to live. Forget about popping over to Israel to find a bargain apartment. There aren't any. A 3-bedroom flat in a classy high-rise like the Alrov Tower in Tel Aviv will set you back $2 million. What's the asking price for a 1,200-square-foot villa, with pool, on nearby Rehov David Smilansky--roughly akin to Bethesda, but with a shorter commute downtown? Try $4 million. The upside, of course: Buy the villa, and you can walk to the Gucci and Armani shops on nearby Kikar Hamedina Square. Israeli residential real estate prices are off a modest 5-10 percent since the global downturn hit, reports Adina Haham, CEO of Anglo-Saxon Real Estate in Tel Aviv. And prices are already inching back up.

High-tech millionaires own a lot of these homes. "The Israelis you find on the slopes of Aspen, those are mostly high-tech guys," explains Bar-Ilan University's Zilberfarb. How has Israel managed to do so well in high-tech? Every Israeli high-tech player can recite the national data like a bleacher bum spitting out baseball statistics:

n Israel produces more science papers per capita than any other country.

n Israel lags behind only the United States in number of companies listed on NASDAQ.

n Twenty-four percent of Israel's workforce has a university degree; only the United States and Holland have a higher number.

n Israel leads the world in scientists and technicians per capita.

Why has this produced a tech boom? There are as many theories as there are Israelis, it seems, but the most cogent is put forward by Haim Harari, retired president of the Weizmann Institute of Science:

If the science Olympics were held in Europe, we'd be second to none. I claim our success has to do with the national character of Israelis. The Israeli--or Jewish--character--is ambitious, chaotic, undisciplined, unorganized (we don't have a pope), often brilliant, and we think we know better than everybody else all the answers. These are the exact same skills you need in a high-tech start-up, but, of course, we have none of the skills to run a big company.

An alternative theory, espoused by many serious Israelis, is that the prototypical pushy Jewish mother is driving the high-tech boom. Study hard! Make something of your life!

Israeli technology has certainly been a big part of the Internet age. The cell phone? Developed in Israel. Ditto for most of the Windows NT operating system and for voice mail technology. Pentium MMX Chip technology? Designed in Israel. AOL Instant Messenger? Developed in Israel. The list goes on. Firewall security software originated in Israel. The latest breakthrough is the "PillCam," a video camera that can be swallowed and aids physicians in diagnosing intestinal cancer.

"There was a suicide bomber in this very café during the Intifada," says Jonathan Medved over thick coffee at Caffit Café in Jerusalem. He's a transplanted American, prone to loud Hawaiian shirts, and one of Israel's leading venture capitalists. "They managed to get him over there, across the street, and he didn't detonate. That's how we live. And here we are today. Improvisation is our national plan. We are a nation of risk takers." Successful risk takers, by and large, and not just in high-tech.

Take the case of Eli Ben-Zaken. Twenty years ago, he was a smalltime farmer in charge of a chicken shed. He dabbled in wine, then risked all. Today, he's the proud owner of Domaine du Castel, a winery nestled on a gorgeous mountaintop in the rolling Judean Hills. His wine is sold from Hong Kong to Brazil. Walk into Zachys in Scarsdale and a bottle of his 2006 Grand Vin Kosher will set you back $89.99. "I always say, thank God for the snobs," says the understated Ben-Zaken. "They started drinking wine for the wrong reasons, but stayed because they learned to appreciate good wine."

Some Israelis point to the country's unresolved tensions with its Arab neighbors as a factor in its success. "Conflict is also a very strong source of artistic creation," reports Hanan Pomagrin, a well-regarded Israeli architect. "An area in conflict is not always negative; it keeps people alert. I'm not saying that I would not want to see resolution to this conflict, but it also contributes to the huge energy felt when visiting Israel."

That self-same energy has pushed Israelis of all stripes onto the world stage. One is Bar Rafaeli, the shapely Israeli model who appeared on the cover of the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and who's been romantically linked to Leonardo DiCaprio. Another is Michael Arad, a former soldier in the elite Golani Brigade; in 2004, he won the design competition for the World Trade Center Memorial. And there's Ronen Chen, the Tel Aviv-based designer, whose high-end women's clothes at prices secretaries can afford are found in chic boutiques all around the United States. Then there's the Batsheva Dance Company, an Israeli cultural icon that performs to packed audiences around the globe. And you can't wander into the faculty lounge at an Ivy League school without bumping into a transplanted Israeli.

But Israelis love their home, and with good reason. "You try to find someplace in Tuscany that's as nice as the Galilee," says the Bank of Israel's Eckstein. Wake up in Tel Aviv, and you can be skiing down the slopes at Mt. Hermon after a lovely, if winding, three-hour drive. That's a far sight easier than the haul from the Upper West Side to Stowe. Finish the workday in Jerusalem, and you can be scuba diving in Eilat, on the Red Sea, after a quick flight.

Of course, not all Israelis can afford weekend getaways. There are sordid slums in the country. Among those still struggling mightily: Palestinians and the recent waves of immigrants from Russia and Ethiopia. Even successful Israelis have their issues. Forget about a service industry; Israelis proudly jest that their nation produced the cell phone but not a single decent waiter. It's a nation where rudeness, reckless driving, cheating on your tax returns, and cutting in line are national art forms.

Yet none of this is evident at the beautiful spa at Mizpe Hayamim. The resort may have no bigger fan than Dita Kohl-Roman, who's been vacationing there for more than two decades--since her mother-in-law first took her. "My daughter--a student in physics and Latin at Hebrew University--continues the tradition today," says Kohl-Roman, a director of resource development at Kishorit, a community for those with special needs. "She goes with her boyfriend!"

Anita Blum, the ever-gracious spa owner, is vigilant about the confidentiality of her guests, but her employees can't help but boast about two of the many goats at Blum's magnificent organic farm. One is named "Sharon." The other is named "Stone." Yes, it seems the other Israel--the land not of terrorists but of milk and honey and goats--may finally be being discovered.