Is America Stingy? Quick answer, no.

It has always bothered me to hear UN and European leaders call the U.S. (the world's largest donor in actual dollars) "stingy." But when American's start to believe it, then it really gets me upset.

These critical opinions of our foreign aid are based solely on the UN's obligatory "Agenda 21," which came up with the much touted .07 percent standard that the US foreign aid budget should be (for a much better and detailed analysis of US Foreign Aid check out http://www.usaid.gov/fani/). However, these criticisms fail to take into account charitable giving, which I would argue does the brunt of actual global aid better and more efficiently than any UN or government program could.

I realize that to the UN and in Europe charitable giving is irrelevant but to Americans, which have a long history of distrust for government programs, it is evidence of our generosity and the tool by which American citizens tackle the worlds major social problems: domestic and foreign.

America is the most generous country in the world – by far – when you look at actual aid and include charitable donations. "No country spends as much on ‘official development assistance’ as the US and Americans give more through private donations to help the world’s poor, than any other nation” (IndianExpress, 2005). Philanthropic organizations such as The American Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam America, World Vision, CARE USA, Mercy Corps and Save the Children (all of which are largely funded by American donors: Committee of Effective Giving, 2006) spend billions every year helping the poor all over the globe, which doesn't even include the number of hours American's spend in volunteering with these organizations. During times of disaster, these organizations spring into action and are many times the first one's on the ground.

The most recent public criticism of US foreign aid was during the tsunami in southeast Asia in 2005. The US was criticized for not giving enough (as compared with other developed nations) and so through pressure, Bush raised the amount from 35 million to 350 million practically over night. This put us in the top four with countries such as Germany ($674 million), Australia ($380 million), Japan ($500 million) and the US ($350 million) who gave millions in government aid.

HOWEVER, the real story was completely overlooked: The American public donated more than $1.5 BILLION in cash and gifts to the tsunami efforts through charitable organizations (many of whom were already on the ground days and hours before the first government relief agency).

So, are Americans stingy? No, and its is not just during natural disasters such as the one highlighted above, it is the norm. It is in the American spirit to give and we do it with generosity.

Some other good resources:
Committee on Effective Giving Briefing Paper
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0506/ijse/sites.htm
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Arthur Brooks, (2006). Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Basic Books, New York.

Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton...

Obama's Speech.... a brilliantly conceived failure?

Excerpt from FOX News Special Report w/ Brit Hume

KRAUTHAMMER: His [Obama] speech was nothing more than less than apologia, an explaining away of Jeremiah Wright's rants done with elegance, nuance, and complexity.

Essentially, it said that--if you look at his remarks, this is what Obama was saying--he explained it away in two ways--moral equivalence, and white racism.

The moral equivalence is on the one hand you have Jeremiah Wright, and on the other hand you have Geraldine Ferraro. . . and grandma, who occasionally would utter a private, racist epithet, as if she had shouted these in a crowded church or a crowded theater as a way to arouse and envenom the audience as Wright did.

Obama is a guy who glories in his capacity for intellectual distinctions. There is a huge distinction between a woman of the generation of a Truman, who also uttered epithets about Jews and blacks in private, and the propagation of race hatred in a congregation on behalf of a pastor.

And the second element of that speech was extenuating, and explaining in a way as a reaction to white racism. He says, look, you have to put Wright in context, context is history, and the history he gave is a history of racism starting with slavery and ending at Jeremiah Wright and his anger and frustration.

This kind of extenuation is what you used to hear from Jesse Jackson, except in Obama's case, dressed up in Ivy League language and Harvard Law School nuance. And that's why the commentary that we saw on this was so rhapsodic. It touched two erogenous zones--white guilt and intellectual flattery. And that's all it was. I think it was a brilliantly conceived failure. [From RealClearPolitics.com]

March 21, 2008

from The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

by Charles Krauthammer
"His [Obama] defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt."

So Inconvenient...

Thursday, March 20, 2008

By Brit Hume

Aquatic Androids

Scientists say that 3,000 robots that are collecting global warming data from the earth's oceans have sent a puzzling message. Readings from these instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past five years. But scientists say the bewildering part is that the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record.

One scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says that 80 to 90-percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. So why are the oceans still relatively cool and — in some cases — even cooler than before?

It seems the scientists are not sure. Some say global warming may have taken a breather. Others suggest they don't understand what the robots are telling them. Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says, "I suspect that we'll be able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis. But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board." (from The Grapevine)

Excerpts from Thomas Sowell

Obama's Speech

"Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.

But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No." (Get the full article and comments here.)

Race and Politics

"Senator Barack Obama's political success thus far has been a blow for equality. But equality has its down side.

Equality means that a black demagogue who has been exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.

We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image." (Get the full article and comments here.)

Who is the actual inspiration here?

Yes, great speech by Obama. Wonderful platitudes. I am curious though if the entire political ideology of the speech is lost? This speech confirmed for me that Obama is just two standard deviations away from his mentor's far leftist anti-America rhetoric on the political spectrum.

Obama is proving to be quite the politician and it would be wonderful to have a black guy win the Presidency, because it would go a long way to heal some deep wounds in America, but at what cost? Should we not deconstruct his political message and try to figure out how he is going to pay for solving every problem in the US with Federal tax money? Should we not be concerned that he wants to install a health care system that is an admitted failure in other parts of the world? Should we not be concerned that he pulls his political ideology from Marxist thought? Should we not care that if elected, he would immediately withdraw troops from a war that we seem to be winning and worsen the situation by our absence (according to every Middle East leader - except Iran)? Should we not care that his judgment seems to be so impaired that he cannot even lead his own church to correct an ideology that by his own words "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

Maybe I'll just vote for him because some parts of that speech made me tingle rather than vote for a true American hero like John McCain. He's not as pretty and damn-it he's white, but it seems McCain's story and ideology is also pretty inspiring.

Visit: JohnMcCaindotcom

Because I was asked...

I think the associations between McCain meeting with Jerry Falwell and Obama’s membership of Wright’s church are completely bogus. I mean, to say that McCain’s one time meeting (and not without issue) with a far right Christian leader is anything similar to Obama’s 20 years under the influence, leadership, and mentorship of a man that says, “God Damn America,” “America got what it deserved (on 9-11),” “that AIDS was created by white men to kill black men,” etc…… is somehow comparable is beyond my logic.

However, I think it is totally above board that the Obama / Wright association should be an issue worth at least discussing at length in the public arena (especially in this day and age) if the man is to be President. If Trent Lott, can be forced to resign his Senate seat after saying that he respected an honored member of the Democratic Party who was once a member of the KKK, then this despicable mess should at least be permissible to question – otherwise we are holding people of different races and different Parties to different standards – and that is problematic!

Additionally, if Obama really thinks that the American people are stupid enough to believe his “non-culpability” response to this matter is plausible even though he was a member of this church for 20 years, was married by this pastor, had his kids baptized by this pastor and titled his book after one of this pastor’s sermons, but “never knew of these outlandish beliefs” or never knew that his church honored Louis Farrakhan or that the pastor traveled with LF to Libya, then he thinks we are truly gullible. My point: should the American people let someone (because of cult of personality) side step harsh criticisms like these and slide into office without a true vetting process?

I don’t necessarily think Obama has to believe all of the stuff his pastor has spouted verbatim, but I think when it comes to the Presidency of the United States… these long-time associations might actually matter – I mean we are not talking about a loose “friendship” here. He (as an adult) decided to submit himself to this man’s authority and made him his religious teacher and authority figure, which makes me question his decision making process and makes me second guess the process by which he might choose his Cabinet and possible Supreme Court justice appointees. I think that is all too fair to question and I would expect the same for any Conservative.

As for the question: is it right for news reporters to use Obama’s middle name?
Come on: it is his given and legal name. It’s not like anyone is making stuff up, adding to the story, or twisting something into a falsehood. It just happens to be his name. The very fact that the name “Hussein” plays into some peoples’ fears and bigotry because of recent historical evens is NOT the fault of the pundit.

A follow-up on the NAS case against CSWE

This is a follow-up on The National Association of Scholars critical report of social work education.

http://www.nas.org/print/pressreleases/hqnas/releas_11sep07.htm

And the letter from this author to NAS:

Dear Stephen H. Balch and Peter W. Wood at National Association of Scholars,

I applaud the efforts of NAS to bring Social Work and the CSWE under control. As a recent graduate of a Social Work PhD program, I found much of the CSWE leadership to be extremely ideologically liberal, politically biased, closed minded, and in many cases outright hostile to any ideologies other than the Democratic Left. In my program, I continually fought what felt like was a one man battle as I advocated for outcome-based solutions to social issues, rather than the current Social Work mentality of elevating "political correct" methodology above all. Among my current colleagues, I encourage inquiry into all solutions, no matter the ideological genesis. However, routinely, I find that politically liberal methodology trumps and permeates all social work discussions about deciding on and solving social problems. In my estimation, I am not sure if NAS knows exactly how prevalent the problem truly is.

On several occasions, I walked out of national meetings with CSWE leadership because the discussions would derail from the posted topic to the "evils of the Republican Party." I have personally witnessed colleagues and professors tell students that they must put the NASW code of ethics above their personal religious beliefs, make them join in campus political rallies for class grades, use the bully pulpit of the classroom to preach ideological points of view, and openly discuss why "political conservatives have no business being in social work." On many occasions, I have persuaded "conservative" students from dropping out of social work programs (Masters and Bachelors) in order to accomplish personal achievement and coached them on how to ignore or play the "liberal" game long enough to receive their degrees. Furthermore, I spent countless hours privately teaching students about the "other side" of social policy, because they sought a balance in their education.

As you can imagine, I have had to be very tactful (which meant many times being quiet) about my true opinions about CSWE and NASW to achieve academic success. Even though, I was successful in completing my PhD (to the credit of a handful of open-minded faculty and brilliant scholars in their own right) and have been honored to be apart of the most prestigious gerontology fellowship in the country (which in my estimation is more balanced that most), I have had to be very strategic with my "complaints."

I have been so frustrated with the current political environment in academic social work programs, that I am considering not seeking employment in academia because I am not sure I want to teach CSWE accredited Social Work classes, deal with the majority of close-minded faculty, and face a tenure process that includes all of the above. I am simply worn out by the political one-sidedness and feelings that I must kowtow to leadership that is openly hostile to the other half of the ideological spectrum if I am to succeed in social work academia.

Please do not give up your pursuit to bring balance to Social Work academia. I confess that even with my best efforts, I too am somewhat biased in my points of view above, but I know that there are many, many students and at least one Ph.D. that would applaud any effort to bring balance to social work higher ed., especially if it remedies students being ostracized for their political and religious beliefs in the classroom.

Ah.. its been a long time..... oh by the way Bravo's 100 funniest comedies - SUCKS

All I really need to say about this ranking gone wrong is that Monty Python’s The Holy Grail ended up at number 40! Yes, I know you are shocked. So was I.

Who exactly is on Bravo’s committee to pick the best 100 comedies ever? Was this a high school class assignment - turned into a show? It is as if the ranking body of this auspicious "top 100" took a bravura list off the internet and added a few wild card picks based on what their kids told them at dinner.

Okay Bravo, time to fess up to the horrible editing error that took place on a lap top in someone's kitchen when the writer stepped out to use the restroom. It appears that when the writer returned, he/she accidentally “accept all changes” after his or her teen age daughter punched in her comments using the Word “track changes” feature in their absence?

If you have not seen the list, let me give you a preview (even though it kind of chills me to relive the event): Meet the Fockers ranked in at number 25, which beat out Annie Hal! Shampoo was ranked at number at number 21 - exactly how did this movie even rank? I can think of at least a 101 comedies that are much better than Shampoo. Shrek ranked in at number 3?!!! Holy Lord!

Let's try and forget for one second that these movies beat out The Holy Grail, Annie Hall, and A Fish Called Wanda, but honestly has anyone ever witnessed anyone around the water cooler telling a joke by Warren Beatty from Shampoo, even though I am sure it is replayed with fervor (with a glowing TWO STARS) just after ‘Skinamax’ at 3 am.

Bravo must have forgotten how professional order and ranking happens. Can I help? For starters: One, don't use the hat method when finalizing the “best comedies” in movie history. And two, ask a comedian and if they are not around ask the guy in the cubical next to you. Bravo, should leave the ranking of comedies to the professional movie watchers and stick with what they know best – telling straight America how to stay fashionably hip.