WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN TWO OPPOSING VIEWS MAKE SENSE?

See "White House Wrong To Enter Syrian War", by Cal Thomas (in The Day Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Opinion, pA4).

And see "Under Obama, U.S. Is Barely Relevant", by Charles Krauthammer (in The  Day Saturday, June 22, 2013, Opinion, pA6).

Also see "Lessons of Kosovo", Editorial in The Washington Post (as reprinted in The Day Saturday, June 22, 2013, Opinion, pA6).

That's when some knowledge of History and adherence to one's own "Weltanshauumg" are useful. 

Three principles control here: 1) National Self-Interest; 2) Pre-Emptive Self-Defense; and 3) Use of Power vs default creation of Vacuum.

All of these principles come into play in this question.  And they lead me to support Krauthammer's analysis.

The only problem: President Obama may be too late and thus may reap the whirlwind of both inaction and action. 

Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek,  makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

___________________________

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson ( columnist – opinion writer)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. 

MEMORANDUM FOLLOWING LM HOSPITAL STAFF MEETING, JUNE 20, 2013

1.       Large revenue reductions imposed on hospitals. 

2.       Bundled payments and other changes imposing the risk of health care outcomes onto the health care providers.

3.       A significant reduction in patient volume.

4.       Regulatory impediments to maximizing economies of scale in the recent hospital merger.

5.       Alleged “quality” tracking which really turns out to be cost tracking, with payors incentivizing their customers (our patients) to enter a race to the bottom.

6.       Electronic Health Records: A Mess….

7.       A large loss of patient care to tertiary centers (eg. Yale, 40% of whose patients come from here!)

8.       Yale romancing this hospital…a change in attitude.

MY OBSERVATIONS:

1.       No surprise.  ObamaCare has no logical means of paying for its Christmas tree of gifts without making the Health Professions pay the bill…thereby hastening the demise of private medical care and the acceptance of a one payor system: the Government, and resultant lower quality, higher cost and reduced access.

2.       Imposing the risk of patient health care results on the providers is unethical, pitting the physicians’ interests against those of his patients: a conflict of interest totally at variance with the doctor-patient relationship.  It also places hospitals against physicians and physicians against fellow physicians.  This should be prohibited as against Public Policy.

3.       There are several reasons for a reduction in patient volume.  But I believe that this is temporary and that it will reverse to a mis-match between the future demand for patient care and the reduction in availability of that care by qualified personnel.  This should be one bright spot in efforts to secure a future for the Practice of Medicine: the impact of Supply and Demand.  But several points should be remembered: a) the First Rule of Service is Survival; b) if you are losing on every transaction, you cannot make it up in volume; c) “fast nickels are as good as slow dollars”; d) take all comers as patients, but devise a more efficient means of taking care of them…specifically by using more physician extenders in broadened roles (ie. one good physician in an outpatient setting can supervise as many as four good physician extenders).

4.       Appeal all adverse regulatory determinations.  Regulators – the Administrative sector – know little about the requirements of proper Medical Care, this including their academic advisors.  Therefore, the reply to the demand from Washington (“JUMP”) should not be “How High”, but “Sez Who?”  The corrosive current laws and regulations must be challenged and changed, through the Courts and through the Legislative process.  HOW LONG HAVE I BEEN SAYING THIS TO WHAT PASSES FOR OUR MEDICAL “LEADERSHIP” THAT WILL DO ANYTHING TO BE “AT THE TABLE”…AND WHICH FINDS ITSELF UNDER THE TABLE.  Also, regulators and politicians don’t give a damn about what doctors think…only about what the public thinks.  SO, EDUCATE AND MOTIVATE YOUR PATIENTS TO DEMAND FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.  (Again, how long have I been saying that?)

5.       And what did you expect?

6.       A pig  in a poke.  Take the penalty and run.  Even the reported benefit in coding and charging, particularly by hospitals, has been detected and is about to be attacked.

7.       A lesson for those, generally business-types, who think that there is such a thing as a “Win-Lose” outcome in negotiations, particularly when there is a disparity in negotiating strength.  The “Loser” will find a way to get justice, even if only rough justice.  So, cultivate and don’t abuse your new physician-employees…especially  now, when they are temporarily vulnerable.

8.       This is not the past.  Are there current opportunities for “Win-Win” situations here?

AND NOW, A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR:

A word to Rioting Muslims

We don't care if you're offended, and we never will. Get used to it.

http://dotsub.com/view/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79

FATHERS' DAY.

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY to all those who have earned the title, which involves much more

than providing sperm in one form or another. 

Now, this may be politically incorrect; but you've learned to expect that from me.

• A Father is a person who spends his life providing a living example of manhood and fatherhood to his children.
• That role and mission is unique and cannot be filled by anyone other than by a man.  Specifically, it cannot be filled by a woman.
• The efforts of the Feminist Movement to dilute or eliminate the different roles required of a father and a mother have sadly resulted in a distortion of those roles.
• Men are progressively being portrayed  - and even seeing themselves - as wimps, looking to women to define who they are. 
• Some Women, meanwhile, have achieved their proper elevated role in society at the unnecessary expense of men and by killing their babies in the womb.
• This is a Faustian bargain.  

...OR RATHER: "WHY SCIENCE NEEDS SPIRITUALITY, AND THE BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING"

WAKE UP, FOLKS: MUSLIMS AND NON-MUSLIMS ALIKE.

The following data are reported in Catalyst, Vol. 40, Number 5, June 2013, in an article

entitled 'The Threat of Islam".  They are based upon surveys conducted in 39 countries

between 2008 and 2012 by the Pew Research Center.

• A majority of Muslims want Sharia made the law of the land.  In Afghanistan and
  in Pakistan the numbers were 99% and 84% respectively.
• Muslims in America were less likely than those in the Middle East to support violence  against civilians.
• Two/thirds of Muslims in the Middle East support death for apostates; a third support suicide bombings.
• In 10 years, Iraq's Christian population has declined from 1 million to less than 400,000.
• In Egypt, in Mali and elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of Christians have bee displaced - or killed.  
• The code word now for Islamic fundamentalism is "Islamism"

If "moderate Muslim" is not an oxymoron, such Muslims must arise now to extirpate the fundamentalists from

their midst.  Failure to do so now will condemn them to the tyranny of their own.  And it will condemn us all

to a bloody world war between them and all the "others", a world war that otherwise will surely come.  

If non-Muslims value Peace...and their very lives...they will realize the threat in our midst and the opportunity

to deal with it now :by motivating moderate Muslims and by suppressing rather than accommodating

fundamentalists wherever they may be or may go.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE CONNECTICUT RANCH..."

See the column by Chris Powell entitled:  "'Never Enough' or 'Ehough Already?"'

(The Day Monday, June 10, 2013, pA4)

Connecticut has ended up at or near the bottom of the 50 States in categories that count,

thanks to the majority Democrats. 

RR #1

RR #2

MORE ON THE TRAVAILS OF NEW LONDON PUBLIC EDUCATION
Please see the article by Professor Sande Grande, Chairperson of the Education Department
at Connecticut College and member of the New London Board of Education advisory committee.
"RENZULLI VOTE SHOWED APPROPRIATE VIGILANCE"
in The Day (www.theday.com) Friday May 31, 2013, Opinion, pA6.

On matters of such importance, we need much more "due diligence" than
"Show me the money".

GS

RR #3

IT'S  BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE
ANOTHER EDITION OF "AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY POSITIONS"

• FIRST, IF THE CURRENT BATTLES BETWEEN AND AMONG MUSLIMS...SHIA VS SUNNI, ARAB VS PALESTINIAN, SALAFI VS ALLOWITES, ETC. TRANSFORMS INTO A WAR BETWEEN MAJORITY MODERATE MUSLIMS AND MINORITY FUNDAMENTALIST CRAZIES, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR THE WORLD OF ISLAM AND FOR THE WORLD AT LARGE. 
• PAKISTAN.  We need each other.  But all transactions should be on a strict "quid pro quo" basis. 
• AFGHANISTAN.  We must maintain a strong physical presence there to permanently suppress the Talliban, our sworn enemy and the enemy of the Afghan people.  Meanwhile, Hamid Karzia is a classic "situation politician".  We must continue  to give him the "plausible deniability" that he needs to survive physically.  But we must continue to do everything we can - including active use of Drones - to achieve the basic goal there.
• INDIA. A pragmatic nation; a sometime democracy, too wedded to the caste system of its former 19th century British Lord.  We can work with  them, but beware their Leftist inclinations.
• BURMA.  An opportunity?
• CHINA.  Not necessarily a sworn enemy, but certainly a sworn eompetitor.  Again, "quid por quo", including regarding dangerous dirty tricks like cyberwar.
• RUSSIA. Sorry, but here is a sworn enemy, at least for the next generation and under the current leadership.  Don't turn your back on them for a moment.  The only diplomacy they understand is : "Heads, I win; Tails, you lose". 
• TURKEY.  The perennial missed opportunity.  This is a strong Muslim nation with a strong secular streak that we can work with.  And yet, we keep giving them the back of the hand.  For whom of our  "Allies" are we carrying water?   This stance is not worth it for the Greeks...or for any of our other allies. 
• IRAQ.  We got out too soon.  Civil War coming.  More de-stabilizaation of the Middle East, of benefit to no one.
• Syria.  Another mistake in progress.  We have the power, as only we have, to establish the soil for a democratic...or at least a Moderate Muslim State.  Stupid.
• LEBANON.  Perennial victim.  It doesn't need to be that way.
• ISRAEL.  This tail should not be wagging the U.S. dog.  We have their back, their front, and everything else.  But they should not be determining our foreign policy in that area.
• EGYPT.  A worthy and valuable ally in re-development: strong democratic tendencies and rational Muslims.  And if we have to support the Military, there and elsewhere to achieve our national goals, so be it. 
• AFRICA. Worth great efforts of the West to blunt the spread of Islam there.
• LATIN AMERICA. Natural allies...if we reverse our STUPID immigration policies and also if treat them as equals.
• CANADA.  God Gless Canada.
• MEXICO. Healthy in Body; corrupt in Head. Work to cut off the head, starting with promotion of Land Reform.  And SECURE OUR BORDERS, while rationalizing our Immigration Policies to produce a win-win situation. 
• OUR ALLIES. "Nations don not have friends...only interests".
• THE U.N.  FUHGEDDABOUDIT.

AND WHILE ALL OF THIS IS GOING ON, OUR PRESIDENT DELIVERS A FOREIGN POLICY STATEM3ENT WHICH, TRANSLATED, STATES:

"WE ARE TAKING OUR BALL AND GOING HOME"