WikiLeaks Embassy Cables Reveal Venezuela's Health-Care System Collapsing

By David Paulin

Some of Venezuela's public hospitals are closing. Others are ridden with crime. Many physicians are quitting medicine -- starting new careers in Venezuela or immigrating abroad, upset at being paid a pittance or not paid at all. Medical supplies are in short supply.

A "confidential" U.S. Embassy cable from Caracas, just released by Wikileaks, says socialist Venezuela's health-care system is in "disarray” – and the poor are suffering the most. The document appears to be authentic. However, U.S. officials have flatly refused to confirm the authenticity of any purloined documents published by Wikleaks.

The Embassy cable released in December, 2009, blames Venezuela's ongoing health-care crisis squarely on President Hugo Chávez – his Cuban-style health care initiatives and overall mismanagement; not to mention his politicization of the South American's nation's health-care system. Physicians perceived as being anti-Chávez are disciplined, while incompetent military officials are placed in charge of public hospitals.

Looking ahead, the 1,900-word document warns that Chávez may create more havoc by nationalizing Venezuela's private clinics. They provide high-quality U.S.-style health care, something I experienced first-hand at private Clinica de Caracas, when going their for routine care and for some stitches to my forehead after an accident at a local gym. I was a Caracas-based journalist for much of the 1990s, leaving Venezuela in 2000 to go to CNN in Atlanta. This year Chávez has seized 234 companies, according to the Venezuelan Confederation of Industries (Conindustria).

The U.S. Embassy's blunt anti-Chávez critique comes, ironically, as oil-producing Venezuela enjoys record levels of oil wealth while embarking on Chávez's version of "21st-Century socialism." The ongoing health-care crisis says much about Chávez -- and specifically about the way such populist and authoritarian rulers invariably wreck a nation's economy with bread-and-circus socialism.

Little if any coverage has been given to Venezuela’s collapsing health-care system, with one exception being a piece in the Los Angeles Times. Accordingly, the cable provides a fascinating insider's glimpse of how Chávez is transforming Venezuela into a Latin American version of Zimbabwe, as one senior French official put it in a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

To be sure, Venezuela's public health-care system was declining years before Chávez became president 12 years ago -- thanks to Venezuela's notorious mismanagement; endemic corruption; and a dwindling supply of petro-dollars to support Venezuela's huge government bureaucracy.

Yet according to the Embassy cable, that deterioration has worsened significantly under Chávez -- a former coup leader whom poor and well-off alike voted for in a landslide election victory. He'd pledged to reverse years of decline in the oil-rich nation with a "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism. Venezuela's economy and quality-of-life had been in a tailspin since the end of soaring oil prices in the mid-1970s. Back then, the country was called “Saudi Venezuela.” It seemed poised for First World status.

Cuba-style heath care

According to the Embassy cable, Chávez has undermined Venezuela's public health-care system by creating a "parallel" Cuba-inspired medical system that most Venezuelans dislike: community medical clinics called “Barrio Adentro” (Mission Inside the Neighborhood) that provide “free” care provided by Cuban physicians.

According to the cable, critics say the missions are inefficient and have drained funding away from public hospitals that poor and middle-class Venezuelans still prefer – thus "lowering the overall quality of medical care" for everybody. Of the 30,000 personnel staffing the Cuba-style free clinics, about one half are reportedly Cuban physicians.

Interestingly, the Embassy cable is at odds with the two United Nation's agencies -- UNICEF and the Latin American branch of the World Health Organization. Both have reportedly praised the Cuban-style missions.

Regarding the politicization of Venezuela’s health-are system, the cable said health authorities have “suspended doctors for speaking out about the crisis while giving former military officers and community councils a greater role in hospital administration."

Another problem is Chávez's plans to "eliminate a government health care benefit that pays for public workers to receive health care at private clinics, a move that would place even greater strain on already overburdened public hospitals," the cable notes. This has outraged many middle-class Venezuelans.

"The evidence suggests that all classes of Venezuelans continue to prefer public hospitals to Barrio Adentro, even as the quality of medical services in the former has deteriorated.”

The cable added: “To the extent that President Chavez has acknowledged Venezuela's health care crisis, (Venezuela's government) has looked to Barrio Adentro and Cuba – and not the public hospitals – as the solution.”

What do Venezuelans think of Cuban physicians? An answer was suggested by a "secret" Embassy cable sent in January, 2006. Its title: "Cuba/Venezuela Axis of Mischief: The View From Caracas."

The cable's focus was on Cuba's growing influence in Venezuela, including by Cuban intelligence agents. But it also dealt with "free" Cuban health care, stating: "Anecdotal reporting suggests the care Cuban doctors provide is often lacking and that many 'physicians' are actually medical students."

Cuban doctors were earning about $400 per month, but they apparently weren't being paid up front. According to the cable: "A Cuban physician told (the Embassy's) medical advisor...that he received room, board, and toiletries but that the Cuban Government was 'holding' his salary until he finished his two-year tour."

Citing an interview with a local legislator, one Embassy officer reported that some "Cuban doctors complained bitterly that the Cuban regime held their families hostage while the doctors relied on local donations to survive."

Cuban Physicians Flee

Not surprisingly, hundreds of Cuban physicians have sought and been granted visas from the U.S. Embassy, according two separate Embassy cables describing the plight of Cuban physicians. The doctors complained of "poor working conditions, inadequate medical supplies, and of constantly being watched and monitored by co-workers," according to a "secret" Embassy cable sent in April, 2009, and titled: "Cuban Medical Personnel Flee Venezuela."

Most of the asylum-seeking physicians managed to leave Venezuela, but in many cases only after suffering harassment from Venezuelan officials or paying bribes of up to $1,000, according to a "confidential" Embassy cable sent in February, 2010, describing increased harassment of asylum-seeking physicians.

Here are some horrific examples of Venezuela's health-care crisis cited by the Embassy cable dealing with Venezuela's collapsing health-care system:

*"Criminals go to the public hospitals to rob, steal, and even kill patients. The emergency room in Hospital Vargas is only open for twelve hours-between seven in the morning and seven at night-because of security concerns."

*In the impoverished Catia area of Caracas, 140 physicians staged a mass resignation at one of the area's "two largest and most important public hospitals" for poor Venezuelans. They were upset over unpaid wages and benefits, lack of hospital funding -- and the Health Ministry's suspension of four physicians accused of "inciting" patients to protest poor hospital conditions.

*An Embassy officer was told by an unnamed person (the name was deleted by WikiLeaks or an Embassy official) that Venezuela's government had “suspended doctors to discourage them from speaking out about the health care crisis. Last year four doctors were suspended when they exposed the accidental death of six babies in a maternity ward.” According to the unnamed person, Venezuela's government “has limited the role of the resident doctors in hospital management and transferred authority to local community councils.

*Shortages of basic medical supplies have prompted physicians “to ask patients to purchase their own needles, disinfectants and gauze." A Venezuelan whose name was deleted in the Embassy cable (presumably by WikiLeaks or an Embassy official) told an Embassy officer that "doctors sometimes dress wounds with the same dirty bandages. Other patients are told to bring their own X-rays from private clinics. In many areas of Caracas, public hospitals suffer from water shortages, forcing doctors to postpone important operations. In some of the older public hospitals, the plumbing systems cannot pump water above the first few floors of the building.”

*"The maternity ward of the Lidice hospital – considered the second most important in Caracas for many years – has now been closed for two years, while Catia's other major public hospital, Los Magallanes Jose Gregorio Hernandez, has been partially closed for over a year while awaiting renovation."

*Salaries for physicians are “barely enough to cover rent in Caracas.” Accordingly, "many doctors have left the public hospitals in search of other jobs, while some of the most qualified have left the country to earn better salaries abroad. In a December 4 press report, the Venezuelan Medical Federation (FMV) estimated that the public hospitals are understaffed by 43 percent."

*An unnamed Venezuela (his name was deleted) told an Embassy officer "that the quality of health care in the public hospitals has deteriorated as (Venezuela's government) has redirected resources to Barrio Adentro. Although Barrio Adentro has translated into political gains for President Chávez , its medical impact is questionable, despite having received massive government investment."

As revelations of the Embassy cable are publicized, expect the hyper-sensitive Hugo Chávez to go into a frothing anti-American rage.

(Originally published at The American Thinker.)

Defying Obama edict, FBI says Portland plot inspired by 'jihad'

By David Paulin

Has the FBI jumped off the Obama administration's political correctness bandwagon? Well, the FBI's Portland office apparently has.

Under the Obama administration, certain words that help us describe our enemies are verboten. For instance, the State Department and Department of Homeland Security are banned from using "jihad" and "mujahideen" with reference to Islamic terrorism. It's all part of an effort to avoid offending the Muslim world.

Yet in a press release about the aborted Portland terror attack, the FBI repeatedly uses the "J" word (jihad) to describe what inspired Somali-born Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. Citizen who was arrested in the plot. Mohamud, 19, allegedly wanted to blow up an explosives-packed van near a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square. Mohamud was on the receiving end of a sting operation, so nobody was ever in any danger.

What set him off?

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to use the term "radical Islam" to describe the ideology of Muslims who want to kill Westerners and destroy the West. Yet in its press release, the FBI is clear about what motivated Mohamud. It uses the verboten "J" word four times to describe what motivated Mohamud to set out to murder American moms, dads, and their children enjoying Portland's Christmas festivities.

"Cognitive dissonance" describes what's happening here -- the peculiar state of holding two conflicting concepts in one's mind at the same time. Obviously, the FBI couldn't avoid the politically incorrect "J" word when Mohamud himself used it to describe what was motivating him. Or as the FBI says: "Mohamud allegedly told undercover FBI operatives he had been thinking of committing violent jihad since the age of 15."

Not only that, the FBI noted that Mohamud had "written articles that were published in Jihad Recollections, an online magazine that advocated violent jihad."

What must Eric Holder think of all this? (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)

In case you missed it, here is a YouTube video of Holder explaining why he refuses to use the term “radical Islam":

Originally published at The American Thinker.

A Colorado Resident Blasts President Obama with a Craigslist Ad:

Democrat Bear Problem (Denver)

---

Date: 2010-11-24, 11:03AM MST

---

A disturbing trend was noted this past summer by National Park Rangers as Democrat Bears invaded public picnic areas and demanded to be fed. They also wanted the government to assure they had adequate caves to sleep in this winter, stocked with hibernation supplies and a guarantee that there would be free food when they woke up in the Spring. The AFL-CIO have begun talks on the Bear's behalf for the Summer 2011 season . . . .

• Location: Denver
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

HAT TIP: Vegasviper1

\

The Liberal Obsession: Spread the Wealth Around

By David Paulin

Liberal Democrats have a singular obsession: the gap between rich and poor. Close it with Robin Hood-style soak-the-rich policies, and America will be a better place, they believe. “Spread the wealth around,” presidential candidate Barack Obama told “Joe the Plumber.”

It's an obsession, of course, that's also found in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba: places where such policies have not created innovation, investment and wealth -- but instead created poverty.

Last night on the PBS Newshour, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an influential Illinois Democrat, again raised the Democrat's spread-the-wealth banner – putting forth the usual liberal crackpot theories about how to reduce the federal deficit – namely, she explained, by utilizing massive soak-the-rich tax polices and huge cuts in defense spending. But what underpinned Rep. Jan Schakowsky deficit-reduction plan was her obsession with closing the gap between rich and poor -- a goal she's obviously unwilling to address with business-friendly policies, entrepreneurship, and a free market. She explained:

Well, you know, we have right now the greatest disparity in income from the rich to the poor and middle class than we have had since 1925, right before the Great Depression.

And this kind of income inequality is not good for our economy. And it's certainly not good for people who have seen their incomes stagnant or falling over the last couple decades. In fact, all of the growth in wealth went during the Bush years to the top -- wealthiest people in our economy.

It is not a good situation for us to be, as Nicholas Kristof has called, like a banana republic.

In Britain during Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative pro-growth policies in the 1980s (now making a comeback in Britian and Europe), left-wing Members of Parliament had the same obsession: closing the gap between rich and poor -- even though Britain's economy was humming and rich and poor alike benefited from that prosperity. Here is the prime minister's famous response to one of those left-wing MP's during "Question Time" in Britain’s Parliament -- a lesson from "Economic's 101" that Democrats like Rep. Schakowsky would do well to learn:

(Originally published at The American Thinker.)

Obama's Hand in Your Crotch




By David Paulin

At long last, a newspaper editorial hits the nail on the head regarding the TSA's new crotch-fondling polices: Stop humiliating innocent airline passengers and do what Israel's security-conscious El Al does -- profiling.

The Washington Times makes this point in an editorial aptly titled "Obama's Hand in Your Crotch."

The Transportation Security Administration's demeaning new "enhanced pat-down" procedures are a direct result of the Obama administration's willful blindness to the threat from Islamic radicals. While better tools are available to keep air travelers safe, they would involve recognizing the threat for what it is, which is something the White House will never do.

El Al, Israel's national airline, employs a smarter approach. Any airline representing the state of Israel is a natural - some might say preeminent - target for terrorist attacks. Yet El Al has one of the best security records in the world and doesn't resort to wide-scale use of methods that would under other circumstances constitute sexual assault. The Israelis have achieved this track record of safety by employing sophisticated intelligence analysis which allows them to predict which travelers constitute a possible threat and which do not. Resources are then focused on the more probable threats with minimal intrusion on those who are likely not to be terrorists.

Interestingly, growing public outrage over the TSA's excesses and political correctness may end up benefiting the GOP. Writing in the Washington Examiner, political correspondent Byron York notes that Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican, is zeroing in on the TSA. The agency, Mica contends, has become a "a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy" -- its security checks all but useless against would-be terrorists. Mica will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, notes the Examiner's piece, "Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening."

York, based on an interview with Mica, writes that the "TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what (its) critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," Mica tells him. "It's a big Kabuki dance."
Interestingly, the TSA has in fact created security checks in some airports inspired by El Al-style profiling, writes York. They're part of a system called SPOT: "Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques." "The problem is, they're doing it all wrong," writes York, citing a recent study from the Government Accountability Office.

"It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," he quotes Mica as saying.

Indeed, York explains:

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists...have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

Ultimately, it probably won't be TSA agents who stop the next would-be terrorist from blowing up an airliner. It will be passengers themselves. After all, it was passengers who thwarted shoe-bomber Richard Reid and underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In other cases, passengers were the first to alert flight attendants to the presence of fellow passengers (young men of Middle Eastern origin) who were acting suspiciously -- roaming about the cabin and changing seats for no apparent reason.

Among other things, Rep. Mica says private contractors working under federal supervision may do a better job than the TSA. One thing is certain: The Congressman has much work to do. (Originally published at The American Thinker.)

Venezuelan workers protest Chavez's nationalization of U.S. company

By David Paulin

As part of ongoing efforts to introduce "21st-century socialism" to Venezuela, Hugo Chávez plans to nationalize yet another foreign company – this time the local subsidiary of U.S. glass-making giant Owens-Illinois, Inc. Chávez claims the company's subsidiary has been “exploiting” workers.

You'd think the 1,000 workers at Owens-Illinois de Venezuela CA would be overjoyed to know they'll soon have all the benefits of a “workers paradise.”

Just the opposite is the case.

Yesterday, hundreds of “exploited” workers loudly protested the impending nationalization. Speaking to a Venezuela TV station, union leader Rigoberto Méndez said workers were “totally in disagreement with the expropriation.” Owen's workers had an excellent contract and good working conditions, he stressed, while surrounded by supportive workers. The company has been in Venezuela 50 years.

"We are going to defend the company to the last," Méndez said. "We want our right to work to be respected." (You can see a video clip here of Méndez giving an interview to Venezuela's Globovision television station.)

Méndez speculated that a nationalized company will enable Chávez to indirectly control the many companies the glass manufacturer supplies. One of the biggest is Empresas Polar SA, Venezuela's largest beer and food producer – a company Chávez often criticizes. Indeed, Chávez declared “an economic war” on Venezuela's “bourgeoisie” last June, and he lashed into Polar owner Lorenzo Mendoza “for allegedly manipulating its employees and trying to undermine the government," Bloomberg News noted in an article about the expropriation.

Mendoza has the sort of credentials Chávez despises: Forbes magazine named him Venezuela's second-wealthiest man, Bloomberg noted. He also “runs a venture with PepsiCo Inc. and makes Harina P.A.N., the staple corn flour to make arepas, the flat cakes that are a staple of the Venezuelan diet."

Explaining what Chávez hopes to gain, Bloomberg provided insights from a Venezuelans analyst who echoed those of union leader Méndez:

"The takeover will weaken closely held Polar...by putting its supply chain under government control, said Rafael Alfonzo, president of Caracas-based researcher Cedice. Combined with the expropriation earlier this month of Agroislena C.A. Sucesora de Enrique Fraga Afonso, Venezuela’s biggest farm-supply business, the move gives Chávez significant sway over Polar, Alfonzo said.

"The expropriation of Owens-Illinois is part of a government project to create a food hegemony and the total takeover of the food supply,” Alfonzo said in a phone interview. “If you control the supply chain, there is no need to take control of a company like Polar.”

Chávez made his announcement on state television Monday in his typically buffoonish manner, while surrounded by government lackeys. (Even readers who don't speak Spanish will get a sense of this from this Globovision video clip.)

"What’s it called?” Chávez said, gesturing toward officials after apparently forgetting the name of the company he plans to expropriate.

"Owens-Illinois!” he continued without missing a beat. "Expropriate it.”

According to a spokesperson at Owens-Illinois, the announcement was the first they'd heard of Chávez's plans to take-over the company. Such surprise announcements are typical of how Chávez operates. During his 11 years in office, El Presidente has carried out nationalizations in the telecommunications, steel, banking, power, and oil sectors. Not surprisingly, Venezuela is Latin America's worst-performing economy this year.

The fact that Venezuela's workers are opposed to the take-over underscores that Chávez's agenda is not about creating better conditions for workers. It's about power, ideology, and Chávez's own narcissism.

Venezuela's poor take a back seat to all these things.

(originally published at The American Thinker)

Obama using a 'back door' amnesty for illegals?

David Paulin

In a secretive process, immigration judges are dismissing large numbers of deportation complaints against illegal immigrants, lending credence to claims that the Obama administration is using immigration courts to achieve a "back door amnesty" for illegals.

What's it take for an immigration judge to dismiss a deportation case against an illegal immigrant who has been in the country a few years? Apparently, only that the person has stayed out of trouble with the law (although being in the country illegally doesn't qualify as an offense.)

News about the dismissals -- in Houston, Dallas, Miami and other major cities -- was reported by the Houston Chronicle yesterday. In its article, "Immigration cases tossed by the hundreds," the paper reported:

In the month after Homeland Security officials started a review of Houston's immigration court docket, immigration judges dismissed more than 200 cases, an increase of more than 700 percent from the prior month, new data shows.

The number of dismissals in Houston courts reached 217 in August — up from just 27 in July, according to data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the nation's immigration court system.

In September, judges dismissed 174 pending cases — the vast majority involving immigrants who already were out on bond and had cases pending on Houston's crowded downtown court docket, where hearings are now being scheduled into 2012. Roughly 45 percent of the 350 cases decided in that court in September resulted in dismissals, the records show.

The EOIR data offers the first glimpse into Homeland Security's largely secretive review of pending cases on the local immigration court docket. In early August, federal attorneys in Houston started filing unsolicited motions to dismiss cases involving suspected illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for years without committing serious crimes.

What does all this mean? Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates for stricter border controls, told the Chronicle:

"When you have this kind of mass dismissal, it sends a very clear message to illegal immigrants, and to society at large, that the government is not serious about enforcing the laws. This type of action muddles the message so both the public at large as well as illegal immigrants don't know what to think." (originally published at The American Thinker)

Connecticut Sees 'Red' After Horrific Home-Invasion Murders




By David Paulin

Blue-state Connecticut has undergone a jolting metamorphosis over the past three years, with potential ramifications for the Senate contest between Linda McMahon and Richard Blumenthal. Many residents have become a lot more like red-state Texans than blue-state New Englanders. Now, they're enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty and are fond of handguns and shotguns. It's all due to a horrific home invasion in 2007 in the affluent town of Cheshire, a New Haven suburb.


Chilling details of the "Cheshire Murders," as they're known, have played out in a New Haven courtroom this fall during the first of two trials. Now, the proceedings are in the penalty phase after Steven Hayes, 48, was convicted of murder and rape. Jurors must decide if he should get life in prison or the death penalty. According to a recent opinion poll, Connecticut residents overwhelmingly favor lethal injection.

On July 23, 2007, at 3 a.m., Hayes and fellow career criminal Joshua Komisarjevsky, now 30, burst into the home of the Petit family. Three family members were murdered: Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and daughters Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. Mrs. Petit and Michaela were raped. The sole survivor was Dr. William A. Petit, Jr., then 50, a prominent physician and diabetes specialist who was beaten senseless with a baseball bat and tied up. He eventually freed himself and stumbled out of his home to summon help from neighbors.

Interestingly, the Cheshire Murders have repeatedly overshadowed Connecticut politics -- putting anti-death penalty Democrats on the defensive. Democrat lawmakers in May 2009 revealed themselves to be out of touch with voters when pushing through a vote to abolish Connecticut's death penalty. It followed a debate overshadowed by the "Cheshire Murders." Governor M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, vetoed the law.


Murder and rape normally are unheard of in places like Cheshire, rated by Money Magazine as one of the best places to live in America. They don't happen to families like the Petits, all of whom were accomplished, highly respected, and active in community affairs. The horrific home invasion offered Connecticut residents an appalling glimpse of something liberals and Connecticut's Democratic lawmakers seem unable to understand: criminals who commit unspeakable evil -- and the limits of the police's ability to protect law-abiding citizens from such predatory monsters.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

Diversity, the Enlightenment, and American Medicine

By David Paulin

The story of America (the one Obama won't tell you) starts with British settlers and their vision of a new country. Next came European immigrants who assimilated into the culture created by those settlers.

And despite speaking different languages and coming from myriad cultures, those settlers and immigrants had much in common. Among other things, they were children of Europe's 18th century Enlightenment – an era in which reason and science became a new religion, albeit a secular one.

Some of America's most breathtaking achievements have been in medicine -- the science of healing human beings. And even without ObamaCare, American medicine is today the envy of the world. Dr. John Olsen, a prominent cardiologist, wrote with much pride about this in an Op-Ed for the Seattle-Times:

Our students are the product of intense competition... Outstanding medical centers have arisen in most major cities in the country, attracting talent from around the world...

Our national conferences routinely attract thousands who seek to validate their ideas on the most competitive stage. The best journals, the most publications, and the most scientific accolades are garnered by physicians working in this country.

We have deciphered the genome and developed dialysis, bone-marrow transplantation and catheter-based cardiac interventions. Our population can get advanced imaging studies or virtually any laboratory test performed promptly and reliably. A simple call to 911 provides instant access to a remarkable countrywide system of emergency care.

Could anything be missing from this upbeat assessment from a proud American physician?

"Yes," says diversity expert Nydia Gonzalez: American medicine needs more “cultural sensitivity” in order to accommodate the non-Western beliefs of new immigrants from non-Western traditions -- immigrants who are changing America's demographic landscape. Indeed, as America's demographic landscape changes, American medicine must change too, becoming more culturally sensitive and diverse, she contends in an article published in the Austin American-Statesman: “Dose of cultural sensitivity helpful in health care setting.”

American medicine, in other words, is no longer primarily about science and values rooted in the Age of Enlightenment. And nor is it about intense competition in which medical schools and medical centers compete for the best and the brightest: It's now about "diversity" too, says Gonzalez.

Gonzalez, associate vice chancellor for institutional diversity at Tarrant County College in Forth Worth, Texas, says it's not enough for a physician (or translator) to speak to a patient in their own language. They also must demonstrate “sensitivity to and respect (for)...religion, customs, values and traditions — all these values around health care that shape the approaches that we take to health and illness."

In other words, science rooted in 18th century Enlightenment values is no longer the cornerstone of American medicine.

Could what happened at a Minneapolis medical center be a harbinger of things to come? To accommodate a large population of Muslim immigrants from Somalia, hospital administrators at "Hennepin County Medical Center developed an obstetrical staff made up almost entirely of women after Muslim Somali women objected to having male doctors deliver their babies," reported the New York Times last year.

Nydia Gonzalez may well applaud such cultural sensitivity. But couldn't all those Somali women have been “culturally sensitive” to American medical traditions? Or does cultural sensitivity not apply to Western traditions and values?

As an expert on diversity and cultural sensitivity, Gonzales has an impressive background, and an interesting one. She previously held “diversity related” positions at Yale University and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted the Statesman. Even more interestingly, she speaks with much insight about “cultural sensitivity” because she was raised in what might be considered a non-Western tradition.

Gonzales, you see, grew up in South Texas where she was exposed to non-Western medical care -- the type found in backward parts of Mexico.

As the Statesman explains:

Growing up with insight into two cultures provides the backdrop for Gonzalez's interest in cultural competence among health care providers. She said that when she had a fever as a child, a curandera, or faith healer, was called to the family's house to rub an egg from the crown of the girl's head down to her feet. Once the egg was cracked and left in a saucer under her bed overnight, the state of the egg indicated whether her illness was caused by mal de ojo, the evil eye — a concept that exists in cultures around the world.

If that wasn't the case, her family figured she likely had an infection easily treated by driving to a pediatrician's office in Weslaco for a shot of antibiotics.

In the time and place where Gonzalez grew up — in the 1950s in South Texas — it was common for Hispanic families to seek health care from a curandera as well as a medical doctor, she said. Now that she is an expert in organizational diversity, she has a name for the treatment she was given.

"I didn't know it then, but what I was really experiencing was integrative medicine," Gonzalez said.

What a strange way to describe such treatments -- as part of “integrative medicine.” For those who've never heard of “integrative medicine,” it's a relatively new approach to medical care; a holistic approach practiced at some medical centers in which traditional care is combined with things like nutrition, fitness, and yoga.

I'm no medical expert, to be sure, but I doubt that “integrative medicine” would involve the Mexican voodoo that Gonzalez was exposed to as a child.

Putting forth the case for “cultural competence” among physicians, Gonzalez points to America's changing demographic landscape where white “Anglos” (as she might put it) are heading toward minority status. It's a landscape, of course, that's far different than the one created by British settlers and European immigrants, now that millions of immigrants are here from non-Western and non-European cultures: Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

American medicine and physicians must change to accommodate them, says Gonzalez, who offered this mouthful of insight:

"There's a compelling need for cultural competence just by responding to projected demographic changes to eliminate long-standing disparities in people of diverse cultural backgrounds. Really, nowhere are the divisions of race, ethnicity and culture more sharply drawn than in the issue of health care in the United States."

Besides “cultural sensitivity,” Gonzalez maintains that American medicine needs lots more “diversity” too. As the Statesman explains:

“In response, health care organizations have been issued 14 national standards known as Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) by the Office of Minority Health, a division of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. CLAS mandates on providing translation services at no cost to patients are required of health care organizations that receive federal funds. Overall, the list of guidelines calls for care that's respectful of a patient's "cultural health beliefs and practices and preferred language." The standards also suggest that a health care organization's staff should reflect the demographics of the surrounding community and should receive training in cultural sensitivity.

Besides interviewing Gonzalez, the Statesman's reporter dug up a hip physician in Austin who's a big fan of cultural sensitivity training. Dr. David Kessler told the paper that "Whether it's a class or reading the newspaper every day, it's incumbent upon you to get that training. That's what it means to be an informed citizen in this country."

Dr. Kessler, I have a recurring nightmare: It's that I wake up in a hospital run by you and Nydia Gonzalez; a hospital in which people are not hired based on merit but on their ethnic backgrounds and skin colors. A hospital in which, in the room next to mine, I can hear Nydia Gonzalez's witchdoctor performing the “egg” treatment that Gonzalez claims is part of “integrative medicine” – a ceremony you no doubt would encourage due to your your cultural sensitivity. (Originally published at The American Thinker.)

Rachel Corrie's parents demand 'justice' from Israel

By David Paulin

You remember Rachel Corrie – the left-wing terror advocate who suffered a major deficit of common sense? On March 16, 2003, the 24-year-old American got herself killed when she stood in front of an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer conducting anti-terror operations in Gaza -- destroying tunnels used for weapons smuggling.

Corrie has since become a patron saint of the Israel-hating left. And within the coming week, her parents will be proceeding with a civil suit in Israel's courts against the IDF, according to a sympathetic article about them and their misguided daughter written by Diaa Hadid of the Associated Press. Craig and Cindy Corrie are seeking an "apology" and the chance to "look their daughter's killer in the eye," according to the piece.

Corrie's parents and her rabid supporters dispute the IDF's claim that her death was an accident.

Incidentally, the photo accompanying this article is of Rachel Corrie burning a mock American flag in Gaza, her face contorted with rage. It's a photo that never seems to accompany sympathetic articles about the pro-Palestinian radical in the mainstream media.

Underscoring her patron saint status to the international left, Corrie had a play written about her based on her writing. "My Name is Rachel Corrie" was a big hit in London – or Londonistan as that city is informally called.

In April 2005, the play opened “at London’s prestigious Royal Court, a venue named by The New York Times 'as the most important theater in Europe'," observed journalist Tom Gross.

Corrie's parents, for their part, have for years been demanding justice in Israel's courts, while simultaneously standing up for the Palestinian cause and bringing attention to what they regard as "Palestinian suffering.”

Earlier, the Corrie's unsuccessfully sued Caterpillar Inc. -- the U.S. company that made the IDF bulldozer that ran over their daughter. Caterpillar, they claimed, had been violating international law by facilitating Israel's alleged human rights violations.

The left's worship of Corrie, of course, has no room for victims of Palestinian terror, as Gross noted in a piece about the "cult of Rachel Corrie" and the victims of Palestinian terror.

In "The Forgotten Rachel's," Gross describes the hypocrisy of Rachel Corrie, her parents, and their devoted supporters; not to mention the anti-Israeli bias of the mainstream media in respect to its coverage of Rachel Corrie. Specifically, Gross points out that "many of the articles about Corrie...are not really about the young American activist who died in such tragic circumstances. They are about promoting a hate-filled and glaringly one-sided view of Israel."

Israel's courts, for their part, appear to be bending over backwards to accommodate the Corries, which is ironic given Rachel Corrie's hatred of Israel, the Middle East's only democracy.

Imagine parents whose daughter was murdered by Palestinian authorities getting a comparable level of justice in a court room in the West Bank or Gaza. (Originally published at The American Thinker.)

America's Food Stamp Culture

By David Paulin

Many Americans can remember a time when a Coca-Cola was a treat: You had one now and then. But most middle-class Americans didn't drink Coca-Cola and similar carbonated drinks all the time, as if they were water. For one thing, it was too expensive to do that for most individuals and most families.

Today that's no longer the case.

Today a Coca-Cola is an entitlement in America. But it's not an entitlement for everybody. Rather, it's an entitlement for people who have fallen on hard times or are permanently stuck in them; people who are on America's growing food-stamp dole.

Recently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a ban to prohibit the city's 1.7 million food-stamp recipients from using their federal food allowance to buy sugary soda drinks. Ostensibly, Bloomberg is concerned about health-related problems for New Yorkers on food stamps. After all, large numbers of them are fat or suffering from diabetes; and one reason for this, say health experts, is their large consumption of all those empty calories in sugary drinks that are popular among low-income New Yorkers – mainly blacks and Hispanics on the food stamp dole. They're suffering from what Bloomberg's office calls an “obesity epidemic.” Indeed, in New York City's public schools, 46 percent of Hispanic children, 40 percent of African-American children, and 40 percent of all children are overweight or obese, according to Bloomberg's office. The problem is substantially worse in low-income areas, said the mayor's office.

Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned Republican and now an independent, is not so politically foolish as to suggest that many New Yorkers on food stamps are irresponsible people living in an “entitlement culture.” But his call for a ban on using food stamps to buy sugary drinks amounts to the same thing because it would, if approved by Washington bureaucrats, force many food-stamp recipients to adjust their lifestyles and make smarter supermarket purchases.

Bloomberg's proposal has gotten mostly positive reviews, with his two main critics being the nation's beverage lobby and libertarians who contend that food stamp recipients ought to be able to buy whatever they want. (Food stamp recipients, however, are prohibited from buying tobacco and alcohol – two things that even libertarians are unlikely to say are entitlements for people suffering through hard times.)

Specifically, Bloomberg proposed a two-year ban on the use of food stamps to buy sugary drinks – during which health experts would evaluate whether the ban was helping food-stamp recipients lose some weight and reduce their high levels of diabetes.

Nationwide, 6 percent of food-stamp benefits are spent on sugary beverages, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, which administers the food-stamp program.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

Who is the real leader here?





Like millions of Americans, I was riveted to live images of the mine rescue in Chile. One emotion kept creeping into my mind: I couldn't help but admire Chile's President Sebastián Piñera-- and compare his bearing and leadership to that of America's own president, Barack Obama.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece on the mining disaster: "Capitalism Saved the Miners." It wasn't only capitalism, of course. It also took a man like Chile's conservative president, a former businessman and Harvard-trained economist, to know how to leverage the forces of free-market capitalism to save his fellow countrymen.

Contrast Piñera's performance against what Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez did when tens of thousands of his fellow countrymen were killed and injured by devastating mudslides in 1999 -- he rejected a a U.S. Navy ship loaded with aid and military engineers from the United States in a fit of nationalistic bluster. That ship was steaming to Venezuela when Chavez announced that the aid was not welcome. For those who think that George W. Bush is responsible for all the anti-Americanism in the world, it should be noted that America's president in 1999 was Bill Clinton.

Had this mining disaster occurred in socialist Venezuela, it's safe to say that it would not have had a happy ending.

Congratulations to President Piñera, the rescued miners, and all Chileans who can be rightly proud of this wonderful mine rescue. There are many stories left to tell about this shining example of human courage, innovation, and cooperation -- all things that flourish in a world of responsible free-market capitalism where the human spirit is allowed to flourish.
--David Paulin

Gun control and a shooting at the University of Texas

By David Paulin

It was a sad and harrowing morning yesterday at the University of Texas in Austin. A young man with an AK-47 assault rifle fired a number of rounds into the air as he ran past frightened onlookers at 8 a.m. He then dashed into the school's library where police say he shot himself to death.

No injuries from the rampage were reported, other than a sprained ankle as thousands of frightened students evacuated buildings and sought cover in secure areas. Police for a time thought a second shooter might be on the loose.

The shooting triggered a massive police response and prompted school officials to cancel classes and close the campus. It also reignited an old debate in Texas -- whether people with concealed handgun permits ought to be able to carry their handguns on state college and university campuses. Like many states, Texas prohibits concealed handgun holders from carrying their guns on campuses. Republican lawmakers and Republican Gov. Rick Perry have been unsuccessful in their efforts to rescind the ban.

Coincidentally, the shooting occurred on the day that conservative author John R. Lott, Jr., a proponent of concealed-handgun laws, was to speak at the University of Texas law school about crime and how it is affected by citizens who own guns and carry concealed handguns.

A research scientist at the University of Maryland, Lott wrote the book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" – which the Wall Street Journal praised for "helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control."

Gun bans don't deter crime, says Lott – an argument he made yesterday evening when speaking at a local book store, near where the first shots were fired, instead of at the university's law school.

"Would you put up a sign in front of your house saying 'This is a gun-free zone?" he told the Austin American-Statesman before delivering his lecture. "That makes no sense because it tells the criminal there's not going to be any guns there. Yet we put signs like that up at our schools and universities. ... There's a tremendous advantage to having concealed-carry laws, because the shooter doesn't know who has a weapon.”

"Some places like the UT campus are targeted by gunmen because they know the potential victims won't be armed," Lott went onto tell more than 100 people -- a crowd that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Vice President Kory Zipperer told the Statesman was larger than expected.

"I think today's situation shows why gun-free zones don't work, because he was still able to carry a gun onto a gun-free zone and shoot," Zipperer said.

Moments after reports of an armed man shooting an AK-47, the university activated contingency plans for such emergencies – warning students with text messages, activating emergency sirens, and announcing the emergency on loudspeakers.

Andy Fernandez, a member of Leaders of Libertarian Longhorns, told the Statesman he was frustrated by how vulnerable students were. "They had no chance to defend themselves," he said.

Ironically, the paper noted that the gunman was, according to authorities, "legally allowed to carry his loaded AK-47 on sidewalks around campus, and only broke the law when he fired it and carried it into a campus building."

As for the shooter: Police quickly identified him as Colton Tooley, a 19-year-old university sophomore majoring in math. Teachers, neighbors, and others who knew him expressed shock: Tooley's actions were inconsistent with the person they knew, they said.

Tooley graduated from Austin's Crockett High School last year and students there were upset to learn what happened, noted Principal Craig Shapiro. In a statement, he said Tooley was "an excellent student who excelled in every subject, and was ranked 7th in his class. His teachers recall him with words such as 'brilliant,' 'meticulous,' and 'respectful.'”

For Crockett's students, Tooley's death was particularly upsetting because it occurred after fellow student James Hinojosa was hit and killed by a train last week, Shapiro said.

He added:

“I respectfully request that the news media refrain from coming on to the Crockett campus, and attempting to speak with students or staff. These have been two difficult weeks for our community, with the loss of Colton, and the death of student James Hinojosa in the train accident last week. Our school needs time to heal from our losses." (This was originally published at The American Thinker.)

John Lott discusses the relationship between crime and handgun bans during an appearance on C-SPAN:

U.S. Justice Department to Hire 'Black English' Jive Speakers



By David Paulin

The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to hire “jive” speakers – people fluent in "Black English" or "Ebonics" – to help with undercover investigations of drug dealers. According to the The Smoking Gun website, Ebonics is even described by the Justice Department as a commonly spoken American language!

As The Smoking Gun reports:

In contract documents... Ebonics is listed among 114 languages for which prospective contractors must be able to provide linguists. The 114 languages are divided between “common languages” and “exotic languages.” Ebonics is listed as a “common language” spoken solely in the United States.

Ebonics has widely been described as a nonstandard variant of English spoken largely by African Americans. John R. Rickford, a Stanford University professor of linguistics, has described it as “Black English” and noted that “Ebonics pronunciation includes features like the omission of the final consonant in words like ‘past’ (pas’ ) and ‘hand’ (han’), the pronunciation of the th in ‘bath’ as t (bat) or f (baf), and the pronunciation of the vowel in words like ‘my’ and ‘ride’ as a long ah (mah, rahd).”

Detractors reject the notion that Ebonics is a dialect, instead considering it a bastardization of the English language.

So how could Eric Holder's Justice Department classify Ebonics as a commonly spoken language? No doubt, one reason is a profound devotion to multiculturalism -- the post-modern ideology that views all cultures as equal --along with the languages that help define them. Another reason may be a desire not to offend various racial constituencies and friends: certain black churches in Chicago; various professors of black studies; and perhaps even a former community organizer known for his impeccably creased pants.

Incidentally, anybody unfamiliar with "Black English" or "Ebonics," can find out what they've been missing in this hilarious clip from the movie "Airplane!,” the 1980's spoof in which Barbara Billingsley (the all-American suburban mom in the 1950s/60 TV sitcom "Leave It to Beaver") famously showed off her fluency in jive.




Interestingly, Billingsley's jive is similar to the lower-class English I regularly heard while working two years in Kingston, Jamaica, a former British Colony. Jamaica's version of Ebonics, popular among its lower classes, is called “Patois.” And as with Ebonics in the U.S., the use of Patois among lower-class Jamaicans has provoked an ongoing controversy -- pitting left-leaning elites (primarily in academia) against Jamaica's black middle-class and its conservative intellectuals. The debate is interesting because it throws a spotlight on the absurd arguments put forth by left-leaning elites in America and Jamaica over the use of non-standard English.

Like their soul mates in America, for instance, Jamaica's left-leaning elites defend Patois as an “authentic” language that's an important part of Jamaica's "post-colonial" national identify. Indeed, they advocate that school children even get formal instruction in Patois along with standard English. Middle-class Jamaicans and conservative pundits, on the other hand, point out that Jamaican kids already speak Patois – and are in fact in dire need of learning proper English. This is vital to success in school and landing good jobs as adults.

Like American critics of Ebonics, Jamaica's conservative pundits contend that Patois is really just “slave talk” – a product of Jamaica's undisciplined culture. Indeed, a prominent Jamaican lawyer and author named Morris Cargill offered some fascinating observations along these lines in a Jamaican newspaper column a few years ago. Specifically, Cargill drew a relationship between culture and success concerning the use of Patois over standard English in Jamaica and the Caribbean. He wrote:

I prefer to describe what we call our Patois as either slave talk or yahoolish, for that is what it really is.

When I was going around the other West Indian islands during the Federation I was greatly impressed by two important things. When Grantley Adams made his speeches in the Federal House he often spoke with a thick Barbadian accent. But beneath that accent his speeches were well structured, and were in excellent English. I soon found that to be true of all the Barbadians I met. Never mind the accent. Whatever they said was firmly based upon well structured English.

The Trinidadians had a different but softer accent, yet they too spoke excellent English. When one phoned a private home both the maid and the mistress spoke the same excellent English with the same charming lilting accent.

The situation in Barbados and Trinidad differs greatly from the situation in Jamaica for our patois is nothing more than hopelessly broken English, unstructured and incapable of dealing with abstract concepts, without tense or number.

Although a few Jackasses, some of whom are at the University, keep on claiming that Patois is some kind of language, it is nothing more than an undisciplined and unstructured kind of chattering. An undisciplined and disorderly way of speaking makes for an undisciplined and disorderly mind. Of course the converse is also true. A disorderly and undisciplined mind also brings about a disorderly and undisciplined way of talking.

One doesn't know which comes first but I don't think it matters. Every writer complains about the lack of discipline in Jamaica but it doesn't seem to occur to many that that indiscipline is expressed by, and probably results from, the undisciplined way so many talk. We should watch our language and stop calling slave talk some sort of cultural heritage. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply mental sloppiness. Barbados and Trinidad both have a useful lesson to teach us. It may well be the reason why both those countries are so very much more successful than we are.

Regarding Ebonics, the same might be said for most of its American speakers -- their poor language skills condemns them to poverty. Of course, this excludes those earning good livings as drug dealers; professors of Black Studies; or as “Ebonics translators” at the Justice Department.

Dat ain't no jive.

DUELING HEADLINES:

Afghanistan and Team Obama



Pregnant widow accused of adultery executed by Taliban

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The Taliban has executed a pregnant widow accused of adultery in western Afghanistan, provincial and district officials said Monday.

The 47-year-old woman, Sanam Gul, also known as Sanam Bibi, was killed in Badghis province Saturday morning, said Ashrafuddin Majidi, the provincial governor's spokesman.

For the rest of the story, click here.

Joe Biden: Taliban negotiations likely

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Tuesday that 70 percent of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are essentially mercenaries who possibly could be negotiated with instead of fought, and said the United States likely will try this approach.

Mr. Biden, in Belgium to discuss Afghanistan with NATO officials in advance of next month's summit, said that he did not know what kind of concessions Taliban members might be willing to make, and said that the Afghan government would have to initiate and approve of any such talks.

For the rest of the story, click here.

____________________________________

Seven Things to Remember When We Talk to the Taliban

Is your stomach churning yet? The occasionally salacious but usually accurate Guardian is reporting that Team Obama is signaling that it's ready to negotiate with the Taliban. Through "trusted" intermediaries like the Pakistanis and Saudis, naturally, and via plausibly denied channels, of course, but... really? Is this what a peace-in-your-first-term, Nobel Prize-winning president looks like? If we're going to reconcile ourselves to this kind of indecent proposal — the last one led to the bloody Swat Valley offensive — the U.S. had better not lose site of reality. Here's how. If it's not too late.

For the rest of the story, click here.

It's fun to shoot some people, isn't it?



"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." -

-Lt. Gen. James Mattis, U.S. Marine Corps