The "million dollar NCR" person of the year...

The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) has just named Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, its first "Person of the Year" for her conscientious and courageous stance against the Catholic bishops of the United States.

Sr. Keehan, dubbed the "million dollar sister" by Elias Crim in a Washington Times op-ed, is President and CEO of the Catholic Health Association and receives a salary close to seven digits for overseeing the $16 million association.  Readers of The Motley Monk will recall that Sr. Keehan lobbied for Obamacare, enabling some Catholic congressmen, like Bart Stupak, to defend their votes by pointing to CHA's endorsement.  She also received a coveted presidential pen following the signing of the Obamacare bill.

The Motley Monk wants to note something the NCR's announcement has overlooked: Obamacare will tighten the government's grip over the nation's private healthcare system by decreasing income to those institutions in terms of the already relatively low Medicare reimbursement.  This will force the closure and/or sale of Catholic hospitals (as has already happened in Boston with the sale of Caritas Christi) or, worse yet, those institutions will have to comply with healthcare regulations mandated by the federal government.

Judging solely from the NCR's endorsement of Sr. Keehan as its 2010 Person of the Year, one would think Sr. Keehan a modern-day Joan of Arc.  But, according to a Newsmax.com article titled "Catholic Hospitals' Pro-Abortion Money Trail":

Most Catholic Americans wrongly assume that Catholic hospitals are dedicated to fighting abortion. In fact, many of the most important people running those hospital systems, and representing them before government, have spent fortunes supporting some of the most powerful pro-abortion politicians in America.

If one was to believe the NCR storyline, the evil arch-enemy is Bishop Thomas Olmsted.  He has already suggested that the issue is not limited to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ.  Nor is it limited to Catholic hospital networks, like Catholic Healthcare West, or associations, like the Catholic Hospital Association.  The issue is how those institutions through their "million dollar" leaders justify providing healthcare services that fly-in-the-face of Catholic moral teaching.

Perhaps it really is time for the nation's bishops to consider getting out of the Church out of the healthcare business.


Let the discussion begin...



To read the NCR announcement, click on the following link:
http://ncronline.org/news/people/ncrs-person-year-2010

To read the article about how CHA's endorsement provided him cover, click on the following link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2249147/pagenum/all/#p2

To read the Newsmax.com article, click on the following link:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/catholic-abortion-money-bishops/2009/12/28/id/344828

Fr. Jenkins' problems continue at the University of Notre Dame...

In a post dated November 22, 2010, The Motley Monk discussed the two extremely difficult and painful leadership and pastoral challenges the President of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, CSC, had to confront this past football season.  The Motley Monk expressed hope that the UND President would handle the suicide of a female student from St. Mary's College as well as The Motley Monk believes Fr. Jenkins handled the tragic death of the student who fell from the crane, as Fr. Jenkins' response was described in various news reports.

Not all people believe Fr. Jenkins has done a good job dealing with either situation, however.

Melinda Henneberger, Editor-in-Chief of Politics Daily and UND alumna, is one who dissents from The Motley Monk's opinion.

In an article titled "Notre Dame's Fr. Jenkins Pins Delays in Lizzy Seeberg Case on 'Discrepancies'," Henneberger expresses her belief that UND officials are circling-the-wagons and blaming the victims, a reaction "so reminiscent of the official response at the height of the clerical sex abuse scandal it's painful."  Worried about "the terrible message the university's response sends Notre Dame and Saint Mary's women," Henneberger asks: "Did we really not learn that problems do not die of neglect, but only multiply when ignored? Or that it's the see-no-evil kind of love for an institution that can hurt it the most?"

The Motley Monk has no idea whether Henneberger's observations, judgments, and questions are accurate because complicated legal issues oftentimes require leaders to step back and not to jump into the middle of the fray, much as they may want to.  And, The Motley Monk believes Fr. Jenkins has much that he would like to say but, perhaps, cannot.

That said, Henneberger also reports the following:

Indiana's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been investigating Sullivan's death, and the U.S. Department of Education is launching an inquiry into the way Notre Dame handles sexual harassment complaints....But if the school thinks it can protect the brand without rethinking the way it handles such cases, I must once again disagree. And Father Jenkins, any crisis manager who lets its top officials call a windstorm a normal day and a 15-day delay the hallmark of a judicious process is not doing the university any favors.

It looks like a "bad fall" is going to turn into a "bad spring."  And, if Ms. Henneberger is correct, Fr. Jenkins needs a VP-Strategic Communication or, if he already has one, he may need to find another one.  Ms. Henneberger is correct about the bishops' strategic communications problems and, The Motley Monk would hope, UND and Fr. Jenkins could do much better than that by getting ahead of these situations before they spiral out of control.


Let the discussion begin...




To read Melinda Henneberger's article, click on the following link:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/27/notre-dames-fr-jenkins-pins-delays-in-lizzy-seeberg-case-on-d/

To read The Motley Monk's previous post on these matters, click on the following link:
http://themotleymonk.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-has-not-been-good-football-season.html

The Motley Monk does not celebrate Kwanzaa...

In response to several recent inquiries, The Motley Monk definitely does not celebrate Kwanzaa at HIH II.

This doesn't make The Motley Monk a racist or a bigot.  In fact, it is a recognition of the fact that The Motley Monk is not African-American and, due to the exclusivity and discriminatory nature associated with this invented cultural holiday, is not welcome to celebrate it.

"The sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black,

act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black."

-Maulana Ron Karenga (inventor of Kwanzaa)

For those who may not be familiar with the origins of this invented holiday, here's a bit of history:

Kwanzaa is an African-American cultural holiday conceived and developed by Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga, was first celebrated on December 26, 1966. Kwanzaa is traditionally celebrated from December 26 through January 1, with each day focused on Nguzo Saba, or the seven principles. Derived from the Swahili phrase "matunda ya kwanza" which means "first fruits," Kwanzaa is rooted in the first harvest celebrations practiced in various cultures in Africa. Kwanzaa seeks to enforce a connectedness to African cultural identity, provide a focal point for the gathering of African peoples, and to reflect upon the Nguzo Saba, or the seven principles, that have sustained Africans. Africans and African-Americans of all religious faiths and backgrounds practice Kwanzaa.

Kwanzaa was born out of the whirlwind of social and political changes of the sixties decade. The sixties represent one of many eras during which the African and African-American struggle for freedom and self-identity reached its historical peak, spawning multiple revolutionary movements.

By creating Kwanzaa, African-Americans sought to rectify the cultural and economic exploitation perpetrated against us during the months of October, November, and December (the Christmas season). During this season, corporate America typically ignored the quality of life concerns of African-Americans, yet encouraged participation in the commercialism of Christmas. Additionally, African-Americans did not observe a holiday that was specific to our needs. A review of the major holidays celebrated in the United States would reveal that not one related specifically to the growth and development of African-Americans. The development of Kwanzaa assumed a reassessment, reclaiming, recommitment, remembrance, retrieval, resumption, resurrection, and rejuvenation of the "Way of Life" principles recognized by African-Americans. These principles have strengthened African-Americans during our worldwide sojourn.

Today, Kwanzaa is recognized by millions throughout America and the world. It is celebrated often in community settings provided by homes, churches, mosques, temples, community centers, schools, and places of work. Kwanzaa allows us to celebrate the season without shame or fear of embracing our history, our culture, and ourselves.

So, who is this founder of Kwanzaa, Dr. Maulana Karenga?

A devotee of Malcom X, Karenga was active in the Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s and founded the Black nationalist group, Us Organization, which promotes the philosophy of Kawaida, a philosophy based upon social and cultural change.  In 1971, Karenga was sentenced to prison on counts of felonious assault and false imprisonment.  Four years later, Karenga was released from California State Prison.  In 1979, he converted to Marxism.

Karenga holds two Ph.D.'s: his first in political science with focus on the theory and practice of nationalism (United States International University) and his second in social ethics with a focus on the classical African ethics of ancient Egypt (University of Southern California).  He is professor of Africana Studies at California State University-Long Beach.

So, the outcome?  The annual "holiday" season now boasts three celebrations. 

There's Christmas, for Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of Judah.  The Motley Monk celebrates Christmas by decorating HIH II and hosting dinner parties for friends of various faiths and of no faith during the Christmas holidays.

There's Hanukkah for Jews to celebrate an alternative to Christmas.  Originally a nondescript Jewish holiday since there is no obligation to refrain from activities forbidden on the Sabbath, Hanukkah gained increased significance for many U.S. Jews in the 1950s who desired a Jewish alternative to Christmas which sometimes will overlap with Hanukkah.  The Motley Monk celebrates Hanukkah at HIH II by lighting a menorah and making one of the Hanukkah dinners featured in Bon Appetit for guests, most of whom have never had a kosher meal.

And, since the mid-1960s, there's Kwanzaa for Blacks who align themselves with Karenga's separatist ideology.  The Motley Monk doesn't celebrate this figment of Karenga's fanciful imagination.

Let the discussion begin....



To read Karenga's biography at his official website, click on the following link:
http://www.maulanakarenga.org/

To read  Nathaniel Turner's alternative biography, click on the following link:
http://www.nathanielturner.com/karenga2.htm

A "high five" and a "call out" to newly-elected U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh

The Motley Monk hadn't heard much of anything about the Congressman-elect from Chicago’s northwest suburban 8th District, Joe Walsh.  But, James Warren's December 25, 2010, New York Times article about this "Surprise Representative Plans Surprises of His Own in Washington," piqued The Motley Monk's interest enough to contact some of his sources in Chicago in order to learn a little bit more about what appears to be a most interesting Congressman-elect.

Congressman-elect Joe Walsh of Illinois

Some have labelled Walsh a typical "Tea Party" candidate.  His ascent to Congress backs up this "charge":

• A right-wing "extremist" who was "radioactive" to establishment Republicans.
• Wins the Republican primary.
• Receives little if any assistance from the Party for the general campaign.
• Wins the election by defeating the incumbent Democrat who outspent Walsh.

Sound familiar?

Walsh is currently getting ready to leave his family back home and to move into his DC office.  But, get this: Walsh has turned down the usual congressional health care, pension, and retirement packages.  "I don't think congressmen should get pensions or cushy health care plans," Walsh said.

The Congressman-elect has some policy ideas worth noting:

• To protect the borders, protect Americans on their streets, keep the highways paved and the environment clean, defend the nation overseas, and help those who can't help themselves.
• To repeal Obamacare and to seek major changes to Social Security and Medicare.  "I think we were sent to D.C. to cut spending and grow the economy. We have to talk about cutting real programs"— and agencies—"like the Department of Energy and Department of Education."
• To vote against raising the federal debt ceiling, despite the opposition of many economists and the House Republican leadership. "On principle and policy, the leadership is wrong," Walsh said.  "This is a teachable moment on my part." 
• To support federal aid for those too sick or destitute to find work. "But we've asked government to take care of too many in the middle class, not those who need it the most," Walsh said.

"Amen!" The Motley Monk says to all of the above.

If that isn't enough, then, get this: Walsh isn't interested at all in the inside-the-Beltway crowd's coveted theme: "bipartisanship."  He told Warren: "Now is not the time."

"But doesn’t history suggest you can win in anger but not govern that way?", Warren asked.

"No!" Walsh said immediately. "If you put that anger away, you lose that standing. If you believe Obamacare will destroy health care, that’s a battle to join."

Doesn't dogmatism potentially imperil self-preservation?

"I'm going to D.C. absolutely prepared to lose in two years."

The Motley Monk likes what he's read and heard about Congressman-elect Joe Walsh so far and is going to be keeping an eye on this Congressman from Illinois as he works on his three committee assignments: Governmental Oversight and Reform, Small Business, and Homeland Security.

Along with Allen West (R-Florida) and Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Joe Walsh might be able to muster some heft to "right" the nation's course!

Congressman-elect Allen West of Florida

Congressman-elect Tim Scott
of South Carolina

Let the discussion begin...




To read James Warren's article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26cncwarren.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a24&pagewanted=print

Tort reform at its best...

For decades, The Motley Monk has been discussing with a variety of people his belief that the easiest way to achieve tort reform is to have a "loser pay all" system---similar to the British system---where plaintiffs pay their defendant's legal costs.  Almost all industrialized nations follow this standard.

The Motley Monk believes that making this simple reform would put an end to a lot of frivolous lawsuits because the specter of plaintiffs having to pay court costs would cause them to consider very carefully whether the merits of the case are worth the chance of having to pay those costs in the event the jury sides with the defendant.  The Motley Monk also believes this simple reform would lower the costs of medical care (lowering insurance rates for medical malpractice premiums and lower the costs awards due fewer malpractice trials).

However, trial lawyers and their lobbyists have successfully blocked this simple reform for decades knowing it would hurt them where it really counts...in their wallets.

It was with great delight, then, The Motley Monk read that the tort law environment in the United States may be changing.  According to a Wall Street Journal article published on December 15, 2010, the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, evidently likes The Motley Monk's idea and is proposing a modified British-style "loser pays" rule.  Mr. Perry's proposal:

• Adds an extra disincentive for the tort industry to bring suits that Texas law already defines as "groundless."  The lawyers and firms filing such claims would in almost all cases pay the penalty, a downside they'd have to weigh against their chances of personal enrichment.
• To speed compensation to genuine victims, Mr. Perry would create new legal channels to expedite smaller claims (below $100,000).  Judges would also be barred from creating causes of action from the bench that haven't been approved by the state legislature.

This is a very good beginning, at least in so far as The Motley Monk thinks.

But, will it become "As Texas goes, so goes the nation?"

If so, then it's also time for Governor Perry to consider The Motley Monk's second reform to end frivolous lawsuits and lower the cost of medical care: Surgeons must advertise their "kill rate."  That is, before a patient signs any disclaimer prior to surgery, the surgeon must provide the patient with a spreadsheet listing by category (heart, brain, gallbladder, etc.) the percentage of their patients who have died on the operating table.

Wouldn't everyone contemplating surgery want to know that information?


Let the discussion begin...


To read the Wall Street Journal article, click on the following link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703514904575602762974652860.html

What's this world coming to?

Two Associated Press news stories crossed The Motley Monk's desk yesterday, both of which individually and collectively caused The Motley Monk to scratch the back of his head and ask, "What this world coming to?"

The first AP news story announced that Elton John and his partner David Furnish have adopted a baby born in California on Christmas Day, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John.

A "furnished john" for a Christmas gift?

But, The Motley Monk digresses.

The baby boy was born to a surrogate mother, but the article does not say who sired the infant.

In a joint statement to parents said that "Zachary is healthy and doing well" and that they were "overwhelmed with happiness and joy."

The second news story concerned the actress, Natalie Portman, who is pregnant with her first child and is now engaged to the choreographer of the movie, "Black Swan," Benjamin Millepied.

The 29-year-old actress stars in Ivan Reitman's upcoming romantic comedy, "No Strings Attached."

Does the title of the movie pertain to the child's mother or the father?

But, The Motley Monk digresses.

Listening to both videos and reading both announcements, it would seem that all of this is rather normal, nothing unusual, and certainly nothing about which anyone could be critical.

What's wrong with committed homosexuals adopting infants?  John and Furnish have been a longtime couple, living together for more than a decade and opting to tie the knot in 2005.  And now, like most other married couples, they are serious about fatherhood.

What's wrong with getting pregnant and then deciding to marry?  Portman and Millepied have been dating since 2009.  They wanted to keep things under wraps not only because Portman is a private person, but there was also the problem of Millepied's former live-in girlfriend.  So, fatherhood means "tossing your live-in out the door and under the bus"?

What's this world coming to?

Let the discussion begin...



To read the announcement of the Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John birth, click on the following link:
http://comcast.eonline.com/uberblog/b218014_elton_john_david_furnish_are_proud_new.html

To read about the John-Furnish adventure, click on the following link: http://comcast.eonline.com/uberblog/b218014_elton_john_david_furnish_are_proud_new.html#ixzz19R8anXJc

To read about the Portman-Millepied adventure, click on the following link:

http://comcast.eonline.com/uberblog/b217963_Natalie_Portman_and_Her_Stealthy__i_Black_Swan__i__Betrothed_Benjamin_Millepied__Anatomy_of_a_Hookup_.html#ixzz19R9n6aRK

Obama's "evolving" thoughts about homosexual marriage...

Following the closing of the lame duck Congress, ABC White House correspondent, Jake Tapper offered President Obama "congratulations" on the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't tell."

It was surprising to The Motley Monk to hear Mr. Tapper voice an editorial opinion when questioning the President.  But, The Motley Monk should not have been surprised because he has been warned on many previous occasions that the main stream media "carry the water" for Mr. Obama.

Mr. Tapper then proceeded to ask President Obama: "Is it intellectually consistent to say that [homosexuals] should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?"

Mr. Obama responded that his feelings about homosexual marriage are "constantly evolving" and that he is "struggling with this."  He then proceeded to discuss friends and colleagues who are homosexual and living together.

However, "constantly evolving" is not what Mr. Obama said when, as candidate for President, Tapper interviewed Barak Obama for ABC:

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we're involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.

With a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, The Motley Monk thinks it highly unlikely that Congress will approve a so-called "homosexual marriage" bill.  No surprise there.

Yet, despite Dick Morris' observation that President Obama cannot "triangulate" because he is a socialist ideologue, the Republican majority in the House allows Mr. Obama to "continuously evolve" with the goal of placating his base while concurrently blaming the Republican House for not advancing the "civil rights," as Mr. Tapper editorialized, of those who "fight and die for this country, but [are not] able to marry the people they love.

The Motley Monk believes the pro-homosexual marriage lobby desperately wanted the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't tell" to use the Armed Forces in the early 21st century to legitimize homosexual marriage in the same way that civil rights activists used the Armed Forces in the mid-20th century to begin integrating America.

Jake Tapper must be "carrying the water."  First, he "congratulated" President Obama on the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't tell," sending the signal that this is a highly desirable achievement.  Second, he asked Mr. Obama about legitimizing homosexual marriage.  This is the ultimate goal, of course, to redefine the term "marriage."


Let the discussion begin...




To read the transcript of candidate Barak Obama's position on homosexual marriage, click on the following link:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=5178123&page=4

To read Dick Morris' column "Obama and Triangulation," click on the following link:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-and-triangulation/

It's all about illegal immigration...

The Motley Monk has noted that the debate over legal/illegal immigration has all but entirely evaporated among the chattering class on cable television recently.

But, not for The Motley Monk who has recently been conducting a little bit of research into the topic.

One important but much neglected document The Motley Monk has read is Pope Benedict XVI's message for the 97th World Day of Migrants and Refugees (2011) in which the Pope states:

The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person.  Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity.

Interestingly, by balancing rights and responsibilities, Pope Benedict XVI offers advice that has the potential to advance discourse about the topic of illegal immigration into the United States.  According to the Pope, people have the right "to leave one's country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life."  At the same time, those people "have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity."

The Motley Monk believes most who belong to the cable television chattering class and who opine on the topic of "illegal" immigration fail to heed the latter---responsibilities---upholding only the former---rights.

And so, the argument unfolds as the Dudley Doorights advocating the cause of illegal immigrants paint a human face on the objects of their heartfelt care, whether it's Romani gypsies, Mexicans, or welfare cheats.  And so, the argument ends as those who are interested in putting an end to illegal immigration end up looking as if they are Snidely Whiplash.

The Motley Monk believes the Pope's statement offers those who are against illegal immigration a potent argument.  Their response should be to focus upon the human faces of the victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, such as the U.S. citizens whom they kidnap, murder, or terrorize, like Brian Terry, the 40-year-old Border Patrol Agent murdered by illegal Mexican immigrant banditos preying on other illegal Mexican immigrants who, in turn, were smuggling drugs for narco-terrorsts into "Baja Arizona" from Mexico.

Chattering on about how illegal immigrants take jobs from legal U.S. residents is largelya waste of time because,  The Motley Monk believes, most Americans don't care all that much about the claim that "illegal immigrants take jobs from legal residents in the U.S."  What most Americans do care about very much is that illegal immigrants are illegal, not immigrants. In Arizona, for example, the major concerns consistently being voiced about illegal immigrants are: 1) violent crimes committee in cities like Phoenix; 2) drug trafficking; and, 3) overuse of tax-funded social services and schools.

In response to these objective failures of immigrants to "to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity," those whose focus is solely the right "to leave one's country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life," argue that the poor and oppressed are being criminalized.  But, The Motley Monk notes, this is a first-class canard meant to deflect an important moral discussion about responsibilities.  Of course, all immigrants who end up in detention centers are not violent criminals. But, the fact is that violent criminal activity enters the United States from Mexico due to illegal immigration.  So, it's the context of illegal immigration that needs to be examined.


Let the discussion begin...




To read Pope Benedict XVI's statement, click on the following link:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/migration/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20100927_world-migrants-day_en.html

More fallout following Bishop Olmsted's dictat...

In response to Bishop Olmsted's decision to disallow St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ, to call itself "Catholic," the President of Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, issued the following statement on December 21, 2010:

It’s sad that Bishop Olmsted is so intransigent that he cannot accept that the people seeking medical care at the hospital may need access to services that he finds unacceptable, even though he, and we, know that Catholics use contraception and access abortion services at rates similar to the population as a whole.

It’s sad for the people of Phoenix that the local bishop has created such a spectacle over this issue, from the moment he sought to excommunicate Sister Margaret McBride for sanctioning a life-saving operation to the threats issued to St. Joseph’s down to today’s punishment - announced via press release.

All of the people who work at the hospital know that their actions are driven by their consciences, from the doctors, nurses and other medical personnel right through to the administration and support staff. They all acted in good conscience. Can Bishop Olmsted say the same thing?

The only possible silver lining also relates to people seeking medical services at the hospital. Now that Bishop Olmsted will no longer be influencing decisions about their medical care, perhaps people seeking services at St. Joseph’s will be able to access the services they need in a timely manner - after consulting with their doctor and without concerns about whether the local bishop is influencing medical decisions. Ultimately, when a bishop stops pretending to be a doctor, the whole community benefits.

Riveting argumentation, no? 



Let the discussion begin...

So much for all of that money spent on improving public education...

Taking a step back and considering the hundreds of billions of $$$s the federal government has spent on public education since the 1960s, how can anyone not come to the conclusion that all of those $$$s have done very little, if nothing, to improve public education?

In an article published on December 22, 2010, "Black Education Disaster," the economist Dr. Walter E. Williams states with regard to the most recent National Assessment of Education Progress test: "The fact that black youngsters trail their white counterparts by three or four years becomes even more grim when we recognize that the education white youngsters receive is nothing to write home about."

Dr. Williams then offers some pretty grim statistics.

SAT scores confirm the poor education Blacks receive, especially in the nation's inner cities.  In 2009, average SAT reading test scores were: Whites (528), Asians (516), and Blacks (429). In math, it was Whites (536), Asians (587) and Blacks (426).

Twelve years of primary and secondary education most Black students receive are not erased by four or five years of college as evidenced by examination scores taken for admission to graduate schools. In 2007, Graduate Record Examination verbal scores were: Whites (493), Asians (485) and Blacks (395). The math portion scores were: Whites (562), Asians (617) and Blacks (419).  Scores on the LSAT in 2006 were: Whites (152), Asians (152) and Blacks (142).  In 2010, MCAT scores were:
Whites (26), Asians (26) and Blacks (21).

These data reveal a great inequity in knowledge outcomes between White/Asian and Black students.

Pretty grim, isn't it?  Hardly "progress" in any sense whatsoever, The Motley Monk thinks.

But, then, there was a second item which The Motley Monk heard about on "Fox and Friends" and subsequently did some of his own fact-checking.

The Associated Press reports that 23% of students who have tried to join the U.S. Army have failed to meet the minimum score needed on the enlistment test to join any branch of the military.  This represents the scores of nearly 350,000 high school graduates, ages 17 to 20, who took the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) between 2004 and 2009.

Lest anyone think ASVAB difficult, most of the questions are basic "If 2 plus x equals 4, what is the value of x?" type of question.  (Additional questions are found below.)

Tim Callahan of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, a group that represents more than 80,000 educators, lamented: "It's surprising and shocking that we are still having students who are walking across the stage who really don't deserve to be and haven't earned that right."  The Motley Monk can't believe that Mr. Callahan could make that assessment with a straight face.

According to the AP report, the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, also said in response to the findings:

Too many of our high school students are not graduating ready to begin college or a career---and many are not eligible to serve in our armed forces.  I am deeply troubled by the national security burden created by America's underperforming education system.

"Deeply troubled"?  The Motley Monk wonders what Secretary Duncan is going to do about this "national security burden"?

Likely not much.

Why?

A Department of Defense report notes the military must recruit about 15 percent of youth, but only one-third are eligible. More high school graduates are going to college than in earlier decades, and about one-fourth are obese, making them medically ineligible.

This is all a very weighty matter, indeed, one that is likely not going solved by the Feds spending more $$$s to get all of those obese young people ready for the Armed Forces.

The Motley Monk's solution?  Have Secretary Duncan send out the food police!


Let the discussion begin...

Some sample questions from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery:

1) Dana receives $30 for her birthday and $15 for cleaning the garage. If she spends $16 on a CD,
    how much money does she have left?
    A. $29               C. $24
    B. $27               D. $12

2) Ephemeral most nearly means:
    A. short-lived     C. dead
    B. mythical        D. exceptional

3) Buddhism is a religion that must be viewed from many angles. Its original form,
    as preached by Gautama in India and developed in the early years succeeding
    and as embodied in the sacred literature of early Buddhism, isn’t representative
    of the actual Buddhism of any land today.  According to this passage:
    A. Most Buddhists live in India.
    B. Buddhist teachings have changed over the years.
    C. Buddhism draws its teachings from early Christianity.
    D. Buddhist temples can be found in any land of the world.

4) If 2 plus x equals 4, what is the value of x?
    A. 6               C. 4
    B. 2               D. 1/2

Answers:

1) A;  2) A;  3) B;  4) B




To read Dr. Walter E. Williams article, click on the following link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/12/22/black_education_disaster/page/full/

To read the Associated Press report, click on the following link:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_EXAM?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Is it time for the nation's bishops to get out of the Catholic healthcare business? Installment #2

The Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted, stripped St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its Catholic status on Tuesday, December 21, 2010, because doctors performed an abortion on a woman who had developed a life-threatening complication.

In the first installment of "Is it time for the nation's bishops to get out of the Catholic healthcare business?", The Motley Monk argued that Bishop Olmsted's action is a very small part of a much larger and far more-complicated puzzle that politics may mandate the nation's bishops are going to have to resolve...and sooner rather than later.  Yet, as the Boston Catholic Insider has made eminently clear, the scope of any resolution is mind-boggling.  Lest the bishops forget: Cerberus is the mythological three-headed watchdog which keeps watch over the gates of Hades.  Or, in this case, the healthcare professionals who are making decisions in the nation's Catholic hospitals.

In the mid-1980s when HMO's were the rage and, it was thought at the time, would solve the nation's healthcare problems,  the Archdiocese of Boston believed it had successfully met these challenges by cobbling together six independent hospitals into a new healthcare network, Caritas Christi Health Care, which would "emphasize church teachings in confronting new developments in medical science and biological research."  More importantly, Caritas Christi offered the promise of preserving its members' financial health without sacrificing their Catholic identity.

Those hopes finally came crashing down to the ground as the network---Massachusetts' second-largest hospital group---continued to "hemorrhage" money.  Cerberus Capital Management finally bought out Caritas Christi in November 2010 in a $830+ million deal that turned the Catholic-run nonprofit network into a for-profit enterprise.

Cerberus Capital Management stated at the time of the acquistion that it had no intention of altering the religious mission and philosophy of the Caritas Christi network's hospitals.  But, a daily news email for healthcare executives, "Fierce Healthcare," cites an article in the Boston Globe suggesting that a buyout like this "sheds light on a national debate about whether for-profit Catholic healthcare is an oxymoron, or whether profitability and religious mission can be integrated."

Bingo!

According to the Washington Post, the Director of the MergerWatch Project (which monitors Catholic takeovers of hospitals), Lois Uttley, has stated:

As more hospitals have been taken over by Catholic hospital chains in recent years, reproductive health advocates have become increasingly concerned that fewer medical centers will provide abortion, contraception and other reproductive services.

Hospitals which have been Catholic historically are finding stricter interpretation of directives by local bishops, and hospitals that have not been Catholic but are becoming Catholic under mergers are finding administrators who are fearful of permitting procedures that might not be considered appropriate under Catholic doctrine.

Or, administrators, ethics committees, and members of a women's religious congregation who are allowing procedures forbidden by Catholic moral teaching to be performed in Catholic hospitals.  This was the case with St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix and, as Bishop Olmsted has said, about Catholic Healthcare West.

Without doubt, the ACLU's letter earlier this week published in the Washington Post ups the ante in this protracted battle.

According to the Washington Post, ACLU lawyers are "counting on sympathetic Obama rationing czar Donald Berwick---a recess appointee whose radical views on wealth and health redistribution were never vetted by Congress---to dictate which religious principles hospital operators can and cannot follow."

In light of these developments, The Motley Monk asks:

1. Is the federal government going to force the nation's Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, violating a core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn?
2. Will it be the ACLU and Obamacare bureaucrats who will determine the Catholicity of a Catholic hospital?
3. Or, will the nation's bishops confront the Cerberus of Catholic Healthcare West (and Catholic Health East and the Catholic Health Association of the United States) head-on?

The nation's bishops can argue that federal law has firmly established conscience protections for healthcare professionals and hospitals which are reluctant or unwilling to "counsel, suggest, recommend, assist or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with [their] religious beliefs or moral convictions."

But, they are confronting very powerful groups like the ACLU, which have every right to demand that the government define the term "emergency health care" and also to demand that people of faith---in this case healthcare professionals practicing in Catholic hospitals---violate their faith by performing medical procedures they believe are immoral.

So, too, the nation's bishops are confronting the nation's powerful abortion lobby.  If it gets its way, women have a "constitutional right" to demand abortions, contraception, and other reproductive services

The cost of failure to comply?  Catholic hospitals and Catholic healthcare professionals who follow their consciences and adhere to Church moral teaching could pay the price of their hospitals losing federal funding and, then, of having to shut down many, if not all Catholic hospitals if their healthcare providers remain faithful to Church moral teaching.

Likewise, the nation's bishops are confronting a potentially menacing Catholic healthcare lobby.  Bishop Olmsted's charges indicates that, if the Catholic healthcare lobby gets its way (in this instance, CHW), Catholic hospitals and Catholic medical professionals will be free to make ethical decisions which are informed by but not guided by Catholic moral teaching.

Confronting all of this, if all the bishops can guarantee is that the nation's Catholic hospitals will be "Catholic in Name Only," then would it not be best to exit the healthcare business altogether since faithful witnesses and their collaborators (many of whom may not be Catholic) are no long able to serve the Church in this important apostolate?

The Motley Monk suggests that Bishop Thomas Olmsted's decision this week ups the ante for the nation's bishops to answer this question: Is it now the time to get out of the Catholic healthcare business?

Let the discussion begin...

To read about the Archdiocese of Boston's attempts to deal with the financial challenges confronting its hospitals, click on the following link:

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/03/26/money_woes_not_new_for_catholic_hospitals/?page=full

To read about the sale of Caritas Christi to Cerberus Capital Management, click on the following link:

http://www.boston.com/business/specials/saleofcaritas

To read the Boston Catholic Insider's questions about the sale of Caritas Christi to Cerberus Capital management, click on the following link:

http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/caritas-christi-is-catholic-healthcare-in-boston-being-sold-off-for-a-few-silver-coins/

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122206219.html?sid=ST2010122206225

To read the "Fierce Healthcare" newsletter, click on the following link:

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/can-profitability-and-religious-mission-be-integrated/2010-04-29

The UN's global food police...

The Motley Monk has been opining about the so-called "Food Police" in the United States whose objective is to regulate what Americans can and cannot eat.  "Freedom of choice" apparently doesn't include food served in the nation's public school cafeterias, soda and other high-sugar content drinks, or fast food like that available for purchase at McDonalds.

In an Associated Press (AP) story, The Motley Monk has discovered that the United Nation's may be readying itself to unleash the "global food police" not upon the usual suspect, the United States, but upon China!

Yes, it's true!  The Motley Monk cannot possibly invent this stuff.

According to the AP story, China no longer is a food aid recipient but an international food donor, meaning that the Communist government is now better able to feed its citizens.  However, although "China has made 'remarkable progress' in growing sufficient food to feed its people but its official efforts to silence people who alert the public to food safety problems are worrisome, a U.N. official said Thursday."

According to the UN, "China has also suffered food safety scandals in recent years connected to lax standards, substandard ingredients and fake products that have shaken public confidence."  Worse yet, the AP reports, the Chinese government engages in "intimidation and punishment of activists who have highlighted unsafe food would chill such activism when future food safety violations occur."

The UN is likely to recommend that China increase transparency and access to information to help combat its food safety problems, to use less chemical fertilizers and pesticides which are polluting the environment, and to make legal protections for small farmers stronger.

The Motley Monk can see the Communists running China shaking in their boots! 

Thank God for the United Nations!  Knowing that its international food police are hot on the trail of the Communists running China is sure to make The Motley Monk sleep more soundly tonight!


Let the discussion begin...



To read the AP article, click on the following link:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/dec/22/as-china-un-food-activists/

Is it time for the nation's bishops to get out of the Catholic healthcare business? Installment #1...

According to the Washington Post, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last week "asked federal health officials to ensure that Catholic hospitals provide emergency reproductive care to pregnant women, saying the refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortion and other services was becoming an increasing problem."

On the surface, the problem the ACLU was pointing to was the response of the Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted, who stripped St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its Catholic status on Tuesday, December 21, 2010.  Why?  Doctors at the hospital performed an abortion on a woman who had developed a life-threatening complication.

The ACLU lawyers wrote:

We continue to applaud St. Joseph's for doing what is right by standing up for women's health and complying with federal law.  But this confrontation never should have happened in the first place, because no hospital---religious or otherwise---should be prohibited from saving women's lives and from following federal law.

The Bishop's drastic and heavy-handed actions send a chilling message to Catholic hospitals throughout the country, as well as their employees: If hospitals comply with federal law and provide emergency abortion care there will be consequences.  The dioceses cannot be permitted to dictate who lives and who dies in Catholic-owned hospitals.

The Motley Monk believes this letter is but another volley in what will prove to be a more protracted war that will directly impact the future of the nation's Catholic hospitals.  Why?  The problem isn't limited to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.  That is but one very small piece of a much larger and far more-complicated puzzle.

One little-reported item this past week showing up in the Washington Post article is Bishop Olmsted's statement that he had "recently learned that many other violations...have been taking place at" facilities operated by Catholic Healthcare West (CHW), which owns St. Joseph's.  These include the provision of birth-control pills and other forms of contraception, sterilizations and abortions "due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."

Undoubtedly, if true---and there's no reason to doubt that it isn't, as CHW has not published a denial---all of that is contrary to Church teaching and unacceptable practice for a Catholic hospital.  An umbrella corporation which claims to be "Catholic" simply cannot dismiss Catholic moral teaching and continue to call itself "Catholic."

Yet, all of that is also just another very small piece in what is a much larger and far more-complicated puzzle, all spurred by important economic and moral considerations.

Catholic healthcare in the United States is no small business.  According to the Catholic Health Association, the 600+ Catholic hospitals in United States possess 15 percent of the nation's hospital bed capacity and treat one of every six acute care patients in the country each year.  In addition, Catholic healthcare facilities employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers.

Unless one belongs to the ACLU, it is generally understood the "business" aspects of Catholic healthcare are supposed to be guided by Catholic moral teaching, making its approach to patient care distinctive.  One of the key elements of that care has been the religious who have staffed Catholic hospitals across the nation for more than 150 years.

Over the past three decades, however, the religious congregations whose members selflessly staffed the hospitals---mostly women's congregations---have dwindled in number to almost zero.  Their places increasingly were being filled with highly-trained and highly-skilled lay professionals---some of whom are Catholic and others of whom are not---all of whom may (or may not) be sympathetic to the Church's moral teaching.  (Sounds very much like U.S. Catholic education, no?)

Concurrent with this change in personnel in the nation's Catholic hospitals, new financial and ethical challenges arose, mainly due to the emergence of new technologies and the changing landscape of financing healthcare.  Many of the hospitals closed.  But in those that remained open, these lay medical and healthcare professionals were called upon to render moral decisions, something that may (or may not have been) part of their training.  To deal with this challenge, many boards of Catholic hospital formed "ethics committees"---whose members may have been more sympathetic to a patient's interests and what natural virtue requires than to what Church moral teaching requires---to assist medical professionals when events called upon them to make life-and-death decisions.

These substantive challenges to Catholic healthcare in the United States required novel approaches.

In the mid-1980s, the nation's bishops were at a crossroads.  Their responses at the time and since---to keep the system afloat---spawned what is now a much larger and far more-complicated puzzle that national politics may very soon require the bishops to make a decision they arguably should have made years or even decades ago.

That will be the topic of the second installment of "Is it time for the nation's bishops to get out of the Catholic healthcare business?"

Let the discussion begin...



To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122206219.html?sid=ST2010122206225

So, Sarah Palin was correct, Dorothy: There are "death panels"...

Washington, DC, is not the place described in the social studies books read by millions of middle schoolers nationwide.  Increasingly, the nation's capital seems to be a place where very knowledgeable people know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it...all in order to conceal the facts and confuse the governed.

The Motley Monk believes this has been made explicitly clear with the so-called "Obamacare" reform plan.  The details of the so-called "reform," now that they are unfolding, are most disturbing to The Motley Monk.  And it's not because the details are beginning to be revealed since the implementation phase of the bill is now rolling out.  And it's not because The Motley Monk believes this is the wrong way to reform the nation's healthcare industry.

No, The Motley Monk is most disturbed because those very knowledgeable people denied Sarah Palin's claim that so-called "death panels" were part of the reform.  They attacked Palin mercilessly for demagoging the bill.  It is now clear that was all a calculated attack by the pro-Obamacare people in Washington, DC, who had much to lose if Congress did not pass Obamacare.

Worse yet, on Christmas day, the Obama administration announced that "the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment." According to the New York Times,

The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

So, The Motley Monk is to believe that the so-called "death panels" were not part of the bill because they all along were part of the "regulatory process" included in the bill?

In a previous Democratic administration, that was called having "plausible deniability." But, now it's all about ensuring that opponents' arguments are contained before they go viral online.

According to the New York Times, the office of Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, sent out an email after Obamacare was passed in November stating:

While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren't out of the woods yet.  This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the "death panel" myth.

We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are "supporters"—e-mails can too easily be forwarded.

Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if all of those very knowledgeable people in Washington, DC, who know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it would not bury the truth on a "dead" day for news (Christmas Day) and simply be honest with the governed?


Let the discussion begin...


To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2&pagewanted=print