This is one means to assist these and other sufferers that I trust:
Americares has a 98.6% donation to program services rate, with .5% admin and .9% to fundraising.

Wonderful to read.

Unity despite diversity.

Two items this past week emphasized American partisan polarity even as the Sotomayor confirmation offered a lonely counter-example: the GOP has used US Chamber of Commerce tactics and fuzzy facts to smear President Barack Obama, and the NY Times did a partisan sniper job on Ben Stein for doing a commercial that is tangential to the content of his former column there.

GOP donors don't want health care reform imposed by government unless the government imposes the draft penned by top GOP donors. That's not big news. What seems like news to everyone is what those donors spread through the communication mill without their signature on it. They issue talking points (propaganda) that requires enough detailed factual checking and correction to create an irresolute fog around the subject and kill reform efforts. They've a right to do it, however, they'd be more effective in getting their points across if they spent their huge war chests on finding and stating the middle ground facts (where facts usually fall).

Just as the US Chamber and like lobbyists routinely deceive small business to get their donations without telling them the Chamber stands for their massive competitors on nearly every issue in which small businesses conflict with large, they also tell the public how disastrous and socialist the Obama Administration is despite that the Chamber screamed for socialist bailout of the financial sector to begin with. In this, the Chamber camp (GOP) engages in hypocrisy without shame.

It is good to check and balance the Obama Administration to be sure they do not give into their own solicitous, euphemistic snake oil talking-point donors (Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others) to slowly cook their eugenic notions into this country's legal system as they have been striving to do in the young social and cultural life of the country. Even so, my perception of President Barack Obama has not been of someone taking a knee jerk Leftward approach to a host of issues even as I continue to deeply dissent from his abortion advocacy and all of its false ideological, pseudo-scientific premises.

On Ben Stein, it is so clear what happened to him as to be transparent. He has angered those who would impose a scientific theory as speech (including intellectual freedom) law. For those so disposed, the floor cannot remain open in publicly funded educational institutions for professors, teachers, researchers, students and others to investigate or attempt to find a modified method to investigate any and every alternative view, theory, or possible theory to evolution-as-is that borders or relates to multiple disciplines, say physics, biology and religious studies. The point is, there are limits to scientific method, but not all knowledge is scientific. While hybrid attempts or inquiries should not unseat or threaten purely-tailored scientific experimentation, neither should purely tailored scientific experimentation foreclose hybrid epistemological efforts even if it may from time to time comment on aspects of them.

Stein is disfavored because he's a traditional monotheist versus someone like Deepak Chopra whose speculations on the confluence of religion, spirituality and science do not offend because he doesn't belong to the monotheist groups which remain demographically Republican and anger Leftward politicians and grassroots simply by violating their speech restrictions.

Stein has never been for the abolition of the strictly tailored scientific method so long as it was not intellectually limiting of other approaches. Stein is for free inquiry. It is not surprising that Stein's activity or access should be cut by the NY Times on the pretext of conflict of interest when the NY Times itself is built on conflicts of interest. There is no doubt that the NY Times is a left-leaning ideological periodical. To pretend that there is no ideological conflict of interest in its reporting while claiming Stein has one is hypocrisy without shame. The NY Times definitely tailors its content to sell newspapers and boost advertisement: is that not a bias for money and business?

President Barack Obama and Ben Stein are casualties in this country's increasingly irresponsible partisan polarization rooted in special interest bank accounts. You can see the AP's bias here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_en_ot/us_people_ben_stein

by its emaciated (almost anti-bio) they give Stein versus his actual resume, here:

http://www.benstein.com/bio.html

where we learn that he has been an economist, lawyer, poverty lawyer, civil rights advocate, journalist on business ethics, speech writer and more. As he is under siege by the left, it seems he is fighting to keep his work alive because of politically oriented dirty tricks. The NY Times should show which article he's written which puts his column into the conflict of interest category any more than the Times itself is in conflict.

The national grassroots, party affiliation aside, needs to take time to check the facts on health care options in general, Obama's specific proposals (read them), and those among his opposition on the Hill. They also need to measure the NY Times by the same scale it uses to squelch diverse voices in its pages.

One may get a sense of this woman of good deeds reading a report from a friend on page one of Saturday's 18 July 2009 NY Times in the article entitled "Fearless in a Land of Thugs, to the Point of Death." No doubt more will be written about her and about her abduction-execution.
In her memory, a memory not in the sense of the past or in the future, yet in the sense of ever presence, I paste these simple words as a prayer for her:

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. 11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Sometimes the best way to conceal something is by putting it right out in the open and up front.
From his September 20, 2001 speech before a joint session of Congress:

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.

And did the New York Times report this in 2002? Be sure to read the whole thing.
Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists

The Rev. Barry Lynn wrote an interesting post about PBS's Board voting to enforce a ban on sectarian programming for its local stations this month, but exempting certain stations that air specifically sectarian religious programs. What Lynn does not address is advocacy for preferred religious teachings on shows that are otherwise secular. This is one of the loudest left-partisan hypocrisies where left-leaning executives wink at establishment clause violations so long as it suits their ideology or the religious perspectives of fellow partisans.
For example, on today's Sesame Street program rerun on my local PBS station, a muppet read a story as part of skit, concluding that "Cinderella joined a Yoga class and lived healthily ever after." Yoga is to Hinduism what the stations of the Cross are to Catholicism: a physical practice of the faith. Each practice is part of its respective religion's teachings, principles and belief system. While I saw Sesame Street depict a farm family's routine as including a dinner time prayer which was not clearly affiliated other than being monotheistic, this was incidental, whereas in its direct messaging to children, it advocates some religions as healthy and omits or revises others. That is an establishment clause issue where public funds go to support these programs and stations.

It is a problem with children's shows because those who are propagandists (not all of course) among PBS decision makers reason that adults who watch specific religious programming on some local stations have already made up their mind and the religious programming makes no difference to others. However, in the case of children's shows, PBS allows programming content which purports to know better than parents what religions are "healthy" and which are not. If the segment dialogue I related above said, "Cinderella was then baptized into Christ and lived healthily forever after," there would be an outrage about the establishment clause violation unless of course the programmers turned it into a parody or satire using other elements. Where is the liberal value of equality and fairness in honoring the law where PBS is concerned?
For those who are not Hindu or pagan, the Hindu and pagan insertions within Sesame Street are sad; Sesame Street otherwise has a great learning program, although some of it could be a bit less manic in pace.

The Yoga religious practices make their way into Sesame Street often. If the purpose was to encourage children to be physically fit, then why not advocate a form of physical fitness that doesn't also double as a religion? Baseball, gymnastics or tennis for example? These are fit sports and also teach focus. Otherwise, to be equal, fair and accommodating, shouldn't Sesame Street also air advocacy of each and every religious practice its viewers might hold sacred? Surely such a burdensome requirement illustrates why sneaking favored religious content into children's shows shouldn't be allowed in the first place.
If the Yoga advocated is merely for fitness, then I expect many will soon demand that the physically beneficial aspects of their respective faiths be equally represented on Sesame Street. Politicizing religion is bad enough. Doing it to kids using tax payer dollars is especially invasive.

The highest profile intelligence figure, despite that he is not an intelligence director, is defense Secretary Robert Gates. His experience, exemplified by his subtlety and intelligence, recommends his continuing service at a time when the US is polarized.

What do you call 17 credit card banks at the bottom of the ocean? Beyond the obvious title, I would hope it would be a partly cloudy day above their place in the sun and surf (shielding them from the harsh rays above).

Inching Away from the Abyss? More Americans ID Pro-Life

The Gallup and Pew surveys on pro-life identification show that more Americans see themselves as pro-life than last year, and fewer see themselves as pro-choice. Those disputing the legality of abortion under any and all circumstances rose slightly. The Gallup poll found 51 percent identifying with pro-life, up 7 points from last year while pro-choice ID dropped 8 points. Some observers speculate that this means Obama's  all-things-abortive-are-rights mentality has caused counter-momentum in the popular thinking about the propriety of abortion.

That's the title, and it is here:

Russia remains a cornerstone of Western security

You'll find them in chain restaurants such as Applebees, Mimis, Outback Steakhouse and Old Chicago Pizza. They are children's menus with fatty food choices. Major items may include corn dogs, burgers, chicken fingers, fries, sodas and desserts. Mac and cheese might be the healthiest item. Most are 'combos.'