Lou Pritchett, you make me fear for my nation – an open letter to a former soap salesman

August 20, 2009

It looks like an internet hoax, but it’s not. It’s worse than that.  It is a triumph of cynicism and pessimism wedded to false claims, crafted to impugn a good man.  Lou Pritchett’s letter is scary because he appears to believe it, and others may, too.

Lou Pritchett on a yacht, holding his book, which has nothing to do with politics. Notice the lack of libraries in the photo.

Lou Pritchett on a yacht, holding his book, which has nothing to do with politics. Notice the lack of libraries in the photo. Image from LouPritchett.com

It usually comes with this line:  “Subject:  Letter from Procter & Gamble Exec to Obama.”  It may be entitled “An Open Letter to President Obama.”  It’s a letter filled with rant and inaccurate claims against Obama.  But it demonstrates something troubling.  It’s a letter from a guy who should know better, from a guy who can read newspapers and check facts for himself, but a guy who has been suckered in by every false and calumnous claim made against our President.

In short, it’s a letter from a supreme cynic, who has every reason to know better but appears to refuse to think.

Below the fold, I post the letter completely as it came to me, and I respond, with an Open Letter to Former Soap Salesman Lou Pritchett.


Here’s how the letter came to me, and below that, a careful and more pensive response.

“Subject: Letter from Procter & Gamble Exec to Obama

Please read, even if you are an Obama fan.  It is legitimate, written by respected, Lou Pritchett, formerly of Proctor and Gamble.  Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America’s true living  legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s  highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as “partnering.” Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending  proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8  years.

Lou Pritchett

The letter came with this explanation attached:

TRUE – CHECK:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.

Big surprise!  Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits.  Keep it going.  All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.  It’s happening right now.

I disagree.  I think people can actively promote evil, even when they do not intend to.  For example, this letter contains a number of nasty, erroneous claims (I have to work hard not to call them “lies,” but I’ll wager Pritchett just doesn’t know better; I can’t pass judgment on his motives).

No rational person should read anything into the failure of the New York Times to publish the letter.  They get thousands of letters on many topics, and they try to pick the best.  Plus, that paper as most responsible, major papers do, put letters through a basic fact check.  This letter wouldn’t survive that.  Had the paper published Pritchett’s letter, he would have been subject to widespread ridicule.

And, this should not be news, The New York Times does not respond to each of the thousands of letters-to-the-editor it gets every day.

I doubt Pritchett will ever get this letter, though I’d like to be proved wrong.  Garbage should be picked up an carted off so vermin can’t breed in it, however, and so I offer my response below

Open letter to Former Soap Salesman Lou Pritchett

Dear Mr. Pritchett,

Knowing that you’re a voting citizen of the United States, and that you have access to vast stores of accurate information, I look at your letter to President Obama, and I fear for my country. Someone noted the old saw that the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.  On that basis, I cannot let your cynical claims go uncorrected where they err, and unrebutted.

I’ve only lived through 11 presidencies, so you have at least 6 years on me.  But you’re comfortably retired, sitting on a fat pile of assets from your comfortable job at Procter and Gamble.  I will be lucky to be able to retire before I hit 85, after years of public service.  I have reason to be cynical [while you don’t].  Your irrational lashing out puzzles me all the more, and troubles me all the more.

You say you don’t know Barack Obama.  That is no one’s fault but your own.

Barack Obama’s been a character on the national stage since he offered a stunningly beautiful keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004.  There were dozens of profiles written about him in magazines and newspapers, and profiles offered on national television.  His race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, a major state, got heavy coverage when the Republicans offered a carpet-bagging man from Maryland as candidate for the seat, when the duly-selected Republican candidate dropped out when scandal caught up with him.

Obama won the right to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate, in the seat occupied before him by people like Alan Dixon, Adlai Stevenson III, Everett Dirksen, and Stephen A. Douglas.  That seat is always watched closely by national media.

Obama’s popularity was based on many things, including two terms in the Illinois State Senate where he pushed through an ethics reform bill, which most people though impossible, and on his best-selling book, Dreams from My Father, a book contracted for by the publishers after Obama had been elected president of the prestigious journal, Harvard Law Review.   Published first in 1995, it was re-published in 2004.  You’ve had 14 years to get to your local library and read the book.

The book wasn’t a secret.  Wikipedia summarizes some of the reaction to the book:

In discussing Dreams from My Father, Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison has called Obama “a writer in my high esteem” and the book “quite extraordinary.” She praised “his ability to reflect on this extraordinary mesh of experiences that he has had, some familiar and some not, and to really meditate on that the way he does, and to set up scenes in narrative structure, dialogue, conversation–all of these things that you don’t often see, obviously, in the routine political memoir biography. […] It’s unique. It’s his. There are no other ones like that.”[28]

The book “may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” wrote Time columnist Joe Klein.[29] In 2008, The Guardians Rob Woodard wrote that Dreams from My Father “is easily the most honest, daring, and ambitious volume put out by a major US politician in the last 50 years.”[30] Michiko Kakutani, the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for The New York Times, described it as “the most evocative, lyrical and candid autobiography written by a future president.”[31]

The audio book edition earned Obama the 2006 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album.[32]

Your library might have the audio book, too.   Have you looked?

After he joined the U.S. Senate, he wrote another book based on his campaign and what he saw in Washington, The Audacity of Hope:  Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.  It topped the New York Times best-seller list in the fall of 2006.

So, you say you don’t know a guy who strode quickly into the limelight in 2004, wrote two best-selling books spilling his guts on his hopes and dreams as an American for a better and stronger America.  Seriously, man, whose fault is it that you didn’t bother to check him out?

You didn’t know anything about George W. Bush, either, even after he’d spent four years as president.  Did you vote for him?

There is no excuse to claim you don’t know about the man we elect president.  Your lack of curiosity, failure to pick up a newspaper or go to the library, is not Barack Obama’s fault.  You need to read more.

If you’d read the books, or the profiles, you’d know that Obama attended Columbia and Harvard on scholarship.  Most students at those schools, today, attend on scholarship.  Several Ivy League schools tell prospective applicants up front that, if they are accepted, they will have the money to go.  Even in the 1990s they prided themselves on helping bright but poor students.

How can you fail to know that?

Barack Obama left the U.S. for a few years early in his life.  He was born in the U.S.A. — in our 50th state! — and he attended school in the U.S. for eight years — longer than Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and George Washington combined.  He was raised by his two Kansas-born grandparents — as American as L. Frank Baum’s Dorothy, who was raised in similar circumstances (other than her trip to Oz).

Obama grew up playing basketball, the sport invented in a YMCA in New Jersey.  He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, that all-American megalopolis in California, hoping to play basketball.  But, like William J. Bennett who said he went to Williams College to play football but discovered he had a brain, Obama woke up to scholarship at Occidental — in a big way.  He transferred to Columbia and graduated, worked building a powerful anti-poverty program from scratch in Chicago, and went off to law school at Harvard where he was a smashing success as a scholar and good guy.

These are all grand, American institutions.  Your claiming that basketball, college, Hawaii, California, New York City, Chicago, and Occidental, Columbia and Harvard are outside American culture is a slander to our entire nation and most of the people who live here.

Neither you nor I are more American than any of this culture, or any of these institutions, or Barack Obama.  Your claim insults us all — it is thoughtless, unwarranted and unsupportable.

Why did you not bother to learn this before you wrote your letter?

You accuse Obama of never having had to make a payroll.  I don’t know your early career, but your experience in a large corporation like Procter and Gamble is no better.  You never had to meet a payroll there, either — there was always plenty of money in the bank, a good line of credit from the world’s biggest banks, a good expense account for you, and someone else to do the accounting and cut the checks.

Obama, on the other hand, built from the ground up a non-profit poverty fighting organization for the Catholic Church in Chicago, building it to several employees and a half-million dollar budget in just a few years.

Why do you not know this?

You complain that Obama doesn’t understand the military, but National Guard veteran George W. Bush ignored the advice and wise counsel of the military and led us into a blunder in Iraq.  Military experience is no substitute for genuine curiosity, scholarship and wisdom.

You claim, without any cause I can find, that Obama lacks “humility and class.”  And yet he put his campaign on hold for days to fly to Hawaii for a few moments with his dying grandmother, to say “thank you” for her work raising him.  It could have cost him the election.  Those white, conservatives who voted for him for president of the Harvard Law Review (with many others) note what a good leader he was, not cocky but sure, a class act.

Obama blames others?  What I see is a man who steps up to responsibility, on the economy, on the budget, on our wars, on social issues, though they are all situations he inherited.  He engineered a new budget through Congress — a task George Bush couldn’t get done — in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.  He went to the Capitol to offer to work with Republicans — an offer they promptly repudiated — and he has soldiered on trying to get America’s course straight without their help since.

Obama has never aligned himself with radicals who want to see America fail.  Specifically, he has never aligned himself with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Back.  Nor has he aligned himself with anyone half as radical on the left.  He’s very much a moderate, and his cabinet choices reflect that.  Ray LaHood is no radical of any stripe.

Where did you ever get that odd idea?  Didn’t you read his books?  Don’t you read the newspapers?

Cheerleader for the “blame America crowd?”  No, that’s not Obama.  He did not say America deserved to be attacked on September 11, 2001, as Christian preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did.  When he met with Vladimir Putin, unlike George Bush who claimed to have looked into Putin’s eyes and claimed to have seen “trustworthy” man, Obama told Putin the facts and extracted tough agreements to our nation’s advantage.

How could you miss those events?

Obama has never said he wants to change America into a European-style country — though, when we look at greatly reduced heart disease rates in every nation of Europe, or when we look at mass transit in France, Germany and England, we might see places we could do better.

Where did you get such a far-fetched idea?

Obama has never said he wants a government-run health care system.  He has said we have a moral duty to find ways to cover the nearly-50 million Americans who lack insurance and access to timely and inexpensive health care.  He has said we pay too much (we spend $7,000 per capita for health care, way more than double any other nation — and we pay that for the 50 million people who don’t get health care, too).   He has said we need to rein in health care cost inflation, which is double the rate of other goods and services, and which was a major factor in crippling American auto companies competing against foreign producers whose governments offer health coverage for all citizens including auto workers.

Have you read Obama’s statements?  Have you read the House bill, H.R. 3200, which is not Obama’s proposal, but which also doesn’t nationalize health care?  How can you draw that conclusion, when there is no proposal to do so?

Obama wisely urges that we ramp up alternatives to fossil fuels.  But he has also urged that we explore “clean coal,” a proposal that sends environmentalists screaming away. You’re imagining Obama’s opposition to fossil fuels. Windmills?  He’s said we should produce them in the U.S., and not buy them from foreign producers — keep the jobs at home.  Do you favor sending those jobs off-shore?

Where did you get such an idea?  Did you check it out for yourself?

Obama has said not one word in opposition to capitalism. When faced with a choice between nationalizing industries to rescue them, and any other choice, he has in every case avoided nationalization.  The government is a stockholder in some rescued companies, but not the sole owner.  Obama has chosen free market solutions to tough problems where other free-enterprise nations did not.

Why don’t you consider what Obama has done, rather than wild claims from . . . where?

Since when is it “extortion” to give banks enough money to stay in business? Good heavens, man!  The alternative was collapse of our banking system.  Most people complain that the banks were “given” too much!

Plus, most of the banking actions were done by George Bush’s appointee to the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, and by the Bush administration prior to January 21, 2009.

Where did you get the idea Obama was behind the actions of the Bush administration, since much of this stuff occurred well before January 21, 2009?

Since when is funding the Pentagon “wild and irresponsible?”  You’ve never heard of the “Blue Dog Democrats,” who threaten to derail our much-needed health care reforms because of the cost?

Surely you live where a newspaper is available, no?

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, and others, noted that Obama seems to have paid careful attention to her book on Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, Team of Rivals.  She summarized lessons for Obama from the book in the Harvard Business Journal earlier this year.  I mention that because you cite that Harvard case study of your project, which tells me that you probably grant credence to that journal — though that makes your disrespect of Obama’s term heading the Harvard Law Review more mysterious and silly. Obama said he wants opposing views in the White House, in the basic discussions in his cabinet room and all other rooms of power.

In any case, Obama has populated his cabinet with people who have opposing views — Hillary Clinton, his chief and sometimes bitter rival for the Democratic nomination, Republican Ray LaHood at the critical Department of Transportation. He kept on Robert Gates at the critical post of Secretary of Defense — George W. Bush’s appointee.  No one thinks Gates is a pushover Obama supporter.

Obama made a point of going to the Capitol to confer with congressmen — Republicans first.

When Obama nominated a candidate for the Supreme Court, he consulted with my old boss, Orrin Hatch, first.

Obama’s team, like Rahm Emanuel, makes it a practice not to ignore Republicans, as the Bush administration ignored Democrats and — truth be told — Republican Members of Congress.

“I’ve heard more from Rahm in six months than I heard from Andy Card in six years, and Card’s daughter worked for me,” said former Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia, referring to a chief of staff under President George W. Bush.

Where did you get the idea that Obama doesn’t like discussion or debate, or that he doesn’t listen to dissent?  That view is wholly unsupportable in history and current action.  Have you read the newspapers this week?  Proponents of health care reform claims he’s listened too much to the opposition.  One might have assumed that if one assumed George Bush’s White House was the model — but Obama promised to change things.  This is one area where he’s delivered better than anyone had any right to hope.

Obama thinks he is omnipotent and omniscient?  Then you must have stood and cheered when he noted — wisely — that the U.S. would have no comment in the first days after the disputed Iranian election, noting that any comment would be taken by the rulers as evidence of  U.S. interference.  The U.S. cannot dictate what happens he noted then, and often as well in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the one hand you claim Obama thinks himself omnipotent and omniscient, but when he goes to Europe to confer with our allies, saying we are neither omnipotent or omniscient and we need and will honor their views and information, you accuse him of “blaming America.”   I think you have not thought through these issues, nor where America’s best interests lie — certainly not as well as has President Obama.

Lou, your bizarre claim about Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck almost doesn’t deserve comment.  These are guys who revel in America’s failure, whose ratings and income go up if America fails.  Rush Limbaugh admits that he wants Obama to fail, damn the cost to you, me and all other Americans.

And then you have the gall to claim that Obama demonizes them?

In a just universe, their transmitters would be taken out by lightning.  Obama has merely pointed out a few of their errors, but by no stretch, all of their errors.  Obama hasn’t even mentioned more than a dozen of their hundreds of slanders, errors, and misreportings of events.

Do you have a newspaper?  Where could any fair-minded person think these broadcast bullies deserve protection from the guy they try to bully most?

Obama favors control over governing?  In the most important big policy changer so far, health care reform, rather than dictate to Congress, Obama asked Congress to assemble a proposal.  Republicans refused to participate in making a good bill until Nancy Pelosi got it passed in the House.  Then, rather than wake up and try to make changes they might need in the Senate, they launched a campaign of slander and fiction against health care.

Lou, you, particularly, should appreciate what is going on here.  You worked for Procter & Gamble.  Would it be fair to claim you are a satan-worshipper, as Procter & Gamble’s old logo “proved?”  Of course such a charge is bizarre, ungrounded in fact, and damaging to people who have no intention to worship satan (I hope!).  Since you worked for a company that literally had to change its logo due to unfair and wild claims, you should be particularly sensitive to wild and unfair claims against others.  And yet, here you are with a letter read by more than a half million people, passing along wild and unfair claims.

Did you at least blush when you realized what you had done?

Control?  Obama has given up a great deal of control in order, he hopes, to get the reform that will keep our nation from going bankrupt (more than 60% of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to excessive health costs).   This is the mark of a leader.  Did you read Goodwin’s book on Lincoln?  You should.  Obama did.  It shows how a true, flag-waving patriot leads this nation.

Lou, we survived eight years of George Bush and his assault on the Constitution.  Your dissenting views will be honored far more than any dissent was ever honored by Bush — and if Obama has his way, your life will be better, more secure, and your dissent more free, in four years, six years, and eight years.

You could have learned all of that by reading Obama’s two books, by reading his extensive profiles in newspapers and magazines, by watching his well-known speeches and campaign appearances.  Lou, you’re a bright guy, a successful guy who should be reading newspapers and gathering information about how to vote.

It scares me mightily that despite these many opportunities for you to get the facts, you don’t have them, and you promote wild and scurrilous claims across the internet.  If you don’t know better, that’s your fault.  You should know better.

And if Lou Pritchett, with all his money and information gathering ability, smarts and charm, has such a distorted view of America, America’s election process, and our president, then I truly fear for my nation.

James Madison told us why it’s important to have a good public education system and why it’s important to use that education:

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

  • James Madison in a letter to William T. Barry, August 4, 1822; Library of Congress, Letters of James Madison

How many others like you might there be, Lou, literally endangering our republic with disinformation and wrong ideas about what is going on?

Is this the result of the slashing of library budgets begun in the Reagan administration?  Is your lack of information due to a lack of a library?  Is this a result of the reduction in news holes in newspapers as that industry struggles to survive against electronic competition?

In any case, shouldn’t a citizen know what the citizen does not know, and seek that information out before making unfounded charges based on false information?

Madison said knowledge governs ignorance.  But Kin Hubbard or someone like him noted that it’s not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble:  It’s what we know that isn’ t so.  You “know” a lot of stuff about Obama that is wrong. If that misplaced “knowledge” governs, America is doomed.

You wrote that letter months ago.  Please tell us you’ve learned in the passed time, and that you now know better.

Yours truly,

Ed Darrell

(I’ve e-mailed this letter to Mr. Pritchett.)

Update: Pritchett responded, sort of.  Like poking a hog.

More information:

Spread the good words instead:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


Palin proposes “death panels”

August 11, 2009

Isn’t that a fair headline?

She must be proposing them — they don’t show up in the health care bill before Congress.

Update: Over at Le-gal Ins-ur-rec-tion, Cornell Law prof William A. Jacobson dug out an article by Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekial, a respected bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, and suggests strongly that Palin is just contributing to the the debate.  In the paper (at Lancet, subscription required, but access to this paper is free because it’s so important), Dr. Emanuel and others discuss how to allocate health care resources to provide the greatest healing among many competing, worthy patients, when resources cannot be allocated to all of the worthy patients.  Jacobson said:

Put together the concepts of prognosis and age, and Dr. Emanuel’s proposal reasonably could be construed as advocating the withholding of some level of medical treatment (probably not basic care, but likely expensive advanced care) to a baby born with Down Syndrome. You may not like this implication, but it is Dr. Emanuel’s implication not Palin’s.

Jacobson misses the greater point here, the part the sticks in the craw of those of us who have lived with these issues for 20 years, or 30 or 40:  Dr. Emanuel’s paper discusses how to improve the current system of allocation of resources.

We aren’t debating whether to have “death panels.”  The discussion is on how to make them work more equitably, and how to expand health care resources to make the need for such decisions less frequent. Palin’s point is to defend unfair death panels used often.  She doesn’t know that, and Jacobson should realize that and not defend it.

Here’s the summary at Lancet:

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

He’s working to make the death panels more fair, more accurate, more beneficial.  Palin suggests we should leave the current system in place where Palin’s death panels, though working hard, often are unfair and inaccurate, and waste resources.

In the present system, resources generally are allocated first on the basis of who has money.  De facto, the system writes off to death anyone with a serious disease who is poor.  “Poor” in this case doesn’t mean destitute.  An annual income of $60,000 would put one into the category of “poor” I’m talking about here.

Jacobson said:

These critics, however, didn’t take the time to find out to what Palin was referring when she used the term “level of productivity in society” as being the basis for determining access to medical care. If the critics, who hold themselves in the highest of intellectual esteem, had bothered to do something other than react, they would have realized that the approach to health care to which Palin was referring was none other than that espoused by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

I took the time to find out.  I knew in advance.  I’ve sat through hours of legislative hearings on this issue.  In my opinion, Sarah Palin is still a carbuncle on the face of this debate.  Her calling these panels “death panels” is designed to obfuscate the issues and deny the debate Jacobson says we need to have.  She’s providing heat for cheap political gain, not light.  She’s defending death, not life.

Shame on her.  Jacobson should know better, too.  I can all but guarantee that Palin didn’t read Dr. Emanuel’s paper, and didn’t consider the issues at all.  I’ll wager she does not know that hospitals in her state make these decisions regularly.

Under Palin’s way, death panels already exist. Death panels make decisions on life or death every day, and the poor and uninsured are at the bottom of the scale of who gets to live, top of the list of who gets to die.  Uninsured people often get shut out of the process, allocated pain and death from the start, because they lack insurance.

H.R. 3200 doesn’t do much to change this equation, the authors and legislators hoping to avoid cyanide politics like Palin plays; instead the bill encourages programs to help patients be on the “live if I want to live” side of the equation.  These encouraged programs should be bread and butter to legal clinics at most law schools, by the way — great help to the poor in anticipating what to do in life-threatening emergencies.  (I mention that because Jacobson is a clinical law professor — I don’t know which end of the legal clinics he works in, but he should know better anyway.)

We’ve already got the debate, and we already know that Palin’s trying to poison the well and fog up the lecturn, so that health care resources are misallocated.  In reality, this leads to more unnecessary and preventable deaths.

Yes, let’s have the debate:  Palin’s wrong to stand with unfair death decisions.  She’s had her say, and she should be held accountable.

Agree or disagree, invite others to join the discussion:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


Is the FBI in on the Nigerian Scam, now?

July 7, 2009

Oh, don’t you love it?

Now they’re getting the scams pre-cleared by the FBI!

I just love being referred to as “undisclosed recipient.”

I especially enjoyed the use of the FBI’s seal and Robert Mueller’s signature, as if the director of the FBI personally certifies lottery winners for private organizations, or any organization.  All spellings and punctuations just so:

Official FBI Information for You

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:05 PM
From:
“Federal Bureu Of Investigation” <SamlottoFBI@fbi.gov>

To:
undisclosed-recipients
Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535
ATTN: BENEFICIARY

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigation with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you legally won the sum of $800,000.00 USD. from a Lottery Company outside the United States of America. During our investigation we discovered that your e-mail won the money from an Online Balloting System and we have authorized this winning to be paid to you via a Certified Cashier’s Check.


Normally, it will take up to 10 business days for an International Check to be cashed by your local banks. We have successfully notified this company on your behalf that funds are to be drawn from a registered bank within the United States Of America so as to enable you cash the check instantly without any delay, henceforth the stated amount of $800,000.00 USD. has been deposited with Bank Of America.

We have completed this investigation and you are hereby approved to receive the winning prize as we have verified the entire transaction to be Safe and 100% risk free, due to the fact that the funds have been deposited at Bank Of America you will be required to settle the following bills directly to the Lottery Agent in-charge of this transaction whom is located in Lagos, Nigeria. According to our discoveries, you were required to pay for the following –

(1) Deposit Fee’s ( Fee’s paid by the company for the deposit into an American Bank which is – Bank Of America )
(2) Cashier’s Check Conversion Fee ( Fee for converting the Wire Transfer payment into a Certified Cashier’s Check )

The total amount for everything is $200.00 (Two Hundred-US Dollars). We have tried our possible best to indicate that this $200.00 should be deducted from your winning prize but we found out that the funds have already been deposited at Bank Of America and cannot be accessed by anyone apart from you, the winner; therefore you will be required to pay the required fee’s to the Agent in-charge of this transaction via Western Union Money Transfer Or Money Gram.

In order to proceed with this transaction, you will be required to contact the agent in-charge ( SAMUEL OLIVER ) via e-mail. Kindly look below to find appropriate contact information:

CONTACT AGENT NAME: SAMUEL OLIVER
E-MAIL ADDRESS: sammufbilotto911@sify.com
You will be required to e-mail him with the following information:
FULL NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP CODE:
DIRECT CONTACT NUMBER:

You will also be required to request Western Union details on how to send the required $200.00 in order to immediately ship your prize of $800,000.00 USD via Certified Cashier’s Check drawn from Bank Of America, also include the following transaction code in order for him to immediately identify this transaction : EA2948-910.

This letter will serve as proof that the Federal Bureau Of Investigation is authorizing you to pay the required $200.00 ONLY to Mr. Samuel Oliver  via information in which he shall send to you, if you do not receive your winning prize of $800,000.00 we shall be held responsible for the loss and this shall invite a penalty of $3,000 which will be made PAYABLE ONLY to you (The Winner).

Please find below an authorized signature which has been signed by the FBI Director- Robert Mueller, also below is the FBI NSB (National Security

FBI Director
Robert Mueller
.

NSB Seal

Authorized Signature

NSB SEAL ABOVE
NOTE: In order to ensure your check gets delivered to you ASAP, you are advised to immediately contact Mr. Samuel Oliver via contact information provided above and make the required payment of $200.00 to information in which he shall provide to you.

Sam, I won’t be responding.  The FBI doesn’t offer the service of verifying lottery winners, especially for people who didn’t enter the lottery.

And of course, it’s already been done — this is the same scam I got last February, just presented with a couple of graphics to try to make it look more official.  At least they lost the name of their contact, “Peter Water.”

Sure, it’s wire fraud.  Is there any way to get any authority to prosecute?


Real racism: Should we brace for protests?

June 16, 2009

Here’s a story exposing a real case of racism, “Latest Republican racist e-mail.”  HillbuzzTexas Darlin’?  Are you going to go after this despicable display?  Are  you going to defend a color-blind society and anti-racism?

No, we didn’t really think so.  Now that we’ve established what you really do, we’re just haggling over the price.


Insanity at Texas state school board – economics, geography and history

May 27, 2009

Tim Ritz cartoon, for Americans United

Tim Ritz cartoon, for Americans United

Texas Freedom Network’s Insider blog reports that embattled chairman Don McLeroy is working to create a panel of experts to review studies curricula.  The experts he has proposed so far are all well-known cranks in academia, people who bring their axes to grind on the minds of innocent children.

This panel is a bold insult to Texas’s community of economists, historians, and other practitioners of fields of social studies, not to mention educators.  A more qualified panel of experts could be assembled in the coffee break rooms of the history departments at most of Texas’s lesser known state colleges and universities.

Why does Don McLeroy hate Texas so?

I’ve been buried in teaching, grading, planning and the other affairs of the life of a teacher, and had not paid much attention to the movement on this issue (“movement” because I cannot call it “progress”).  My students passed the state tests by comfortable margins, more than 90% of them; this news from SBOE makes me despair even  in the face of the news that our achievements are substantial in all categories.

The panel lacks knowledge and experience in economics, geography and history.  The panel is grotesquely unbalanced — at least two of the panel members remind me of Ezra Taft Benson, who was Secretary of Agriculture for Dwight Eisenhower.  When he resigned from that post, he complained that Eisenhower was too cozy with communism.  Barton and Quist lean well to the right  of Ezra Taft Benson.  Quist has complained of socialist and Marxist leanings of Reagan administration education policy and policy makers.

Samuel Morse sent the first telegraphic message on May 24, 1844:  “What hath God wrought?”

Sitting here on the morning of May 27, 2009, I wonder what rot hath Don.


Heartland on bedbugs: DDT stupidity, all the way to 11

May 25, 2009

The Heartland Institute is charitably called a “think tank” sometimes.  In their latest screed against science and people who wish to protect the environment, there is no evidence of thinking, however.  It’s all tank.

The headline says it all: “Bedbug Outbreak Hits All 50 States Thanks to DDT Ban.”

With all their reading on bedbugs, they never noticed the many notes that DDT stopped working against bedbugs more than 50 years ago? Who is going to tell them that DDT doesn’t work? Or, is this a talisman, an understanding that none of the solutions proposed by Heartland Institute will work? First they flirt with intelligent design, then they lose their senses altogether.  There’s an omen there.

Remember the scene in “Spinal Tap?” Heartland Institute on bedbugs is stupid, turned up to 11.  Heartland Institute doesn’t allow comments, probably because they can’t stand the laughter.


Man the ramparts: Texans, call your legislators!

May 22, 2009

Texans, the information on finding your state representative and state senator are below — call them, today.

In a surprise move, the Senate has moved the nomination of Don McLeroy to the floor for an up-and-down vote.

McLeroy has ushered in a new era of bitter, partisan and divisive politics to the State Board of Education.  In the past year he has insulted English teachers, citizens of Hispanic descent, unnecessarily gutted a good mathematics text from the approved list (just to show he can do it), and done his best to butcher science education standards for Texas.  He suspended work on new social studies curricula because, in part, he doesn’t like the term “capitalism,” insisting on “free enterprise” instead, contrary to almost all scholarly writing on the topic.

The man is a menace to education.  He uses wedge political issues to divide educators from parents, parents from schools, schools from the community, students from teachers, and education from propaganda.

I quote the entirety of the post from Texas Freedom Network’s Insider blog, below, to explain:

UPDATE: Click here to see video of the committee vote.

In a surprise meeting on the Senate floor, the Senate Nominations Committee in Austin has just approved the appointment of Don McLeroy as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. It appears that McLeroy’s supporters plan to bring his confirmation to the full Senate early next week. Confirmation will require a two-thirds vote.

Committee Chairman Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, had said he would not bring up McLeroy’s confirmation for a vote in committee unless he thought there were enough votes to get it in the full Senate. We don’t know at this point whether opposition from nearly all Democrats and some Republicans has softened, but the signs are alarming.

If you haven’t done so already, it’s critical that you contact your senator and tell him or her that you oppose McLeroy’s confirmation. You can find the name and contact information for your senator here.

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller has released the following statement:

“If the Texas Senate genuinely cares about quality public education, they will reject as state board chairman a man who apparently agrees that parents who want to teach their kids about evolution are monsters. And we’ll see whether senators really want a chairman who presides over a board that is so focused on ‘culture war’ battles that it has made Texas look like an educational backwater to the rest of the country.”

Gov. Perry appointed McLeroy board chairman in July 2007. Since then, the board has turned debates over language arts and science curriculum standards in “culture war” battlegrounds. Chairman McLeroy has also endorsed a book that says parents who want to teach children about evolution are “monsters” and calls clergy who see no conflict between faith and science “morons.” This spring McLeroy led other creationists on the state board in adopting new science curriculum standards that call the scientific consensus on evolution into question and no longer include references to scientific estimates of the age of the universe.


Wingnuttery to a higher dimension: Obama’s citizenship

May 20, 2009

I can’t believe there are still people out there who argue that President Obama is not eligible to be president, and who still refuse to look at the evidence.

Here’s a measure of how far down in the barrel they have to scrape to keep this issue alive:  Check out this blog by a New Mexico paralegal who is a source for World Net Daily.  A nation loaded with good Constitutional scholars in law schools, history departments, political science departments and public affairs and management schools, and WND finds an obscure paralegal in New Mexico instead, to get the lowdown on U.S. law on citizenship.

There’s a sucker born every minute, but WND’s philosophy is that anyone can act like a sucker if you work hard enough at it.  WND is working very hard.

Other comments at MFB


Crazies drop into the Bathtub, but not like this

May 5, 2009

Seriously.  Ed Brayton gets some serious crazy folk.  I won’t mention their names, but even GB and NS aren’t quite that crazy.  I hope.

Obama as a Marxist Muslim?  Wow.


Complaint against the blogger

April 25, 2009

Oregon Live!.com has a .pdf of the complaint against the blogger who carried his paranoia about Obama’s eligibility too far.

The complaint details some of the tragedy the blogger’s life has become but, no surprise, offers nothing to suggest that Obama is ineligible, nor that bloggers who claim Obama isn’t eligible for the presidency have any better evidence than the guy arrested for threatening federal agents.

Here’s the indictment.

Moral to the story?  Dial down your rage, and stick to the facts.  This guy isn’t exactly engaged in mainstream politics, nor anything mainstream. (Looks to me as if he’s claiming some connection to Vietnam, though he would have been about 9 when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam.  Weird.)

Other stuff:


Creationist hypocrisy. Film at 11:00

April 22, 2009

Under the ironic headline, “Why is critical evaluation of Darwinism not allowed in the public square?” Wintery Knight‘s blog has a bold, typically inaccurate defense of the bullying tactics of ID advocates.

But critical evaluation?  Just try to post a comment critical of intelligent design.

Why are ID advocates almost to a person such supreme hypocrites, and unintentional clowns?  Is there a law that says one must be a noob to be an ID advocate?

____________________

Update, May 3: Here’s my challenge to you, dear reader:  See if you can post a comment at all at Wintery Knight’s rant. Post a copy of your comments here, too, and let’s count to see whether this fellow is just one more supreme, Pharisaical hypocrite, or just an incompetent blogger.


Anti-Obama blogger indicted for threatening Secret Service agent

April 19, 2009

You think some of those who deny Obama’s eligibility sound a little crazy?

Seems to be an accurate perception.  From The Oregonian (via OregonLive.com):

A Springfield blogger is accused of threatening the life, limbs and lower alimentary canal of a Secret Service agent.

James T. Cuneo, 43, was indicted Thursday on charges of making a series of threats against Special Agent Ronald Brown in the course of his official duties.

This was strange turnabout for Brown, whose job in the agency’s Presidential Protection Division is mainly to thwart threats against the commander in chief. For the first time in his 15-year career, Brown wrote in federal court papers, someone was repeatedly harassing him.

There’s a difference between a dog on a bone and a psychotic; some of the Obama denialists appear to have blurred the difference.  Cuneo’s complaint appears to revolve around the same issue that set off Texas Darlin’ and a few dozen others.  Cuneo escalated the thing; let’s hope no others do the same.

On Oct. 16, Brown and Springfield police detectives dropped in on Cuneo to chat about threats he had allegedly made about Google executives on his Internet blog: walkndude.wordpress.com. (WordPress has taken the site offline for violation of its terms of service.)

“Cuneo was extremely belligerent, refused to answer questions and became increasingly threatening,” Brown wrote in an arrest affidavit. “We left the driveway of Cuneo’s residence without further incident.”

Cuneo then began to phone the Secret Service office in Portland, threatening Brown and others, the government alleges. “Cuneo,” Brown wrote, “seems to think that we are aiding and abetting the ‘illegal U.S. President’ and that he and others need to arrest us for not doing our job.”

Brown says Cuneo phoned him in January and, with a colorful series of expletives, threatened him with physical harm, including execution by hanging, electric chair or firing squad. Those threats — and Cuneo’s history of violence — concerned federal officials, according to Brown’s affidavit.

Time to get back to real issues.  2010 is around the corner, 2012 is not much farther.

And, by the way, a federal judge in the District of Columbia issued an order dismissing one of the many nuisance suits filed by the denialists (styled Hollister v. Soetoro) , stating clearly that the suits are nuisances and asking for a showing of why sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be applied.  In short, the judge has ruled that the case against Obama’s eligibility is so rank and utterly without substance that any lawyer of average intelligence and sound mind should know better than to trouble a court with it.  I think this is from the court’s order:

Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of the plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway [the attorney of record] to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11 (b) (1) and 11 (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

Crazier fringes of the anti-Obama guild claim that a letter from Obama’s attorneys asking that the suit be dropped is “threatening.”  It’s not threatening to tell the schoolyard bully to straighten up.  How much ozone have these people depleted?

Update: Yes to Democracy also carries news on the March 24 action by Judge Robertson.  When do the denialists finally wake up, smell the coffee, smell the stale beer cans, pinch themselves, take a shower and get on with life?  So, to sum up:  A judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed the suit and called the bluff of the plaintiffs and stealth plaintiffs; Huffington Post revealed the financial stake of WorldNet Daily in continuing to finance the suits, and in pushing the suits improperly; and a federal prosecutor won an indictment of a blogger who started rumbling about taking violent action in favor of the Birthers, and who failed to heed warnings to tone down his vitriol.  Have the birthers figured it out yet?

Tip of the old scrub brush to Micah.

Resources:


Rachel Carson’s critics: No shame, no morals, no brains

April 18, 2009

So, Friday night in Seattle (April 22) the anti-science, anti-environmental wackos will premiere a film.  Among other things, the film claims Rachel Carson was wrong about DDT, but her Svengali-fu was so great that she persuaded John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Idi Amin, the National Academy of Sciences and a host of others to ban DDT needlessly, and that millions of people died from diseases the DDT could prevent at low cost and no harm.

The film premieres at an elementary school:  Rachel Carson Elementary.

Get it?  See the joke?

These wackos, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, have no shame about mocking the kids in second and third grade at that school who rightly look on Carson as a heroine and great human.  Is it possible to be more cynical than that?  Would it be possible for them to be bigger jerks about it?

The screening is sponsored by the right wing, and now clearly anti-science, Washington Policy Center.

McAleer and McElhinney are poster children for the decline of morality in America.  They have no shame about bullying elementary school kids in their efforts to sully the good reputation of a great scientist and writer.   Judging by their unfair and inaccurate screed against Carson and Al Gore, it appears they lack the moral sense to feel the shame.   I can see their next film project now:  They’ll do an exposé of how the brutal bank examiners forced bankers to live on only their salaries, foregoing the multi-million-dollar bonuses they deserved — and noting that malaria in Uganda now is worse because U.S. bankers are not compensated highly enough.

John Fund’s blog at the Wall Street Journal site has details.

Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy. Their latest film, “Not Evil, Just Wrong” takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world’s poor.

[Al Gore]

The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims. The ban was finally reversed by the World Health Organization only after decades of debate. The two Irish filmmakers argue that if Al Gore’s advice to radically reduce carbon emissions is followed, it would condemn to poverty two billion people in the world who have yet to turn on their first light switch.

*    *    *    *    *    *

The two filmmakers are skilled at using provocative publicity tactics. On April 22, they will hold a public showing of their film at the Rachel Carson Elementary School in the suburbs of Seattle. “Since it was Rachel Carson who touched off the campaign to ban DDT, we thought showing ‘Not Evil, Just Wrong’ there would be appropriate,” says Mr. McAleer.

Local environmentalists will probably not appreciate the gesture and will be appalled that the school agreed to rent out its auditorium to the renegade skeptics. But somebody might point out that it’s not evil, just appropriate, to hold a debate about the real-world consequences of acting on global warming fears.

The little Seattle Weekly has the good sense to call it for what it is.

As you may already know, April 22 is Earth Day. At noon, inside City Hall, the Seattle City Council will be showing a movie about Rachel Carson, the biologist whose book, Silent Spring, is frequently credited with spurring the modern environmental movement.

Meanwhile that same evening, at Rachel Carson Elementary School in Sammamish, conservative think tank the Washington Policy Center will be showing Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria. (Tagline: “This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don’t want you to see.”) It’s by the same folks who brought you that mining industry–funded classic, Mine Your Own Business. We know you’re in your grave. But you can roll over now, Ms. Carson.

That’s good news:  The film showing at the Seattle City Council chamber is “A Sense of Wonder,” which will get more viewers in Seattle than the other film will get nationwide. (Presented by the Seattle City Council; 600 Fourth Street, Seattle; contact Phyllis Shulman, 206-684-8816; or see the council’s website; film shows at noon to 1:00 p.m., free admission.)

Of course, there is a little joke on these evil film makers McAleer and McIlhenny:  The school isn’t just named after Rachel Carson, by popular vote of the children, it’s also green.

A total of 75 names were submitted by students. Nominees had to meet the district’s requirement of “deceased persons famous for their work in science, the humanities, letters, or education.” This list was narrowed to those that had more than one nomination, which left eight finalists. Those eight finalists were put on a ballot with a description of each nominee. Ballots were mailed to the families of children who will attend the new school next year.

A total of 320 students voted. The top three choices were Carson, Clara Barton and Amelia Earhart. The Lake Washington School District Board of Directors approved the use of any of those top three choices at its May 5 meeting. Shortly thereafter, Principal Mary Cronin received word that permission was granted to use the name of Rachel Carson. Frances Collin, literary agent for her estate, wrote that she believed Miss Carson would have been pleased.

In her writings, Carson encouraged people to discover and help children discover the wonder of the natural world. After earning a master’s degree in zoology, Carson spent 15 years working for the U.S. Government as a scientist and editor. She rose to Editor in Chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Her writing in her free time included many essays on the ocean. These essays led to three books about the ocean and a career as a science writer who shared her knowledge as well as her love of nature. One of those books, The Sea Around Us, won the National Book Award.

Carson’s concerns about the misuse of synthetic pesticides led to her book, Silent Spring, which sounded the alarm about the environmental impact of indiscriminate use of such powerful chemicals on nature. First serialized in the New Yorker magazine, it became a runaway best seller. Testifying before Congress in 1963, Carson asked for policies that that would protect against irreversible damage to humans and nature alike, urging study and consideration of safer alternatives.

Carson’s work led to the ban on most uses of DDT in the U.S. and a subsequent worldwide ban on DDT for agricultural use. The DDT ban has been cited as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle in the U.S. In 1980, Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The new Rachel Carson Elementary will feature such environmentally friendly features as a green roof, extensive use of daylight and a geothermal heat pump. It is located at 1035 244th Ave. NE in Sammamish.

The school’s good practices contradict the preachings of the film makers.  The elementary school kids have more sense than the climate change deniers and DDT-poisoned anti-environmentalists.

Oh.  The anti-environmental film is named “Not Evil, Just Wrong.”  When the film is done on its producers, it will carry an even shorter title:  “Evil and Wrong.”

What would the film makers do if a bunch of 3rd graders from the school showed up at the screening, and in the Q&A after, asked, “Why are you telling such lies about Rachel Carson and Vice President Gore?”


DDT nutcases

April 11, 2009

It’s spring, and nutcase fancies turn to thoughts of slandering Rachel Carson and making unholy noises toward environmentalists.

Here’s one nutcase who engages in that peculiar nutcase practice of completely rewriting posts of commenters — claims to be Graeme Bird; is he really running for office?  His claim is that lack of DDT is causing the spread of dengue in Queensland, Australia.  He won’t be swayed by reason or fact (of course — his avatar is a photo of confirmed liar Joe McCarthy).  He asks “how many have died,” but is unhappy with the official answer (one, but that’s not clear — an older woman in poor health).  Nor does he appear to have any sense of irony that drought-stricken Australia has a plague of mosquitoes due to recent rains.  Nor does he appear to understand that dengue is an imported disease in Australia, imported by a traveler, it appears.

Australian officials ask people to drain water from pots, old tires (“tyres” downunder), rain gutters, or any other small pool, which is where the vector mosquitoes breed and mature.  The nutcase appears unfamiliar with the concept of simply preventing the mosquitoes from breeding, in his rush to poison Australia.  Nor do alternative effective techniques for fighting the disease appear to be on his radar.

Alas, there are a lot of these lone nutcases loose.  Watch for updates here for a week or so.

I wonder if it’s a virus that makes them censor any fact or opinion contrary to their own, or whether they simply are complete cranks.  I mean, even Bush’s Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne got  DDT right.

(Bird’s blog is on WordPress, which will automatically post a link from this post to his blog.  Anyone want to wager on whether he has enough cojones to let the trackback stand?)


Population bombs

April 10, 2009

One of the great attempted slams on Rachel Carson is the false and scurrilous claim that “population growth opponents” or environmentalists were overheard saying that with DDT, population growth would continue.  Generally this canard is accompanied by an observation that France is now Islamic, since only Moslems have babies in France.

Where is Bob Park when you need a whiff of sanity?

Oh, there he is, at his blog and his newsletter (I’ve added the links):

4. POPULATION: ARE THEY SURE THEY HAVE THE THEORY RIGHT?
Demographic experts warn that population decline in Russia could have serious economic consequences.  It’s the same growth-is-good bull shit that always comes from the Chamber of Commerce.  Russia’s neighbors, Norway, Finland and Sweden, have the highest standards of living in the world and small populations.  Afghanistan, on the other hand, which is not exactly a tourist Mecca, has a fertility rate above 7, the highest in the world.