My Opinions are in a Newspaper (And Other Tragedies)

Good morning everybody.

First, the obligatory apology for my absence the past week.  I'm sorry, can we move on?

No but seriously, I recently received a position at the Iowa State Daily as an Opinion columnist.  A lot of my content on this blog will stem from my pieces there. 

The theme in the coming few weeks will be an attempt to paint an accurate picture of the American nobility pulling the strings of our democracy.  If you have any pieces you would like to submit or discussions you would like to see on the topic, feel free to email me or leave a comment in the cleverly named "comments" section.

Several of you saw my first piece, but I'm posting it here again to immortalize myself the way that only the internet can.  All the best, sorry it's so long.


Ian J Barker
Senior in Chemical Engineering

The health insurance reform (HCR) bill waits for sentencing, but regardless of what happens, one thing is clear: Americans have had little say in how they feel about reform. In the face of errant misrepresentations, public opinion for this cost-cutting legislation has soured. Well-funded special interest groups, in their unique position to create and shape public perception, have played a large role in the faltering public opinion of HCR.

The moderating force behind representative democracy is that citizens perceive the actions of their representatives through felt consequences and, in the following election cycle, repay the favor by ousting miscreant legislators. The problem with this model in contemporary society is that the most prevalent forum of public discourse is now television; a one-way conversation monopolized by the wealthiest of economic elites.  The cost of entry is simply too high; a 30-second television commercial, run in 1999, cost an average of $343,000 according to the New York Times.

The editorials that you write, the conversation that you have in class, the consequences that you feel from your government’s actions; little of it so much as ripples the ocean of national opinion any longer.  The public’s capacity for leveraging its own political power to affect change relies on discussion, which rarely occurs when television dominates the conversation.

Special interests, with their massive financial coffers and unique position to put messages out in the open for public consumption has hijacked our system of government – in this case, health insurance reform - and threatens to cripple the republic as our founders envisioned it: with unfettered public discourse contributed to by all members.

Once these well-funded groups have secured television time, they report perception as fact in a way that serves their agenda, regardless of their authority.  For example, on September 11th, 2010, the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR) ran an advertisement during peak television hours that contradicted each of President Obama’s talking points in his speech the night before. The group stated each of their points without reproach, citing no facts or passages of the bill, yet many Americans accepted them as an authority, swinging public opinion polls against reform by playing to public fears of a government takeover.  The strategy was well calculated, since 51% of Americans fear government above health insurance according to a Rasmussen poll.  However, CPR's credibility comes seriously into question when one examines the Justice Department's account of Rick Scott - CPR CEO - and his 14 felony allegations for Medicare fraud at a for-profit hospital chain.

There is no doubt to anyone that health insurance reform poses a real threat to the record-breaking profits of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The most profound tragedy in the current discussion is that Americans, despite this conflict of interest, remain unconvinced that the opposition to health insurance reform stems from elite economic interests.

From “death panels” to “socialized medicine”, each counter-attack claims to come from some unknown corner of H.R. 3200. The problem is that an alarming number of these attacks have been misrepresentations of the real bill.  If one reads H.R. 3200, one wonders how Section 123's Health Benefits Advisory Committee, for example, headed by the surgeon general who quote, "recommend[s] covered benefits," became an example of a "government's takeover of health care". Certainly a representative, Democrat or Republican, could accurately interpret this language, but instead citizens have to dig into the bill themselves in order to determine the truth.

Americans trust their representatives to make the best decisions for them. Our reliance on representative democracy has streamlined the process of legislating. However, it has also, via one-way political dialogue, removed citizens from the legislative process to a degree that prevents all but the most informed and educated from comprehending what our representatives perpetrate.

So, in an effort to establish a connection between the economic interests involved and the message of the bill’s opposition, I present the following facts. Humana, one of the largest health insurance firms in the country, saw their stock hit a yearlong high the day of Scott P. Brown’s election in Massachusetts according to Google Finance records.  Pfizer pharmaceuticals saw a year-high close on the exact same day. In fact, the entire sector of stocks under the classification of "health care" saw a year-high (since January 2009) spike in closing stock prices the day of Brown’s election. Scott Brown ran on a platform promising to be the filibuster-breaking vote in the Senate debate on health care.

The fact is that the savings of the proposed legislation are passed down to us; those of us on this campus who will soon take up the burden of skyrocketing health insurance costs and the astronomical price of prescription drugs. Despite this vested interest, our needs are not being heard while Humana’s are.

If you wish to get involved, there are opportunities to make your voice heard. Call your representatives, write in to your local newspaper, call in to radio programs, and saturate the local media with your opinions. It is only through the last bastions of public discourse that we can begin to make our voices heard.

HCR: A Cynical Point of View

I decided to respond to one of Organizing for America's calls to action by writing an editorial piece about the state of health insurance reform.  I sent it off to the Ames Tribune, Daily, DM Register, and NY Times so if any of them know what's good for them, they'll all reject it.

For when they do, I"ve decided to immortalize my opinions (because I can) here on my blog.  Let me know what you think.

by Ian J Barker
We find ourselves at a crossroads in the health care debate.  The clash of Dems vs. Reps has reached a fever pitch and now that the fate of the legislation is uncertain, I cannot say I am surprised.  The rise of special interest groups in this country and the demonstrated effectiveness of well-funded campaigns that threaten to jeopardize our democracy sit poised to – predictably – claim another innocent victim: health insurance reform.

Without going into too much background, allow me to lay out the groundwork for my cynicism.  Public officials run for office in order to influence policy decisions and represent their constituents.  By the basic mechanics of democracy, any public official who fails to represent his/her people would be voted out in the next electoral cycle through conclusions reached in open discussion of felt consequences from representative’s decisions. 

Fundamentally, a representative’s desire is to be re-elected.  It is illogical to argue that politicians seek election for the paycheck when one considers that jobs in a myriad of other sectors are far more lucrative even at the most basic levels.  Therefore, we can accept two things: that public officials wish to be re-elected, and that, if democracy is allowed to function by its most basic principles, the best way to achieve re-election is to govern with the interest of one’s constituents in mind.

Now, the founding fathers established these governing mechanics with the assumption that ideas, both complaints and hurrahs, would flow freely through the marketplace of ideas made possible by the printed word.  This idea held clout largely because, at the time, most people had access to the printing press, which meant that virtually anyone could present their ideas to the reasoned vetting of public discourse.

The problem is that, in our day, a new medium of public discourse has replaced that original marketplace of the printed word.  What was once a two-way conversation has become a one-way barrage of special interest advertisements and factually unchecked political campaigns via the mass distribution of television.  Furthermore, with no built in system of accountability, entities with sufficient funds can reproduce outright lies seven days a week, three-hundred and sixty five days a year for the unquestioning digestion of the American people.  What was once a lively public forum of discussion has become a View-Master of sensationally presented “facts” with no response permitted from the ones whose opinions shape the republic: the people.
In the wake of this development, we have been force-fed talking points ranging from the sketchy to the outright false.  From “death panels” to the dreaded “socialized medicine” – whose absence still does not prevent Republicans from touting the bill as a government takeover – each “threat to our freedom” has received the backing of some wealthy and targeted interest group.  The “Center for Patients’ Rights”, for example, aired an ad the day after President Obama’s speech directly contradicting each of his talking points. 

Now of course it is natural to argue that, despite the prevalence of political ads, surely the strength of the public’s collective reason could weed out the facts from the falsehoods.  Unfortunately history has proven to the contrary.  Declining popularity for the current legislation would suggest that the CPR claimed victory over reason, thanks to the absence of any accountability.  Furthermore, the CPR ad is just one in an army of ads that subvert the truth for niche gains at the expense of broader progress.

The machine continues its march onward, consuming fact and claiming victims as quickly as it identifies the next set of truths to derail at the behest of those wealthy enough to hold the reigns.

The worst of it is that our representatives enable it.  The quest for re-election has one demonstrated path these days: a well-funded campaign.  Since few single citizens possess the wealth necessary to fund these campaigns, the main sources of funding are limited to the special interests who dominate the public discourse.  The desire for re-election, the need for funds, and the possession of funds by interest groups boils down to one, all too prevalent truth in our politics: elected officials must vote in ways advantageous to special interests or risk falling in subsequent elections, a prospect they cannot bear.

Our legislation has been hijacked across the board and it appears that the next victim is health care reform.  As a perfect example of the state of our discourse, health care reform actually started and continues to be health insurance reform, however it now bears only the label that advertisements and sound bites have allowed it to carry.

Despite my cynicism, I still recognize my vested interest in the proposed legislation.  So, all history aside I ask that if my congressmen and women cannot hear my daily frustration that they read in my words here:

As a student, ready to accept the burden of my own health insurance, reading the federal study that health care costs continue to skyrocket, and pleading for a breakthrough in the progress of the American republic, I compel you to listen to the needs of the American people for a step, no matter how large or small, toward containing the corporate monstrosity of health insurance and pharmaceuticals.

America has never been so close to relieving the burden of rising costs and broken promises whose sole responsibility rests on the shoulders of unethical and inhumane money-mongering business practices perpetrated by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Trumpeting concern for national debt while obstructing progress on progressive, cost cutting legislation serves no one while perpetuating the special interest strangle hold on the men and women we trust to make the best decisions for us.

So now that the back-and-forth discussion of politics has all but evaporated, to what do representatives turn for substantiation when claims are raised that they have abandoned the republic they served?  The new “populism”, which rises from faux grass-roots, manufactured outrage sparked by television advertisements and radio pundits.  But my question is, with even populism shanghaied by the media, how is one to get their concerns enacted in policy?  With true populism based in fact and human experience?

Well then, if you want true populism, here it is: listen to the cries of those whose family members have died under the yoke of health care costs and pre-existing conditions, listen to the concerns here written, and listen to the numbers that demonstrate the crisis we face.  If the millions of families losing their well-being to unethical business practices do not constitute a great enough number of citizens to receive the mantle of populism, to demand the attention of our legislators, then I fear that our republic has lost the fight, both for our reforms and for the preservation of our government as it was conceived.

Swiftboating the Deficit

Burgeoning social programs, massive injections of funds into work programs, and nationalist calls for a rallying around a common purpose: rebuilding America.  These three components highlight the recovery of 2009-10 in much the same manner that they did in the New Deal, the extensive reconstruction of the American economy after the Great Depression.

John B has expressed on several occasions the ways in which President Obama's programs mirror the New Deal in both aim and execution, but suddenly there's trouble afoot.  The same ideals that crowned the policies of FDR now threaten to nurture the greatest threat to our Democracy since the election of the president himself: the deficit.

You cannot turn on the news anymore without hearing some talking head comment about the ballooning deficit. In their defense, the prospect seems attractive: ballooning debts and deficits are no way to run a business so why should America be exempt from the rules of the market?  When are lenders just going to quit lending, sensing that there is no end in sight?  Surely large swaths of the global community will see us as a joke and our national identity will suffer, right?

The problem is that, according to an article by Paul Krugman in the NY Times, the deficit and national debt are far less serious problems then we are being lead to believe.  I admit, even I was concerned with the concept until I read Krugman's outlook (he likens current tactics to the kind of fear-mongering that lead us into Iraq).

Now, it's not my job to sit here and point out where the right fails like a glorified (?) watchdog.  Shoring up national debts and relinquishing ourselves from the grasp of the Chinese economy sounds like a perfectly respectable thing to do.  However, the constantly repeated talking points and misinformation of the political right in this country is clearly in full swing on this matter, convincing average Americans that the goal posts of health insurance (!) reform and job creation are not nearly as important as "fiscal responsibility", now a concrete pillar of the Republican line.

Yet we do not challenge it.  The deficit was never in question when President Bush manufactured consent for two wars, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, and tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% but when Obama's well-vetted programs (whose recommendation come from the godfather John Maynard Keynes himself) threaten to temporarily increase government spending en route to a reduction in the national debt, it's time to rally that Tea Party "populism".

Some of you may think that you can't make a difference on the matter, but when "experts" are out there claiming that a necessary run of deficit spending is endangering our standing as a nation, it is time to put out what word we can and convince whoever may read our words that they are being lied to.  This stands to become a big issue in the coming election, which means its our time to be citizens.

Write as you see fit, agree or disagree, and remember that America was founded on the open forum, the polis, of the printed word.

The Only President in the Room

It took me forever to post, but I sure am glad I read it.

Last Night, Barack Obama Became President  

by Charles Pierce

A fantastic take on the State of the Union address found on Esquire.com.  Yeah, I know it's a little late, but damn it if it isn't worth it.  

Thanks to John B for the tip.

In Response to "Racial Profiling" Editorial in ISU Daily January 25th, 2010

Trying to get published again, this time in response to a rather terrible editorial in the ISU Daily entitled "Racial Profiling" which attempts to justify racial profiling on a mathematic basis using flawed underlying assumptions.

What follows is my response:

by Ian J Barker
The greatest fault of the Age of Enlightenment that led to Democracy in the 18th century is that it demonstrated how knowledge could be applied to strip emotion and empathy from human action.  The calculated inhumanity that produced many atrocities over the past two centuries may have possessed mathematical reason, but it lacked the respect for our fellow man that cannot be sacrificed.  Racial profiling reasoned or not, possesses this grim characteristic. 

For this piece, I address the editorial “Profiling proof”, published on Monday January 25th.

To begin with, the assertion is made that terrorist organizations are created within the Muslim faith.  One can logically infer from this assertion that it is believed that Islam, by its teachings or practices, fosters terrorist organizations.  However, this could not be further from the truth.

While some terrorist organizations arise from corrupt interpretations of the Qur’an, the Muslim community at large does not promote terrorism.  On the contrary, the teachings of Islam confer a message of peace, compassion, and humility.  Of the five pillars of Islam (Shahadah, Ṣalāt, Zakāt, Siyam, and Hajj meaning accepting Muhammad as prophet, prayer, charitable giving, ritual fasting, and pilgrimage respectively) not one points to some kind of institutionalized radical or violent behavior.

The fact is that terrorism does not grow out of the Islamic faith, but instead out of extreme oppression, poverty, and suffering.  For example, one of the three perpetrators involved in the July 7th, 2005 London Underground bombings was of Jamaican descent; a country ravaged by economic and political monopolies and rife with poverty and inequality.  The leader of the 2002 bombing in Bali was an Indonesian who received training in Malaysia and Singapore after being exiled from his country for political dissent.

Furthermore, we cannot accept these attacks as a demonstration of Islam’s hatred for Christianity, an argument that may somehow attempt to bear out institutionalized aggression within Islam.  It is well documented that terrorist organizations feel animosity towards the United States and the United Kingdom because each represents capitalism’s success at the expense of smaller nations.

For the sake of argument, however, let us accept the first proposition as fact (which it is not). To then jump to the assertion that phenotypic profiling (profiling based on physical appearance) is an effective method of divining one’s religion is egregious.  This is not only because it is unethical, but also because it fails in practice. 

The assertion that most Muslims hail from the same region of the world and can therefore be identified due to possession of Middle Eastern physical characteristics is invalidated by fact: the largest concentrations of Muslims inhabit Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, encompassing a vast array of differing physical characteristics from skin tone to eye shape.  Indonesia alone possesses 15.6% of the world’s Muslim population.

All told, only 20% of the world’s population of Muslims inhabits the Middle East.  According to a Pew Research Center study in October 2009, there are more Muslims in Germany than Lebanon and more in China than in Syria, thoroughly dismantling the concept that phenotypic classification is a reliable indicator of religious background, even if we allow the first assertion to stand, which it cannot.

Finally, even if we allow the first two propositions to stand, there is the issue of recruitment.  It is proposed that terrorist groups utilize more cost effective means of recruitment that result in ethnically homogenous perpetrators.  I’ll begin with the second component.

The examples given for airline terrorist attacks themselves disprove the concept that terrorist groups recruit within their immediate proximity: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber was Nigerian, and Richard Colvin Reid, the shoe bomber, was an English born British citizen whose parents were English and Jamaican.

I do not suppose that Al Qaeda made special arrangements to recruit these two, though according to the theory presented in “Profiling proof”, they would not do so based on financial constraints.  This brings me to the first component of the argument.

Terrorist recruitment is not constrained to geographic proximity based on financial constraints due to the nature of terrorist causes and motives.  As mentioned earlier, terrorism has grown from the seeds of oppression and extreme poverty in countries all over the world.  Some of the most notable terrorists, including the 2002 Bali bombing ringleader, arose out of political exile and anger in countries far from Middle Eastern influence. 

The fact is: the passionate and romantic nature of the radical terrorist message resonates with any member of any country whose political system is in extreme upheaval or whose living conditions include mass poverty and hardship.  Terrorism does not require or utilize phone calls or television commercials to recruit new members, thus rendering a financial or economic argument unreasonable.

While it is simpler to argue that discrimination, targeted or organic, is wrong, morally and ethically, no matter what the circumstances, it is more revealing to undo the fundamental profiling present in constructing the policy to begin with.  Applying racism of any kind, whether backed by mathematics or not, is as inhumane as it is ignorant and doing so only oppresses those whose oppression may bring them to perform evil deeds in the first place.

Edit: added link to the original article.  Sorry folks!

Money Talks, People Apparently Don't

I'm pleased to report that, despite the contrary nature of my response to the ISU Daily editorial, I have been published.  Glad to see that this one made it through.

In the face of that infinitesimal victory, other challenges loom over the horizon.  As many of you know, the Supreme Court released an official ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political elections, effectively pushing corporate opinion on the largely uneducated masses.

I began reading Al Gore's the Assault on Reason last night and he certainly articulates the state of affairs more eloquently than I can when he says that, quoting a young political consultant in a conversation with a senior senator: "If it's not on television, it doesn't exist."

With these two things in mind, how does Democracy continue?  When Capitalism favors profit before morality, thus permitting haves to grow more have-y and then take their power into the public sector where an uneducated masses consumes media without questioning the source or intent, how do Democracy and the "marketplace of ideas" survive?  Is the system too far gone?  If not, how do we fix it?

I'm deeply troubled my friends.  Deeply troubled.

In Response to a January 22nd ISU Daily Editorial

What follows is my response to an ISU Daily editorial featured in the paper on January 22nd.

Before anyone says it, I understand that people are entitled to their opinions.  However, when someone blatantly or accidentally misrepresents the truth, someone needs to do something about it.

By Ian Barker
During the course of President Obama’s campaign, many interpreted that the effects of his presidency would include the end of partisanship and disagreement in favor of a move toward a benevolent government of and for the people.  The problem with this conception is that Mr. Obama never actually promised an end to partisanship or disagreement.  In fact, of the five-hundred and three promises that he did make, none of them even mention or allude to an America devoid of partisanship.

Why?  Because in order for a president to put an end to political discourse, he would either have to homogenize public opinion through propaganda or militarize the state until the public feared for their lives lest they agree with the governing party.

As far as I know, neither of these are on the agenda.

Many would use the media’s hyperbole as an attempt to see Mr. Obama’s presidency as a failure, but this effectively amounts to moving the goal posts.  Certainly, his presidency has not been the utopian romp that some expected, but the withdrawal from Iraq, effort to reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons, development of infrastructure, prevention of an economic disaster, and overwhelming legislative success rate (96.7% according to Congressional Quarterly) are not tempered by the fact that he (admittedly) did not cure cancer in the process.

All told, voters did not expect a New America under Obama.  They voted for him because he was charismatic, disagreed with the occupation of Iraq, made bold promises to respect and create social programs that had taken massive hits over the past decade, and, through promised transparency, gave Americans hope that they could, for once, see where and why their country was headed in a certain direction.

He has fulfilled all these promises.  Check Politifact.com for the full record.

The one place that disgruntled voters find much agreement is that Obama’s programs are compiling a national debt the likes of which has never been seen.  This is fair, however it is also important to understand that Americans’ opinions tend to blow with the wind of here-and-now media coverage, which shortsightedly ignores CBO and economists’ projections that the programs that currently deepen are debt will pay for themselves in the coming years and then begin to pay off the national debt if maintained.

Admittedly, Mr. Obama’s legislative measures (or at least, those that receive the most media attention) have met with resistance in the chambers of Congress.  This, however, requires further scrutiny.

If we are to compare the success of one president to another based on Congressional approval of proposed legislation, then George W. Bush’s record far exceeds that of Barack Obama’s given the comparison of No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act to the Stimulus and Healthcare Reform.  The flaw in this comparison, of course, is that it fails to put the measures into context.

After the September 11th attacks, President Bush rode a wave of faith that catapulted many of his initiatives into the forefront of popular political discourse.  The public approval of NCLB and the Patriot Act stemmed from widespread fear of the unnamed enemy to the point that even Democratic senators could not afford to vote against their constituent’s perceived fears.  These programs turned out to be masked derailing of social programs and civil liberties but more on that another day.

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, faces a political landscape deeply partisan and littered with the bruised careers of angry incumbent holdovers from the previous administration.  The Republicans, having received a beating they are sure to avenge in the 2008 election, now know that, backed into a corner, their only fighting chance is obstructionism.  Filibusters, traditionally a procedural tool, are now being threatened much more frequently than usual as a standard defense against measures that they simply disagree with.  They need not feel that Democratic legislation threaten the country in some grave way, they need only disagree with the intentions of the bill, regardless of the beliefs of their own constituents one way or the other.
It is easy to see that, in the face of this, it would be difficult to coerce the same overwhelming support made possible by mass fear in the face of ambiguity.

In short, the post-partisan America standard that some pundits had set for Mr. Obama was only a mirage to those who created it.  It is certainly not a mirage to educated voters who never expected such a ridiculous transformation of government.  All this considered, acknowledging the “mirage” of post-partisanship in practice need not lead one to blame Mr. Obama himself while incumbent conservative holdovers from an era of economic, foreign policy, and political disaster tie up progressive legislation through bullying and inciting public fear.

Therefore, forgive Mr. Obama for being a Democrat, apparently he never got the memo.

From Soulpancake.com

Rainn Wilson (Dwight from The Office) came up with this great website called Soulpancake where people could discuss some of life's great questions.  This comes from that website.


Fifty People, One Question: New Orleans from Benjamin Reece on Vimeo.

Enjoy and let me know what your response would be.  If you could wish for one thing to happen by the end of the day, what would it be?

Thought of the Day (Coakley v. Tragedy)

One thought has gripped my mind the entire day, and that is: what if Martha Coakley fails today and Scott P. Brown breaks the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority before HCR can pass?  Would the failure of one person to fill a traditionally Democratic seat on the heels of a weak campaign and observation of national holidays (she took Thanksgiving off instead of campaigning) lead to the failure of one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation in recent memory?

I hope not, otherwise there's a cottage in the middle of French wine-country in our future.

To bring (probably) a lot of you up to date, today's special election to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has gone to the wire with Republican Scott P. Brown pulling ahead of heavy Democratic favorite Martha Coakley in the fading hours before the vote.  Scott P. Brown not only falls largely lockstep with his Republican comrades in both obstructionism and social injustice, but his larger potential legacy is as being the deciding vote that provides Republicans with an unperturbed filibuster in the Healthcare Reform debate.  This could effectively kill the legislation that most have poured their heart and soul into for the past year.

I've been reading Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", the historical record of why the Iraq war was an example of American imperialism, documented before even history could unveil that fact.  Besides Chomsky's story of American greed, he also highlights the (proven) Republican tradition of rewarding the economic and political elite for their me-first atrocities against man.

My thought of the day is this: knowing that the general's involved in the Iraqi liberation front were given such lofty posts because of their involvement in numerous crimes-against-humanity (such as the dismantling of Nicaragua, the forging of alliances with Saddam Husein, and the Iran-contra affair), it is unfortunate that everyday voters cannot see that the current Republican line is built on such a legacy of economic elitism and violent disdain toward the free exercise of basic human and civil rights.

Read the book, it's a page turner.  That'll be $20.00 Mr. Chomsky.

What are your thoughts?  What does Coakley's (potential) defeat mean to our conception of progress?

How Long Have I Been Asleep? (The Crazies Don't Know About Too Soon Apparently)

Like Rip VanWinkel, I've arisen from my bed after a month of coma-ic rest and relaxation.  My sincerest apologies to all who rely on this blog for their news, not only because I've disappointed you with no posts, but because if you really get all your news info from me, then you need to read a paper.  Seriously, have you seen my articles?

Speaking of Republicans, Pat Robertson, the nations beacon of virtue and truth, claims that the Haiti earthquake befell those good people because they made a pact with the devil in Napoleonic times.  Thanks to John B for the article.

Two things: First, Mr. Robertson, well-known televangelist and host of the 700 club, has proven himself a welcome addition to Howard Stern's radio program with his record of attention mongering and blatantly disrespectful comments.  Second, kicking a country that's been brought to its knees is not only not-Christian, it's in human.  The plight faced by millions of people in that country is not a victory for any member of humankind, though some would like to spin it as a demonstration of God's divine and compassionate vengeance.  Well done Pat.

For information about how you can help with the relief effort, see the button in the right column under "Help in Haiti."  Please, keep these people in your thoughts and remember for at least one day how good it is to live in a home with loved ones and food in the pantry.