Elders and Debtors

Posted by Jason Ibrahim

In a story aired Friday by WTAJ, Cambria County's economic planners boldly reasserted their intent to stay in the nursing home business with Laurel Crest. This is in sharp contrast with Blair County's Tomassetti, et al, who are still deciding how best to nurse the ailing Valley View Home back to fiscal health.

WTAJ's Sean Dreher notes that Cambria's Commissioners "said they are still committed to serving the county's elderly", but I wonder if there's any possibility that selling off the home would be the best act of service. It's true that the President Commissioner P.J. Stevens assures us the residents "would have difficulty receiving care in a private facility", but there are a couple reasons I'm skeptical:

1. Remember that Stevens is not just wearing his "county commissioner" hat at this time, but also fighting for the county's cashflow. As Dreher reminds us, "Every additional resident means more revenue for the county."
2. The commissioners have shown an inability to run this business thus far. Much about this story suggests the commissioners have an unhealthy streak of idealism in them. Namely, the need to "apply for a $6 million loan just to stay in the black" that has apparently not tempered Commissioner Gjurich's unrestrained enthusiasm for the current management; and the hoped-for 28% increase in population that (presumably) will act as a shot in the arm for the anemic healthcare provider.
3. As with all government forays into industry, while private businesses are subject to the laws of sink or swim, it's virtually impossible to punish mismanagement in a publicly-held property like Laurel Crest. It's true that the commissioners are elected officials, but seriously, this is Jack Murtha country: will enough people remember this issue when Election Day comes around?

Now you know my opinion. What do you think?

Disclaimer: The views presented here do not necessarily represent ILoveAltoona.com, its owners or advertisers.

City-Wide Construction

By Jeff Neff

Recently, I attended an Altoona City Council meeting where big plans were discussed for Altoona's transportation system during a presentation by Karl King of the Allegheny Ridge Corp. In case you haven't heard of the 2010 Campaign for Active Transportation (CAT), I would like to share with you what I learned about this project coming to Altoona.

The 2010 CAT is a national initiative that is federally funded under two programs called the SAFETEA-LU and Transportation Enhancements. The purpose of the initiative is to create better walking and biking routes in Altoona, as an alternative to driving everywhere. This will mean that Altoona's infrastructure may look very different five years from now.

Some council members mentioned how unsafe, and sometimes illegal, it is to try to cross the busy Plank Road. This project will create pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and thruways for commuters who choose not to drive throughout the city.

By the tone of the conversation and affirmation of some council members at that meeting, it sounded as though the 2010 CAT project will go through.

Now for some pros and cons. The downside to this project could be both short-term and long-term. For the short, the entire city would seem to be under construction for a while with temporary problems which may cause costly satellite projects to be started within the city. But my main concern would be the funding issue. If this expensive program isn't fully funded by the feds (read the fine print), then Altoona residents could face a mountain of bills.

What about pork? I would disagree with someone who claims this to be an unnecessary program because upgrades to infrastructure can save an enormous amount of money and congestion. Even if Altoona declines the offer, the project will be directed to another city. Let's just hope that federal funding pulls through.

When it is all said and done, Altoona will increase in population (and tax base), which could give opportunity for decreased taxes and a better transportation system. But, if city officials even hint that a tax increase may be needed due to this initiative: watch out.

It would be nice to see this project happen as long as Altoona's financial needs are met with compliance by the above programs.

Depending on the time line of events, this may be a good ballot question for the next local election. I only have a limited knowledge on this, so I suggest that you please look into the 2010 Campaign for Active Transportation for yourself or ask a Council Member about it.

- Jeff

Expulsion and Revulsion

Posted by Jason Ibrahim

A little over two weeks ago, the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was released on DVD to furious criticism. The film--which has inspired the uniform ire of self-styled freethinkers and nonconformists everywhere--makes the bold assertion that the scientific community needs to apply its principles of free inquiry and unbiased review to the evolution/intelligent design debate. For this act of heterodoxy, groups of no less esteem than the National Center for Science Education have turned their weapons on their fellow scientists, waging a friendly fire war that is, at best, counterproductive.

Possibly one of the most controversial claims the movie makes is in linking twentieth century eugenics theory--which applies breeding and stock principles to human reproduction--to Planned Parenthood, the worldwide healthcare services provider. Cinematically, Expelled's directors choose to make these claims via the narrator (Ben Stein's) voice over footage of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger. I think this was a good idea for a couple different reasons, but there is still some truly embarrassing history to be found in Planned Parenthood's--and Sanger's--past.

Although widely condemned as a racist, the term far from does justice to her complex views on the subject. It is true that she wrote that "the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." It is also true that she was on friendly terms with chapters of the KKK and Nazi party, but these are merely parentheses in her greater eugenics philosophy.

In an ode to the Social Darwinism so prevalent at the time, Sanger wrote,

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization.

Regarding racial policy, here's one of the most common Sanger quotes regarding African-Americans: "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." According to Planned Parenthood, this quote was merely taken out of context, and a larger quote they provide indicates that she was trying to dispel the myth that they are trying to "exterminate the Negro population." Unfortunately, this passage is not independently verifiable, and is in fact refuted by a couple different sources. Sympathetic histories of the birth control movement render the extended quote as follows:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Perhaps you're saying, "All of that took place almost a hundred years ago! That's water under the bridge. Planned Parenthood is now about the business of empowering women, especially minorities." Sadly, Planned Parenthood hasn't strayed too far from their founder. In a series of widely publicized incidents, Planned Parenthood representatives from across the country gladly agreed to accept money from donors with racist intentions. The abortion provider has also done what they could to illegally loosen up the age restrictions put in place by their elected officials.

Regrettably, Planned Parenthood has not done anything to eradicate the eugenics philosophy of its founder. They have subdued it, hidden it and even justified it--anything but repudiate it. It seems ironic that the Democrats (and even many Republicans) work so hard to earn their endorsement when they would spurn endorsements from other odious groups like the KKK and Nazi Party. The real question, I think, is not why this information was omitted from Expelled, but why we as Americans are willing to give Planned Parenthood a pass, while other groups get the disdain they so richly deserve.

Disclaimer: The views represented here do not necessarily represent those of ILoveAltoona.com, its owners or its advertisers.

The Mendacity of Hope

By Jason Ibrahim

mendacity: (noun) 1. the quality of being mendacious; untruthfulness; tendency to lie. 2. an instance of lying; falsehood.

In U.S. history, we will look back upon 2008 as the year we saw the first African American run for president on a major party's ticket. This is no small feat, since this would have been implausible 50 years ago. In Barack Obama's second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, he begins making a case for himself as president. The book is very well written, makes careful arguments, and poses thoughtful questions. Read merely as a work of political theory, it is very commendable.

Unfortunately, Obama's opponents have ample reason to work for his defeat. For all of his high-sounding rhetoric, the man has a complete lack of executive experience. He has never been in a position that required him to balance a large organization's budget, or receive competing opinions and then choose one, taking the full responsibility of that decision on himself. People will often point to Sarah Palin's so-called "inexperience", but the invaluable work that she did as mayor and governor are substantially better preparation than Obama's terms as state or U.S. Senator.

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama spends scant time on the abortion issue. For those who have studied this man's career, this is ironic to say the least. He has a long record of voting on abortion measures and speaking about the issue before groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. His sympathetic self-portrait glosses over a 100% approval rating from these abortion special interest groups, and a record of never--never--seeing any reason to ever restrict a woman's so-called "constitutional right" to an abortion. In fact, he opposed the Infant Born-Alive Act on three separate occasions; this measure decrees that a child who survives an unsuccessful abortion attempt should receive life-saving treatment from the medical staff which had just been trying to kill him or her. His voting record is in direct contrast to the reasonable, nuanced impression the book presents.

In fact, while the entire book paints the picture of a man who keenly senses both sides of the problems facing this nation, the reality is very different. Congressional Monthly's study of Senator Obama's voting record shows him voting along party lines 96 percent of the time--in contrast to Senator McCain's 86 percent party-line vote over a 22 year period. Mr. Obama is a thoroughgoing liberal in moderate's clothing.

A couple different people have made the point recently that we know more about Joe the Plumber's personal life than we do about Obama's--in spite of the fact that Obama has been running for the presidency for going on 2 years, and Joe rose to stardom in the last couple months. From his political coming-out party at the home of strident terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, to his hush-hush keynote speech about Rashid Khalidi, Senator Obama has become surprisingly tight-lipped about his circle of friends. This secrecy hasn't always been the norm--his 1995 work, Dreams from My Father, recounts his radical, communist associations in college and beyond.

Many in the Republican party seem to have found their champion in John McCain. In contrast, conservatives regard him, at best, as a stop-gap measure to prevent Obama's media-orchestrated ascendancy to the throne...er, Oval Office. The Democrats have been loudly sounding the drum about McCain being much like George W. Bush, and I think they have a point, but that's no reason to sign on to any change for change's sake. The devil you know is still better than the devil you don't. Also, McCain will almost definitely grow the size of government; his performance in the bailout bill fiasco shows that. Granted, he wants to grow Washington at a linear rate, but contrasted with Obama exponential aspirations, McCain almost looks Spartan.

We also have reasons to vote for McCain and not just against Obama. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate not only electrified the party's conservative base, it also showed how much venom the feminist wing of the Democratic party could expend on one of its own. The McCain-Palin team's combined wealth of experience and ability will bring a confident, steady hand to the White House.

John McCain is no stranger to courage--his four years as a prisoner of war, and the valuable lessons he learned, have definitely earned him his stripes. His time spent at the mercy of an oppressive regime has surely clarified the wages of victory versus defeat in the War on Terror, a clarity that his opponent seems to have in short supply.

When the Republican primary narrowed to John McCain, I had my doubts. I questioned the validity of voting for a moderate with a good abortion record, but meager conservative principles. I thought the Republican party could use some time in the political desert to underscore the difference between McCain's attempt and a true reincarnation of the Reagan Revolution. While all of that may be true, we have too much at stake to vent those frustrations right now. We are faced with a man who has basically invalidated the oath he would take if elected by the people, and anything within reason and ethics must be done to prevent his election.

We are also faced with the most pro-abortion major candidate for president in U.S. history. Any politician--I don't care how good his health plan is--who not only consents to, but celebrates, the systematic homicide of 4000 human beings each day, sacrificed at the altar of convenience, is not fit to be president. This applies especially to socialists-turned-rhetoricians masquerading as statesmen.

So please, I urge you, go out there Tuesday and vote for John McCain. If you live in Pennsylvania especially, urge your friends to do the same.

Disclaimer: The views represented here do not necessarily represent those of ILoveAltoona.com, its owners or its advertisers.