Michael Moore Takes the High Road

I read that Michael Moore gave $12,000 to one of his biggest detractors. He even tried to do it anonymously. It was a really good reminder to me that we're all people with feelings and generous impulses--even on the internet where sometimes things get a little too mean.

Thanks, Michael Moore, for showing some class. No one's hat is totally black or white and that's always worth remembering.

NY Times: Democrats Cause Global Warming!

According to a Saturday editorial in the New York Times, Democrats are causing global warming! Who'd have thought? According to the Times, "Energy-gluttonous cities account for three-fourths of greenhouse gas emissions the world over." Hmmm. Which party is it that controls and populates most of the big cities...

But seriously, I wonder if the Times meant to say "three-fourths of man made greenhouse gas emissions." I don't know if we have hard numbers, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases are naturally produced. (Even water vapor is a greenhouse gas.)

Who will fact check FactCheck?

I usually appreciate FactCheck.org's work in looking at the claims political candidates make. However, their latest report on the 2nd GOP presidential debate left me unsatisfied. It seemed to be sprinkled with an underlying viewpoint. Here are the two items in particular that bugged me.

Global Warming

During the debate Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado claimed that scientific studies were equally split on the existence of global warming and whether humans are responsible:

Tancredo: Okay. First of all, the whole issue of global warming, for every single scientist that tells you it's happening and that it's our fault — and they'll stack up to here in this reports — I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite.

Actually, we find that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is taking place and that human activity is predominantly to blame. Most recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), overseen jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, released a report representing the work of 600 authors from 40 countries and 113 government representatives, saying:

IPCC: The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.

Also, the National Research Council, chief adviser to the U.S. government on science and technology, issued its own report as far back as 2001 that reads:

NRC: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

It's true that there are dissenters to this consensus view. Among them are the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels, chief editor of the World Climate Report Blog, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. But the split is by no means 50-50 as Tancredo claimed.

It appears that FactCheck.org has put words into Tancredo's mouth. The "50-50" split was not part of Tancredo's answer. He simply said their was a stack of reports that took a different view. He made no claim about the relative size or number of those reports.

Furthermore, the studies that have shown that the majority of scientists agree with human-caused global warming have been cast in serious doubt. (I wish I could find the link where I read about the flaws in that study. Perhaps you know where it is.) I get the sense that most measurements support the thesis that the globe is warming but that there is little to no evidence that points to the origin of that warming. I think people are making educated guesses.

I read one scientist who was on the IPCC. He disagreed with the way the work was proceeding and so he quit, yet his name still appears on the report. How many others of the "600 authors" don't agree with all or part of the resulting IPCC report?

Ron Bailey, a reporter and CATO scholar, has documented a lot of popular environmental "disasters" of the past that never actually materialized. Reid Bryson, who predicted the existence of the jet stream before it was discovered and is regarded as a father of climate science in the United States, has expressed his doubts about the human origins of global warming.

Yes, it seems that most scientists do believe that humans play a major role in global warming, but that is not the same as saying that most of the science supports the same thesis. Yes, there are reports that argue the anthropogenic nature of global warming. But there are also reports that argue the opposite, just as Tancredo asserted.

Sorry FactCheck, you missed this one. In so doing, you seemed to be pressing an agenda rather than merely checking the facts.

Giuliani Misquotes Giuliani

Giuliani claimed questioner Chris Wallace had misquoted him as saying some moderate Republicans were being "fundamentally irresponsible" for demanding progress in Iraq by September:

Wallace: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies.

Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?

Giuliani: First of all, that isn't exactly what I said. I was talking about the timetable for retreat that the Democrats passed in Congress, in which they did something extraordinary and that I've never heard of in the history of war, which is to give your enemy a schedule of how a retreating army is going to retreat. That was irresponsible, highly irresponsible.

But what Giuliani actually said, in his May 13 interview on "Fox News Sunday," was this:

Wallace (May 13): Now you hear some Republicans saying September. We've got to know by then. So, what would you say to those people?

Giuliani: Anybody proposing giving the enemy a timetable of our retreat is proposing something that is fundamentally irresponsible.

The record is clear: Giuliani's use of the phrase "fundamentally irresponsible" was in response to a question about Republicans, not Democrats. He also criticized Democrats for proposing a 'timetable for retreat" in other portions of the May 13 interview, but not here.

This feels like an intentional misreading of Giuliani's original statement, which was precise. He said that "anybody" proposing timetables was irresponsible. His later paraphrase in the debate in plausibly in line with his first quote. If FactCheck can't read Giuliani's mind, then they have no choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is no factual blunder here unless you can show that Giuliani was talking about Republicans in his first quote. That would imply he was strictly answering the question he was asked by a reporter. We all know how rarely that happens. It seems more likely he was using that question to make a broader point about his foes, which is a common tactic used by politicians when they are interviewed by the press.

Smoke the Ratings

My eye rolling muscles are working overtime as I contemplate the new decision by the MPAA to push movies with smoking toward an R rating. As if the ratings weren't already useless enough, now we're going to slap an R rating on a movie when it features something that my kids see their friendly neighbor doing on his front porch? Oh, brother.

Tornadoes and the Guard

There has been much hand wringing about the shortage of equipment available in Kansas after the recent tornado because the national guard is "missing in action." Take Bob Aagard, a local blogger, for example.

However, the National Guard hasn't been involved in helping with some of the tornados in the midwest as they usually are.



It's because the troops and their equipment are in Iraq.

This is factually inaccurate based on the news reporting I heard on NPR, but it is an understandable misconception based on the way this natural disaster has been covered.



A head guy for the Kansas National Guard interviewed on NPR said that they have enough equipment for the current disaster. They are concerned about their capacity if they have another disaster. This is a legitimate concern, but is has clearly been misrepresented in the news.



The governor of Kansas came on in a subsequent interview and clarified that only 10% of Kansas guardsmen are overseas. 50% of their equipment is overseas. That is a lot of stuff that they are missing, but again, not as bad as we've been led to believe.



I heard a lot of complaints that Bush had failed to ask US citizens to sacrifice anything in the war against the terrorists. Why is that we must now complain when part of our sacrifice is made evident?



On a totally different point, I heard a few great personal stories from tornado survivors who recounted their blessings during the disaster. I'm so grateful for the good people of our country. We are so blessed.

Concerns about "Alternative Commencement"

I'll admit that I'm of two minds about the concept of an alternative commencement like the one recently staged for BYU grads. I'm in support of diverse opinions being expressed and I supported in spirit the students who wanted to protest against Vice President Cheney. I disagreed with them in substance, but I appreciated the fact that discussions were spurred that otherwise might not have happened.



I'm also pleased to see people taking initiative to organize events and make things happen. The student organizers were able to line up a slate of speakers that was swooned over by the some on the left.



My problem with the event was the presumptuousness of it. I read in one account that people were wearing caps and gowns. If that report is accurate, they were literally staging a fake commencement. There can be no "alternate" that is not sanctioned by the university because students don't have the power to grant themselves degrees. Nor do they have power to honor themselves. So in that sense, any alternative commencement is a sham and a fraud.



Of course, commencements mean less these days than they used to. I know that the commencement is not the place where you actually pick up your diploma. There is a separate event for that for each college within the university. Many students forgo commencement altogether; I did. I'm told that it used to be relatively mandatory. Knowing that times have changed, maybe the "fraudulentness" of an alternative commencement is less severe now that it was in the past. Even so, I wish the event had been framed as a commencement enhancement rather than an alternate.

Satan at the Convention

I'm a county delegate for my Republican precinct, and it's convention season--the Utah County Republican Convention is this Saturday April 28. In the mail today I got the information about the convention--when to be there, what's on the agenda, the proposed changes to the county platform, etc. Included in the envelope was a proposed resolution to be debated ("10 minutes total") and voted on at the convention. The title at the top fairly demanded that the entire resolution be read (the full text of the resolution is at the bottom of the post):

Resolution opposing Satan's plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Well! I'm definitely against Satan destroying the United States. (I imagine most people feel the same way.) But how is Satan scheming to invade the country?

Whereas, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)

Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his “New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.

I don't like illegal immigration. I think it is dangerous for both the immigrants (not only the dangerous passage past our borders, but the exploitation by unscrupulous businesses, among other things) and the country (at a minimum, having an influx of people here because they broke the law is bad for the "rule of law"). I really doubt the illegal immigration problem will be helped, however, by attributing to Satan the actions of (mostly) well-meaning people looking for a better way of life.

The addition of the biblical scripture is disconcerting as well. The Book of Revelation is full of imagery, allusion, and poetic metaphor (dragons, anyone?) that I would be careful making dogmatic statements concerning it in a church class, much less a political venue.

Whereas, it is obvious that most promoters of massive immigration and open borders do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity, sovereignty, our Christian culture and freedom. Many consider themselves cosmopolitans or world citizens. Their religion is atheistic humanism. They are found primarily among the elite of foundations, universities, big business, left-wing politicians, Hollywood, ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union), CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the American power elite and the liberal media. They prefer a world without borders ruled by a one world tyrannical government.

I don't think that it is helpful to generalize all opponents to a tougher immigration standard to people who "do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity," etc. Lumping those same people in with Satan and his minions is even more distasteful. Although I'm fairly right-leaning on the immigration issue, I can actually understand the perspective of those on the other side. I truly believe that most on the "amnesty, open-border" side truly want to help. We just have different ideas of what, exactly, will help the most. And, although I have to admit the "Anti-Christian Lawyers Union" jab made me chuckle, such name-calling in a public, political document to be endorsed by the delegates is inappropriate.

Now therefore, because we support the “Rule of Law,” the Constitution and the principals [sic] that made America the greatest and freest nation in history, the Utah County Republican Party supports the closing of our national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.

Submitted by: Don Larsen, District 65 Chairman

I support better enforcement of our immigration laws. But there is no way I can vote for this resolution. I think the inflammatory language, the rhetoric, and the over-the-top discussion of the devil are, in the least, inappropriate in a political document and, at the worst, a dangerous precedent to follow in our political system.

(full text of resolution below)

Resolution opposing Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Whereas, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)
Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his “New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.
Whereas, Americans will have to make a choice: either close our borders to illegal immigration, which is now vastly greater than any time in the past, or witness the passing country [sic]. The proof of this statement is the record of history. It is a history littered with the gravestones of great nations and civilizations which allowed invaders to overrun them. If we fail to learn from the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them.
Whereas, all polls show that the American people overwhelmingly want limited immigration, reform and control of our borders as mandated by the Constitution. But many do not realize the extent of the dangers ahead because of the lack of accurate media coverage and public debate. An important reason for the lack of understanding is that the powerful commercial, political, ethnic, and the godless globalist elites who control the major media do not want the issues of illegal immigration to come to national attention.
Whereas, it is obvious that most promoters of massive immigration and open borders do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity, sovereignty, our Christian culture and freedom. Many consider themselves cosmopolitans or world citizens. Their religion is atheistic humanism. They are found primarily among the elite of foundations, universities, big business, left-wing politicians, Hollywood, ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union [sic]), CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the American power elite and the liberal media. They prefer a world without borders ruled by a one world tyrannical government.
Whereas, we cannot benefit the world by eliminating our borders and sovereignty as advocated by Satan’s “axis of evil”, if we do, the world will pull us down to its lowest common level and we will have committed national suicide. In that case, the U.S. will no longer be a free and prosperous land or light of liberty for all nations. Once he has destroyed the U.S., Satan will be able to establish his “Satanic New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people.
Whereas, the national security and the future of the nation and the American people depends upon how well we do our job and defend our borders. We must control our borders to illegal immigration, have a well regulated temporary worker program, as needed, or face extinction. The destruction of the U.S. by the forces of evil is a top priority of Satan.
Now therefore, we (delegates) are obligated to support the Utah State and Utah County Republicans Platforms regarding the mandates to support the “Rule of Law” and the Constitutional mandate to protect and secure our national borders.
Now therefore, because we support the “Rule of Law,” the Constitution and the principals that made America the greatest and freest nation in history, the Utah County Republican Party supports the closing of our national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.

Submitted by: Don Larsen, District 65 Chairman

Go Gwen!

Gwen Ifill was a guest on Meet the Press this week. The reporters' roundtable was supposed to cover three different topics, but the first topic, the Don Imus firing, occupied the entire time. As I watched the show, I could almost see the fire dancing behind Gwen's eyes, even while she maintained her graceful and professional composure.

Tim Russert was hosting the show as usual. His guests were David Brooks, Gwen Ifill, John Harwood, and Eugene Robinson.

Ifill has apparently had enough of the hypocrisy of people condemning Imus now who once appeared on his show--a show where Imus has always made the same sorts of incendiary remarks. She specifically calls out two of her fellow panelists.

There’s been radio silence from a lot of people who’ve done this program who could’ve spoken up and said, “I find this offensive” or “I didn’t know.” These people didn’t speak up.

Tim, we didn’t hear that much from you.

David, we didn’t hear from you.

What was missing in this debate was someone saying, “You know, I understand that this is offensive.” ...people will say, “I didn’t know,” or people will say, “I wasn’t listening.” A lot of people did know, and a lot of people were listening, and they just decided it was OK. They decided this culture of meanness was fine until they got caught. My concern about Mr. Imus and a lot of people and, and a lot of the debate in the society is not that people are sorry that they say these things. They’re sorry that someone catches them.

...David’s right, about the culture of meanness, about the culture of racial complaint, about the internal culture in our community, about the way we talk to one another. But this week, just this week, it was finally saying “Enough.”

Ifill is a lady in every way. No shouting or demeaning. She just pointed out that her colleagues have tried to play both sides. They appear on Imus's show and then try to distance themselves from the things that go on immediately before and immediately after their appearance.

I concur with Gwen Ifill. A heck of a lot of people had an opportunity to ignore Imus. They failed to insist on a culture of civility and kindness. They are complicit in his public offenses.

I don't endorse a culture that polices thought that speech with external forces. (I am soooooo grateful for the 1st amendment protections we enjoy in this country.) I endorse a culture that encourages self control. I hope for a culture that refuses to support hateful speech. We can allow people to saw those things, but we don't have to support or subsidize them.

"Join in the national healing"?

At the top of CNN.com this afternoon, a blue banner read: "Watch Now>>Virginia Tech convocation. Join in the national healing."

I hope I can explain why this rubbed me the wrong way without offending anyone touched by this tragedy. Make no mistake, this is a terrible tragedy. I feel shocked and sickened just thinking about it.

But my life isn't changed in any measurable way by these events. I don't think I need healing.

The "nation" certainly does need "healing". However, I'm pretty sure that healing will not be brought about by the small measure of comfort afforded by mourning with those that mourn. The healing our nation needs will come about through changes in the individual, not by passively listening in on a memorial.

In a way, it seems to me that this attitude broadens the grief surrounding the killings so much as to almost dispel it. To compare the tinge of sadness felt by Holly Housewife in Spanish Fork, Utah to the gaping hole of wrenching grief felt by those who truly NEED healing--victims, families, students, alumni--is just wrong.

Allowing the general public to watch the Virginia Tech memorial for free is a wonderful thing for CNN to have done. Calling it a "national healing", however, is a bit much.

Hatch for AG; Urquhart for Senate

There has been chatter that Orrin Hatch might be appointed to replace Gonzales as Attorney General if Gonzales resigns. While I doubt a Hatch appointment is in the offing, I can see a really cool side effect. Steve Urquhart could be appointed to fill Hatch's seat in the United States Senate. I was disappointed when Steve dropped out of the running for that seat and I ended up voting for Ashdown.

This Makes Me Want to Quit the GOP

Pete du Pont writes for OpinionJournal.com

In the Bush years, the Republican Congress has spent like liberals. Federal spending is now $23,000 per household, a $7,000 increase in the past five years. There has been an annual 7.7% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, and the number of earmarks is up 57%.

In the past two years there have been four Republican congressional scandals (DeLay, Cunningham, Ney and Foley), and only one Democratic one (William Jefferson). So by last fall the national approval rating of the Republican Congress had fallen to 30%, resulting in a loss of six Senate and 27 House seats on Election Day, costing Republicans control of both Houses of Congress.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around that 23,000 number. That doesn't leave much room for anyone to argue that the rich and businesses aren't paying their fair share, does it? There's no way my household is putting anywhere close that much into the federal government.

We need preference choice voting so that we can vote for less popular candidates that reflect our views without casting a de facto vote for the person we like the least.

Hyper-partisanship Comes Back to Bite Global Warming Alarmists

People who care about global warming should start an immediate campaign to end hyper-partisanship in national politics and encourage civil debate. A culture has been fostered that encourages the demonizing of one's political opponents. If an "evil" person makes a valid point, many are still loathe to recognize it as such for fear of granting credibility to an enemy.

If you believe that global warming is a man-made disaster that will destroy our planet and way of life, you have an obligation to cease and desist from hyper-partisanship. The old saying is true that you attract a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.

Tim Thorstenson recently commented about the problem with accepting or rejecting alleged facts about climate because they are moral or immoral. Facts, he argues, have no moral component. We use our moral lens to help us interpret and act on facts, not to determine the verity of a factual assertion.

If global warming is a problem that we have power to address (which I doubt), then we should makes laws to address the problem. If the good of arresting global warming outweighs the bad caused to people in the developing world (which I doubt), then we should act.

If you treat me as the spawn of Satan for contesting your assertions, you lose the ability to persuade me. And if you think global warming is a looming Armageddon, it is in your best interest to persuade me rather than demean me.

Ken Burns at BYU

I attended the BYU Forum address (and the following Q&A session) by famed documentarian Ken Burns yesterday. He exceeded every expectation. BYU was not, unfortunately, able to broadcast the forum because Burns showed clips from an upcoming documentary on WWII that will not be released until this fall. I'm bummed, because I was hoping to link to some video clips of the event here. Maybe in September.

He told us how he had actively resisted efforts over the years to get him to do another war documentary after the smashing success of his Civil War film. He talked to us about the emotional difficulty of spending years involved in the study of something so terrible as war. But he finally felt compelled to approach this topic because he recognized that it would be criminal to let the thousands of veterans die before their story could be told.

In the Q&A session, Burns clarified his point a bit. It wasn't that there were not enough documentaries on WWII. He seemed to indicate a distaste for the History Channel's approach to the war. Too many swastikas everywhere you turned and not enough of the human story of the war. Burns set out to make a "bottom up" documentary that focused on the lives of the people rather than the affairs of the generals and presidents.

Burns claimed that WWII was not "the good war" but "the necessary war."

This is the point that seems to escape so many people who oppose our contemporary military conflicts. They see war not as a necessary evil, but as an absolute evil. In my view, war is a yucky, horrible thing. I look forward to the reign of the Prince of Peace when all war will end. But until that time comes, it simply will not do to allow evil men to rampage unmolested simply because we demand "peace." Peace at any price is not peace, but prison.

Burns told us that there is a sizable portion of the graduating high school seniors in our country that believe that we fought in WWII alongside the Germans against the Soviets. Many people are going to see films like "Saving Private Ryan" and are feeling the powerful emotion of the event without understanding the greater significance. Why were they landing on that beach? What was the strategy? What were the goals? Did it work?

He acknowledged that it is impossible to tell a story without any bias. He hopes that as he tells a story that he paints a fair picture that conveys the emotion he feels about the subject. I can tell you that the clips of the documentary that he showed certainly conveyed powerful emotions. It will be interesting to see how he lives up to his stated goal of also placing the events in the larger picture while being true to his bottom-up approach.

One person raised the question during the Q&A session about the exclusion of Latinos in the upcoming documentary. The question was asked in respect and Burns responded in kind. He didn't duck the issue at all, but provided a very compelling answer that I probably can't do justice in summary. In essence, he explained that he was trying to tell individual stories rather than provide a "phone book" treatment of the war. They chose, essentially at random, four cities and put out the call to veterans. They didn't seek out individuals, but put out the word that they were in town and took all comers. They did hundreds of on-camera interviews, only a fraction of which could be used in the film. They obviously couldn't use footage of people who didn't show up. He pointed out that other important segments were also underrepresented in the film, like sailors, submariners, and so forth. He decided that he must be doing a good job if he can make a 14 hour movie and still get complaints it isn't long enough. :)

Interestingly, there are about 100 other documentaries in production that are meant to springboard off the release of Burns's film. They will be aired in local markets and focus on the local population of WWII veterans. In this aspect, it looks like the film will succeed in creating a lot of dialog rather than being a soliloquy. Burns also hopes these other, local films will help fill in the gaps in coverage that people have already noted about his upcoming film.

I hope that you will watch the new documentary when it comes out on PBS this fall. In the meantime, you might check out two podcasts from the San Francisco Chronicle which feature an interview with Burns. I haven't listened to them myself yet, but they are now on my list!

Leisure Redistribution?

An article by Steven E Landsburg on Slate Magazine looks at the gap in number of leisure hours between the rich and the poor. Poorly paid workers have far more leisure hours than highly paid workers. While this is an interesting concept, the final paragraph really caught my attention:

Second, a certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing—usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years—say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

Forcing people to pay more in taxes is one thing, but forcing people to work for free (slave labor?) is quite another. Or is it? By taking away a percentage of the money the marketplace is willing to pay someone for their work--higher taxes for higher salaries--aren't we essentially forcing them to work some number of hours for free? Is it really that different?

Help the Kids at Primary Children's

Yesterday and today is the KSL Radiothon to raise money for Primary Children's Medical Center. I hope that you will consider making a donation to this wonderful facility.

My little boy, now two and a half months old, was born with spina bifida. He is doing great thanks to a generous Heavenly Father and His helpers on earth: the doctors, nurses, and staff at Primary Children's Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital. The people at both hospitals were truly wonderful to us. It is hard to imagine how difficult it must be to deal with so many people at the most distressing times of their lives. Yet they treated my boy with compassion and competence.

In our visits to the hospital, a quick survey of the waiting room makes it fairly obvious that we're not dealing with lots of affluent people. Good medical help isn't cheap. But no one is turned away. It sounds like generous contributions from the community make this possible. I hope you can join in to help those kids without the means to help themselves.