In a recent Yahoo news article U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland called the United States stingy in its relief aid. Of course the MSM loves this story because they get to blame America first for all of the ills in the world.

Captain's Quarter puts the claim of stinginess to rest by reporting on the actual contributions of each nation in the effort to the clean up Asia after the tsunami disaster.

It was the final paragraph of the article that illustrates the true bias of the MSM.

Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.

The first thing I wanted to know was how much money the US gave in real dollars versus Norway. After going to the CIA's web site to find out the GDP of both countries we find out that the Norway government gave $1.5 billion dollars in aid. The United States gave over $15 billion dollars in aid. Even though we give a smaller percentage of GDP, we are giving ten times the money.

My next step was to search the web to find out how much private donations Americans gives to foreign countries. In my search I came across a compelling article by the Hudson Institute from 2003.

The main thrust of the article points to the ridiculousness of counting only government aid when looking at a countries generosity. It overlooks all of the contributions that are made from private sources. This is important because countries that give a greater portion of the GDP give very little in private donations. On the other hand the United States gives many times more in private donations than government aid.

The only difficulty in determining the amount of private cheddar going tp foreign aid. The article outlines some of the sources for private aid to foreign countries.

• Church donations go to fund many world wide efforts for helping feed and clothe people. It is difficult to track down how much is actually donated.
• Business's set up foundations to provide aid to countries around the world. As companies become more international they also provide help to the local areas where they operate.
• Another source of foreign aid is the growing amount of investment capital that is going to other countries to help develop entrepreneurial spirit in underdeveloped countries
• University provide billions of dollars in aid for students who wish to come to the United States to study.
• Another statistic that is not covered is the remittance returned to families in foreign countries. The United States provide much greater remittance than any other country in the world. Heck it is the number two source of revenue for Mexico.
• Also not counted is the amount of research and development that trickles down to third world countries in the form of better medicine, better methods for raising crops, and other technological advances that can help developing countries accelerate growth.

At first glance, America does look stingy compared to other countries, but once you start to do research on the subject you find that America is by far the most generous nation in the world. We just provide it in true American spirit. Not through the government but through private entrepreneurial initiatives. The information I researched could have easily been discovered by the writer of the article, but he would rather blame American than tell the whole story.

NOTE: I also found an article from Tech Central Station that outlines $34 Billion dollars that are sent overseas from private sources in the US.

The Courier Journal reported that the Kentucky Board of Elections, faced with a court order, unanimously certified Democrat Virginia Woodward the winner of the disputed State Senate race in Louisville.

David Williams, the Republican Senate leader, stated that no one will be sworn in for the senate seat until the contest procedure is complete.

Under Kentucky law, the Senate clerk will randomly draw senators to serve on the special committee to hear the challenge. The special committee will make a recommendation after hearing the case. If the Senate can not decide which candidate to seat, Williams said he would call for a special election.

Unlike the Washington Governors race, I hope that Stephenson, the one who received the most votes, is actually seated as the state senator. If that is not possible, then there needs to be a special election to fill the vacancy. The people and not the courts should determine who our elected officials are.

The quote of the day comes from Tony Blankley writing in the Washington Times about the importance of the American publics solid leadership in the current World.

In the face of an insurgent, violent, radical Islam, a solid majority of the American public does not intend to yield an inch. In a storm-tossed sea, the American public is a rock. It is more than a rock. It is the rock on which civilization will make its stand. Americans are standing upright, their strong arms uplifted against the barbarians.

I want to wish everyone a safe and joyful Christmas this year.

I would also like to ask people to take time from their holiday fun to say a special prayer for our troops abroad who are separated from loved ones this holiday season.

One of my favorite economists, Walter Williams, has anice column on taxreform in the Washington Times. In the piece he illuminates one of the keyproblems of the current tax system.

Another benefit of a national sales tax is that being taxed 23 percent to 30percent with every purchase we become more aware of the cost of government.Income taxes and corporate taxes conceal that cost.

The real problem with our current tax system is that we are not directly awareof how much we are really paying into the tax system. We see only part of iton our paycheck stubs, but since we never have the money we don't reallynotice it missing.

One of the great snow jobs brought on by the Democratic party was the conceptof withholdings from paychecks. This way people never really get to see whatthey are paying to the government. What I propose is an even simpler methodof tax reform than those proposed by Walter Williams. I want to Get ridof withholdings from paychecks.

This would mean that monthly you write a checks for hundreds of dollars intaxes to the government. Make sure there is no direct deposit system and itwon't take long before people are clamoring for tax relief. There is no waypeople will want to write out checks for a third of their salary every monthand send it to the government. The outrage generated will be real andpoliticians will have no choice but to acquiesce. It is a simpleidea, but one I believe would be effective.

In adeveloping story in Washington , it seems that the KGB Democratic Partyhas recounted themselves to an 8 vote victory in the Gubernatorial race.I wonder if the Democrats flew in the same consultants Putin sent tothe Ukraine to help count votes?

Sadly, this appears to be the modus operandi for the new slash and burnDemocrats. They were originally hoping to sharpen their horns on the presidential race. Since Bush won handily, they are left with trying tosteal the Washington governorship.

To read more about this disturbing development check out Sound Politics.

The three officials cited varying reasons for their switch, includingconflicts with national Democrats on such issues as abortion, gunsand taxes, and said the GOP better represents their moral andeconomic values.

"It certainly doesn't reflect my personal beliefs," Shelby CountyAttorney Chuck Hickman said of the Democratic Party, which he hadbeen a member of for 24 years.

In addition the chairman of the Democratic party in Shellby County stepped down in protest over the direction of the national Democraticparty.

And thus Kentucky continues its slow realignment to the Republican partyafter decades of Democratic rule. This isn't surprising. The rural membersof the Democratic party in Kentucky are very conservative. And as the Republicans continue to gain more momentum in the state, we will probablysee a lot more people crossing over.

The Courier Journalreported yesterday that Jefferson Circuit Judge Stephen Ryan lifted hisrestraining order blocking the local government from enforcing a new ordinanceregulating strip clubs. This ordinance will undoubtedly make strip clubsan endangered business in Louisville.

How will this new ordinance eliminate strip clubs? By imposing aset of regulations that will undoubtedly dry up the customer base. Makingit unprofitable to operate these clubs and thus causing them to closedown. Some of the draconian restrictions include:

• Strippers must wear a minimum of g-strings and pasties to eliminate nudity
• Must be a six foot buffer between patrons and entertainers
• Tipping can only be done through a jar at the edge of the stage
• Strip clubs must close at 1:00 am
• Strip club's alcohol licenses will not be renewed when the expire
• Strip club's must also apply for $1,000 annual adult entertainment license

This is a difficult issue for a conservative such as myself to address. Ibelieve this country is suffering from moral decay. I also believe it isthe city's right to define laws for community standards as longs as theydon't supersede the constitution. In this instance, the ordinance does notnullify any part of the constitution and thus is well within the legalbounds of local government. But, as a conservative, I need to look globallyto all of the effects of this law.

This ordinance will not eliminate stripping. It will just move strippersfrom performing in legal well regulated facilities to closed privateparties. These private affairs are not only more dangerous to the girlsstripping, but will inevitably lead to more instances of prostitution.

In addition, the closing of these businesses will have a negative impacton the local economy. Stripping in its pure economic form is an issue ofproductivity gains from provision of a services. The easier it is for thegirls to collect money from striping, the greater the wealth created.By eliminating a source of productivity, the local economies wealthwill be lowered along with everyone's standard of living. We can understandthis loss by visualizing all of the goods which will not by purchaseddue to the dearth of wealth eliminated by the artificial closing of aprofitable industry. By lowering the standard of living, the city opensup a new set problems associated with the reduction of its citizen'spurchasing power.

For me it is personally frustrating to watch local governmentsartificially destroy profitable companies that are legally operating.Similar to the smoking ban in Lexington, at least one company will beput out of business by this law. As a small business owner myself, I haveto wonder if they will be coming after me next. I doubt they will, butyou never know.

I am sure the main driving force behind this initiative was the improvementof the communities moral fiber. But what is the moral gain? A strip club isnot much different from watching any of the R rated movie on latenight cable. The only difference between the two is that strip clubs allowa small amount of heavily regulated touching between the patrons and thestrippers.

The people who go to strip clubs will find other outlets for theirpornographic needs. Cable, movies, magazines, and the Internetare just some of the options where pornography is both easy and cheap toacquire.

I also doubt that closing strip clubs will lower crime rates or reducedrug usage. Hardened criminals will not be daunted by the closing of astrip club they attend. So what is gained? An immeasurable win against theforces of cultural decay?

Is stripping even a sin? This is truly an interesting question. It is easyto define prostitution as a sin and the bible makes reference to thewickedness of prostitution. But stripping is not prostitution. It is muchcloser to theatre than prostitution. The only argument I can come up withfor it being a sin is that it incites lust in those who patronize the shows.Is inciting lust a sin? I don't have an answer.

The bottom line is I believe cities should be allowed to determine what ismorally allowed within the city as long as constitutional rights arenot abridged. In this case I don't question the city's right. I questionthe judgement of pressing this issue when the city's police department'sresources might be better spent on more pressing issues like the war ondrugs. Drugs have a demonstrable history of causing dramatic increasesin crime rates, and I would be willing to bet that the rising murder rate inLouisville is much more closely related to drug dealing than strip clubs.

My opinion on this issue is a similar to my global warming stance. It isusually better to fight the truly important issues instead of wasting timeand energy dealing with issues that inflict great costs with little gained.It seems to me that fighting the growing drug problems would be a betteruse of time and money instead of putting a legal industry which mightbe immoral out of business.

Recently, I have seen a number of articles that have harshly criticized theUnited States for not signing the Kyoto treaty. The main stream media hasleaped on this story as a way to criticize the nasty Republicans for wanting todestroy the environment. Unfortunately, we need to turn to two stories fromforeign sources (one from Australia and one from England) to learn the truth about the Kyoto treaty.

These articles help to explain not only the questionable science of globalwarming, but the economic stupidity of following the Kyoto treaty. First, wewill examine the science and then turn to the economical effects of followingthe science.

The chicken little scientists that are warning us about global warmingstate that the rising temperatures are because man is releasing too much CO2into the atmosphere which is leading to higher temperatures that willendanger the world. Cue the scary music. What better way forthe scientists to secure continued funding for your studies than to claimthe sky is falling. The reality of climate change is that it is a natural process. Throughout the history of the planet, the temperatures have cyclically risen and fallen. Evidence of large temperature changes can befound between the various Ice Ages that have occurred. We don't even have toreach back hundreds of thousands of years to find recorded instances where theaverage temperature was much higher than it is today. These recordedtemperatures happened well before man started burning fossil fuels.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that humans do effect globaltemperatures. What would the Kyoto agreement do to turn the tide? Very little.

Even if everyone (including the United States) did Kyoto and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming by just six years in 2100.

What would be the economic cost of doing very little? Basic economicstell us that new wealth is created by increases in productivity. One of thekey ingredients in increasing productivity is the consumption of energy. Toartificially limit the consumption of energy we are reducing productivityand thus reducing the wealth of all. The estimated cost of compliancewith the Kyoto protocol is 150 billion dollars a year. That is money thatcould better be spent increasing productivity which will lead to higher standards of living. Increasing standards of living would be the mosteffective way to reduce hunger, disease, and promote education andenvironmental policies. For evidence look at the conditions of the countries with the highestper capita income versus nations with the lowest per capita income to see thestark differences.

The most abominable part of the treaty would be the governing bodynecessary to enforce the rules. This world wide governing body would beable to effect the economic capabilities of all participating bodiesoverriding the consent of the individual nations. This type of large scaleeconomic management has been tried in communist counties to disastrouseffect. The devastation to the world economy of such an organization wouldprove to be the greatest threat to mankind since the advent of socialism.

Update - I found yet another article that supports many of the key tenets of my post.

Not suprisingly thefairness ordinance passed the Metro Council with a 16-9 vote. The ordinance prohibits discrimination in hiring, accommodations and housing on the basis of sex, age, religion, race, ethnicity, physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Still no word on how the council reasoned that civil rights include an individuals sexual activities.

From Hugh Hewitt we find an excellent opportunity for giving this holiday season.

Finally, from a naval officer I respect a great deal, an e-mail on how to aid wounded troops in the two weeks left before Christmas:

���Yellow ribbons tied around trees and red, white and bluestickers on the backs SUVs saying ���Support our Troops���are things that make civilians feel good but do nothingfor the men and women actually in uniform.

So please consider the following:

The number ONE request at Walter Reed hospital is phone cards. The government doesn���t pay long distance phone charges and these wounded soldiers are rationing their calls home.

Many will be there throughout the holidays.

Really support our troops ���Send phone cards of any amount to:

Medical Family Assistance CenterWalter Reed Medical Center6900 Georgia Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20307-5001

They say they need an ���endless��� supply of these ��� any amount even $5 is greatly appreciated.

Walmart has good prices on AT&T cards, Sams Club is even better, if you are a member.

I am sure you would feel better about doing this, than to buy something for a third cousin, that would find it on the closet shelf six months later, and wonder where it came from.

Please pass this portion on, copy and paste it into your e-mail.

If you are looking for something to give this holiday season, I think this would make a worthy cause.

Federal prosecutors in Louisville arepromising greater enforcement of current gun laws. By pursuing gunrelated crimes, the prosecutors ensure convicted criminals willserver longer prison terms aking it safer for law abiding citizens.

This story illustrates the fact that government is currently notenforcing our gun laws. It flies in the face of the anti-gun proponentswho are constantly harping about the need for new gun laws. Why do we neednew gun laws when we are not actively enforcing the current laws? Enforcingthe law is infinitely more sensible than continuing to eroded the rights oflaw abiding citizens through more draconian gun laws.

I believe the current push for enforcement will prove many times more successful at reducing crime than passing laws aimed at removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens.

The Courier Journal has updated two stories covered here.The first provides an update to thefairness ordinance being considered by the LouisvilleMetro Council. It appears that it will easily pass the council. I will beinterested to see how this issue effects the next election cycle in twoyears..

The second story involves the undecided Kentucky State Senate racebetween Dana Stephenson and Virginia Woodward. Dana Stephenson has formally asked the State Senate to declare her the winner inthe race. It will be interesting to see if the will of the people or the will of the courts decides this race.

I'll keep you posted on both stories.

The Courier-Journal has a story about the council'svoteto continue civil rights protections for homosexuals. The fact that theordinance will pass is not surprising considering the left tilt of the council.

I would like to ask the council why they are protecting an action as a civil right? Last time I checked homosexuality related to a sexual act between people of the same gender. I don't care what side of the religious issue you are on, we should not bestow civil rights to actions. The rationale behind this law makes it reasonable to extended protection to almost any action.

What bothers me the most about incorporating actions as civilrights dilutes the actual civil rights movement. MartinLuther King fought for civil rights because people were being discriminated against because they were born with a certain color of skin. People have no power in the determining the color of their skin and thus should not be discriminated against. On the other hand, actions are something a person decides to do. With all decisions, they have both positive andnegative consequences.

Let's say I am a farmer. If I don't plant crops in the spring I get theimmediate satisfaction of idle time. The downside is I will starve over thewinter because I won't have any crops in the Fall. If I do plant crops, I havethe downside of having to work now, but I gain the satisfaction of eating over the winter from the crops planted. Regardless of the action taken there are both positive and negative consequence.

Should the government protect the idle farmer under the civil rights banner?Of course not, that would be a slap in the face to the farmers who work hard all spring to plant crops. Therefore it would be wrong forgovernment to protect any other action under the guise of civil rights

I want to congratulate the St. Xavier Tiger's football team for winningtheir eleventh state title Saturday. My alma materrolled over Scott County in a 49-9 victory before eleven thousand at Papa John's stadium in Louisville.

The game was a successful end to a wonderful season. After getting shell shocked early in the season by Cincinnatti Moeller, the Tigers turned it upa notch and rolled over all of there opponents including rival Trinity. They swept through the playoffs with an impressive 38 point average margin ofvictory.

The Tigers return a number of starters next year and will hopefully be aneven stronger team as they quest for back to back state titles.

Go Tigers!!!

Kentucky's 37th District Senate seat still doesn't have an official winner.Republican Dana Stephenson won the race by 1,022 votes, but her Democraticopponent, Virginia Woodward, filed suit with the courts asking todisqualify Dana for not meeting meeting the residency requirements.Kentucky requires candidates to live in Kentucky for six years prior tothe election.

The courts have recently ruled that since Dana spent two of the last six years in Jeffersonville Indiana, she doesn't meet the residency requirements. For those who don't know, Jeffersonville is a small town on the other side of the Ohio river from Louisville Kentucky. Even though Dana technically lived in Indiana she worked in Kentucky and probably spent a good deal of time in Kentucky.

Now Dana is appealing to theState Senate because the houses of the General Assembly have theauthority to "judge the qualification, elections, and returns of itsmembers".

The interesting part of the story is that precedent exists for the assembly to take action on this case.

There is some precedent indicating residency isn't a hard and fast rule.In 1987 the Democratic House seated Republican Mae Hoover even though shewasn't a legal resident of the district she was elected to represent. AHouse committee found that the residency requirement was intended toensure that officials have "a familiarity with the people and the areathey represent" and that Hoover was familiar with the area.

What I find amusing about this story is the actions of the Democrats. Duringthe whole presidential campaign, all we heard about was making sure every vote counted, and the will of the people. This apparently only applies to Republicans. When one of their own gets beat, they immediately go the courts and to hell with the will of the people. This continues a disturbing trend from the left of going around the will of the people and having the court system legislate their agenda.

Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilized bythe young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

But while the gains of the orange-bedecked "chestnut revolution" areUkraine's, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated andbrilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketingthat, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvagerigged elections and topple unsavory regimes.

Yes, it is the evil Americans that are causing hundreds of thousands ofpeople to peacefully protest when their democratic rights are beingtrampled. Why doesn't the left understand people's desire to avoid tyranny?These people don't have a gun pointed at their heads telling them to protest.They are there of their own free will. People do not want to be underthe thumb of communist dictators. The people of all countries want tohave the same freedoms and voting rights enjoyed by the leftin western Europe for hundreds of years.

Maybe what truly scares the left is that just maybe freedom reallyis on the march. When they see these people yearning for freedom, the leftbegins to realize that the utopia of socialism which took form inthese formally communist countries has really been discarded upon theash heap of history.

Or maybe they just don't want eastern Europe to embrace democracy andcapitalism. The left is famous for their scarcity mentality. Thus, theymight see eastern Europe's gain as western Europe's loss.

More than likely it is a little of both. Regardless, It is a good thingthat people want to be free. And If we can help them, it is our duty to doso. For if we don't the Russian communists will be more than happy to offermore tyranny.

If the events in Kiev vindicate the US in its strategies for helpingother people win elections and take power from anti-democratic regimes,it is certain to try to repeat the exercise elsewhere in thepost-Soviet world.

Isn't that a good thing? I know I want that countries around the world areboth democratic and free. In this case, I hope he is right.

A hospital in the Netherlands has created a board which can determinewhether to abort newly born children. If the board believes a child issuffering from an incurable disease or extreme deformity it can chose toabort the child. A recentAP Articleprovides details about this new policy.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known,would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the lifeof newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extremedeformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team andindependent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospectfor improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? What is the next step?

Well thechild has [name any lifelong debilitating disease], The kid will only have alife time of suffering so I think we should euthanize

We shouldn't be surprised that someone has crossed this line. The thinkingbehind this decision is nothing more than an extension of theviability argument put forth by the pro-choice movement. The theorystates that as long as a child is not "viable", then we should be able toabort the child.

I have long argued that this rationale is both dangerous and ridiculous. First, who decides when viability begins? Currently it is believed that viability is when the infant can live outside the mother. According to this logic I could take it a step further and say viability begins when a child can survive independently of anyone else. If this is the definition, it could be reasonably be argued that we should be able toabort up to the age of seven. Because that is when they become viablehumans! This is what I mean by a slippery slope.

Now we have a hospital in the Netherlands who has pushed viability outsideof the womb, and we are one step closer to pushing viability to a pointwhere we are "aborting" new born children (let alone the unborn) forany reason.

Louisville's Courier Journal has made its mission to uncover the nefariousfunding of the University of Louisville Foundation. The foundation hasbeen accepting large contributions from anonymous donors and theCourier wants to know who these donors are. They even went to courtto find out and now the courts ruled that the foundation is apublic entity and must comply with the Kentucky Open Records Act. What agreat win for freedom of information! or is it?

A number of large organizations have decided to donate large sums of moneyto the University under the auspices of anonymity. Now the Courier is demanding to expose who theses people are. What a joke. Here we have a foundation that is successfully raising funds for the University and now the Courier wants to chill donations to this organization by striping it ofa reason to raise cash. The irony of the situation is that the editorial board regularly whines about how poorly the state funds the University system in Kentucky.

Who cares who gave money or why they decided to make anonymous donations?Even when the Courier finds out who these mysterious benefactors are. Will anyone care? I doubt it. The more important question is will these new rulesreduce donations to the university? I doubt the Courier trulygives a darn as they seem to care more about their rights than thewell being of the community.

The latest news in the Oil for Food scandal is Kofi Annan'sdisappointment over his son's role in the scandal. It turns out hisson, Kojo, was one of the middle men making money off the the 64 billiondollar food for oil program and Kofi had no idea that his son was involved.

It is just like a liberal to shift the blame and deny any part in thewrong doing. Even when all of the evidence leads to his door step. Next weare going to find out Kofi and his son were victims in whole ordeal.

What an embarrassment Kofi and the U.N. have become. They prop up dictatorslike Sadaam while turning their backs when people's democratic rights aredenied in the Ukraine. And people wonder why the United Statesare sceptical of the U.N. and its role in the world. As long as criminalsand con men from third world countries run the U.N. it willcontinue to be corrupt and useless organization for the world.

I plan on keeping an eye on this growing scandal as the media continues tobury the story. It will be interesting to find out where all of this moneywent. Especially to countries like France, Germany, and Russia.