Minor Thoughts from me to you

Allied Drive jobs program struggling

A local Madison jobs training program has been in operation since January. It was intended to help residents of the Allied Drive neighborhood find decent jobs.

The START program prepares people to take entrance tests for trade apprenticeships. It began in January and has been touted as one of the best ways to lift people out of poverty.

Participants enroll in a six-week class of instruction and individualized tutoring in math, English and spatial skills. The training also covers safety standards, blueprint reading and interviewing skills.

After seven months and $75,000, how is the program doing?

Only two Allied Drive residents completed the program in the first five months. The contract goal for the year is 32. Only one of them passed an apprenticeship test, and only one got a job. The goal is 20 jobs for Allied Drive residents in 2007. ... A city analysis found 82 percent of the people who gained employment through the program live outside the city, including Prairie du Sac, Fall River, Sun Prairie and Janesville.

Something's not quite right here. Why aren't more Allied Drive residents participating in the program? And why is Madison heavily funding a program that is mainly being used by people who live outside of Madison?

Thankfully, I don't live in Madison so I don't have to worry about how long my property tax dollars will fund such an unsuccessful program.

Every politician has a pet charity. Unfortunately, politicians fund their pet charities through my income. In case you've wondered, this is why I love politicians so much.

State Rep. Gary Bies is just the latest politician to make my "dead to me" list. Dentists urge 2-cent tax on soda.

When state Rep. Garey Bies was growing up poor in a large family, he was thankful for a program in Oshkosh that made it financially possible for him to see a dentist.

That is why the Sister Bay Republican has authored AB 237, a bill that would impose a tax on soft drinks -- which dentists say increase risk of tooth decay -- to subsidize dental access for low-income people and to pay for dental education.

Come on. If Rep Bies really wanted to do something useful, he could travel the state talking about the value of dentistry and asking private donors to contribute. Trying to force Wisconsin's taxpayers to contribute is just tacky.

For once, however, an industry trade group actually offers robust opposition to a stupid idea.

"No one will argue that people need dental care and education. They also need vision care and obesity care. Should we tax certain products to pay for that type of help?" asked Brandon Scholz, president and chief executive of the Grocers Association.

"Say people need reading glasses, should we impose a tax of 10 cents on each newspaper? How would your publisher like that? You would say that's not fair to us or our customers, and we view the soda tax the same way."

Scholz added that if sugar causes tooth decay, why just pick on soda? How about ice cream or a bag of sugar?

"Once they go down that road, they will tax everything else," he warned. "And all that money won't go for the program. It would be diverted elsewhere."

So very true.

If you're in the capitol today, and you see Rep. Bies, grab his wallet and pull $10 out of it. I have a few charities I'd like to help. He should approve.

While I'm on the subject of trade-offs, I'd like to mention a recent article from the Wisconsin State Journal. Bridge repairs could cost Wisconsin over $2 billion

Wisconsin's bridges are considered safer than the national average, but the state still has more than 2,100 bridges that fall short of federal standards for carrying loads and providing wide lanes for cars, according to a Wisconsin State Journal review of state and federal records.

The civil engineers report noted Wisconsin needs some $1.75 billion for state and local bridge projects between 2000 and 2020 as outlined in a state plan. That doesn't include another $2.8 billion in road and bridge projects planned for the Milwaukee area and the southeastern part of the state.

I'm glad the Wisconsin section of the American Society of Civil Engineers is looking into this. With the collapse of the bridge of the Minnesota, every politician in America is focused on bridge maintenance and repair. If that money needs to be spent on bridge repair, then spend it.

But first, take it out of another section of the budget. Delay spending increases on other projects. Cut spending on redundant areas of the budget. Prioritize spending in all areas of the budget.

I know what Wisconsin's politicians would like to do: raise taxes by $2 billion to cover this spending. I'd like to do that to -- I'd like to just increase my own income whenever I have something new I want to spend money. Unfortunately, I can't. And neither can Wisconsin's politicians. Every time they raise taxes, I get a pay cut. It's impossible to tax and spend a state into prosperity and safety.

By all means, maintain the bridges. But focus on the trade-offs inherent in doing that and make tough decisions about the budget.

Trade-offs are an inescapable part of life. The sad truth is, it's impossible to both eat your cake and have it too. Unfortunately, far too many of our policy debates try to pretend that it is possible to have everything at once. Politicians follow their instincts and promise to give voters everything the voters want. But all of the promises in the world can't abolish life's fundamental trade-offs.

What am I talk about? Let me illustrate. Lately, a debate has been raging in legal and political circles about a clash between family life and work. Employers still expect employees to put in a 40-hour work week, occurring mostly between 8am and 5pm. An increasing number of employees want to work odd schedules, work from home, or take large amounts of time off to care for ailing family members. As a result, these employees are being passed over for promotion, denied raises, or being outright fired.

Family-Leave Values - New York Times

Since the mid-1990s, the number of workers who have sued their employers for supposed mistreatment on account of family responsibilities "” becoming pregnant, needing to care for a sick child or relative "” has increased by more than 300 percent.

... Williams argued that the growing tension between work and family was not simply a product of economic necessity. It stemmed, rather, from a marketplace structured around an increasingly outdated masculine norm: the "ideal worker" who can work full time for an entire career while enjoying "immunity from family work." At a time when both adults in most families had come to participate in the labor force, Williams argued that this standard was unrealistic, especially for women, who remained the primary caregivers in most households.

This New York Times article is fairly typical of the debate. It's heavily anecdotal and hard to excerpt. (If you want the human stories behind the rhetoric, click through and read the full article.)

The article starts by telling the story of Karen Deonarain. Karen worked for a small company as a full-time employee. When she went through a tough pregnancy (and gave birth 16 weeks early), she informed her employer that she'd need four months off to recover, before coming back to work. Her employer ended up firing her.

The article continues on, talking about the difficulties that Karen Deonarain now faced. I'd like to stop and focus on the difficulties her employer faced. Her employer was small -- less than 50 employees. This would tend to indicate that each employee was important and the work that Karen Deonarain was valuable. Karen informed her employer that she didn't intend to do any work for more than a fourth of the year. What was her employer to do?

A job had been left unfilled. Work needed to be done, by someone. Ms. Deonarain was unable to do it, so the company would need to hire someone new. It's hardly a good idea to spend time finding and training a new employee, only to lay them off when the former employee decides to return to work. It's also not fair to expect someone else at the company to cover the job until Ms. Deonarain was ready to return.

Here's the trade-off: businesses offer generous pay and benefit to those that can show up and get work done. Men and women who expect to take lots of time off whenever they have a family problem are not showing up and getting the job done. Is it so unfair then, that businesses wouldn't offer these people generous pay and benefits?

If workers aren't contributing something of value to the company, why should the company have a responsibility to contribute something of value to the workers? The job market is a two-way street: workers work for pay, employers pay for work. If workers expect to start and stop working on a whim, they shouldn't be surprised when employers expect to start and stop paying just as quickly.

This isn't a matter of discrimination and shouldn't be covered by state or federal anti-discrimination laws. This is a matter of fulfilling your obligations as an employee. Being a parent -- or a responsible son or daughter -- doesn't magically absolve someone of their responsibilities to their employer.

There will always be a trade-off between work and family. Lower wages and less stable jobs are an inevitable consequence of choosing to work fewer hours on an unstable schedule.

One of life's primary lessons is that you shouldn't just think about the immediate effects of a decision or policy, but the long-term secondary consequences as well. Here are a few examples.

Be careful about trying to soak the rich through taxes. It may backfire. Asymmetrical Information: Loser..er...Labor Pays

Recent research has cast an eye in a somewhat different direction, showing that the tax may be borne not entirely (or even principally) by owners of capital, but by workers. ... A recent paper by Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute analyzes data across countries and over time, concluding that for countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a 1% increase in corporate tax rates results in a 0.8% decrease in manufacturing wage rates. (Economic intuition suggests significant negative effects of the corporate tax on manufacturing wages because of the complementarity of capital and labor for skilled workers.)

Wage effects of this size suggest labor bears much of the burden of the corporate tax. In fact, workers collectively would be better off if they voted for higher taxes on labor with corresponding cuts in the corporate tax.

That's for tax policy. How about trying to reduce state healthcare costs by requiring state employees to pay a larger portion of their own healthcare costs? Agency: GOP benefit cuts problematic

A plan by Assembly Republicans to require most state employees to pay 10 percent of their health insurance premiums could actually end up costing taxpayers more money, the state Department of Employment Trust Funds warns.

Stella warned that by requiring workers to pay a flat 10 percent premium, it would undercut the state's three-tiered premium system. Under the current system, employees who enroll in more cost-effective plans pay a lower percentage of the premium than those in higher-cost plans.

"We believe the 10 percent mandate will end the tiering structure and will eliminate our ability to effectively control cost increases," Stella wrote. "In fact, if we are correct premium costs for the state will increase rapidly and, if significant enough, render any savings from this proposal illusory."

Finally, how about changing the way doctors are compensated? Doctors - Wages and Salaries - New York Times

In the United States, nearly all doctors are paid piecemeal, for each test or procedure they perform, rather than a flat salary. As a result, physicians have financial incentives to perform procedures that further drive up overall health care spending.

Doctors are also paid whether the procedures they perform go well or badly, Dr. Bach said, and whether they are crucial to a patient's health or not..

"Almost all expenditures pass through the pen of a doctor," he said. So a doctor may decide to perform a test that costs a total of $4,000 in order to make $800 for himself -- when a cheaper test might work equally well. "This is a highly inefficient way to pay doctors," Dr. Bach said.

This article doesn't list any unexpected consequences of changing the way doctors are paid, but I can take a few guesses. Doctors might start to work fewer hours if they're salaried instead of being paid by the procedure. If doctors are paid based on performance rather than procedure, they may start to avoid sicker patients in favor of healthy, easy to treat patients. It's not a guarantee, of course, but is a possibility.

When considering any policy changes, it's best to at least think through the possible secondary effects of the change.

So, apparently, the President has been negotiating an arms deal with the Saudi's. (Last I heard, it still needed Congressional approval.) Unfortunately, the State Department still doesn't understand the Middle East. Therefore, we're getting taken for a ride and -- assuming the deal is approved -- the entire Middle East will think we're morons of the highest degree. Why? Middle East observer Daniel Jackson comments.

One Hand Clapping > Blog Archive > The US-Saudi arms deal - a view from Israel

So, if I understand all of this, the US is giving the large men of Saudi Arabia $20 billion worth of high tech toys with no strings attached. ... Here is the first warning -- the Shah of Iran. Five years after the fall of Vietnam (the dread of the liberal left), Jimmy Carter lost the first round of this war without a shot. According to Professor Steve Brahms at NYU, it was largely due to the inability of the State Department to understand what Khomeini's value preferences were in the emerging standoff.

To the point, as history has shown, it was unthinkable to the State Department mind that a rational actor might prefer death (read martyrdom) to money. Who would not want to talk to the US and not get lots of money?

While the liberal left is worried that Iraq as another Vietnam, they are ignoring the first total failure of the post-Vietnam foreign policy culture -- Iran. Carter's failure, and the first complete humiliation of the US, was simply because of a refusal to work in the Bazaar. There is no market/capitalist mode of production out here.

As I mentioned before, negotiating in the Bazaar is not working the Market. Possession is everything and all transactions are conducted in front of all other actors in the Bazaar. Whoever wins is considered to be a Big Man because he was able to force the other person (the loser) to take a lower price or pay more than the item was worth. There is nothing here about mutual benefit -- whoever has the good has the power and dictates the price. Just look at Hamas's recent change in the price for Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped (he was 19 then) last year. It is not about price, it is about power.

The worst, however, position to be in the Bazaar is to be the one who gives up something for nothing. This is the freier -- a term that can only be roughly approximated as a sucker, but this lacks the total humiliation of the term. The freier is the guy who gives up a good or does a job for nothing. Even the concept of "getting ripped off" lacks the appropriate derogatory abuse that accompanies being labeled a freier.

We're about to be the freier. The last thing we want is for the Middle Eastern nations to view us as imbeciles. But, if State gets the deal approved, that's exactly how we will be viewed.

Read Daniel Jackson's full commentary -- he provides much more information than the little bit I've excerpted here.

Panel Votes to Allow Regulation of Cigarettes - New York Times

A Senate committee approved legislation that would allow federal regulation of cigarettes for the first time.

Bravo for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. There's just one little problem. Regardless of how long I pore over Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, I can't find anything granting Congress the power to regulate cigarettes. Nor do I found -- anywhere in the Constitution -- anything granting Congress the authority to grant itself more authority.

Quite the contrary. The Constitution grants Congress a very limited, specific, and well-defined list of powers.

If Congress does ultimately start regulating cigarettes, who's disobeying the law? Those that ignore the new regulations or the Congress that illegally passed the regulations in the first place?

Do you feel safe about taking a flight? Do you think that another 9/11 style attack couldn't possibly succeed? Do the TSA regulations and onerous security procedures make you feel safer? If they do, they shouldn't. We're just as much at risk as we were six years ago.

Hot Air > Blog Archive > A Pilot on Airline Security

At this moment, there are roughly 5000 commercial airliners in the skies above you. There will be 28,000 flights today, and 840,000 in the next month -- every month. The U.S. fleet consists of some 6000 aircraft -- almost all of which will be parked unattended tonight at a public airport. We will carry almost 7 billion passengers this year, the number increasing to 10 billion by 2010, barring an exogenous event like another 9/11.

There is simply no deployable technology that has a prayer of keeping a motivated, prepared terrorist out of the system every time -- even most times. TSA misses more than 90% of detectable weapons at passenger checkpoints in their own tests, and it is not their fault, because of the limitations of technology and the number of inspections they must conduct. This doesn't count several classes of completely undetectable weapons like composite knives and liquid explosives.

What is TSA's fault is their abject failure to embrace more robust approaches than high visibility inspections, and their accommodations to the Air Transport Association's revenue interests at the expense of true security, while largely ignoring the recommendations of the front-line airline crews and air marshals who have no direct revenue agenda and are much more familiar with airline operations than are the bureaucrats (remember government ignoring the front-line FBI agents who tried to warn them about 9/11?). Deplorable amounts of money have been wasted on incomprehensible security strategies, while KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid] methods proven to work have been ignored.

...

Almost six years after 9/11, it is inexcusable that -- in an environment where TSA misses more than 90% of weapons, RON aircraft are not secured, and ground employees are not screened -- fewer than 2% of our airliners have a team of armed pilots aboard, fewer than 5% have air marshals, and the flight attendants have no mandatory tactical or behavioral assessment training. $24 billion dollars later, we are not materially safer, except in the areas of intelligence that prevent an attack from getting to an airport. Once at the airport, there is little reason to believe the attack won't succeed.

...

I know I've gotten pretty far afield of your topic, but I want to give you the sense that RON aircraft are just one small piece of a multilayered security system wherein every layer leaks like a sieve. The problem is much, much bigger than any single element.

In the end, we should be starting with defending the smallest spaces -- the cockpits and cargo compartments, and working outward to the limits of our resources; instead of starting with the airport perimeter and working inward, ignoring the actual defense of those spaces that are actually the terrorist targets. And we should be using the resources already in place to the greatest extent possible, instead of trying to bring new, untried methods into play, then waiting to find out they don't work nearly as well in reality as they do on paper.

Given that Congress regulates air travel and air security, you can blame them for that. Just one more reason Congress has earned its 14% approval rating.

If you want to demand change, the issues raised in this article would be a great place to start.

America is so rich that it's possible to make a living off of our trash. (You say wasteful, I say rich. It boils down to the same thing.) Madison's Capital Times published an article about the burgeoning art of dumpster diving.

So much is discarded, in fact, that it is possible to live almost entirely off of trash, or as New York dumpstering organizer and founding member of the Web site freegan.info Adam Weissman puts it, the excesses of capitalism. Weissman sustains himself almost exclusively by dumpstering, or as he refers to it, "urban foraging." Though he also trades items and gardens, the bulk of his sustenance is from garbage, he says in a phone interview.

He quotes Marx and talks about "opt[ing] out of the capitalist economic system." So, he's a bit of a nut. 'Cause, really, he'd be homeless and starving if it wasn't for the capitalist economic system that he' opting out of. Still, there is a lot of waste in a rich society. Some are using that waste to help others.

"The first time I saw it I was amazed and taken aback. There was more food than you've ever seen, just there. ... Sometimes it still hits you -- all this food is still good," says Spike Appel, frequent dumpster diver and chief organizer of the local chapter of Food Not Bombs, an "anarchist community project" that provides free vegetarian meals to the public.

Much of the food donated to Food Not Bombs is one step from the dumpster. This is not to say the produce, dips and baked goods are in any way spoiled. Ripe, organic produce is a hallmark of the meals provided by Food Not Bombs, as is the fact that they do not serve meat.

While the Food Not Bombs Web site advocates dumpstering as a way of obtaining food, the Madison chapter works with local businesses for donations. Food Not Bombs has an international following, and each chapter varies according to the resources in their community.

Interesting, no? Dumpstering is illegal. Many of the business that dump food, rather than donating it, do so out of fear of lawsuits and food safety regulations. The vast majority of that food is still perfectly safe. Why shouldn't we relax the regulations and remove the fear of lawsuits? Why not let that food be legally donated to the hungry rather than forcibly wasted?

The Weekly Standard: Fact or Fiction

The New Republic runs a piece in this week's issue titled "Shock Troops" (sub. req.) and authored by Scott Thomas -- described by the magazine as a "pseudonym for a soldier currently serving in Baghdad." "Thomas" is the author of two previous dispatches from Iraq for the New Republic, both of which recount deeply disturbing anecdotes (in one, an Iraqi boy who calls himself James Bond has his tongue cut out for talking to Americans; in the other, dogs feast on a corpse in the street). His latest piece is even more disturbing.

But is it true? The milbloggers at Mudville Gazette call it a pile of a horse manure by the second sentence.

Again, this doesn't prove Scott Thomas is a liar, only that if he is who New Republic claims he is, his ignorance exceeds that of any soldier of any rank I've ever met.

Read the whole takedown. Thomas's piece reads like enemy propaganda -- American soldiers are despicable and evil. Is Thomas really a soldier? Or he is a terrorist posing as a soldier? What proof does he have about these claims? Does TNR even know?

If true, these stories should be reported up the chain of command and the sick soldiers involved should be prosecuted. If they're not true -- and they certainly don't seem to be true -- why is TNR reporting them? Who, exactly, are they trying to help?

Back in the day, America had a federal government. That meant that the national government was responsible for national defense, foreign policy, and not much else. That meant that states were free to govern themselves as they saw fit. That meant that states were free to act in the best interests of their citizens.

Sadly, that's all changed. Now Washington D.C. exercises more and more control over what states can -- and cannot -- do. Case in point: North Dakota.

Sober North Dakotans Hope to Legalize Hemp - New York Times

But no place has challenged the government as fiercely as North Dakota. Its legislature has passed a bill allowing farmers to grow industrial hemp and created an official licensing process to fingerprint such farmers and a global positioning system to track their fields. This year, Mr. Monson and another North Dakota farmer, with the support of the state's agriculture commissioner, applied to the Drug Enforcement Administration for permission to plant fields of hemp immediately.

This battle is decidedly, and Midwesternly, pragmatic. In 1993, scab, a fungus also known as Fusarium head blight, tore through this region, wiping out thousands of acres of wheat, a prized crop in North Dakota, where agriculture remains the largest element of the economy. Hard rains left water pooling in fields, giving scab an opening. The fungus has turned up in varying degrees ever since, even as farmers searched for a cure.

But hemp, Mr. Monson argued, offered an alternative for North Dakota's crop rotation. Its tall stalks survive similarly cool and wet conditions in Canada, just 25 miles north of here, where it is legal. And it suits the rocky soil left behind here by glaciers, soil that threatens to tear up farm equipment for anyone who dares to plant crops like beets or potatoes beneath ground.

Years and studies and hearings later, few here have much to say against hemp "” a reflection, it seems, of the state's urgent wish to improve its economy. Recent hemp votes have passed the legislature with ease, though some questions linger. How big a market would there really be for hemp? What about the worries of drug enforcement officials, who say someone might sneak into a farmer's field of harmless hemp and plant a batch of (similar-looking) marijuana?

Roger Johnson, the state's agriculture commissioner, said hemp fields would be the worst places to hide marijuana. Under state rules, Mr. Johnson said, such fields must be accessible for unannounced searches, day or night, and crops would be tested by the state. Also, he said, a field of hemp and marijuana would cross-pollinate, leaving the drug less potent.

"We're not wide-eyed liberals,"" Mr. Johnson said. "The D.E.A., they're the crazy ones on this. This sort of illogical, indefensible position is not going to prevail forever."

Summary: North Dakota desparately needs a new cash crop. Hemp is safe and usable in thousands of different products -- much like the venerable peanut. The D.E.A. gets the willies about marijuana -- a drug that's safer than nicotine and alcohol. Result: North Dakota can go pound sand, the central government reigns supreme.

That's tragically infuriating. It's time for states to take back the authority that they've been quietly ceding to Washington.

Congratulations, you paid off your mortgage. Do you really think that you own your home now? Actually, you don't. Sorry. The government can still find ways to take it away from you.

That's what Kermit and Dolores Atwood discovered .

A band and its 'forced march'

Starting in mid-June, members of the Oregon Marching Band and the Sound of Sun Prairie begin what they call "everydays": 12-hour practices, sometimes six days a week, often in sweltering conditions.

"I would say I probably put in 16 hours a day a good six days a week until the season's over," said Rachel Lisius, 16, Oregon's drum major.

And we need child labor laws, why? These 96 students are voluntarily "working" 72-96 hours a week. Of course, they're doing it for fun and hoping for a future career. State labor law says that these teenagers can only work a maximum of 50 hours a week. They're allowed to sweat, march, and practice for as many hours as they want, playing in a band. But try to work at McDonald's or a construction site for that many hours and the State will get you.

How does that make sense?

The Declaration of Independence is still one of my favorite political documents. In fact, I have a copy of it hanging in my dining room. The Declaration was signed on the 4th of July, so what better topic to write about on America's birthday? I was planning on writing just such a post yesterday to celebrate the Declaration. Unfortunately, I need to do a lot of preparation before writing the post. That didn't happen. Instead, I'll start the prep now and you can read it next year.

Until then, this excerpt from P. J. O'Rourke is what I would have written if I had the time and I was a lot funnier than I am. Enjoy.

How much do you need to spend on groceries? It depends. If you're talking about whether or not we give out enough food stamps, then $21 a week is far too little. If you're talking about the value of a good, wholesome Cuban diet, then $17 a week is just about right. So say America's liberals. (And, yes, they were talking about buying food in America for both amounts.)

Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. Don Surber » Blog Archive » Name that party: Alms for the poor edition.

Massachusetts Universal Care Plan Faces Hurdles - New York Times.

People who must pay the full cost themselves, who are crucial to the success of the nation's most ambitious effort to achieve near-universal coverage, may now be a majority of the state's uninsured and not all are rushing to get coverage. Many of them are healthy young people in their 20's and 30's, state officials say.

Businesses are also less than thrilled about the universal mandate.

"This is going to bring me to my knees," said Deb Maguire, who runs Liam Maguire's Irish Pub and Restaurant in Falmouth.

Ms. Maguire said she had offered health insurance, costing employees $42 a week and her $45, but only about 10 of 30 employees purchased it. Now the others will enroll, she said, an expense significant for them and "just astronomical for me."

Asymmetrical Information: Okay, so what's the plan? Meanwhile, Jane Galt / Megan McArdle wants to know where the savings will come from in a world with universal healthcare

Winds of Change.NET: It's all about me, so praise me, why doncha? Donald Sensing reports on the downside of building self-esteem -- employees who crumble under criticism.

Evidence For Global Warming Evaporating? Ed Morrissey looks at Al Gore's evidence for global warming and reveals that it's thin indeed.

Tim Challies is a Canadian blogger. Therefore, he's uniquely qualified to discuss the positives and negatives of the Canadian healthcare system. He doesn't much like the utopian image painted by Michael Moore.

Now that Sicko, Michael Moore's latest film has been released, Americans are bound to hear a lot about the wonders of the Canadian health care system. As I understand it, Moore's ultimate proposed solution to the American health care conundrum is to adopt a socialized system similar to what we enjoy in Canada. The truth is, though, that the Canadian system simply isn't all that and a bag of chips. The system works, but it comes with a cost that most Americans would be unwilling to pay: a heavy tax burden.

... Our health care system is good, but it has some serious problems. It is certainly not the ultimate solution, and especially so if you dislike 45% tax brackets.

One of his commenters complained about his characterization of the Canadian healthcare system and included this:

I'm an immigrant to Canada. I've travelled extensively and have family all over the world. I'm convinced that God, in His providence, brought me to live in one of the best countries in the world. As Seniors on government pensions, we have more disposable income than we ever had on a Pastor's salary and no worries about paying for medications and health-care as we age.

...I thank the Lord that I live in Canada.

Ms. Compton: you and your husband are living the high-life on Tim Challie's salary. The Canadian government takes nearly half of his income to fund your healthcare and your pension. This isn't a voluntary contribution made out of the goodness of his heart. If he ever failed to send in his taxes, the government would put him in prison. Millions of other Canadians face the same "choice".

I'm sure you do thank God that you live in Canada. It's quite a good deal for you. How do you walk down the street each day, knowing that most of the people you pass are paying half of their income to support you? More than that, those people are not voluntarily supporting you. And you know it. If it ever came to a vote, you would vote to force those people to keep supporting you. From where I sit, that looks like legalized robbery -- not loving charity.

I thank God that I don't live in Canada. I'd rather keep that extra 25% of my salary (my taxes are roughly 20%) and spend it on my family or donate it to the charities of my choice.

My wife and I take great pleasure in sending nearly 14% of our gross income to others. We enjoy sitting down each money and selecting various charities to give to. We increase our giving whenever our income increases. If we increased our taxes whenever our income increased, we'd lose out on that pleasure. We'd lose out on the joy of voluntary giving if we lived with greater taxation.

Here's what Jesus said about giving.

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I'm thankful that I have money to give away. It's fun. Every month we end up wishing we had even more to give away. That's why I'm thankful that I live in a country that allows me to keep more of my money.

Odds are, if you only watch the mainstream media, you don't really understand what we're doing with the Iraq Surge strategy. Such military geniuses as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have already declared it to be a failure. But is it?

General Petraeus's right hand man, Dave Kilcullen, explains the strategy.

I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the "surge" and say "Hey, hang on: we've been going since January, we haven't seen a massive turnaround; it mustn't be working". What we've been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven't actually started what I would call the "surge" yet. All we've been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it's already failed is "watch this space". Because you're going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we're operating that will make what's been happening over the past few months look like what it is -- just a preliminary build up.

The meaning of that comment should be clear by now to anyone tracking what is happening in Iraq. On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual "surge of operations". I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another... These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have "gone quiet" as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation...

The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa'ida, Shi'a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on...

Read the whole thing. It's very enlightening and encouraging. Our commanders on the ground do have a plan and it is different from what we've done before. It just might work -- if we're patient enough to give it a chance.

As you wait, you shouldn't necessarily pay attention to any pictures or videos you see on television. They may not show what you think they show. Take Middle East protesters, for example.

I have actually seen some of these demonstrations, most recently in Islamabad, and all I would do if I were a news editor is ask my camera team to take several steps back from the shot. We could then see a few dozen gesticulating men (very few women for some reason), their mustaches writhing as they scatter lighter fluid on a book or a flag or a hastily made effigy. Around them, a two-deep encirclement of camera crews. When the lights are turned off, the little gang disperses. And you may have noticed that the camera is always steady and in close-up on the flames, which it wouldn't be if there was a big, surging mob involved.

...

On Friday afternoon in Manar Square, for example, I ran into Ohad Hemo, an acquaintance who covers Palestinian affairs for Israel's Channel 1 news. By then there was finally some media-worthy action. A few dozen Fatah-aligned fighters had shown up in the square, most traveling on the back of pick up trucks. They wore combat-style uniforms, although some wore street shoes instead of army boots. Their faces were covered in ski masks and they brandished weapons in what the Times called a "a show of force by Fatah." That sounds very dramatic, of course, but the reality was not very impressive: again, I felt as though I were watching a parody of machismo that seemed a bit silly, if not comic.

Other than stare into the camera and pose, the fighters didn't do anything at all. It was all pure theatre: I listened and watched as the various foreign television reporters positioned themselves in front of the masked gunmen and spoke seriously to the cameras about the rising tension in Ramallah, trying their best to make it sound as if they were in the middle of a war zone. But if their cameramen had panned out for a wider shot they would have shown crowds of mostly young men hanging around, eating snacks, buying cold drinks from vendors, and taking photos with their mobile phones. There was no sense of fear or menace at all. I even saw one photojournalist, who works for an American newspaper, giggling a bit as she aimed her camera at a masked fighter who was posing as if he were having his portrait painted, his eyes stonily focused on the horizon.

Give the generals a chance. And give the dramatic photos and videos of "protesters" and "freedom fighters" a pass. It's not reality, just theater. And not worth the attention we give it.

Earlier this week, the New York Times took a look at the town of Monsey, New York and how it's responding to plans for a new local Wal-Mart.

Monsey presents a bit of a problem to Wal-Mart.

The thousands of Hasidic Jews who have settled in Monsey, an unincorporated hamlet in Rockland County, since at least the early 1970s are guided by centuries-old religious traditions, which have remained unchanged even in the face of unprecedented growth inside and outside town borders. The streets here are lined with sidewalks, as many of the women do not drive—an activity deemed immodest in stricter Jewish sects. Many boys and girls are educated separately, in private, Yiddish-language religious schools. A sign at the entrance of a kosher supermarket reminds visitors to refrain from wearing revealing clothes.

The city has a lot of concerns about how Wal-Mart would change their community. Some of them seem quite justified.

The proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter would occupy a 22-acre site on Route 59, about three miles from access ramps to the New York State Thruway. Route 59, a two-lane state highway lined with strip malls, is often clogged during rush hours and is especially busy on Fridays as families hurry to finish errands before the Sabbath starts. On Saturdays, roads everywhere are choked with pedestrians, including many mothers pushing babies in strollers.

Some of the concerns seem more focused at controlling the community.

When they fret about merchandise, they wonder if frowned-upon items like bikinis and lingerie will be on display for everyone to see. And when they imagine the outsiders who would shop at the store, they worry that their presence could transform the town's pious, sheltered atmosphere.

The Rockland Bulletin, a local Jewish weekly newspaper, ran a full-page ad this spring warning: "An influx of undesirable influences will pollute the spiritual environment." And this month, "Community Connections," a weekly newsletter with 1,300 subscribers, published a call for action of sorts: "Today, it is harder than ever to protect our children from influences that are at odds with the values and morals we try to instill in them," the article says. "It would be naïve to assume that a Wal-Mart Supercenter can open in our midst and not destroy some of which has so painstakingly been built."

Here, Wal-Mart has already agreed to conceal magazine covers that may be deemed offensive, such as the ones picturing celebrities in provocative outfits, "something that's new for us," Mr. Serghini said.

Some of the concerns are understandable, from a family perspective.

"The reason a lot of us came to live in Monsey is because we wanted to raise our families in a safe place, away from the influences of the outside world," said Yossi Weinberger, 30, a father of four who works at a local travel agency. "I'm not sure it will be easy to do it if we have such a gigantic piece of the outside world move to our town."

How close is the outside world moving?

If constructed, it would replace a Wal-Mart in Airmont, a village two miles to the east. Company officials estimate it would add 170 jobs.

Ultimately, this entire story raises a lot of questions about just how far libertarian philosophy should extend. Classic libertarian philosophy states that anyone can sell their land to anyone else, who can then utilize it for any lawful purpose. This new Wal-Mart store would fit into that model.

But what of all of the families who specifically moved to Monsey for the small-town, Hassidic atmosphere? Shouldn't they have a say in how the town changes? Shouldn't they have a chance to protect the lifestyle they painstakingly built?

There's already a Wal-Mart just two miles east of Monsey. So I don't know how much the town would really change and how much would just stay the same. And I don't know whether I support the town's desire to regulate or Wal-Mart's desire to build a new store.

Thoughts?

The fight in Baqubah continues. Drilling for Justice

American losses include one soldier killed in action, with 21 wounded. One Bradley and one Stryker have been destroyed. The low numbers of friendly casualties have been largely due to the slow, methodical clearing operation where success is not measured against the clock. In meeting after meeting, I have seen Townsend stress to his subordinate commanders the importance of moving deliberately and at their own pace. Given the massive amounts of IEDs that have been found, my guess is that we might have taken dozens more killed by now if the clearing operation had been rushed.

Fortunately, the Iraqi people are eager to help.

Other AQI edicts included beatings for men who refused to grow beards, and corporal punishments for obscene sexual suggestiveness, defined by such "loose" behavior as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag. These fatwas were not eagerly embraced by most Iraqis, and the taint traveled back to the Muftis who sat in supreme judgment. Locals, who are increasingly helpful in pointing out and celebrating the downfall of AQI here, said that during the initial Arrowhead Ripper attack the morning of the 19th, AQI murdered five men. Townsend's men found the buried corpses behind an AQI prison, exactly where they'd been told to look for the group grave. Locals also directed Townsend's men to a torture house. Peering through a window, American soldiers saw knives, swords, bindings and drills. AQI is well-known for its macabre eagerness to drill into kneecaps, elbows, ribs, skulls, and other parts of victims.

One local Mufti who was said to have always worn a hood and sunglasses"”and to have somehow disguised his voice"”was pointed out to the Iraqi Army this weekend, who promptly captured him. Iraqi officials said today that although they did not previously know that this man was a Mufti, his name had been on their target list. The Mufti is being questioned and his name has not been released.

Yes, many of AQI's top leaders may have escaped -- but others may not have.

There are conflicting signals about how many of the AQI leadership escaped before Arrowhead Ripper launched. This weekend's capture of a possible high-value target in Baqubah indicates that not all AQI leaders successfully fled the city before the attack.

Media reports indicating that many top leaders escaped before Arrowhead Ripper began appear to be mostly true. But other information suggests some AQI leaders are trapped just down the road from where I write. In addition to the seven men who were caught trying to escape while dressed as women, there is information that some AQI leaders remain trapped in a constricting cordon.

Meanwhile, the battle for Baghdad continues as well. Iraq: We Won?

That's because Baghdad is the home of Saddam's staunchest supporters. These guys are prime candidates for war crimes prosecutions, for the many atrocities committed by Saddams' secret police over the decades. While the government has been willing to offer amnesty to many lower ranking Baath party members, the Baghdad neighborhoods and suburbs are full of people considered too dirty to qualify. This is the no-surrender crowd. But let's face it, these guys are also all over the lists Shia death squads carry. Iran has even offered cash rewards for the deaths of many Saddam lieutenants who were involved in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, or subsequent murders of Shia clergy. The Kurds have their death lists as well. These are desperate and dangerous people.

Saddam's henchmen were no dummies. They were smart enough, and resourceful enough, to build a police state apparatus that kept Saddam in power for over three decades. For the last three years, that talent has been applied to keeping the henchmen alive and out of jail. Three years of fighting has reduced the original 100,000 or so core Saddam thugs, to a few thousand diehards. Three years ago, there were hundreds of thousands of allies and supporters from the Sunni minority (then, about five million people, now, less than half that), who wanted to be back in charge. Now the remaining Sunni Arabs just want to be left in peace. Thus the Sunni nationalists of Baqouba are shooting at, and turning in, their old allies from Saddams Baath party and secret police. This isn't easy for some of these guys, but it's seen as a matter of survival. While the Battle of Baqouba is officially about rooting out al Qaeda, and hard core terrorists, it's also about taking down the Baath party bankers and organizers who have been sustaining the bombers with cash, information and encouragement.

Unfortunately, the media is still unable to report on the true story. Instead, they get caught up in irrelevant details.

Both the terrorists and U.S. troops know that victory has been defined as several weeks with no bombs going off in Baghdad. The media is keeping score, and they use their ears and video cameras. No loud bangs and no bodies equals no news. That's victory.

Not really. The real war is within the Iraqi government. The terrorists lost two years ago, when the relentless slaughter of Moslem civilians turned the Arab world against al Qaeda. Journalists missed that one, but not the historians. The war in Iraq has always been about Arabs demonstrating that they can run a clean government, for the benefit of all the people, not just the tyrants on top. So far, there have lots of victories and defeats in this, and no clear decision overall.

It's very easy to explode a bomb on cue, for the media. It's part of information warfare. As long as the media believes that a suicide bomber represents an effective strategy, Baghdad will continue to be filled with suicide bombers. Why not? Right now terrorists know that strapping a bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up will lead your enemy to decide that he's being defeated.

Let's recognize suicide bombs for what they really are -- a desperate, last-ditch attempt at influence. Let's mock the force that's so weakened that it can only fight us by wiping itself out one fighter at a time. Then let's ignore the bombings as the distraction that they are and focus on the real task -- helping the Iraqis learn how to run a clean government.

Our government is dirtier than it should be -- but it's still better than Iraq's. Let's help their government become at least as clean as ours is.