Minor Thoughts from me to you

Jesus Made in America. Did you know there's a Jesus action figure? And that American Christians are snapping it up, apparently oblivious to what this says about the depth of their faith? Intervarsity Press is publishing a book about the trivialization of Jesus, through commercial culture.

Beliefnet: Are Mormons Christian?. Dr. Albert Mohler and Orson Scott Card are debating whether or not Mormons are Christians. So far, both agree that they think the other side is completely wrong. That's actually refreshing to see. Both are arguing that they're side is the only true form of Christianity. It's truly encouraging to see two people agreeing that someone has to be wrong, rather than trying to pretend that everyone can be right.

Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet - New York Times. Did you know that there's a Christian version of MySpace? Or that there's Muslim and Jewish versions? More evidence that many Christians seek to withdraw from culture (while imitating it!), rather than engaging it.

Texas Supreme Court Backs Pastor Over His Publicizing of Affair - New York Times. The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the concept of church discipline. This is a good precedent. Churches need to be free to discipline their members. If they can't, the entire concept of church membership and church discipline becomes meaningless.

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.

Survey Finds 43.6 Million Uninsured in U.S.

About 43.6 million people in the United States, or 14.8 percent of the population, had no health insurance in 2006, according to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Monday.

The finding, based on a survey of 100,000 people, is lower than previous federal estimates of 46 million.

That's about all of the information that the article has. Unfortunately, I'm sure that these numbers will be used to argue for universal healthcare -- after all, that's a lot of people without insurance!

But who are these people and why don't they have insurance?

Free Market Cure created a video, Uninsured in America that answers exactly that question.

Stuart Browning:

So why don't you have health insurance?

Faye Chao:

I'm young right now and currently don't need health insurance. Probably don't want to spend $200 a month.

Stuart Browning:

In this state, a 26-year-old non-smoker with no preexisting conditions can get a policy for $96 a month.

Faye Chao:

It's 96 dollars a month, but that's twelve hundred dollars a year you're spending on health insurance. And honestly, I feel it's ridiculous that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for basic health care.

...

Stuart Browning (voice over):

But, what if they get sick or injured and they don't have any savings? They know that the U.S health care system will still give them medical care.

Faye Chao:

I bike everywhere in the city, so I have gotten hit by drivers twice - and one time I ended up in the hospital. No, I didn't have health insurance, but I was treated - and billed for it later.

Stuart Browning (off camera):

Umm hmm. How much was the bill for? Do you remember?

Faye Chao:

Honestly I don't because I didn't bother to pay for it.

Proponents for NFL retiree benefits get say before Congress

Advocates demanding improved benefits to retired NFL players will have their say Tuesday before Congress.

Increased attention the past few years about the medical and financial plight of some former players finally prompted Congress to look at the perceived problem. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing Tuesday at the Rayburn House Office Building.

I must have missed the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that gave Congress oversight of the NFL. How is this any of their business? I get that NFL retirees have a lot of medical and financial problems. I just don't get where Congress has the responsibility to fix it. That responsibility properly rests with the NFL.

The players union is pretty powerful, the league is rich, and the league loves to have a squeaky clean image. Let the league take care of the problem.

As I type out these words, Economist.com (my very favorite news magazine) has up an article concerning the root causes of suicide as a social phenomenon, which includes this statement: "Suicide rates have been rising in India, especially among the young, and over a third of those who kill themselves are under 30 years old."

Let's just all let that sentence sink in for a moment. Then let's all wonder what the writer of this story was thinking when he wrote it. The reporter is inviting us to be impressed that somewhere just over 30% of suicides occur... among people finished with at least 30-40% of their lifespans.

Which might lead those of us not "analytically-challenged" to suppose that suicides are either evenly spread across the spectrum of age in India, or there is actually a low rate of incident among the young in that country. Which would be good! Right?

The Supreme Court handed down a decision in FEC vs Wisconsin Right to Life today. The case revolved around the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech. I'm still in the process of reading the opinion and figuring out what it all means. Since I don't have an opinion yet, I turned to SCOTUS Blog for their analysis.

First though, a note about the makeup of the justices who decided the case. Bomb Throwers and Dismantlers.

Scalia and Thomas seem to be pursuing a different path than Roberts and Alito. The former want to blow things up quickly; the latter want to take them apart slowly. (Kennedy, the swing Justice, does whatever the hell he wants-- because, as a swing Justice-- he can.)

In all three cases, we see that Scalia and Thomas are much more willing to overturn existing doctrines that they oppose. Roberts and Alito, on the other hand, want to chip away at the doctrines slowly, using distinctions that make little sense on their own, but undermine older precedents-- leaving the possibility that they will be ripe for overruling later on.

It is the difference between bomb throwing and dismantling.

Frankly, I'm more of a bomb thrower than a dismantler myself. That's why I like Judge Janice Rogers Brown so much. On the other hand, Roberts and Alito may be able to accomplish more through a slow, gradual chipping process. Take today's decision in WRTL today.

WRTL: A Constitutional Sea Change

The 5-4 decision in WRTL is a blockbuster. Effectively, though silently, it overrules a central element in the Court's most recent prior confrontation with the campaign-finance problem at issue, the 5-4 decision in McConnell, issued only four years ago when Justice O'Connor (and Chief Justice Rehnquist) were on the Court. There is no doubt today's decision reflects a constitutional sea change that is likely to have dramatic effects on upcoming elections. Some will celebrate that change, others will bemoan it, but that the change is dramatic cannot be doubted.

Now, we are likely to see a return of the kinds of ads we saw before McCain-Feingold: ads that contain a fig-leaf of reference to issues that is just enough to give them constitutional protection, even if the ads are close to hard core efforts to influence election outcomes. For First Amendment libertarians, this outcome will be celebrated. For those who fear "undue influence" of corporations and/or unions over federal officeholders, this outcome will be a major blow.

WRTL: Big Win for Campaign Finance Deregulation

In my writings on campaign finance, I have analogized the Supreme Court's campaign finance cases to the swing of a pendulum. We began with Buckley, which was a multi-authored schizophrenic opinion offering something (a ban on independent campaign expenditures by individuals) to those who believe that most campaign finance laws conflict with First Amendment rights of speech and association, and something else (upholding of campaign contribution limits) to those who believe that the government's interest in preventing corruption, insuring the integrity of the electoral process or promoting electoral equality (though the Buckley court itself eschewed that interest). The early post-Buckley cases, such as Bellotti, and NCPAC were deregulationist, and were followed by the period I've called the New Deference, where the four liberals on the Court, joined by Justice O'Connor, upheld a wide range of campaign finance laws, including major provisions of the McCain-Feingold law (the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, or BCRA) in a number of different cases. Last year's Randall decision showed Justice Breyer trying to salvage the campaign finance regime and prevent the Chief and Justice Alito from going to the deregulationist side. Today it is clear that those efforts have failed.

What's next? Expect a full, frontal attack on McConnell, likely manufactured by Jim Bopp, as invited by Justice Alito (not to mention Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas). Within a few years, expect the Court to take another campaign contributions case, revisit Randall, and reconsider whether even higher contribution limits violate the First Amendment.

Wisconsin Right to Life in a Nutshell.

Today's decision in effect eviscerates that 60-year-old rule for all practical purposes -- it overrules Austin in all but name, and for the first time in 60 years establishes a constitutional regime in which corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as individuals, notwithstanding that, as the Court stressed in Austin, corporations' "voice" in public debate is magnified considerably by virtue of numerous advantages that state law provides to such artificial entities.

That is to say: This is a very good day for the speech rights of corporations, and for the ability of government officials to engage in speech that favors religion -- but not such a good day for the speech rights of students who would "celebrate" drug use rather than debate whether it should be lawful.

WRTL: The Anti-McConnell

FEC v. WRTL is the anti-McConnell. The majority and plurality opinions -- Chief Justice Roberts's opinion speaks for the Court only in the introductory and jurisdictional sections; the sections dealing with the challenge to electioneering communication section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were joined only by Justice Alito — breaks with McConnell at every level in the general approach to campaign finance regulation; in the doctrinal analysis of corporate electioneering communications; and in its specific holding concerning the constitutionality of the electioneering communication restriction.

At the highest level, WRTL rejects the view that campaign finance restrictions can be justified and sustained as democracy-promoting measures that advance government integrity. Where McConnell saw campaign finance jurisprudence as entailing the reconciliation of competing constitutional values — democracy and free speech — Chief Justice Roberts flatly proclaimed that WRTL is "about political speech" only. So much for Justice Breyer's theory of Active Liberty.

Do I know what all of that means? Not yet. But it's clear that a lot changed with today's case. As one of the "First Amendment libertarians", I'm overjoyed at the outcome of this case. I'd have preferred that the court blow up McCain-Feingold entirely, but I'll settle for a simple gutting.

This post is a random grab bag of what I found interesting this weekend.

A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket. A search for higher customer satisfaction (and higher profits) led Whole Foods to revamp their checkout lines.

Lines can also hurt retailers. Starbucks spooked investors last summer when it said long lines for its cold beverages scared off customers. Wal-Mart, too, has said that slow checkouts have turned off many.

And they are easily turned off. Research has shown that consumers routinely perceive the wait to be far longer than it actually is.

Whole Foods executives spent months drawing up designs for a new line system in New York that would be unlike anything in their suburban stores, where shoppers form one line in front of each register.

The result is one of the fastest grocery store lines in the city. An admittedly unscientific survey by this reporter found that at peak shopping times "” Sunday, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. "” a line at Whole Foods checked out a person every 4.5 seconds, compared with 19.6 seconds for a line at Trader Joe's.

Put Kieran on a poster. A student in Saskatchewan, Canada learned that independent learning is a quick route to the principal's office.

King, who is in Grade 10 at a high school in tiny Wawota, Sask., started researching marijuana after he and his fellow students were given an audiovisual presentation about drugs earlier in the year. The presentation, from his entirely believable description, was typical of its kind: short on background facts and long on horror stories.

On May 30, Kieran, who is described as "research-obsessed" by his mother, was chatting with friends around the school lunch table and telling them about what he'd discovered, largely from scholarly and government sources. He argued that marijuana carries a near-zero risk of overdose, that it has been approved by Health Canada for medical use and that it kills an infinitesimal fraction of the people that alcohol and tobacco do every week -- claims so uncontroversial you'd have to be high on something much stronger than pot to dispute them.

But one of the students who'd witnessed the conversation apparently finked to the warden. (From this day forward I'm going to avoid the use of the term "principal." If schools are going to be run like prisons, let's adopt the appropriate lingo.) Boss bull Susan Wilson ordered Kieran to stop talking about marijuana on school premises -- even though he had been outside the classroom, where school officials have to meet a justifiably high standard before interfering with a student's freedom of speech -- and later she called his mother to warn her that "promoting drug use" would not be tolerated. According to the education director of the school division, she was also told "if there were any drugs brought into the school, the police could be involved."

Next up, robots may make arguments over illegal immigrants moot. Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers

Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa.

Once again, we see an example of political uncertainty leading companies to make investments and decisions that they wouldn't ordinarily make. Something to keep in mind anytime Congress starts debating something -- the debate itself can affect the real world.

Finally, many men are so afraid of child molestation accusations that they're no longer volunteering for any position that would put them near children. See Daily Pundit » Where Are The Big Brothers?.

The article sets out a number of possible reasons men don't volunteer at Big Brothers-Big Sisters in greater numbers "“ but the fact that the rate at BB-BS is less than the overall average for volunteer-based organizations moves me to throw out an undiscussed possibility: men are afraid of having their lives destroyed by a false accusation, and fear the BB-BS will protect itself by throwing its resources behind the accuser.

In Arizona, almost 60 percent of grade school principals and nearly 90 percent of teachers are women. Six years ago, the majority of principals were men. Some schools have no men, meaning kids may not have a male teacher or principal until middle or high school. It's the same picture nationally.

... Scottsdale's Serna said the fear of being accused of inappropriate touching or abuse has made lots of educators uncomfortable. Many administrators and teachers leave the profession out of fear of lawsuits or false accusations.

Not all of the news out of Iraq is good. Some of it is downright depressing.

But the political situation has deteriorated. The Maliki government may well be on life support. At least eight Cabinet posts are effectively vacant while two key partners in the pro-government bloc, the Fadila (Virtue) Party and Muqtada al-Sadr's group, have walked out. Another key group within the coalition, led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, has effectively switched to the opposition and is emerging as Maliki's most outspoken critic.

Thus, the Maliki government now lacks an effective majority in the National Assembly (parliament) and theoretically could be brought down with a no-confidence motion any day.

Worse still, the Shiite alliance, which provided the core element of political stability, has ceased to exist. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the primus inter pares of Shiite clerics, no longer enjoys the unifying clout he did a year or so ago.

It may be premature to speak of political paralysis. But the fact is that the Maliki government has been unable to pass key items of its program. Crucial bills on the oil industry and the distribution of oil revenues remain bogged down in parliamentary committees. Also unresolved are such explosive problems as the status of Kirkuk (a city disputed between the Kurds and Sunni Arabs) and the creation of new federal entities.

The government's weakness also prevents it from setting a date and rules for the municipal elections needed to create local government units to end de facto control by militias in many parts of the country.

Our troops have been doing a fantastic job of kicking out Al-Qaeda and taking back Iraq. Unfortunately, military force can only take Iraq so far. At some point, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government need to decide that they want to actually cooperate in making their country a peaceful success. Until they do that, little will change in Iraq.

Alzheimer's is one of the diseases that scares me the most. I absolutely hate the idea of losing my memory and being completely unable to function -- or even remember who my family and friends are. That's why I was thrilled to read about an upcoming Alzheimer's vaccine.

A revolutionary drug that stops Alzheimer's disease in its tracks could be available within a few years.

It could prevent people from reaching the devastating final stages of the illness, in which sufferers lose the ability to walk, talk and even swallow, and end up totally dependent on others.

The jab, which is now being tested on patients, could be in widespread use in as little as six years.

Existing drugs can delay the progress of the symptoms, but their effect wears off relatively quickly, allowing the disease to take its devastating course. In contrast, the new vaccine may be able to hold the disease at bay indefinitely.

Early tests showed the vaccine is highly effective at breaking up the sticky protein that clogs the brain in Alzheimer's, destroying vital connections between brain cells.

When the jab was given to mice suffering from a disease similar to Alzheimer's, 80 per cent of the patches of amyloid protein were broken up.

If this pans out, it would be absolutely fantastic news.

One Week of Operation Phantom Thunder

Al Qaeda prepared for the assault on Baqubah. "Days before the offensive, unmanned U.S. drones recorded video of insurgents digging trenches with back-hoes," the Associated Press reported. "About 30 improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, were planted on Route Coyote, the U.S. code name for a main Baqubah thoroughfare." About 15 percent of the western portion of the city is said to have been cleared, and the operation could take up to 60 days.

As operations in Diyala province are ongoing, Rear Admiral Mark Fox, a spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq, stated Iraqi and Coalition forces are laying a trap for al Qaeda fighters fleeing the hot zones in the belts. "If you've got [the regions] properly cordoned then they're going to flee into somebody's arms. It's a trap," he stated. As we've noted since the beginning of the operation, Iraqi and U.S. forces have been placed in blocking positions along the rivers and key choke points.

Al Qaeda is left with fewer places to hide: Anbar Province no longer a safe haven, pressure has increased Baghdad and the hot operations in the belts, and the Shia south is hostile. Ninewa, Kirkuk, and Salahadin, remain as al Qaeda's fall back positions, but Iraqi and U.S. Forces have prepared for this option. Some of the best Iraqi Army units are stationed in the northwest. These are seasoned units that have recently returned from supporting the Baghdad Security Operation.

... the purpose of the Baghdad Security Plan and Operation Phantom Thunder is to deny al Qaeda Baghdad and the Belts, and to kill as many operatives and leaders as possible in the process. When al Qaeda attempts to regroup, it will be in the hinterlands, and in some cases, in regions less hospitable to its actions.

Militants Said to Flee Before U.S. Offensive

In his news conference, General Odierno offered the broadest assessment yet of the multipronged American offensive around Baghdad that got under way this week, using the additional troops sent to Iraq as part of Mr. Bush's troop buildup. Despite the flight of the Qaeda leaders from Baquba -- a pattern that appears to have been replicated in other areas included in the new offensive, including Qaeda strongholds along the Tigris River south of Baghdad -- he adopted an upbeat tone, saying the offensive held "a good potential" for reducing the Qaeda threat to the point that American force levels in Iraq could be reduced by next spring.

First, he said, American and Iraqi troops would need to sustain their crackdown long enough for Iraqi forces to move into neighborhoods cleared of Qaeda fighters and hold them. This is a pattern American commanders have tried unsuccessfully before, as in a failed attempt to secure wide areas of Baghdad last summer. But General Odierno said Iraqi forces were "getting better," "staying and fighting," "taking casualties" and adding an additional 7,500 soldiers to their overall strength every five weeks.

Addressing the problems facing American troops in Baquba, General Odierno played down the significance of the Qaeda leaders fleeing ahead of the offensive, saying American forces would hunt them down. "I guarantee you, we're going to track down those leaders," he said. "And we're in the process of doing that. We know who they are, and we're coming after them, and we're going to work that extremely hard."

After more than three years of saying publicly that they had all the troops they needed for the war here, American commanders have begun acknowledging in the past year that the ability of the Qaeda groups to establish new strongholds after old ones are destroyed -- and to regenerate their leadership -- has owed much to the fact that American manpower has been severely stretched.

But with all the additional Army brigades ordered into the war by Mr. Bush now in the field, along with additional Marine units, the commanders here now have more firepower than they have had at any time since the American invasion in 2003. With that, the American generals face what they have acknowledged to be the best, and possibly last, chance to persuade critics in Congress and a disillusioned American public that persisting in Iraq is worthwhile.

Arrowhead Ripper: Surrender or Die

The combat in Baqubah should soon reach a peak. Al Qaeda seems to have been effectively isolated. The initial attack on 19 June achieved enough surprise that al Qaeda was caught off guard and trapped. They have been beaten back mostly into pockets and are surrounded and will be dealt with.

LTG Ray Odierno visited Baqubah on the 21st. Odierno clarified that this battle is to be final: we are not going to do this again. Odierno stressed to our commanders that they need to be thinking of an end-state that results in Iraqis taking charge, but that Iraqi commanders should not be given the reins until they are ready, so that the result is we set them up for success. Odierno's timing was remarkable: even before he arrived, the commanders here were talking about end-state daily and, on a more sour note, our commanders have their hands full with the local Iraqi commanders who seem less competent (to be kind) than those I have seen elsewhere, such as in Mosul.

Our guys are winning. Al Qaeda is about to be strangled and pummeled to death in this town, but the local Iraqi leadership is severely wanting. This was most obviously noted in one area in particular, where there were some slight indicators of a possible humanitarian need. "Crisis" certainly is not the correct word, but there are displaced persons numbering at least in the hundreds. LTC Fred Johnson actually took me out there. (The access even to "bad" news is amazing with this Brigade.)

I have been with LTC Fred Johnson for several days. LTC Johnson seems to recharge on sunlight or moonlight and can run a man into the ground. After seeing the humanitarian need building with no action to abate it underway, Johnson was very unhappy. He immediately started jerking choke chains on the people who are supposed to be handling humanitarian need, trying to avert having it build into a crisis.

This is where the inept local Iraqi commanders come in. I've seen them in meeting after meeting, over the past few days, finding ways to be underachievers. The Iraqi commanders have dozens of large trucks and have only to drive to our base to collect the supplies and distribute those supplies to the people displaced in the battle. Our troops are fully engaged in combat, yet the Iraqi leaders were not able to carry that load without LTC Johnson supplying the initiative. The Kurds would have had this fixed yesterday. The Iraqi commanders in Mosul would have fixed this. The local Iraqi command climate is disappointing by comparison.

There are serious technical problems that I have brought up privately to high-ranking PAO officers over the past nearly two years which persist today, despite that any one of them could be easily resolved with better planning on the part of PAO. I've found that communicating with them privately is generally useless. (Obviously, as the problems persist.) A person has got to tell a million people before they are heard. Since it will affect how the news from here gets reported, and since I know the other writers here are often afraid to speak up about this stuff (one senior PAO officer actually threatened to kick me out a few months ago), I'll take the heat on telling the million people:

I could be in combat now, but have been wasting time trying to get a badge to get into the dining facility. Got one. Not a big deal, until you add that up for 20 reporters all wasting part of their very limited time (we are in a war), and soldiers' time (they are fighting it) getting ridiculous paperwork when the Press ID could simply say, "Unescorted access to dining facilities is authorized. Please call DSN 867 5309 with any questions." Simple solution. I have wasted hours on the issue of eating over the past few days. It adds up when your time windows open and close unpredictably and rapidly.

On communications, senior Public Affairs officers knew this battle was unfolding. It would have taken practically zero assets to set up a media shack or tent in advance. The shack or tent only needs to have electrical outlets and an internet dish, along with phone lines. Cots would be nice but I can sleep in the dirt. (Sleeping arrangements here are excellent. I'm in a tent with soldiers and have a cot.) We need a dedicated dish and phone lines because for hours each day our RBGANS are not working, nor are our Thuraya sat-phones. All those reporters flooding out here are about to flood into difficult reporting terrain. Cell phones do not work in Baqubah.

Public Affairs should have known this months ago. Valuable stories about our soldiers and the battle are being lost and will never be filed because reporters, after a long day of being on the battlefield, cannot make a simple phone call, or file a story. Why be here? It's pretty dangerous, and insurance is expensive. I had to skip a mission this morning because I cannot make communications, and am down to filing stories on the fly again without time for editing. There is no other way to keep the flow open, and if you are reading this, it's only after I've wasted hours trying to upload it. Hours I could have been with our soldiers, telling about their days in one of the most important battles of this war.

Otherwise, the battle is going very well. A big fight seems to be brewing. As of about noon in Baqubah on the 22nd, there seems to be a lull in the fighting. A calm. This is about to get wet. At the going rate, al Qaeda in Baqubah will soon have two choices: Surrender, or die.

Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind wants to reform the farm subsidy program.

Mr. Kind, a six-term congressman, has introduced legislation that would drastically reduce farm subsidies while pouring more money into land conservation programs and rural development. He gathered 200 votes for a similar bill in 2002 and says he believes he has additional momentum this time around.

To no one's surprise, Mr. Kind's crusade has raised the hackles of the powerful farm lobby and its supporters in Congress, who describe his proposal as naïve, ill conceived and even dangerous.

He argues that if Congress is going to overhaul the farm program, it has to do it across all commodities, including the dairy industry. Mr. Kind said his farmers realized that change was inevitable and would welcome more money and programs for beginning farmers.

Under Mr. Kind's proposal, subsidies would be reduced and replaced with "revenue management accounts" that would function like an individual retirement account, with the difference being that farmers could tap into it to pay for small losses that are not covered by crop insurance.

Over the next five years, Mr. Kind's proposal would increase spending on conservation by $6 billion, anti-hunger programs by $5 billion, renewable energy by $1 billion and rural development, $700 million.

I'm intrigued by this proposal. I'm somewhat surprised that a Wisconsin democrat would propose changing the farm subsidy program. (This state practically worships at the altar of farm subsidies.) I'd also like to know more about these "revenue management accounts". Are they funded by farmers or by the federal government? What kind of conservation spending is being increased? What do the anti-hunger programs do? Is renewable energy just a codeword for increased ethanol production? If so, how is that different from the existing subsidy programs that give money to corn growers?

These are just a few of the questions that I'd like to have answered. As soon as I find out more, I'll tell you.

GasBuddy has a nifty map of gasoline prices by county. I imagine that ease of transportation explains part of the price differences. However, I think that most of the difference is explained by differences in state taxes and EPA regulations.

Keep this map in mind the next time you're tempted to blame oil companies for expensive gas.

Hold on to your wallets -- the Senate is in session. Senators Grassley and Baucus plan to make your gasoline even more expensive.

A proposal to hit oil companies with $29 billion in new taxes advanced in the Senate on Tuesday, targeting the money to energy conservation, wind turbines, electric hybrid cars and clean coal technology.

The massive tax package, double what Democrats had discussed as recently as last week, is "designed to promote clean and sustainable energy," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee that approved the measure by a 15-5 vote.

It is expected later this week to be added to energy legislation being considered by the full Senate.

It gets worse.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil company trade group, said in a statement that the taxes "will discourage new domestic production, discourage new investments in refinery capacity and would lead to the loss of good-paying U.S. jobs."

As I wrote previously, Congress has been discouraging investments in refinery capacity for decades. Our already limited refinery capacity is largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline. We should be doing everything in our power to increase refinery capacity -- not decrease it more.

Baucus said he expects the oil companies to complain, but he doesn't believe the taxes "will substantially change these companies' incentives to produce energy."

Maybe not. But it will substantially change the price that these companies charge to consumers. Senator Grassley doesn't realize that -- maybe he's been smoking something green?

Grassley said the "narrow change" in tax policy "seems likely to have little if any effect on domestic production" or the price of gasoline at the pump.

Uh-huh. Raising taxes by $29 billion will have "little if any effect" on prices. How long has he been out of touch with reality? Also, does he have any plans to return to reality?

How expensive could this all get? The Heritage Foundation did some quick research and put together a state by state analysis for you. Living in Wisconsin, I could see prices rise from $3.29 a gallon (May price) to $3.60 a gallon next summer. By 2016, gasoline could rise as high as $6.62 a gallon. To Senators Grassley and Baucus: "Thanks a lot. I didn't really need that extra $113 in my monthly budget anyway."

As if this wasn't bad enough, Congress would like to make your car more dangerous.

Despite Congress' repeated efforts to repeal the laws of physics in favor of something more politically correct, the fact remains that bigger is safer when it comes to vehicle size. Supporters of increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards ignore what millions of minivan and SUV drivers already know: They stand a much better chance of surviving an accident than drivers of lighter, more fuel-efficient subcompacts. The problem is that significantly improving fuel economy means cutting average vehicle weight. The curb weight of a typical family sedan can be reduced from the present 3,200 pounds to, say, 2,800 pounds. But maintaining the same level of safety with advanced air bags, refined crush zones and other technological fixes could make the lighter family sedan unaffordable for middle-class buyers.

Advocates of higher CAFE standards claim that the smaller vehicles will pollute the air less and consume fewer natural resources. As a result, from a global perspective, such vehicles will do less damage to the environment and fewer people will die or get sick as a result of emissions-related causes. But most Americans with families to transport and businesses to move see a much more immediate and concrete health and safety benefit in driving vehicles that serve their purposes without putting at risk their lives and those of their loved ones. Only through force and coercion will they trade their practical vehicles for the smaller, less useful and often more expensive "green" vehicles favored by higher CAFE advocates.

The land of the free -- she ain't quite what she used to be.

Michael Yon has an update on the operations in and around Baqubah. Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Day One

Our guys are tough. The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. That's saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don't want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that's the plan.

A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that's not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

The battle for Baqubah continues. Bill Roggio has an update on how it's going.

Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the assault on Baqubah, kicked off with an air assault. Iraqi Army scouts accompanied elements of the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division. The operation in Baqubah is modeled after the successful operation to clear Tal Afar in September of 2005, which was designed and executed by Col. H.R. McMaster. The plan is to essentially "seal, kill, hold and rebuild." The city is cordoned, neighborhoods are identified as friendly or enemy territory, the neighborhoods are then segmented and forces move in with the intent to kill or capture the enemy. As both Michael Gordon and Michael Yon reported from Baqubah, the goal isn't just to clear the city of insurgents, but to trap and kill them in place. The combat operations are then immediately followed by humanitarian and reconstruction projects.

At last count, three U.S. combat brigades, two Iraqi Army Brigades and one Iraqi National Police Brigade in direct action at Baqubah. The number of Iraqi brigades inside the city may be growing, however. "Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said about 5,000 Iraqi soldiers and 2,000 paramilitary police were fighting," reported the Associated Press. "Iraqi forces said they took control of neighborhoods in Baqouba and were greeted by cheering people." This would equate to two Iraqi Army brigades (2-5 and probably 3-5). The "paramilitary police" is probably 1st Iraqi National Police Mechanized Brigade from Taji.

And homegrown Iraqi terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr isn't being forgotten either.

While the major offensive operation is occurring in the Baghdad Belts against al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent holdouts, major raids continue against Sadr's forces and the Iranian cells in Baghdad and the south. Two major engagements occurred against Sadr's forces since Monday -- one in Amara and one in Nasariyah. Scores of Mahdi Army fighters were killed during both engagements after Iraqi Special Operations Forces, backed by Coalition support, took on Sadr's forces.

The Iraqi government and Multinational Forces Iraq are sending a clear message to Sadr: when the fighting against al Qaeda is finished, the Iranian backed elements of the Mahdi Army are next on the list if they are not disbanded. Also, the Iraqi military and Multinational Forces Iraq possesses enough forces to take on Sadr's militia if they attempt to interfere with current operations.

Read the whole thing.

I'm ecstatic to see that not everyone believes that my iPod is destroying the planet.

Local scientist calls global warming theory 'hooey'

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."