Minor Thoughts from me to you

It's easy to forget exactly how rich we are. Two days ago, as I was driving to work, I saw a van with a bumper stick. The van belonged to a typical Madison parent, one with school-age children. The bumper sticker stridently proclaimed "The Arts Are Not a Luxury!" Obviously, at some point, this parent felt threatened that their child's school would cancel the orchestra, the band, a painting class, or some other such artistic program.

The bumper sticker, of course, is wrong. The arts are a luxury. They're an incredible luxury. They enrich our lives in many ways, yet have been a disposable part of human existence for centuries.

The first priority of any group of people has always been food, clothing, and shelter. This is easy to forget when a 900 square foot apartment qualifies as poverty, when buying clothes from Goodwill is an embarrassment, and when grocery stores stock the cuisine of the world -- available to anyone with food stamps. But America's "poor" haven't always been this rich.

For the last several weeks, my wife and I have been rereading Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House..." books. I was probably in middle school, the last time I read these books. Reading them with an adult's perspective has been an eye-opening experience. Charles and Caroline Ingalls spent most of their adult life doing nothing more than gathering food, stockpiling food, building shelter, and attending to household chores.

In Little House on the Prairie, we see the family leaving home, able to pack all of the belongings into one, small covered wagon. Upon arriving in "the prairie", Pa spends an entire summer doing nothing more than building a house and barn, digging a well, hunting food, making furniture, and starting to plant crops. During most summer days, Pa worked from sunup to sundown and collapsed into bed as soon as night fell. The only time he was energetic enough to play his fiddle was when winter shortened the days and he was forced to work fewer hours.

This was a world where store-bought sugar and butter were precious luxuries, to be enjoyed only a few times a year. This was a world where buying window glass represented a huge splurge and a sack stuffed with grass constituted a fine mattress.

The arts? Pa's fiddle was the sum total of the Ingalls' experience of "the arts". Forget the arts -- for many years, Laura and Mary didn't know how to read, write, or do math. Simple education was a luxury that was out of their reach. And they were hardly alone. The majority of American families lived through similar experiences.

Food, clothing, and shelter are all plentiful in the America of today. People spend so little time worrying about these staples of life that they have time to think about music, painting, and poetry. People can only enjoy the arts when bellies are full and bodies are warm.

Let me illustrate. We received a package from Amazon.com today -- Season 3 and Season 4 of the Cosby Show. These episodes were produced 21 years ago. Over the past two years, companies have been putting the episodes onto DVD. Over the next several weeks, we intend to enjoy every one of them.

Unlike Charles Ingalls, I don't have to build our house, I don't have to hunt down our food, and I don't have to worry about making our own clothing. Instead, I can come home and have multiple hours available in which to entertain myself. Rather than amusing myself with only my own fiddle, I can listen to a wide variety of music -- all on-demand. I can read from a huge selection of books and I can watch a large selection of television and film entertainment. Entire sections of our economy consist solely of people producing ways for other people to amuse themselves.

The arts -- and everything else -- are a luxury. They're a luxury that I'm incredibly thankful to have. I want my children to have them as well, but I realize that the world won't end if a music program or a painting program gets canceled. As long as my children are full and warm, I'll be content. Everything else is just butter on the bread.

Futility in Gaza

The Palestinians continue to be in a bad situation. Michael Totten has been writing about -- and visiting -- the Middle East for several years now. He visited Israel last summer, during Israel's brief shooting war with Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza strip. While there, he interviewed an Israeli military officer.

At one point, they talked about the problem with terrorists hiding behind young children.

And ten, eleven, and twelve year old children come and take the launcher away afterwards. Often we're faced with fourteen or fifteen year old youth who come, armed, and place charges along the fence. When we see them, even when we see that they are armed, if they are only fourteen or fifteen we only shoot to scare them. We don't actually fire at them. Of course, only if there is no immediate danger to our forces.

"Our general instructions," he continued, "not just in the these cases, is if we see a militant who is armed, a terrorist, and there is no immediate danger to our forces, we don't fire if there is a danger that we would hurt the innocents, people who are not involved. But with that, it's important to say that when we have such aggressive fighting in populated areas, when there's an exchange of fire between terrorists and the IDF, there are cases where innocent people get hurt. But we warn as much as we can to step back, step away, to clear the area. So we see the terror organizations as responsible when civilians get hurt. And when there is a case and we know that a civilian was killed by mistake or unnecessarily, we check ourselves.

Sadly, the Israeli Defense Force is far more concerned about civilian casualties than the Palestinians themselves are. The Palestinians will actively put civilians in harms way -- then blame someone else for the inevitable consequences.

"About a month and a half ago," he said, "another event that shows you the dilemma here: Two terrorists with an RPG tried to shoot a tank. We shot back. In the same house the mother of them, and a cousin, were in the same house. They fired five meters away from where the mother and cousin were standing. The Palestinian headline said that a mother and child were killed. The child was twenty two years old. And he was a member of Hamas. So, I am not happy about the mother. But, this is my right. You know? In the houses of Hamas militants, and all the other terrorist organizations, there are storages of weaponry. That's because in the past we would avoid attacking houses with families. Which raises the question: Sometimes we as the IDF care more about the families and the children than he who would put them in danger. In a house, let's say of three floors, a whole floor may be used as a storage."

The Palestinians are woefully ineffective at fighting the Israelis, yet they continue to fight anyway. The ongoing struggle resembles self-immolation far more than it resembles war. Last summer, the Palestinian terrorists kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. How did that turn out for them?

"All the year, before Gilad Shalit, no one. In the Shalit event, two soldiers died. And after that one more soldier died from friendly shooting. That's all. So this is the big question for them. The spokesman of the government for Palestinians three days ago said the same thing I say all the time. For what? For what? For three soldiers who were killed in Gaza. In all the year something like 500 terrorists died in Gaza. So for what? The organizations of terror need to understand that it's not worth it for them. And they can choose. We left the territory in the Gaza Strip, so it's up to them. We will not stop the Qassam only with military pressure. They need to decide that they want to stop it. And if they will stop the Qassams, if they will stop the terror, free Gilad Shalit, we won't have anything to fight about. And Karni will be open more. And everything will be better for them, not for us.

Not very well.

What We "Know" About Gaza

A few weeks ago, Michael Totten's co-blogger Noah Pollah wrote about the conventional wisdom most people have about Gaza and Palestine.

The first is the notion that power would moderate Hamas.

The second is an idea that dates back at least to the start of Olso in the early 1990's. It is the belief that Israel must make concessions in order to validate and strengthen the Palestinian moderates and marginalize the radicals.

[...]

Yet Israel's withdrawal from Gaza happened just four months before the election, and the commotion surrounding that event distracted many people from taking note of what the withdrawal meant for the Palestinians themselves.

[...]

And what it meant for the Palestinians, especially the residents of Gaza, was that Hamas' fierce resistance over the decades had finally forced an Israeli retreat. It was the Shia reaction to the 2000 Lebanon pullout all over again, with Hamas playing Hezbollah. Hamas was able to campaign proudly on this victory, which was viewed as additional evidence of Hamas' strength and competence. And so it seems clear that a massive Israeli concession -- its departure from Gaza -- did not strengthen the Palestinian moderates at all, but in fact did the opposite: it vindicated the extremists, who unlike the moderates could declare a great victory and bask in the ensuing public admiration -- and collect a lot more votes when election day arrived.

[...]

Finally, there is the matter of foreign aid and its relationship to democracy-promotion. The Arab states and Iran have always spoken with great high-mindedness about the plight of their brothers in Palestine, but these regimes in practice have always lustily enjoyed seeing their brothers become permanent wards of UNRWA, settle into never-ending refugee status, and stagnate in extremism and violence. Since Hamas came to power, as David Frum helpfully notes, the gushers of largess that flow into the Palestinian territories have actually increased.

Wrap Up

Gaza is a mess. And nothing we seem to do makes it any better. How bad of a mess is it? Well, right now Hamas and Fatah are engaged in civil war over control of the Palestinian government. How can you possibly fix an area that dysfunctional?

Both sides are taking a time-out from the hatred of Israel to waste each other. When they're not fighting each other, they're busy taking 500-3 losses at the hands of the Isaeli army. I don't think most people over there are rational any longer.

After reading these reports, I understand exactly why Israel wants to build a fence around Gaza. Maybe if we wall these terrorists in, we can look back over the wall in 50 years to see if anyone's ready to give civilization a try. Until then, why not prevent them getting to you to hurt you?

Quick -- how do you increase the wealth of a nation and improving living standards for everyone? I'll tell you how. First, create a stable system of laws that apply to everyone and make sure that everyone knows what they are. This creates a level playing field where neither income nor social status prevent justice from being served.

Second, allow individuals to produce goods and compete for buyers in a free and open market. Producers will compete for buyers through price, quality, and quantity. Producers will diligently strive to gain in edge in one -- or all -- of these categories, in an effort to draw more buyers and earn more profit. As each producer gains a temporary edge, other producers will rush to imitate the innovation. What starts as an innovation by one producer will quickly become the norm for an entire industry.

This cycle will repeat over and over and over again in each sector of the market. Electronics (iPod vs Zune), automobiles (American vs Japanese), furniture (getting nicer all the time), homes (getting bigger all the time), lighting (incandescent bulbs vs compact fluorescents), and more. What once was inconceivable quickly becomes the new base line standard.

At least, that's the way things normally work. Every so often, a spanner gets thrown into the works. The story of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef provides a nice illustration.

The U.S. Agriculture Department tests beef for mad cow disease. However, the USDA has a limited budget and Americans eat a lot of cows every year. As a result, less than 1% of all slaughtered beef is actually tested for mad cow disease. Creekstone Farms sells a premium grade of beef. They'd like to offer buyers another incentive to choose their beef over their competitors. They decided to gain a competitive edge by testing all of their beef for mad cow disease and certifying every cut mad-cow-free.

This would have given Creekstone Farms a decided advantage in the market for premium beef. Their competitors were worried about losing buyers to Creekstone. Rather than compete with their own innovations, they lobbied the USDA to crack down on Creekstone's innovation. The USDA ruled that no beef producer could perform more testing than the U.S. government performed.

Creekstone is fighting the ruling in court, for their right to innovate and compete in a free market.

For the moment, the forward progress of wealth and living standards has been stopped by the U.S. government. Companies that would rather lobby than innovate control the regulatory system. Do you still believe that government regulation makes the world a better place? I don't.

(Hat tip to Coyote Blog.)

On Friday, Fred Thompson reminded us of the importance of engaging the world with our ideas:

It's equally tragic that the U.S. is in no position to provide the victims of [Hugo Chavez] with the truth. There was a time, though, when Americans were on the front lines of pro-freedom movements all over the world. I'm talking about the "surrogate" broadcast network that included Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, often called "the Radios."

When Ronald Reagan was elected, he greatly empowered the private, congressionally funded effort and handpicked the Radios' top staff to bring freedom to the Soviet Union. Steve Forbes led the group.

Cynics still say that the USSR fell of its own weight, and that President Reagan's efforts to bring it down were irrelevant, but Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev say differently. Both have said that, without the Radios, the USSR wouldn't have fallen. The Radios were not some bland public relations effort, attracting audiences only with American pop music. They engaged the intellectual and influential populations behind the Iron Curtain with accurate news and smart programming about freedom and democracy. They had sources and networks within those countries that sometimes outperformed the CIA. When Soviet hardliners and reformers were facing off, and crowds and tanks were on the streets of Moscow and Bucharest, the radios were sending real-time information to the people, including the military, and reminding them of what was at stake.

Unfortunately, we scaled back the Radios and are in no position to use them to influence the Middle East or Latin America.

Fred Thompson mentioned that "we'll have a whole new set of media technologies" to use, if we start to stand up to today's dictators. It's true. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez has forced Radio Caracas Television off of the air, for the heinous crime of disliking him. RCT has decided to keep fighting anyway. Instead of broadcasting their content over their airwaves, they are broadcasting it over YouTube. Last Friday, YouTube listed RCT as their most-subscribed feed of the week. Today's dictators will have a much harder time controlling the flow of information than yesterday's dictators. I think that's something worth celebrating.

Finally, if Iran's government is so peace-loving and wants only to be granted a measure of respect, why are the Iranians so busy clamping down on freedom in their own country?

Unemployment among young Iranians is about 50 percent. Some 40 percent of the population is on the government payroll, and there is not enough oil money to pay off all the people who do support the government (about a third of the population). Thus the government keeps printing more money, and the result in an inflation rate of over 20 percent. The Iranian people are getting increasingly restless, and, more ominously, surly. The government has relied on street level gangs of young Islamic conservatives to discourage such behavior. But it isn't working, and there have been more and more street battles. The government can more readily call in reinforcements, and has won all these brawls so far. But if the government starts losing them, it's the beginning of the end. Some of the kids have cell phones, a technology the government tried to keep out. The fear is that a street level disturbance will result in the protestors calling in their own reinforcements, defeating the security forces, and spreading. The clerics fear an event similar to the one that suddenly destroyed communist rule in Russia and Eastern Europe 18 years ago. For that reason, much attention and cash is spent on the street level muscle (the Basij militia), and a constant willingness to use physical violence against any protests or "un-Islamic" behavior.

There is a difference between the U.S. and our enemies. We need to remember that. More importantly, we need to highlight it whenever and wherever possible.

Now this is interesting; famous pornography king Larry Flynt, publisher of such luminous periodicals as_ Hustler_, has offered up to $1 million dollars for documented evidence of an extramarital affair with any high-ranking political official in the U.S. - senators, congresspeople, mayors of big cities, and (naturally) presidential or vice-presidential nominees.

According to FOXNews, this isn't even the first time Flynt has placed a bounty on politicians' hanky panky; in 1998 (remember what happened that year?) he let out a similar net, and successfully caught a very big fish: Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., who - if not for having to fall on his sword when he learned Flynt was investigating him - would almost certainly have become Speaker of the House.

Every male has a little voice inside his head (Satan's, presumably) telling him that there must be some good in the pornography industry somewhere. Apparently this is it.

I think the Bible is packed with humor. I also think that the humor isn't always obvious. I was reading in Luke last night and read something that made me laugh. Because I paid for this mic, I'm going to share it with you.

First, the background. The story revolves around the Jewish temple and the Jewish religious calendar. The Jewish Virtual Library has an article on the temple, giving the relevant background:

As glorious and elaborate as the Temple was, its most important room contained almost no furniture at all. Known as the Holy of Holies (Kodesh Kodashim), it housed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, the tablets disappeared when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple, and during the Second Temple era, the Holy of Holies was a small, entirely bare room. Only once a year, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would enter this room and pray to God on Israel's behalf. A remarkable monologue by a Hasidic rabbi in the Yiddish play The Dybbuk conveys a sense of what the Jewish throngs worshiping at the Temple must have experienced during this ceremony:

God's world is great and holy. The holiest land in the world is the land of Israel. In the land of Israel the holiest city is Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the holiest place was the Temple, and in the Temple the holiest spot was the Holy of Holies.... There are seventy peoples in the world. The holiest among these is the people of Israel. The holiest of the people of Israel is the tribe of Levi. In the tribe of Levi the holiest are the priests. Among the priests, the holiest was the High Priest.... There are 354 days in the [lunar] year. Among these, the holidays are holy. Higher than these is the holiness of the Sabbath. Among Sabbaths, the holiest is the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of Sabbaths.... There are seventy languages in the world. The holiest is Hebrew. Holier than all else in this language is the holy Torah, and in the Torah the holiest part is the Ten Commandments. In the Ten Commandments the holiest of all words is the name of God.... And once during the year, at a certain hour, these four supreme sanctities of the world were joined with one another. That was on the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and there utter the name of God. And because this hour was beyond measure holy and awesome, it was the time of utmost peril not only for the High Priest but for the whole of Israel. For if in this hour there had, God forbid, entered the mind of the High Priest a false or sinful thought, the entire world would have been destroyed.

Got it? This is serious business indeed. A priest by the name of Zechariah steps into this holy event. He and his wife were an old married couple. They'd been childless for so long that they'd given up on having children. Here's the story

Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. ..."

Wow. Huge moment here. The entire nation waits with baited breath while Zechariah talks to God on their behalf. Zechariah has probably spent his entire life telling himself "Don't screw up, don't screw up, don't screw up" -- just over the matter of praying. Now he walks into this mostly empty room and an angel's standing there. Surely a miraculous occurrence! How does Zechariah respond?

Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years."

Hah! His first response is "Dude, are you for real?" It's the angel's response that really made me laugh though.

The angel said to him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. ..."

Translation: "Hi. I'm an angel. Not just any angel. I'm Gabriel. I stand before the throne in YHWH's presence. You're here on the biggest day of your life, the biggest day of the religious calendar -- and you're asking me whether or not you can trust me?"

That just made me laugh. Not so much at Zechariah as at human nature. We're not good at handling surprise and trusting God. Had I been in the Holy of Holies that day, I'm sure I would have reacted just as Zechariah did.

I think the punishment definitely fits the crime:

"And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time."

"You know what -- if you can't say anything intelligent, just don't talk at all. It's safer that way."

So true.

If you're not already keeping tabs on James Lileks' website, you really should start. He has an absolute genius for taking the ordinary events of life and turning then into comedy gold. While there, you can check out the Gallery of Regrettable Food and Interior Desecrations. Also not to be missed -- Ozark Vacation Dee-Lites. You'll laugh, you'll cry. Actually, you'll laugh until you cry.

If you want the unique perspective on every day life, check out the Daily Bleat. I really enjoyed his series on Disney World (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4).

Here's an enjoyable bit from today's Bleat:

Tonight I made the worst tacos ever. Home tacos never hit the spot like restaurant tacos. I suspect there's one key spice they withhold from the home market, available only to certain people with the right connections. A powerful, shady cabal. Once the mailman delivered a copy of "Taco Insider" to the wrong address, and the entire family disappeared. They found their bodies in a Mexican grave. Cause of death: they'd been smothered with cheese. The ingredient is probably MSG, I know. But I'd like to think it's a special pepper that tastes different than the other peppers. I've always wondered about those "Five Pepper Blends" "“ wouldn't the strongest pepper render the rest moot? No one dumps five different peppers on their tongue, waits for the burn to leave, then picks up the delicate under flavor of the shy, retiring peppers. I know I'll get mail from pepper enthusiasts who could put a habenero up one nostril and a jalapeno up the other and identify them without hesitation, but for me "“ Mr. Oven Mitt Palate, Mr. Asbestos-Glove-For-Tongue "“ I can't tell. Still, home tacos are just off. Tonight I tried Old El Paso's Stand and Stuff Salsa flavored shells. Everyone had the expression of an elderly municipal librarian finding clown porn on a computer screen.

Go. Read. Laugh. Enjoy the stuff of life.

Algerian women are slowly doing what women in few Islamic countries are able to do -- they are gaining independence from the men in their lives. I couldn't be happier.

Women make up 70 percent of Algeria's lawyers and 60 percent of its judges. Women dominate medicine. Increasingly, women contribute more to household income than men. Sixty percent of university students are women, university researchers say.

How is this happening? Well, mainly through the laziness and apathy of Algeria's men.

Algeria's young men reject school and try to earn money as traders in the informal sector, selling goods on the street, or they focus their efforts on leaving the country or just hanging out. There is a whole class of young men referred to as hittistes -- the word is a combination of French and Arabic for people who hold up walls.

University studies are no longer viewed as a credible route toward a career or economic well-being, and so men may well opt out and try to find work or to simply leave the country, suggested Hugh Roberts, a historian and the North Africa project director of the International Crisis Group.

Algerian women have been quick to take advantage of the opportunity. They have also learned to use traditional Islamic dress as a tool to further their goals.

Sociologists and many working women say that by adopting religion and wearing the Islamic head covering called the hijab, women here have in effect freed themselves from moral judgments and restrictions imposed by men. Uncovered women are rarely seen on the street late at night, but covered women can be seen strolling the city after attending the evening prayer at a mosque.

As a result, they may be able to do more to modernize Algeria than anyone ever dreamed.

Women may have emerged as Algeria's most potent force for social change, with their presence in the bureaucracy and on the street having a potentially moderating and modernizing influence on society, sociologists said.

Many of today's Algerian women have a decidedly Enlightened view of religion and work.

"I don't think any of this contradicts Islam," said Wahiba Nabti, 36, as she walked through the center of the city one day recently. "On the contrary, Islam gives freedom to work. Anyway it is between you and God."

Ms. Nabti wore a black scarf covering her head and a long black gown that hid the shape of her body. "I hope one day I can drive a crane, so I can really be financially independent," she said. "You cannot always rely on a man."

This is the perspective, attitude, and action that American feminists cannot endure. Rather than violently overthrowing the "patriarchy" and "men's religion", Algerian women are working through religion and the patriarchy to achieve their goals. If they succeed, they can be model to Muslim women everywhere. They will also be another crack in the wall of traditional Muslim barbarism and oppression.

Go, go, go!

Is it really possible for France to have a robust foreign policy? Normally I wouldn't think so. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy has me intrigued. He has appointed Socialist Party member Bernard Kouchner as his new foreign minister. Who is Bernard Kouchner? Michael J. Totten provides in intriguing profile:

Dr. Kouchner had had it. He knew communism was a mendacious lie. But the idea of "Workers Without Borders" (which, as Paul Berman notes, is what "Workers of the World Unite" ultimately means) stirred his soul, even so. Workers didn't inspire him so much as the idea of the abolition of borders. So he formed his own revolutionary organization of sorts, and he called it Doctors Without Borders. Doctors Without Borders was what the Red Cross would have been if an anti-totalitarian Che Guevara had founded it. Its missions, Berman writes, "were no less dangerous than any guerilla struggle, no less frightening, no less difficult, but [they had] the great virtue, in contrast to a communist insurgency, of refusing to lie."

... So Kouchner and Doctors Without Borders rented a French vessel and rescued some of the boat people. Scooped them right out of the sea. Some of his left-wing comrades burned with volcanic rage "“ rage against Kouchner for saving people! American imperialists, not the Vietnamese communists, were the villains in their mental universe. Kouchner showed up their fantasy as a lie, and they hated him for it.

Later Jimmy Carter dispatched the United States Navy to rescue the rest of the boat people. Doctors Without Borders were followed by Sailors Without Borders. This, from the point of view of the formerly communist and anti-imperialist Kouchner, was nothing short of fantastic.

Little surprise, then, that Kouchner "“ unlike many of his former comrades on the left "“ favored the humanitarian rescue of Iraqis from the predatory regime of Saddam Hussein. From Workers Without Borders...to Soldiers Without Borders. He became frustrated, apoplectic actually, at what he saw as the Bush Administration's arrogance and incompetence. But he supported the war all the same, and he did so strictly on left-wing grounds.

Sarkozy and Kouchner are giving me lots of reasons to keep an eye on France in the coming months.

The New York Times published a nice drive-by hit of Lou Dobbs, this morning. It turns out -- quelle shock! -- that the populist demogague extraordinaire likes to play fast and loose with the truth. Remember -- when it comes to demonizing some-one or some-thing, the truth can be an unwieldy handicap.

As you may have heard, Michael Moore will soon be releasing a new documentary on the American healthcare system -- "Sicko". In the film, Moore favorable compares the Cuban healthcare system to the U.S. healthcare system. In the film he claims -- among other things -- that Cubans live longer than Americans. The New York Times investigated these claims:

[M]any people regard any figures about Cuba as at least partly fiction. But even if the longevity statistics are correct, they are open to interpretation. Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Pittsburgh, said statistics also show that Cuba has a high rate of abortion, which can lower infant mortality rates and improve life expectancy figures. The constant flow of refugees also may affect longevity figures, since those births are recorded but the deaths are not.

That would certainly help the statistics out. As if that wasn't enough, Cuban apologists see a bright side to Cuban poverty:

Dr. Butler said some of Cuba's shortcomings may actually improve its health profile. "Because they don't have up-to-date cars, they tend to have to exercise more by walking," he said. "And they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity, but they're not starving, either."

This may or may not be true. I lean towards believing that it's a pile of crock. After all, if the statistics are skewed by immigration (and why would people want to leave such an island paradise anyway?) and abortion there's no reason to believe that their health profile really is all that good.

Even if all of this were true -- Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship! It's not a virtue that their citizens walk more and eat less. They have absolutely no choice in the matter. They are dirt poor because their government decreases that no one be allowed wealth. There is no way that I would ever choose such a trade off. I don't believe any other Americans would either.

Finally, there's this:

By the time Dr. Cordova started practicing in 1992, equipment and drugs were already becoming scarce. He said he was assigned to a four-block neighborhood in Havana Province where he was supposed to care for about 600 people.

"But even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis," he said, "I couldn't write a prescription for antibiotics, because there were none."

"Actually there are three systems," Dr. Cordova said, because Cuba has two: one is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana. "It is as good as this one here, with all the resources, the best doctors, the best medicines, and nobody pays a cent," he said.

But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients "have to bring their own food, soap, sheets "” they have to bring everything." And up to 20,000 Cuban doctors may be working in Venezuela, creating a shortage in Cuba.

This is the system that Michael Moore thinks is superior to ours. He's welcome to it. I'll stick with the American system.

It seems that our mainstream media is obsessed with mangled bodies, blood, gore, and death. How else do you explain this article from the New York Times? David Carr spends two pages whining about how unfair it is that the Army makes it hard to take photos of wounded and dead American soldiers.

Since last year, the military's embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.

Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.

"They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent," he said. "We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm."

I think this shows where Mr. Gilbertson's priorities lie. He's far more interested in photos of dead and dying soldiers than he is in photos of combat, photos of soldiers on patrol, photos of Iraqi children, Iraqi marketplaces, Iraqi schools, or anything else. He comes across as a man interested only in portraying the death and destruction in Iraq. There is death and destruction in Iraq. But there is much more as well. Photographers like Michael Yon and Michael Fumento manage to capture that. The mainstream media seems uninterested in the effort.

Journalists are frustrated with the new regulations in part because, as this current surge has progressed, there have been further pinches on information. On May 13, the Iraq Interior Ministry said bombing sites would be off limits for an hour after an event; just days later, Iraqi police forces fired shots over the heads of working press to enforce the decree.

The Iraqi police want time to investigate a bomb scene -- in a war zone -- before reporters trample all over it. That the reporters think this is an egregious violation of their rights says far more about them than it does about the Iraqi police. None of it good.

Meanwhile Peter Collier (at the Wall Street Journal editorial page) laments the way the media has ignored recent Medal of Honor winners.

Once we knew who and what to honor on Memorial Day: those who had given all their tomorrows, as was said of the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, for our todays. But in a world saturated with selfhood, where every death is by definition a death in vain, the notion of sacrifice today provokes puzzlement more often than admiration. We support the troops, of course, but we also believe that war, being hell, can easily touch them with an evil no cause for engagement can wash away. And in any case we are more comfortable supporting them as victims than as warriors.

Former football star Pat Tillman and Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham were killed on the same day: April 22, 2004. But as details of his death fitfully emerged from Afghanistan, Tillman has become a metaphor for the current conflict--a victim of fratricide, disillusionment, coverup and possibly conspiracy. By comparison, Dunham, who saved several of his comrades in Iraq by falling on an insurgent's grenade, is the unknown soldier. The New York Times, which featured Abu Ghraib on its front page for 32 consecutive days, put the story of Dunham's Medal of Honor on the third page of section B.

Not long ago I was asked to write the biographical sketches for a book featuring formal photographs of all our living Medal of Honor recipients. As I talked with them, I was, of course, chilled by the primal power of their stories. But I also felt pathos: They had become strangers--honored strangers, but strangers nonetheless--in our midst.

As we celebrate Memorial Day today, let us remember -- not the images of broken bodies, but the heroism, purpose, and valor that inspired that sacrifice. Don't reduce Memorial Day to simply a remembrance that the men and women of our Armed Forces have died in combat. Remember what they fought for, why they fought for it, and what they've accomplished in the process.

Many of the men in Iraq and Afghanistan have re-enlisted multiple times since the wars started. They obviously believe that there is a job worth doing. Honor them for that and quit whining about not being allowed to photograph their injuries.

I was given a copy of Pastor John Piper's book -- The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace -- for my birthday. Pastor Piper wrote the back as a series of short chapters, intended to be read one a day. I've been attempting to do so.

Over the next couple of weeks, I'd like to blog about my thoughts as I read through the book.

Chapter One -- The Debtor's Ethic: Should We Try to Pay God Back?

In this chapter, Pastor Piper addresses the popular idea that we should obey God out of gratitude for our salvation. Piper calls this the debtor's ethic:

The debtor's ethic says, "Because you have done something good for me, I feel indebted to do something good for you." This impulse is not what gratitude was designed to produce. God meant gratitude to be a spontaneous expression of pleasure in the gift and the good will of another. He did not mean it to be an impulse to return favors. If gratitude is twisted into a sense of debt, it gives birth to the debtor's ethic -- and the effect is to nullify grace.

What's gone wrong? It's not wrong to feel gratitude when someone gives us a gift. The trouble starts with the impulse that now we owe a "gift". What this feeling does is turn gifts into legal currency. Subtly the gift is no longer a gift but a business transaction. And what was offered as free grace is nullified by distorted gratitude.

Piper goes on to demonstrate that nowhere in Scripture is gratitude given as a reason for obedience. Rather, the people throughout the Bible are condemned for their lack of faith -- not their lack of gratitude. (Numbers 14:11; Deut 1:31-32; Psalm 78:15,17,22.) Rather, Piper says, we should obey God out of a faith in future grace.

Faith in future grace is the secret that keeps impulses of gratitude from turning into the debtor's ethic. True gratitude exults in the riches of God's grace as it looks back on the benefits it has received. By cherishing past grace in this way, it inclines the heart to trust in future grace. We might say that gratitude has a strong appetite for the enjoyment of looking back on the outpourings of God's grace. Since God does this future outpouring through faith, therefore gratitude sends its impulses of delight into faith in future grace. This is expressed in the words: lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord (Psalm 116:12-14). Gratitude exults in the past benefits of God and says to faith, "Embrace more of these benefits for the future, so that my happy work of looking back on God's deliverance may continue."

Chapter Two: When Gratitude Malfunctions

A Filipino Insight

Pastor Piper starts chapter two with an anecdote about encountering a missionary to the Philippines. She told about the Filipino concept of utang na loob. She said "To a Filipino, to show a lack of due gratitude is outrageous; being grateful is almost second nature to him. His sense of utang na loob defines his integrity as a person in the context of social relationships." Unfortunately, this debt lasts a lifetime -- it is difficult to measure the extent of the debt, and thus impossible to every pay the debt off. The debtor lives in a constant state of obligation and has no hope of ever being freed from the debt.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for Christians to fall into this trap. We try to serve God out of gratitude, but know that we can never retire the debt. Thus we are always concerned about what we must do for Him, not what He will do for us.

In chapter one, Pastor Piper demonstrated that faith in future grace is the antidote to the debtor's ethic. Piper uses chapter two to demonstrate that the New Testament is even more more explicit on the subject of future grace than the New Testament is.

Romans 9:31-32; Hebrews 11:7,8,27,33; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Galatians 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Thess 2:13. None of these passages mention gratitude as an inspirtation for obedience. All mention faith. This truth liberates us forever from the need to repay God through our service. Instead, we can look forward to God providing us with what we need to service Him.

The main problem here is that the past-orientation of the debtor's ethic tends to blind us to the infinite, never-ending, inexhaustible, uninterrupted flow of future grace from this moment to eternity. This grace is there in the future to be trusted and lived on. It is there to give the motivation and power for our obedience. This infinite overflow of God's grace is dishonored when we fail to appropriate it by faith in future grace. Gratitude is not designed for this. Faith is. Past grace is glorified by intense and joyful gratitude. Future grace is glorified by intense and joyful confidence. This faith is what frees us and empowers us for venturesome obedience in the cause of Christ.

How does this play out in actual practice? Chapter three provides a clue. But more on that later.

Today's Capital Times had a heartwarming little article about homeless activists and their endless crusade to wring money out of everyone else.

Members of the Tenant Advocacy Group, or TAG, already know about homelessness. Each was once homeless, or narrowly escaped being out on the street. "We learned these things from the inside out," said Cynthia Travis, coordinator for the group.

That's good. These people are uniquely situated to help the poor and the homeless. Their goals are absolutely praiseworthy. Unfortunately, their methods are not.

The group entered the fray of state legislative politics this year by sending a letter to Secretary of Commerce Mary Burke requesting a $1 million-a-year increase in state funding for homeless shelter and transitional housing services grants. The Commerce department administers the grant program, funding for which has been $1.5 million a year for some 15 years.

They even saw some initial success as Governor Doyle put an additional $1 million into his budget, for their cause. Then action stalled in the Joint Finance Committee:

As Joint Finance Committee actions on other issues proceeded, it unfolded that any additional funds for homelessness services would need to be funded through an increase in the real estate transfer tax. That didn't fly.

They decided to use an appeal to pity as leverage for their demands:

"I slept in a Ford station wagon for six months," Morris King recalled. The way to help unsympathetic legislators get their priorities in order, he said, is to ask them: "Do you want potholes? Or do you want people sleeping on the street?"

Here's the thing. The legislature doesn't hand out free money. Every penny that the legislature hands out has to come from somewhere and someone else. Increasing the real estate transfer tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to buy a home. Increasing the gas tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to drive. Increasing the sales tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to purchase everything. Increasing the ... well, you get the idea.

Every time the government increases taxes, it becomes more expensive for poorer people to survive on their own. For those living the closest to the financial edge, a tax increase may be the difference between survival and failure. Ultimately, these crusades are counter-productive.

It will ultimately prove fruitless to use the government to confiscate the resources of others and redistribute them to your group. You will merely drive up the cost of living in the State leading to an endless cycle of increases in government aid and increases in the cost of living. Focus on creating wealth that you can use to help others, rather than confiscating wealth.

Yesterday as I drove home, I passed by our local custard retailer. That brought back memories of Memorial Day weekend last year. We attended Brat Fest, then went over to Cold Stone for dessert. We had a blast. All because the people working at Cold Stone and Brat Fest were willing to give up their holiday for my enjoyment.

Why would they do that? Quite simply, greed. They wanted the wages they could earn more than they wanted a day off. Some of them did it because they could earn a higher than normal hourly rate. Some of them did it because it offered them a rare chance to work extra hours at their normal rate. Whatever the reason, they decided that the extra income was worth more than the leisure time.

This year, I once again anticipate being able to shop, eat, and drive on this holiday week. As I go out, the various people serving me will not be serving me out of compassion, a love for mankind, or a sense of noblesse oblige.

They are serving me because they want my money. The only legal way to get my money (or anyone's money) is to exchange goods or services for cash. Our free market system is uniquely able to channel peoples' private greed and desires into service for others. Out of self-interest, people across Madison will be working to meet the needs of the entire city this Memorial Day.

I'm thankful that we have an economic system that rewards those who work hard. I'm thankful that we have an economic system that gives everyone an incentive to meet the needs of everyone else. Aren't you?

And so, in closing, I leave you with these words.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

A lot of people obsess about the trade "deficit" between China and the U.S. (Hello Lou Dobbs.) They believe that just because we buy more from China than China buys from us, we must not be doing well at international trade. That we're not producing anything of value and they are.

Hah.

You and I run trade deficits every day of our lives. I buy far more from BrouxNellie's than BrouxNellie's buys from me. I buy far more from Copps than Copps buys from me. I buy far more from the local BP station than it buys from me. I run a deficit with every business I walk into. So do you. There is only one business I do not run a deficit with -- my employer. They purchase large chunks of my time and I purchase almost nothing from them.

These personal trade deficits are absolutely meaningless. They tell you nothing about whether or not I am producing anything of value of whether or not I'm "keeping up". International trade deficits are just as meaningless.

Finally, the deficit as a raw number is also meaningless because it doesn't take growth into effect. Chinese exports to the U.S. have been growing exponentially for some time. U.S. exports to China have also been growing exponentially. Both countries are importing more -- and getting wealthier as a result. That's something to celebrate, not something to bemoan.

From Political Calculations:

The logarithmic vertical scale may throw some off, but the growth of imports from China to the U.S. has grown exponentially in the recorded period, rising from 293.1 billion USD in January 1985 to 25,635 billion USD (or 25.6 trillion USD!) through January 2007.

Looking at the rates at which the value of trade doubles, we find that the doubling period is fairly consistent at approximately every four years.

Here, we find that the value of what the U.S. exports to China has only fully doubled in value 3 times since January 1985, rising from 319.2 billion USD in January 1995 to 4,364 billion USD (4.3 trillion USD) in January 2007. What's really remarkable is the acceleration of the doubling rate clearly visible over the period from January 1985 through January 2007.

Here, we find that for the first 10 years of the period, the value of U.S. exports grew at an average annualized compound growth rate of 7.2%. It took another 6 years and 3 months from November 1994 to January 2001 for the value of U.S. exports to China to double again.

And from January 2001 onward, we find that the value of all that the U.S. exports to China doubled again, in less than 3 years. That corresponds to an annualized compound growth rate greater than 24%. More significantly, since that last doubling period ended, we find that the U.S. has nearly doubled in the 36 months since, suggesting that the current rate of export growth has continued near this high level.

See -- we really are both getting richer. So don't worry about the trade deficit. And the next time you see Lou Dobbs fretting about the trade deficit, feel free to change the channel. I do.

The Times is surprised to learn that the recent emphasis on biofuels is making our gas more expensive.

In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

But those plans have since been scaled back to more than one million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the federal government.

"If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increases in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining," said John D. Hofmeister, the president of the Shell Oil Company. "Industrywide, this will have an impact."

The concerns were echoed in a recent report by Barclays Capital, which said the uncertainty about the ethanol growth "will do little to accelerate desperately needed investment in complex United States refining units."

"Indeed, it is likely to deter and further delay investment, if not rule out many refinery investments completely."

The oil companies say their views on the longer-term prospects for fuel reflect simple economics. Because of the enormous investments required to expand refineries, they say they have no other choice but to re-examine their plans in light of the calls for more ethanol fuel, regardless of how realistic they may be.

Not that any of this matters to Congress. Now that they've injected a huge dose of uncertainty into the gasoline market and driven prices sharply upwards, they're prepared to tax away any profits that might enable the oil companies to actually handle the market uncertainty. (High profits might give the companies enough of a margin to both invest in refinery capacity and invest in ethanol production. Unfortunately, profits are evil so we can't let that happen.)

Let's not forget the other place that oil industry revenues have been going:

The refining industry has also spent vast amounts "” more than $50 billion in the last 10 years "” to meet requirements to produce cleaner fuels, according to the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main trade group.

That's a lot of money. And Congress could mandate something else in the future that will cost just as much -- or more. These are the risks that oil industry executives have to face every day of every year. When uncertainty about future expenses goes up, so do prices.

In case you think that everything will be solved if we just move from corn based ethanal to cellulosic ethanol, not so quick:

The economics of cellulosic ethanol, made from nonfood crops and agricultural waste, are also unclear. Since cellulosic ethanol, still at an experimental stage, is twice as expensive as corn-based ethanol, there are currently no commercial-scale cellulosic plants.

In addition, Mr. Goldstein said, an emphasis on ethanol might lead to increased volatility in fuel prices.

"If we get a bad corn crop, we will end up paying for it at the pump and on the food shelves," he said. "We are not buying security. We are increasing volatility."

While Congress was busy thinking about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, they forgot to think about reducing our dependence on fickle weather patterns. When was the last time that the entire nation had to worry about whether or not the farmers would have a bumper crop of corn? Thanks to Congress, we'll be able to experience this old-fashioned form of worry all over again.

Rather than blaming the oil industry for high gas prices, Congress needs to take a long hard look at their own behavior. Then stop it.

Oy; the good folks at the Bridge-Linguatec School just sent me a packet on information concerning the CELTA certification course (Cambridge English Language Teaching Association), which - God willing - I'm taking this June. And here's an excerpt:

"...The course is very intensive. Trainees need a great deal of energy and stamina to work through the course. You will be at school every day from approximately 9 "“ 6, and your evenings will be taken up with reading, research, lesson planning, and written assignments. It is advisable not to have a part-time job or other outside distractions during this month, as it will take your focus away from the course and you will not receive as much benefit from your time here. The course is very intense and requires a great deal of time and energy. Past trainees have commented that homework takes from 3-5 hours every evening."

The failure rate among students, it goes on to say, is roughly 6-7%, and so is the class drop-out rate, for a total of round-abouts 12-14% who are accepted and find they can't hack it. As for those students who pass the course: "C" students account for 65% of the typical class, the "B" students 20-25%. "A" students: 3-4% ("These Candidates usually have a number of years of teaching experience").

I admit to slight concern.

But!: We're not here to worry about my future, now are we? No, we're here to discuss Exodus 1:1-7 some more. So, let's.

We return to the somewhat troublesome question of how seventy-five Jews become 2-3 million Jews within the seemingly absurd span of a little over four hundred years.

• Exodus 1:5: "The total number of persons that were of Jacob's issue came to seventy, Joseph being already in Egypt [and not counting Joseph's grandchildren and great-grandchildren]."

According to Plaut, this group of seventy consists of Jacob, sixty-seven male offspring, and two wives. Adding in Joseph's grandchildren and great-grandchildren, the total number of men comes to seventy-two.

• Exodus 12:40: "The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years..." [if you believe this verse and not Genesis 15:16, in which God says Israel shall dwell in Egypt for four hundred flat. Gen. 15:16 also says "the fourth generation" shall leave Egypt, whereas 1 Chron. 7:20-27 records ten. We won't be getting into this seeming contradiction today.]

Is it possible that a family of seventy men became a nation of two to three million, or even more? Well, mathematically-speaking, the answer is like every other answer in Judaism: "Yes, but it depends." Several questions have a great impact on the issue.

Question 1: Were the Jews still polygamists? If Jewish men can take more than one wife, the birth rate of Israel increases. Simple.

Question 2: Did Israel's children take foreign wives? Joseph's wife was an Egyptian. If Joseph's kin followed suit (at least until their enslavement), and especially if they were polygamists, then the potential for a powerful birth rate was more strong. On the other hand, Abraham clearly hated the idea of his son Isaac marrying anyone who was not of his own kind. Was this attitude passed down to Abraham's descendants as virtual law, or was it not until Mount Sinai that such rules were enshrined?

Question 3: Did Israel's children take wives of their own kin? We often think of the Hebrew race as simply beginning with "Father Abraham", but of course this isn't true; Abraham himself belonged to a people populating the Fertile Crescent.

Who were these people? A popular theory among today's scholars is that the word "Hebrew" (Ivri) shares the same roots of, or is derived from, the word "Habiru" - the name given to a people populating (you guessed it) the Fertile Crescent.

From Plaut:

"[The Habiru] may have been related by family ties; they became prominent in Mesopotamia and later spread out all the way to Egypt... Although at first they were nomads or semi-nomads, they later settled in the countries of their choice. They were, however, usually considered foreigners, which means that they succeeded in maintaining their group identity..."

This especially clicks when you consider that the word Ivri "was used only when the members of the Israelite tribes spoke of themselves to outsiders and when outsiders referred to them. Thus, Abraham is called ivri (Gen. 14:13)..." Otherwise the people referred to themselves by their tribes (e.g., Judah, Ephraim) or by their more immediate common ancestor, Israel."

Interestingly, despite the seemingly perfect fit, Plaut stops short of saying in his Commentary that the Habiru and Israelites were kin, even though others don't. He only suggests that the Israelites were identified with and/or shared familial ties with the Habiru.

If Jacob and his children were Habiru, however, then the likelihood of their having met other Habiru in Egypt - and intermarried with them - is far from remote. The Israel that left Egypt may even have absorbed some of these Habiru into its body.

The rate of procreation necessary in order, for example, for thirteen men to become three million within four hundred years isn't actually so tough to swallow when you crunch the numbers. Within the first generation, forty children would have to be born (a modest rate of less than four children per man); by the second, there would have to be one hundred and fifty-three. But if the answers to any or all of the three questions I've raised today are "yes", we find the Bible's account all the easier to accept.

That is to say, IF you were having any_ trouble_ accepting the Bible's account. I, of course, never doubted. I'm just doing this for all you faithless people.

Two stories caught my attention this morning. First, the current immigration bill would create a work database for all Americans.

The so-called Employment Eligibility Verification System would be established as part of a bill that senators began debating on Monday...

All employers -- at least 7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires, the legislation says. The data, including Social Security numbers, would be provided to Homeland Security, on penalty of perjury, and the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.

Even parents who hire nannies might be covered. The language in the bill, called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act, defines an employer as "any person or entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States" and does not appear to explicitly exempt individuals or small businesses. (Its Senate sponsors did not immediately respond on Monday to queries on this point.)

Why is this considered a good idea? One screw-up by the government and American citizens will be legally barred from working. What kind of controls will there be on this database? How will you challenge a denial of your work authorization? How will you know that someone in Washington didn't put you into the database out of sheer spite? This is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Secondly, Ed Morrissey relays the story of a sex slavery ring that exploited illegal immigrants.

The women came mostly from Mexico and Central America.

When they arrived in Minnesota, the women had their passports and other identifying documents taken away and they were forced into a world of prostitution. In one night, two women serviced more than 80 men in a south Minneapolis house.

Ed has a solution for this problem:

This is a horrific case, and one which points out the need for strong border control. The men conned the women into crossing the border, and then they took advantage of their illegal status to force them into prostitution.

Sure, these women were conned and controlled because they were not legally allowed to work or live in the United States. Preventing them from coming here at all would have prevented their enslavement. On the other hand, allowing them to enter legally would have also prevented their enslavement. Placing high barriers to immigration increases the chances that people will be "helped" across the border, then exploited. Placing low barriers to immigration allows people to come to the U.S. in search of a better life, without fear of future enslavement. Why are we so eager to choose the first path and not the second?

Putting drug risks into context:

Is it riskier to take a daily aspirin, drive a car or fight fires? Turns out they all carry about the same risk -- between 10.4 and 11 fatalities per 100,000 person-years, according to a study in the May/June Health Affairs, a policy journal published by Project HOPE.

Their findings surprised them. For example, taking Vioxx (rofecoxib), which was withdrawn from the market in 2004, or Tysabri (natalizumab) for multiple sclerosis was comparable to or exceeded the risk of dying in a car crash, working as a truck driver or rock climbing.

On the other hand, it was less risky to take either drug than it was to drive a motorcycle, work as a logger or climb the Himalayas.

We removed Vioxx from the market for this?

Of the 45-50 million people in the U.S. who lack access to healthcare, only 10% lack access because they can't afford it.

We also found ... that the most common reason respondents cited for lacking a usual source of care was that they were seldom or never sick. Cost was cited by only 10.2% of respondents...Overall, 72% of the estimated 42.7 million adults without a usual source of care in 2000 apparently had little or no preference for one, and a minority (28%) appeared to prefer to have one, if they could.

By ignoring the possibility that many adults do not have a usual source of care because they either do not want one or place low value on having one, important implications and true barriers are obscured.

This is why I oppose an individual mandate. Why should I force someone to buy health insurance if they have no need for it or don't want it?

Is it a bigger problem that people can't get access to healthcare or that they when they do get access to healthcare they drive up the cost by getting services they don't need?

Here, single payer advocates like to have it both ways. On the one hand they speak of inability to get care, while simultaneously decrying that up to 50% of care is unnecessary. Which is it? Or is it both? And, again, how is it that an unelected bureaucracy, given complete authority over what care you can choose to purchase with your own money, do a better job of both MAKING people take the doctor's advice, while simultaneously preventing the 50% of care they think is uneeded? Again, single payer advocates have no answer for this other than a 'panel of experts' that will be immune from criticism from individuals, but highly susceptible to the money and efforts of aggressive lobbyists.

My pharmacist wife will sympathize with this lament about prescription refills:

I suspect a great many doctors shoot from the hip when it comes to refills. What makes me think this?

Well there's this weird little loophole in our automated refill request line where someone can request a refill and trigger an auto-fax to the doctor if the script has expired or run out of refills. It's all automatic -- no pharmacy personnel even see the refill request before it gets sent. Our computer systems aren't typically smart enough to check and see if there's a replacement prescription in patient's profile already.*

What's amusing is that often this second prescription differs from the first. Not significantly, but where the first might have 5 refills, the second has 3. Or 11. Or maybe zero. Often we'll get two scripts with the old refill number on it sent back on the same day, each with a different number of refills, usually in the same handwriting. This makes me wonder ... how are you guys charting this stuff?

Is this why we get phonecalls asking what strength of a drug a patient is taking? And how are they taking it? And please give them six months worth of refills?