Minor Thoughts from me to you

I'm still ingtrigued by the possibility of a Fred Thompson candidacy. Here's why.

• This cover story from Knoxville's Weekly Pulse
• This video response to Michael Moore
• His strong defense of federalism
• This profile from the Washington Monthly
• This video interview
• This Washington Post profile

Once he declares and his campaign really starts, I'll be able to judge him a little better.

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from a friend:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

I know the liberals are screaming over this ... and I understand why -- but please for the love of god explain to me why this is in ANY WAY good from your point of view. Yes yes, I know easier way to help in situations of disaster, but I can see this being overly abused, how should one branch of the gov't be able to completely over rule every other branch - it just seems ripe for abuse! My tin foil hat is buzzing.... please prove me wrong.

Glady.

A quick trip the Democratic Underground ("Because we can't function above ground") and Daily Kos ("We're nuts, so you don't have to be") revealed that liberals are certainly buzzing over the new National Continuity Policy. Apparently, they're afraid that Bush will use any "emergency" -- big or small -- to declare himself a dictator.

Let me give you a preview of the first thirty minutes of the Bush dictatorship:

10:00am: My fellow Americans, to ensure the successful functioning of the U.S. government through 2009 and beyond, I am pleased to announce that I will be continuing as President indefinitely.

10:05am: Madame Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill of impeachment against President George Walker Bush, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Wherefore he is ignoring the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stated...

10:07am: The Bill of Impeachment passes, by a vote of 400-35.

10:12am: The Senate will now convene to hear the case of the People of the United States vs George Walker Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts...

10:20am: The Bill of Impeachment is sustained by a vote of 95-5...

10:30am: Mr. President, as Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it gives me great pleasure to arrest you for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it, crisis averted. Does anyone seriously believe that men and women of the United States Armed Forces would support a President who ignored the Constitution in such a blatant manner? Or that Congress would ignore a dramatic usurpation of their rights and powers? Even the Republicans in Congress would be falling over themselves to condemn such a move.

For more on why the Kos Kids and DU nuts shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors, read on.

The Continuity of Operations Plan is designed to ensure that the American government can continue to operate in the event that the government is decapitated. We have had such a plan, in one form or another, since the end of World War II. Earlier this month, the Bush administration decided to revise the existing plan. Here's the relevant snippet from the end of the COOP:

Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

In other words, the plan that the Clinton administration established is going to be replaced by the Bush administration's plan. The Clinton plan supplanted the Bush '41 plan, which supplanted the Reagan plan. No big deal here.

Now, for the specifics.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President

This is a change. Formerly, the effort was coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Here's why one of the Kos Kids is worried:

So like I said, am I over reacting? Never said this was gospel. Some say yes, some so say, personally I am not a Constitutional Law lawyer, and wording in this directive just seemed oddly vague. And vague directives can lead to some pretty wild interpretations.

So can being off of your meds. Which seems to be the case here. Here's what the COOP says:

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator ... will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), ... The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

So, the directive is vague because it ain't the actual plan. The actual plan is still to come. This is just the outline of the project scope and requirements. Also, it's not like the Clinton plan was a model of specificity. It was just as vague. And the finished plan was never actually released to the American public either. This month's directive is just business as normal.

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So basically, when the next 9-11 or Katrina hits, the National Essential Functions goes into effect. But what about economy? Say the other international shoe drops and they change the petro dollar to the petro euro, does that count as a catastrophic emergency? What if China calls in our debt, does that count?

No, you dope. We've had one of these things for years. It's never gone into effect for such silly reasons before, even when we had gas lines and soaring inflation.

d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

So, another Class-5 hurricane comes to town, and this time it's looking at Miami, and snarling. This directive will go into effect.

Again, nope. This is a directive to ensure that we have a working government when the existing government has been decapitated. Hurricanes attacking Miami ain't gonna cut it.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

The President will lead all three branches? Really? Sounds like an emperor to me. And if you don't think that this cleverly worded paragraph does not mean that, think about the latest antics of one Alberto Gonzales.

Come on, please. Coordinate means coordinate. Not rule. Somebody's gotta take the lead in coordinating and since the executive branch already has the day to day responsibility for managing the federal government, it only makes sense that they take the lead.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

That is just a little bit disturbing. To say the least.

Why? The government is most likely to be decapitated by a suitcase nuke, detonated in Washington D.C. Given that reality, it only makes sense that the APHS/CT be the National Continuity Coordinator.

As the Washington Post points out:

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order.

Not as the Democratic Underground thinks, taking out Congress. (Really guys, was the pharmacy out this week?)

I have to admit, I feel silly even responding to conspiracy theories this inane. But, you ask, I answer.

N.Z. Bear put the entire text of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 online. It is hyperlinked for easy access to specific sections and readers can leave comments about specific sections. This is a great way to read the bill and build citizen awareness of what Congress is trying to do.

Hugh Hewitt has been reading through the bill and offering his criticisms. Specifically, the bill apparently has a gaping loophole that would allow almost any existing illegal immigrant to gain a Z-visa without a full background check. Furthermore, the bill seems to assume that the Federal government has no chance of completing background checks on 12 million illegals and starts the blame game early. Finally, the bill would impose a huge hidden tax on businesses hiring immigrants.

So far, not so good.

However, John McCain says that the loophole really isn't a loophole.

I may or may not have further thoughts on this later. Mainly, I wanted to publish these resources for anyone that's more interested in them than I am.

Three months ago, I reported that Jim Doyle wanted to hike the hospital tax in order to give hospitals more money. Well, he still wants to. Only now we know that the amounts the hospitals will supposedly receive, is less than Diamond Jim hoped for:

UW Hospital had been projected to gain $23.3 million in Medicaid reimbursements over two years under the original proposal. Under the new calculations, it would receive about $11 million. Meriter, which had been projected to get almost $22 million, would receive about $14 million. The projected reimbursement for St. Mary's Hospital's increased by half a million dollars, to $4.8 million.

Oops. Of course, people not affiliated with the Doyle administration think that hospitals will actually lose money by being taxed, not gain it:

In March, the Wisconsin Hospital Association released an analysis showing hospitals would lose money in the next two years if the hospital tax is approved, not gain $283 million, as Doyle claimed. The group is still analyzing the new data, but remains skeptical.

Of course, it's not even a given that the hospitals will receive all of the money from the tax scheme:

"A large portion is diverted to other programs. ... It's difficult to say where the funds will ultimately be used," Quinn said.

Government efficiency, marching onward. Roll Wisconsin!

Welcome to Information Warfare 101. This is a topic that the American public desperately needs to know about. The war in Iraq is not just a war of bullets and bombs. It is a war of ideas and information. Right now, our enemy is better at fighting this war than we are. We must win this war through information and ideologies, not through strategic bombing campaigns or overwhelming force. While overwhelming force is effective, it is not sufficient to win the war by itself.

What is Information Warfare? According to Kim Taipale, "information warfare is the protection, monitoring, disruption, or manipulation of information and information flows to improve one's own decision-making process or to degrade that of the enemy." It is making the enemy see what you want him to see and hiding what you don't want him to see. Information Warfare is the art of making your enemy react in a way that you want him to react by feeding him information that you have manipulated in some way.

Our terrorist enemies are masters of this type of warfare. They know that they cannot defeat our forces in an open fight. They also know that we have proven vulnerable to information warfare in the past.

We lost our first major information battle during the Vietnam war. In January of 1968, the Communists of North Vietnam launched a surprise attack against American and South Vietnamese forces -- the Tet Offensive. Their main goal was to provide the impression that American forces were not winning (and could not win) a fight in Vietnam.

The actual attack was a disaster. The North Korean forces suffered 35,000 dead, 60,000 wounded, and 6,000 captured. The American and South Korean losses totaled around 3,900. The attack was not judged in military terms, however. It was judged in terms of perception. The American media and the American people perceived it as a devastating American loss, mostly due to the surprise of the attack and the wide-spread nature of the attack. The Tet Offensive marked the beginning of the end of American involvement in Vietnam.

The goal of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and other terrorist groups, is to duplicate the success of the Tet Offensive. They are willing to take large military losses if, in doing so, they can convince the American people that the terrorists are winning.

Judging by the media coverage of the Iraq war, we are losing the information war. That needs to change. We can win in Iraq, but only if the American people are willing and able to look past the misinformation, lies, and distortions of the terrorists.

I'm willing to spend my time pointing out exactly where and when we're being lied to. Are you willing you follow along with me?

Last week the Democrats in Congress decided how they'll spend your money. Surprisingly, they won't be letting you keep much of it.

Majority Democrats passed an important test Thursday with approval of a $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for party priorities such as education and health care.

The budget blueprint sets a course to produce a small surplus in five years by assuming that many of President Bush's tax cuts would expire.

Ah, yes. They'll hit all of their spending priorities by taking more of your money. Makes perfect sense.

The House passed the measure by a 214-209 vote without a single Republican voting for it. The Senate quickly followed on a 52-40 vote; moderate Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joined with Democrats.

But deficits under the Democratic plan would be higher over the next two years than the $150 billion to $200 billion the Congressional Budget Office predicts for the current year. A $41 billion surplus is projected for 2012.

They noted it projects a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 by assuming that more than $200 billion worth of tax cuts over 2011-12 "” on income, stock dividends and capital gains, among others "” expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Yep. That makes sense. Increase the deficit in the hopes that continually increasing tax revenues will cover the spending spree. Also, assume that the American people will let you hike their taxes by $200 billion.

The budget plan sets the stage for an $850 billion increase in the national debt "” to $9.8 trillion. Under a House rule endorsed at different times by both Democrats and Republicans, adoption of the budget resolution means a separate debt limit increase bill is automatically passed and sent to the Senate.

You know, Congress has the same sense of fiscal responsibility that the Moellering's do. Joy.

Edmund Andrews has a nice op-ed in the New York Times. He talks about the recent rise in gasoline prices and the claims that oil companies and station owners are gouging consumers. As usual, it turns out that your federal government is the culprit, not the savior.

The Energy Information Administration is predicting that crude oil prices will average about $66 a barrel this summer, versus $70 last summer. But it predicts that gasoline will average about $2.95 a gallon this summer, up from an average of $2.84 last summer.

INDUSTRY executives say the anomaly reflects a temporary drop-off in refinery activity, partly because of scheduled maintenance and partly because of unscheduled interruptions. On top of that come ethanol prices, which have soared, because refiners now blend a small percentage of ethanol into standard gasoline.

Why is the price of ethanol soaring? Why is a small amount of ethanol blended into each gallon of standard gasoline? Congress mandated it, of course! Be sure to thank them the next time you fill up.

The broader issue is that refinery capacity has not kept up with American demand for gasoline. Oil companies, caught with vast amounts of excess refining capacity in the early 1980s, systematically reduced capacity during the long lean years when energy prices and profit margins were the pity of Wall Street.

In theory, the allure of fat profits will attract heavy investment in more refinery capacity. And John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters last week that oil companies have indeed been investing heavily in recent years.

In theory, yes. But your Federal government is threatening those investments:

But Congress could face an entirely new quandary in its desire to expand the use of renewable fuels. President Bush has called for producing 35 billion gallons a year of alternative fuels "” from cellulosic ethanol to coal-based diesel "” by 2017. Congressional Democrats might be even more aggressive.

If that's the plan, will oil companies want to invest in more refineries? "You've got to ask whether the demand will be there," Mr. Felmy said.

It's time to tell Congress to quit mucking about with the nation's energy supply. And, if they do insist on mucking around with it, to quit blaming the oil companies for the results of Congress's decisions. Once again, we see that our Congress is about as dignified as a class of first graders. And has about the same sense of responsibility.

Today we're starting our amateur exegesis of the Book of Exodus (Shemot), with W. Gunter Plaut's famous The Torah: A Modern Commentary as our guide to various Jewish perspectives on the passages we'll read. I see Plaut's book starts out with an essay by William H. Hallo, but for now let's just skip his general discussion of Exodus's themes. We'll encounter the points Hallo makes later anyway.

The Book of Genesis ended with Joseph dying at the ripe old age of one hundred and ten, having successfully moved his family down into comfortable digs in Egypt. At the end of Genesis, that family has seventy members - or seventy-five, if you count Joseph's grandkids and great-grandkids.

Not for long.

Exodus 1:7: "But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them."

The Church of God Daily Bible Study: "Although there is no record of the precise number that left Egypt in the Exodus, a military census taken not long after [the Jews left Egypt] listed the number of men 20 years of age and older who could serve in the army as 603,550 (Exodus 38:26). From that number, the total Israelite population of that time has been estimated at approximately 2 to 3 million."

This may seem like a lot of spawning to have accomplished within roughly 400 years, but hey, to quote Joe: "What else are you going to do after a hard day of slavery?"

I can't think of anything either, but even assuming Ancient Israel was a nation of nymphomaniacs, there are obviously a few seemingly insurmountable problems of logic with the rate of reproduction Exodus records. Especially when you consider that Exodus 6:13-30 lists only four generations between the time of Joseph's death and Moses' birth (in fulfillment of the prophecy laid out by God in Gen. 15:16, that "they shall return here in the fourth generation").

Now 1 Chron. 7:20-27 gives God's People a little more breathing room, recording ten generations' worth of slaves in Egypt, and this is, if not probable, at least mathematically feasible.

Assuming that each Jewish family had, on average, ten children, each generation would be five times as large as the one preceding. If each generation lasted, on average, 40 years (a generous number), then in 200 years a single pair of parents would result in a generation numbering 5x5x5x5x5 or 3125 persons. In 280 years the 7th generation would have increased by an additional factor of 25 (5x5) to an impressive 78,125 persons. Under these conditions the first generation sons of Jacob, with their wives, would multiply to a generation consisting of between 37,500 (12 x 3125) and 937,500 (12 x 78,125) individuals in the time frame ending 200-280 years from when the twelve brothers first entered Egypt in 1876 B.C. Those numbers would necessarily be inflated to perhaps twice their values allowing for prior generations still living at the time." - From "Displaced Dynasties".

The writers of the Hebrew Midrash, always game for adding an inane comment to any Bible verse, suggest that all the Jewish women had sextuplets during this period (and if this is so, all I can say is that those ancient women really raised the bar, and I demand to know from the safety of my remote location behind this computer screen why our women today whine so much about passing just one).

And Plaut himself, for the record, would like you all to know that "The Hebrew word [for 'multiplied'] is related to 'swarming creature' (Gen. 1:20), suggesting that the Israelites proliferated like animals."

Thanks for that, Gunther. As if I didn't feel dirty enough already writing about all this. I'm changing topics.

It is noted in the Midrash that "the roster of the names of Jacob's sons appears here in an order different from other passages. This is to teach us that the sons of the handmaidens... were not inferior to their brothers." I've heard elsewhere that the list is jumbled for stylistic purposes. Regardless, I can't see how it matters; even if you read anything into those lists other than convenient categorization of the children by their respective mothers, Joseph and Benjamin are the last sons Jacob blesses in Gen. 49:22-27.

That's it for today. Tomorrow's the day of rest for the majority of us Christians, too, so there may or may not be a post. Enjoy your Sunday without me, though, if such a thing is possible.

Christine and Mark Moellering have a debt problem.

Their credit card debt came to $22,228, including $380 in monthly finance charges. Interest varied from 12.1 percent to 32.24 percent. The Moellerings also have a mortgage of $93,000 and a home equity loan balance of $68,574, at 8 percent interest.

John Leland, of the New York Times, points the finger at changes in federal regulations:

Just a generation ago, financial profiles like the Moellerings' would have been unusual. But changes in federal regulations since the 1980s, along with consolidation in the banking industry and changed consumer attitudes toward borrowing and saving, have made credit more widespread, more heavily marketed and more confusing, with offers of more credit "” at low rates "” extending to even the least reliable risk. In 2006, the industry mailed out nearly 8 billion credit card offers, up from 3.5 billion in 2000.

Credit card debt, less than $8 billion in 1968 (in current dollars), now exceeds $880 billion, more than tripling since 1988, adjusting for inflation, according to the Federal Reserve Bank. Penalty fees alone cost consumers $17.1 billion in 2006 "” up from $12.8 billion in 2003, adjusted for inflation, according to R. K. Hammer, a bank card advisory firm. In part because of the debt burden, the consumer savings rate fell below zero percent in 2005 and has stayed there.

Of course, there could be another explanation. According to the article, they built up their debt over several years: $6,000 in student expenses put on the credit card, $50,000 for a wedding that included rings, a reception, a honeymoon, a new bathroom. Just this past Christmas they bought an $800 42-inch television.

I think the Times wants me to feel sorry for this couple. I don't and I don't think I should. They've made a constant series of bad decisions. Ms. Moellering was "too busy" to apply for student loans, so she put her education on the credit card. They both wanted a nice wedding, so they spent $50,000 on one. Mr. Moellering was too busy to calculate his checking account balance, so he racked up $288 in bank fees. Both were too impatient, so they bought a TV on credit knowing that they already had more debt than they could manage. Their debt problem isn't the fault of federal regulators. Their debt problem is the result of buying things they want -- whether or not they can afford them.

There is a simple trick to understanding the vagaries of credit card contracts and interest rate schedules: make sure that you never put spending on a credit card unless you know that you can pay it off when the bill comes. If you follow that simple principle, you won't end up paying 32% interest. Let's take a look at how this principle could have helped the Moellering's.

Problem: You want to get married. Analysis: You have $161,000 in housing loans and another $6,000 in credit card debt. Decision: Have a small, simple ceremony with family and friends. Ask friends to help cater the reception and enjoy your honeymoon somewhere close to home.

Problem: you just got married and your current bathroom is in poor condition. Analysis: We already have $161,000 in housing loans and another $6,000 in credit card debt. Decision: endure the crummy bathroom. Decide to be thankful that you have an indoor bathroom and not an outhouse like your great-great grandparents.

Problem: you want a new television. Analysis: We already have $161,000 in housing loans and another $6,000 in credit card debt. Decision: Visit the local public library, check Craigslist, and find a used television that you can pay cash for.

Sorry Christine and Mark. I hate to be the person to break it to you. Living life as an adult requires that you take responsibility for your own decisions. Living life as an adult requires you to live within your means, not within your wants. Your debt is your responsibility. Please don't try to blame it on anyone else.

Also from The Best, Worst & Most Unusual, by Bruce Felton & Mark Fowler:

"In 1663 a noted orientalist presented to the French Academy a paper in which he concluded that Adam was 140 feet tall, Noah, 50 feet tall, Abraham, 40 feet tall, and Moses, 25."

There. Now at least when you read my Bible study notes here at Minor Thoughts over the next few months, you can't say there haven't been any worse.

I don't know how other people study God's Word, but I've settled into a sorta three-pronged approach; I simultaneously read through one commentary on the Old Testament and one on the New, while also just reading the Bible daily for fun, without looking up a single thing. The variety keeps me from studying pitfalls to which I've noticed I'm particularly prone, such as spending so much of my attention exploring the Hebrew legacy in the Torah that my spirit ends up horrifically starved for Jesus. So today I visited the Idaho Springs Public Library, a charmingly compact, creaky historical building in a charmingly compact, creek-y historical miner's town in Colorado ("cute", nay, "adorable", that's what the young lady would call it), and here's what I chose:

• The Torah: A Modern Commentary, by Gunther Plaut. Obviously, this is the Old Testament commentary I'll be reading, my textbook whilst I work my way again through the Humash. It's also the textbook for an entire denomination of Judaism, actually; since its publication the work has become the standard reader for Reform Jewdom. And boy howdy, am I so tickled to have it: I've already read Plaut's commentary on Genesis (Bereshit, in Hebrew), and if his respective commentaries on the remaining parts of the Pentateuch are as fairly-balanced (Plaut often includes not only Conservative and Orthodox interpretations of Scripture, but Christian as well), well-researched (he cites all his sources), and eye-opening (at least for an ignorant cuss like me), I won't be able to read this thing fast enough.

• The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 1 of the Daily Study Bible Series, by William Barclay. This is what I grabbed off the shelf for my New Testament pick, but two chapters into it and I'm already thinking about returning it in favor of something else. William Barclay's a pretty famous theologian and his Daily Study Bible books are bestsellers, but there are plenty of good reasons to be uneasy about reading him. For one, he makes occasional references which he does not bother to cite, and makes leaps of logic (he fails to sell me on his ideas concerning authorship of the Gospels). For another, he is a heretic. Wikipedia claims him "a liberal theologian, denying both the inerrancy of scripture and the divinity of Christ. He described himself as a liberal evangelical. In his autobiography, he described himself as a universalist, believing all people will eventually be saved, an unorthodox position." Even assuming this is true, it might not be a deal breaker (I've learned more about the Old Testament from Jews, all of whom deny the divinity of Jesus, than I've learned from my pastors), but coupled with his other apparent faults... I think a second trip to the library's in order.

I was also finally going to read a book a friend of mine loaned to me eons ago, entitled The Search.. The hefty tome's authored by a Dr. Ron Charles and subtitled "A Historian's Search for Historical Jesus". It is quite possibly, to quote one Amazon reviewer, the "most informative book on the life of Jesus that has been printed in decades". But I'll never know, because despite supposedly possessing a B.A. in Theology, two M.A.s, two Ph.Ds, and one Th.D (whatever that is), Dr. Ron Charles never learned he's supposed to cite all his sources (though a Jamaican newspaper claims he used 160 of them). Either that, or he just didn't care enough to catalog them, in which case I don't care enough to read his book.

I assume the reason Dr. Charles had to self-publish his book is because every respectable book publisher agrees with me on this point. Or maybe the editors of those publishing houses just couldn't get past the frequent typos; in the acknowledgements section of The Search Dr. Charles thanks Michelle Thomas, Kim Stuckey, and Laura Wairs for their proofreading services, but it's thanks undeserved. The book's errors are numerous.

So, to review: a book published in 2003 that is supposed to summarize 33 years of research by an archaeologist with six university degrees who claims he's found Noah's Ark, had to be self-published, is full of technical errors, and has no citations. Oh, and the author's website, www.roncharles.com, is down, meaning the only mention of him Google can find is now an article in a Jamaican newspaper.

Anyone else reckon this Dr. Charles guy was a fraud who's number just eventually came up?

Anyway, I guess I should look on the bright side of all this. Hopefully my friend won't want me to send his book back now.

First Bible study entry starts tomorrow, most likely with a look at the first chapter of Exodus.

According to p. 127 of The Best, Worst, & Most Unusual, by Bruce Felton and Mark Fowler:

"When a women's collective claimed credit for the bombing of Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, in October 1970, the Cambridge police gallantly defended them.

'This was a very sophisticated bomb,' a police spokesman said. 'We feel that women wouldn't be capable of making such a bomb.'"

PS: Even more ironic is that the 1970 Harvard bombing is primarily remembered by historians as "a moment of light", as the explosives accomplished little real damage to the facility but did successfully unearth the long-lost Bonfil Collection, a set of nearly 29,000 photos of the Middle East so valuable as to be called "one of the great photographic collections of all time." The discovery revitalized the entire institute. Read a full article on it here.

Geisinger Health System is trying an innovative approach to lowering healthcare costs: offering a warranty for certain surgeries.

Under the typical system, missing an antibiotic or giving poor instructions when a patient is released from the hospital results in a perverse reward: the chance to bill the patient again if more treatment is necessary. As a result, doctors and hospitals have little incentive to ensure they consistently provide the treatments that medical research has shown to produce the best results.

Taking a cue from the makers of television sets, washing machines and consumer products, Geisinger essentially guarantees its workmanship, charging a flat fee that includes 90 days of follow-up treatment.

Even if a patient suffers complications or has to come back to the hospital, Geisinger promises not to send the insurer another bill.

Since Geisinger began its experiment in February 2006, focusing on elective heart bypass surgery, it says patients have been less likely to return to intensive care, have spent fewer days in the hospital and are more likely to return directly to their own homes instead of a nursing home.

Unfortunately, the healthcare system isn't usually an innovator:

But hospitals have been slow to focus their attention on standardizing the way they deliver care, said Dr. Arnold Milstein, the medical director for the Pacific Business Group on Health, a California organization of large companies that provide medical benefits to their workers. Geisinger "is one of the few systems in the country that is just beginning to understand the lessons of global manufacturing," Dr. Milstein said.

Geisinger is improving care by identifying the best practices possible in cardiac surgery and then making sure that those practices are followed in every surgery. It's a simple idea, but one that doctors have been resistent to implement in the past.

Controlling costs are a large reason for the experiment:

Heart surgery and follow-up care, which runs about $30,000, are among the biggest-ticket medical offerings that Geisinger provides. But Geisinger executives say outside insurers and employers have indicated that Geisinger would need to include from 5 to 10 other procedures under its plan before they would have enough of their employees affected to make it worth their while to sign up.

Under the experiment, the hospital charges a flat fee for the surgery, plus half the amount it has calculated as the historical cost of related care for the next 90 days. So instead of billing for any additional hospital stays "” which typically run $12,000 to $15,000 "” Geisinger absorbs that extra cost.

This is the kind of healthcare reform that I get excited about. George Halvorson's idea is quite lame compared to this.

George C. Halvorson, CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals wants to force you to buy healthcare. He doesn't care if you want healthcare or if you think you need healthcare.

"Anything short of an absolute single-payer system requires an individual mandate. If you don't have that, then people will make decisions about coverage that will result in far less than universal coverage."

"Individual mandate": code words meaning that the government will force you buy healthcare and fine you if you don't. "Far less than universal coverage": people might otherwise choose not to purchase health insurance.

The comments were made while Mr. Halvorson was discussing European style healthcare. Several European countries allow private insurerers to sell healthcare, requiring only that every citizen purchase a health insurance plan. This is the model of healthcare "reform" that Mr. Halvorson favors. I can understand why he would be in favor of "individual mandates" -- he heads up an organization that makes quite a good profit selling health insurance. I'm sure Kaiser would earn even higher profits if more people bought health insurance. On the other hand, no one should be forced by their government to make a private company richer.

Individual mandates: just say no.

After home sales started falling last year, I saw a lot of doom and gloom commentary from "experts" afraid that we would enter a 10-year housing slump. Thanksfully, home sales in Madison (and Dane County) are on the rise again. Home prices still haven't completely rebounded, but I'm glad to see that they're starting to sell again -- at any price. As a new homeowner, don't want to see the market start stagnating!

The local residential real estate market is showing signs of recovery, a local real estate official says.

The 604 sales reported in April in Dane County were 11.4 percent below the 682 last April, according to statistics released Thursday by the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin.

But that is not as bad as the 20.1 percent decline for the first four months of this year compared to the same period of last year -- 1,802 to 2,006.

And RASCW Executive Director John Deininger said sales this year have improved more than they typically do as the weather warms -- by 8.0 percent from January to February, 47.0 percent from February to March, and 23.6 percent from March to April.

As I've been reading blogs this week, I've stumbled across various opinions of the Reverend Jerry Falwell. As you might expect from such a public figure, people have many opinions about him. Some people really liked him, some really hated him, and some had distinctly mixed feelings. Here's a sampling of what I found interesting:

Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell -- friends

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

Guest Post: A Remembrance of Falwell

I attended Liberty University from 1998-2000. When I started at the school, I wasn't what you would call a Falwell fan. I would here people talk about him in glowing terms and think, "Yeah right. There's no way that he's like that."

After meeting and speaking with Dr. Falwell, my opinion started change. While he made mistakes in what he would say, he would immediately seek to correct those mistakes.

Farewell Falwell

Students at Liberty University revered him. Evangelical pastors emulated him. Washington politicians courted him, and liberal elitists hated him. In all the years that Falwell fought pornography, we never opened our newspaper to read of his arrest at a peep show. For all his vehement condemnation of drug use and gay marriage, Falwell was never discovered with street-grade methamphetamines or getting sensual massages from paid male escorts. Sure he made a few verbal gaffes in this or that interview, but like the Bible says, we all stumble in many ways.

Rev. Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist in Chief

Indeed, his religious and political views were typically, as he himself described for much of his life, fundamentalist. As such he was out of step with most American Christians, including those who described themselves as evangelical. Although later in life Falwell dropped the "Baptist fundamentalism" label in favor of "evangelical," his religious and political views remained far more fundamentalist than anything. It's no surprise then that Falwell called Billy Graham, "the chief servant of Satan in America."

On Jerry Falwell

Falwell's influence should have ended there, but just as journalists flock to Al Sharpton for the "black perspective," ignorant journalists consistently propped up Falwell as a token Christian leader.

Like reader Chuck, I think this is the key sentence from Joshua's lovely negative obituary for Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died earlier this week. If I may put a different spin on it, however, I think the piece underplays somewhat how important and influential Falwell really was.

Mixed Legacy

Many of you probably know that in the early years of his ministry Rev. Falwell was a staunch segregationist. In 1958 he said "If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made ... The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."

Falwell and King: Domesticating and Sanitizing, Grace and Truth, with Condolences

As an evangelical Christian, I firmly believe in the grace of God to conform saints to the image of his Son. This is the process of sanctification. So I believe that a Jerry Falwell, though once overtly racially-separatist, could see the error of his thinking by being confronted by the word of God, repent from that sin, and learn to embrace African Americans in love, as I believe he did. However, does the work of grace mean that we who hail heroes tone down, ignore, or attempt to clean up the early picture of Falwell or anyone else?

Senator Fred Thompson recognizes that what the country needs is bipartisanship, not partisan sniping:

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn't an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together "“ but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.

I'm demanding it. (It's worth 2 minutes of your time to read the whole post.)

I continue to be interested in a Fred Thompson candidacy. Hopefully he declares soon, so we can see what he's actually made of.

The Senate appears to have reached a compromise on an immigration reform bill. Here's a list of links for your edification:

• Dafydd ab Hugh has an outline of what might be in the bill
• John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff don't trust the bill.
• Fred Thompson doesn't like the bill.
• Former Senator Bill Frist doesn't like the bill.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat encouraged that these folks don't like the bill:

• Hugh Hewitt really doesn't like the bill. (Also, here, here and here. Like I said, he really doesn't like the bill.)
• Michelle Malkin really doesn't like the bill.

Finally, Ed Morrissey doesn't really like the bill, but thinks it's the best that the Republicans are going to get and is a tolerable compromise.

Me, I'm still thinking. I'll let you know my feelings in a later post.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey defends the bill against Republican haters.

The Iranians have kidnapped another American. Noah Pollak, writing at Michael Totten's Middle East Journal, has the details:

Haleh Esfandiari is the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, and in December of last year she traveled to Iran to visit her ailing mother. In a statement on its website, the Wilson Center explains that in late December, "on her way to the airport to catch a flight back to Washington, the taxi in which Dr. Esfandiari was riding was stopped by three masked, knife-wielding men. They took away her baggage and handbag, including her Iranian and American passports." Her visit to a passport office four days later instigated six weeks of interrogations. Last Monday, just over a week ago, she was arrested and taken to the notorious Evin prison, where she stands accused of being a Mossad agent, a U.S. spy, and of trying to foment revolution inside Iran -- the same charges that were leveled at the American embassy staff in 1979 when it was taken hostage.

Noah reports that the Washington Post has warned Iran that they risk losing the world's "respect". American politicians have been, if anything, less forceful:

Several politicians have also weighed in, and they haven't done any better. In a statement sure to send an ominous chill across the Iranian political establishment, Barak Obama announced that "If the Iranian government has any desire to engage the world in dialogue, it can demonstrate that desire by releasing this champion of dialogue from detention." Haleh Esfandiari's senators, Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, asked Iran to make a "gesture of goodwill" to the American people by releasing their latest hostage. Respect, dialogue, gestures of goodwill. I'll bring my acoustic guitar and some big fluffy pillows and we can do a sing-along for Ahmadinejad.

Noah ties the recent hostage taking back to the 1979 imprisonment of the American embassy:

And the hostage-takers and the government that sponsored them never paid a serious price for the ensuing fifteen-month humiliation of the United States. Iran has also never paid for its various assassinations and bombings in Europe, the murder of hundreds of American marines and French soldiers in Lebanon in 1983, the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people, its lavish funding of Hezbollah and destabilization of Lebanon, the abduction of the British sailors, its nuclear program, and so on. In other words, the Iranian regime, since the first day of its existence, has seen its every provocation go unanswered -- which has perfectly reinforced its conviction that the West, and America in particular, is a brittle facade, economically powerful and technologically sophisticated but weak-willed, indecisive, risk-averse, and easily intimidated.

Somehow, I don't think that a desire for "dialog" is what drives Iran. I think it's a desire for power. And no amount of talking is going to convince Iran to stop bombing, kidnapping, funding terrorism, or refining nuclear material. I don't want to rush to war -- our military is stretched thin enough as it is -- but we need to do something more than just "talk" at the Iranians. As you can see, that strategy has worked out so well already.

I'm of the opinion that politics should take a back seat to hard work when a natural disaster occurs. A tornado ripped through Greensburg, Kansas almost two weeks ago. The immediate focus of the state government should have been disaster recovery and cleanup. Governor Kathleen Sebelius chose to focus on politics first.

The rebuilding effort in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, Kansas, likely will be hampered because some much-needed equipment is in Iraq, said that state's governor.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius said much of the National Guard equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is gone. She said not having immediate access to things like tents, trucks and semitrailers will really handicap the rebuilding effort.

Sadly, not only are her priorities wrong, so are her facts:

That brought an immediate response from Kansas Senator (and presidential hopeful) Sam Brownback, who observed that 88% of guard personnel were at home, and available to respond to the situation. The Pentagon and the National Guard Bureau (the military "headquarters" for Army and Air National Guard units across the nation) also offered clarification; spokesman for both DoD and the Guard Bureau indicated that the Kansas Guard has substantial assets on hand for the Greensburg operation:

The Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available and is working quickly and aggressively to save lives and reduce suffering, Guard Bureau officials reported. More than 6,800 additional Kansas Guard troops can be tapped, if needed, as well as more than 80,000 Guardsmen from surrounding states, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters today.

Kansas Guardsmen responding to the disaster have 60 percent of their Army Guard dual-use equipment and more than 85 percent of their Air Guard equipment on hand, officials said. Whitman reported a full range of Guard equipment on hand to support the mission. The Kansas Guard has 352 Humvees, 94 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks, 24 medium and light tactical vehicles, 152 2.5-ton cargo trucks, 76 series 5-ton trucks, 13 M916 tractors, 870 trailers, 52 Heavy Equipment Transport Systems, and 30 Palletized Load System Trucks.

In terms of engineering assets, the Kansas Guard has all -- and in some cases more than, -- its authorized vehicles. This includes five road graders, 15 bulldozers, eight scoop loaders and 72 dump trucks, he said. Whitman said he was unable to report which of these assets is undergoing maintenance and might not be immediately available to provide tornado relief.

Meanwhile, the National Guard Bureau is coordinating requests for additional support through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. This national partnership agreement paves the way for states to share resources during governor- or federally declared emergencies. "The states are poised to help one another when their own resources are overwhelmed," said Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

This is absolutely shameful behavior from the governor. When a disaster like this hits, let politics be your last concern -- not your first concern. Focus on helping the people in your state, not the advancement of your case.

Women in Muslim countries are routinely beaten, raped, stoned, and murdered by the men around them. As such, the Muslim world is the main front in the battle for sexual equality. Of course, you wouldn't know it by the way that American feminists act or speak.

Eve Ensler takes this line of reasoning to equally ludicrous lengths. In 2003 she gave a lecture at the Radcliffe Institute at Harvard University in which, like Pollitt, she claimed that women everywhere are oppressed and subordinate:

I think that the oppression of women is universal. I think we are bonded in every single place of the world. I think the conditions are exactly the same [her emphasis]. I think the nature of the oppression--whether it's acid burning in one country, or female genital mutilation in another, or gang rapes in the parking lots in high schools of the suburbs--it's the same idea. . . . The systematic global oppression of women is completely across the globe.

That's from Christina Hoff Sommers' article in this week's edition of the Weekly Standard.

Feminists are also completely unable to tell the difference between American Christians and Afghan Taliban:

Katha Pollitt, a columnist at the Nation, talks of "the common thread of misogyny" connecting Christian Evangelicals to the Taliban:

It is important to remember just how barbarous and cruel the Taliban were. Yet it is also important not to use their example to obscure or deny the common thread of misogyny that connects them with Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. . . .

Soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Katha Pollitt wrote the introduction to a book called Nothing Sacred: Women Respond to Religious Fundamentalism and Terror. It aimed to show that reactionary religious movements everywhere are targeting women. Says Pollitt:

In Bangladesh, Muslim fanatics throw acid in the faces of unveiled women; in Nigeria, newly established shariah courts condemn women to death by stoning for having sex outside of wedlock. . . . In the United States, Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists have forged a powerful right-wing political movement focused on banning abortion, stigmatizing homosexuality and limiting young people's access to accurate information about sex.

Ah, yes. Limiting young people's access to accurate information about sex is exactly the same as having acid thrown in your face. Christina explains, in her article, that none of America's feminists are willing to help out Muslim women:

One reason is that many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women's movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order.

As a result, she has some fairly harsh words for American feminists:

Muslim women could use moral, intellectual, and material support from the West to improve their situation. But only a rational, reality-based women's movement would be capable of actually helping. Women who think that looking like a pear is an essential human right are not valuable allies.

Extremely true. Is it any wonder that many people would like to marginalize American feminists and do everything possible to keep them away from the reigns of power?

It's unfortunate that American feminists are unwilling to join the battle in any meaningful way. Sexual equality in Muslim nations could go a long way towards ending the cycle of terrorism that infects those nations:

Women's equality is as incompatible with radical Islam's plan for domination and submission as it is with polygamy. Women freely moving about, expressing their opinions, and negotiating their relationships with men from a position of equal dignity rather than servitude are a moderating, civilizing force in any society. Female scholars voicing their opinions without inhibition would certainly puncture some cherished jihadist fantasies.

Read the entire article in this week's edition of the Weekly Standard. It's well worth your time. You'll discover the America is just as harsh towards women as Uganda and Pakistan. You'll also discover organizations like the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity (WISE) which work to help Muslim women in oppressive societies. Consider donating to the cause. Unlike America's feminists, I think these women are worth supporting.