Minor Thoughts from me to you

In case you haven't been keeping track, Dubai Ports World is in the process of buying P&O; Port. P&O; Port, a British company, currently operates six major American ports. These ports are in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and New York. The problem is, Dubai Ports World is a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. While the UAE is a close American ally, they have also been tolerant towards terrorist groups. Understandably, many Americans are concerned about the safety of America's ports if Dubai Ports World takes over their management.

With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and House Majority Leader John Boehner have pledged to introduce legislation that would prevent Dubai Ports World from taking over the ports. This opposition led President Bush to call reporters aboard Air Force One and threaten to veto the legislation.

Why would the President do that? This statement sets up a conflict of interest within his own party. Worse, it makes the Administration look weak on national defense during an election year. Worse yet, Republicans have been making national defense the linchpin of their electoral strategies. Why put all of that at risk by allowing a Middle-East state-owned Arab company take over America's ports? Is Bush out of his mind?

Well, probably not. Like most things in life, the situation is more complex than it looks. Spook86, a former member of the U.S. intelligence community, passes along this analysis:

But it's not that simple. Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight--even with political allies.

Overturning the port deal could also create other problems in the Persian Gulf. Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy--anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports.

Finally, striking down the port deal would mean likely curtailment of the sale of U.S. F-16s to the UAE. ... In economic terms, the UAE F-16 deal means literally billions of dollars and thousands of jobs in the President's home state.

I'd advise you to go read the full analysis. This deal appears to be a lose-lose situation for the President. He can either risk political fallout at home, or he can endanger his foreign policy initiatives. Right now, he appears more than willing to preserve his foreign policy, even if it means engaging in a domestic battle with his own party.

At the moment, I'm not sure what the right course of action is. One thing I do know: this issue is far more complex than it originally appeared.

Fun fact: For about a year now, I've heavily suspected Goliath never had a chance against David, even from an atheistic perspective.

S'like this: Back in the Olden Days, killing people with a sling was actually a highly-refined art. I admittedly got this second-hand from historical novelist Michael Curtis Ford (good writer), but I'm told that we know from the Spartan mercenary Xenophon's autobiography _The Anabasis _ that a slinger could kill a sheep at 200 yards with just a rock he found lying about on the ground, 300 yards if he had one of his specially-made lead bullets handy.

Christian apologists have often spoken excitedly of the fact that modern giants' foreheads have soft spots. Personally, I don't see the reason; if David had-as he quite obviously did-skill with the slingshot, then he might as well have pulled out a .22 Magnum and capped his giant adversary. The fight wouldn't have been much more lop-sided.

So, this begs the question, of course: What's the point of the story if David just ran out onto the field and smote a hapless foe?

A few thoughts on the subject:

(1) Tactics aside, no member of the army of Israel nor the army's king challenged the blaspheming Philistine, and David did. That David then proceeded to shoot Goliath doesn't take away from the fact that he was the only person with enough conviction to do something about the problem.

(2) The one-on-one duel for the fate of Israel was the Philistines' idea, not the LORD's; indeed, the LORD never suggests such a method of solving Israel's war problems in the Old Testament, and no attempt to do so ever works out. God is not interested in having terms dictated to Him. Why should He respect the honor code devised by a bunch of pagans? From this perspective, David's response was absolutely perfect: come out onto the field for the "honor duel" and then gun down their prize fighter, sending a loud and clear message that he wasn't interested in playing the game.

(3) One of the reasons I think the Jews have throughout history held a reputation among Western peoples as "dishonest" is because Westerners had (and have) a different sense of honesty than the Bible seems to. From what I'm reading in 1st Samuel, no rule save that one warrior should face another was instituted for the battle; David simply worked creatively within that framework. To the outwitted, of course, this is always "cheating"; to those of us who prize wit and do not hold others accountable for rules that never existed, it is clever and perfectly fair. David's smarts may thus be on display here.

Something to consider. Lata.

From the Armed Liberal at Winds of Change, comes this distressing little story:

Dear Amy: My husband and I have lived in our quiet suburban Denver neighborhood for six years. About two years ago two young gay men moved in across the street. They've taken the ugliest, most run-down property in the neighborhood and remodeled and transformed it into the pride of the street.

When it snows, they shovel out my car and are friendly, yet they mostly keep to themselves.

Last month I went out to retrieve my newspaper and watched them kiss each other goodbye and embrace as they each left for work.

I was appalled that they would do something like that in plain view of everyone. I was so disturbed that I spoke to my pastor. He encouraged me to draft a letter telling them how much we appreciate their help but asking them to refrain from that behavior in our neighborhood.

I did so and asked a few of our neighbors to sign it.

Since I delivered it, I've not been able to get them to even engage me in conversation.

I offer greetings but they've chosen to ignore me.

They have made it so uncomfortable for the other neighbors and me by not even acknowledging our presence.

How would you suggest we open communications with them and explain to them that we value their contributions to the neighborhood but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior. - Wondering

When I read the above letter early this morning, my initial reaction was one of horror -- horror that this woman would act in this manner. As I considered it further, I began to wonder if she'd been right. After all, aren't Christians called to take a stand against sin? The more I thought about it, however, the more I returned to my initial reaction. I was finally convinced in my reaction when I remembered the story of the Woman at the Well.

The Woman at the Well is a well-known Bible story from John 4:1-42. In it, Jesus is setting at a well when a Samaritan woman comes to draw water. In the story, Jesus commits the double "faults" of speaking to an adulterous woman and speaking to a Samaritan woman. During the conversation, He makes mention of her husband and she responds "I have no husband". Jesus says "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."

This conversation is significant because, according to Jewish custom, this woman would have been considered a serial adulteress. It was a massive breach of custom, decorum, and tradition for Jesus to speak to her at all. When He did speak to her, it was with love and compassion. I find it interesting that after Jesus says what He does, He makes no further reference to her husbands or her adultery. For Him, the important issue is not her sin, but her salvation.

I think this is directly relevant to the story told by "Wondering". Homosexuals are looked down on by many Christians in much the same way that the woman at the well was looked down on by good Jews. In some ways, modern Christians are more accepting of homosexuals than Jews would have been of the woman at the well.

I am horrified by "Wondering's" account because she did not show the love of Christ to the men. Rather, she attacked them in a letter. Letters are a very impersonal, passive-agressive methods of communication. (They're passive-agressive because they give the recepient no immediate avenue of response.) Furthermore, it was a letter signed by many of the other people in the neighborhood. Unlike Christ, there is no indication that she forged a relationship with these men, that she addressed her concerns to them directly, or that she approached them with love. Instead, the only emotion she relates is that of being "disturbed".

While Christ did mention the sin of the woman at the well, He did so in the context of her need for salvation. "Wondering" did not do so. Instead, she made the neighbors' sin (and her dislike of it) the entire focus of her communication. I believe it is very unlikely that these men will ever listen to her or respect her after the way she treated them. Indeed, I think it is very likely that their view of Christianity itself has been tainted by her actions.

I am indignant because this woman threw away a golden opportunity to communicate the love and forgiveness of Christ. I believe we should follow His example when dealing with people in sin: address their spiritual needs first through love and compassion. If we do that, the sin issue will be far easier to deal with.

Two weeks ago, my parents forwarded me an e-mail. It told the story of David S. MacMillan III's encounter with a biology professor at Dordt College. The conversation revolved around the the origins of the universe and the Genesis account of creation. David has posted the full story on his blog and entitled it "Minions of the Devil". I would like to respond to that story and raise some questions.

First of all, I'll state flatly that I disagree with many of his points. In this post, I will explain the background of why I disagree with his points. In a future post I'll look at his story and comment on what, specifically, I disagree with.

His argument revolved around one basic theme: because the Bible is infallible, we can (and should) use it to determine the scientific origins of the cosmos and the age of the cosmos. I think this argument is flawed. This argument makes one of two unsupportable assumptions. This argument either assumes that the ancient Israelites thought about the world the same way we do or it assumes that God communicated truth in a way we would understand and they would not.

David's argument rests on two pieces of evidence: the Creation account in Genesis 1:1-11 and the genealogies given throughout the Bible. For both pieces of evidence, David is assuming that either the ancient Israelites were as meticulous about detail as we are, or that God divinely ensured that the Biblical details were up to our meticulous standards.

Allow me to explain. Actually, I am not qualified to comment on the Genesis 1 account. Dr. John Walton, however, is so qualified. He is a Professor of Old Testament Studies at Wheaton College. He received his PhD from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in 1981 and taught at Moody Bible Institute for 20 years before joining the faculty of Wheaton College.

Last year he gave a sermon at my church on Genesis 1 entitled, "Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light?". In that sermon, he discusses the cultural makeup of the ancient Israelis and, through that cultural understanding, offers a more accurate interpretation of Genesis 1. I took the liberty of transcribing the sermon so that you can read it for yourself and evaluate his evidence. I would ask you to read it before continuing with this response. Much of what I'll say later references Dr. Walton's sermon.

Dr. Walton has demonstrated that the ancient Israelis did not think about creation or the origins of the universe in the same way we do. A second question remains: did they think about genealogies the way we do? We automatically assume that a genealogy contains every generation of a family -- never skipping, never rearranging, and never exaggerating. In short, a genealogy (to our minds) is a complete, factual, historical record of a group of people.

We must recognize that not all people groups understand genealogies in this way. For instance, many primitive cultures did not place a great value on the order of the genealogy -- it may, or may not, have been out of order. Sometimes a genealogy will list people in order from most important to least important. Often times, the ages of various people in a genealogy may be exaggerated. Dr. Walton discussed the fact that God communicated in methods that the Israelites would understand. Before using a genealogy to determine the age of the earth, it is first imperative to know whether or not the ancient Israelites used genealogies in the same way that we do.

In his Old Testament commentary, Dr. Walton discusses the genealogies found in Genesis. He states that:

The genealogies between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham (Genesis 11:10-27) are each set up to contain ten members, with the last having three sons. Comparing Biblical genealogies to one another shows that there are often several generations skipped in any particular presentation. This type of telescoping [skipping generations] also occurs in Assyrian genealogical records. Thus, we need not think that the genealogy's purpose is to represent every generation as our modern family trees attempt to do.

Clearly, the Israelites viewed genealogies differently than we view them. Therefore I think it is dubious, at best, to use Biblical genealogies as proof of the age of the earth. I am sure that many of you will quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to prove the veracity of the Bible: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

However, it is important to note what this passage does and -- more importantly -- does not say. This passage says that Scripture is useful for teaching, reproving, correcting, and training. It does not say that the Bible is useful for scientific or historical inquiries. It may be accurate along those lines, but it is not required to be accurate along those lines. God gave eternal truths to men, who then wrote them down. Those men were divinely inspired, but they were not divine type-writers. Their own cultural biases, view points, and limitations come through in the text time and time again. Why should genealogies be any different?

I agree with Dr. Walton. Scripture is written for us, but it was not written to us. We cannot blindly interpret it according to our own preconceptions and biases. We must approach it from the viewpoint of those it was written to. Furthermore, the central focus of the text is not the physical origins of the earth. The central focus of the text is God's divine authority over the earth and the divine providence and care for His people. The Genesis account of creation demonstrates the basis for God's authority over the cosmos. The genealogies demonstrate God's continual provision for his people, throughout the ages. Neither of these messages are undermined if the people writing the accounts failed to be as pedantic and detailed as our culture.

Thank goodness for modern news media or we followers of the Christ would not be aware of this sort of thing: it's Sex Week, everybody!

At least, it is at Yale University, where students have coordinated one heck of an "educational event": a sex-themed week including stripping classes and a lingerie show in order to-and I quote Dain Lewis, its director here-"reconcile these issues in their own lives".

"I can justify to my mom every decision that's been made [about Sex Week]," Lewis says in his defense (Justify it to mine, Dain...).

Believe it or not, the FOXNews.com's Fox & Friends video clip on this story is absolutely worth watching. Even the panel of reporters assigned to interview Mr. Lewis can't take this guy seriously and start breaking out laughing about halfway through Lewis's speech. It's a wonderfully refreshing reaction to this kind of "Ivy League" (heh) caca, sure to put a smile on your face.

OK; I'm going back to studying now.

UPDATE (from Joe): I dug up a direct link to the video itself.

Recently I've been looking over my notes from an assisted study on the Biblical book of Galatians (The Glory of the Gospel: Studies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians is the name of this thing; I don't have the name of the author). I don't usually enjoy assisted Bible studies; the study guides almost always strike me as insipid and condescendingly vapid. I wouldn't have read The Glory but a good friend recommended it.

And thanks be t'God for him doing so, because The Glory of the Gospel doesn't mess about with peripheral nonsense; the sole subject broached is the central tenet to The Way of the Christ, and it is discussed directly and with intelligence. Which is its stated purpose: the writers of The Glory kick off their whole book with an introduction excerpted from A Passion for God, by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., who writes,

"Imagine the evangelical church without the gospel... What might our evangelism, without the evangel, look like? We would have to replace the centrality of the gospel with something else, naturally. A number of things, conceivably. An introspective absorption with recovery from past emotional traumas, for example. Or a passionate devotion to the pro-life cause. Or a confident manipulation of modern managerial techniques. Or a drive toward church growth and success. Or a deep concern for the institution of the family. Or a fascination with the more unusual gifts of the Spirit... Or a determination to take America back to its Christian roots through political power... But not only is this conceivable, it is actually happening among us right now...

"Rather than carelessly assume the Gospel, we must aggressively, deliberately, fully and passionately teach and preach the gospel. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. If we do not intentionally search them out, we will miss them."

I'd like to share some notes and transcriptions from the first chapter of the study (concerning Gal. 1-2:10) with you here.

The Glory of the Gospel supplies as commentary on the first passage Martin Luther's own words, naturally paraphrased and abridged. The Reformer writes as follows (and I'm editing for space):

"Now it is right to be a good citizen, to be loved and respected by your social group, and to be a morally upright person. So all these may be received without danger, if we attribute to them no power to satisfy for sin, to please God, or to deserve grace... These kinds of righteousness are gifts of God, like all good things we enjoy...

"Yet there is another, far above the others, which Paul calls 'the righteousness of faith!'--Christian righteousness... God imputs it to us apart from our works--in other words, it is passive righteousness, as the others are active. For we do nothing for it, and we give nothing for it--we only receive and allow another to work--that is God...

"This 'passive' righteousness is a mystery that the world cannot understand. Indeed, Christians never completely understand it themselves, and thus do not take advantage of it when they are troubled and tempted. So we have to constantly teach it, repeat it, and work it out in practice. For anyone who does not understand this righteousness or cherish it in the heart and conscience, will continually be buffeted by fears and depression.

"Nothing gives peace like this passive righteousness... For human beings by nature, when they get near either danger or death itself, will of necesity view their own worthiness. We defend ourselves before all threats by recounting our good deeds and moral efforts. But then the remembrance of sins and flaws inevitably comes to mind, and this tears us apart, and we think: 'How many errors and sins and wrongs I have done! Please God, let me live so I can fix and amend things.'

"We become obsessed with our active righteousness and are terrified by its imperfections. But the real evil is that we trust our own power to be righteous and will not lift up our eyes to see that Christ has done it for us... So the troubled conscience has no cure for its desperation and feeling of unworthiness unless it takes hold of the forgiveness of sins by grace, offered free of charge in Jesus Christ, which is this passive or Christian righteousness...

"If I tried to fulfill the law myself, I could not trust in what I had accomplished, neither could it stand up to the judgment of God. So... I rest only upon the righteousness of Christ... which I do not produce but receive; God the Father freely giving it to us through Jesus Christ...

"It is an absolute and unique teaching in all the world to teach people, through Christ, to live as if there were no Law or Wrath or Punishment. In a sense, they do not exist anymore for the Christian, but only total grace and mercy for Christ's sake... There is no other alternative to Christian righteousness but works-righteousness; if you do not build your confidence on the work of Christ you must build your confidence on your own work... So you who would be teachers and counselors of others, I admonish to exercise yourselves continually in these matters through study, reading, meditation on the Word and prayer--that in the time of trial you will be able to both inform and comfort both your consciences and others, to bring them from law to grace, from active/works-righteousness to passive/Christ-righteousness.

"For in times of struggle, the devil will seek to terrify us by using against us our past record, the wrath, and law of God... So learn to speak to one's heart and to the Law. When the law creeps into your conscience, learn to be a cunning logician-learn to use the arguments of the gospel against it. Say: 'O law! You would climb up into the kingdom of my conscience, and there reign and condemn me for sin, and would take from me the joy of my heart which I have by faith in Christ, and drive me to desperation, that I might be without hope. You have over-stepped your bounds... You are a guide for my behavior, but you are not Savior and Lord of my heart... So trouble me not!'"

"This then is the argument of this Epistle, which Paul expounds against the false teachers who had darkened the Galatians' understanding of this righteousness by faith."

P. 78 of The Glory of the Gospel adds that "If I am saved by my works, then I can either be confident but not humble... or humble but not confidence... In other words, apart from the gospel, I will be forced to be superior or inferior or to swing back and forth between the two... So I am continually caught between these two attitudes because of the nature of my self-image. But the gospel creates a new self-image. It humbles me before everyone, telling me I am a sinner saved only be grace. But it emboldens me before anyone, telling me I am loved and honored by the only eyes in the universe that really count.

I'm not sure there's a lesson out there which we're more likely to forget or that's more important for us all to remember.

I was all set to write a blogpost about the need for Christians to tithe 10% of their income. First, let me tell you why I was going to write that. Then I'll tell you why I'm not going to write that.

I was thinking about American Christians, our wealth, and whether or not we share our money as God commanded. I looked up the U.S. population. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. population is around 296 million people. Of those 296 million, a little over ¾ claim to be Christians. The median income in the U.S. is $44,473 dollars a year. That would mean the median tithe in the U.S. should be $4,473 a year.

Let's assume that half of the people that claim to be Christian are lying. Let's assume that the other half of the people that claim to be Christian actually are dedicated church-goers. That would mean we should see 114,596,977 people tithing an average of $4,473 a year. Total tithe in the U.S. would then be somewhere above $500 billion a year. Unfortunately, total 2004 charitable giving in the U.S. only amounted to $250 billion.

Why do I bring that up? Yesterday, I read an article about Joan McCarville, a woman that had had one transplant too many. She needed a lung transplant, but couldn't get one unless she and her husband ponied up over $330,000. That sounds like a lot of money. Until you consider the fact that either a lot of people are lying about being Christians or else the church is being woefully underfunded. Just imagine what the church could do with an extra $250 billion a year! Area churches would certainly be able to help out a lot more people like this unfortunate woman.

As I say, that's what I originally planned to post. Then I went searching for information on tithing. I found an interesting dialog from Dean VanDruff about tithing. It is entitled "The Tithe, A Biblical Perspective". It really gave me a lot to think about. You really, really, really should go read the entire thing, but I'll excerpt some of it to give you a taste:

"The tithe" as part of the Law is no more applicable to us than making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year is. It is mentioned in the New Testament only a couple of times, generally in the context of rebuke to the Pharisees concerning fastidious observance of the ceremonial Law.

Christians in general reject the idea that we are "under the law", yet tithing somehow gets exempted. But it is all or nothing, when it comes to the law, is it not?

For the Jews the tithe was a "party" (or feast, if you like) and was to be "consumed in the sight of the Lord". God's command to tithe includes consuming "whatever your heart desires", including "strong drink"! Imagine using up a tenth of your agricultural increase every year in a single party! Wasteful, extravagant, and flesh mortifying; yet God's clear command. With this Jewish (and historic) perspective, no wonder the prophet Malachi (3:8-11) asks: "How have we robbed from You, Lord, by not tithing?" If you understand the Jewish idea of party-tithing, you will appreciate his question. God commands His people to enjoy themselves by bringing the bounty together so that "There may be food in my house" and then feasting and enjoying themselves in His sight.

A different perspective, no? It certainly gave me something to think about. So I'll refrain my haranguing the church about there being a clear need to tithe more. On the other hand, there's certainly nothing wrong with giving more of your income to the local body of believers. After all, there are a lot of big, legitimate needs all around us. Our individual contributions might be small, but together they could accomplish quite a lot. I'd rather give my share of the $500 billion to the church than to the government.

And Joan McCarville? Well, it turns out she'll have most of the cost of her transplant covered. There is a medical relief fund setup, if you would like to help out with the rest of the cost. Contributions can be sent to the Joan McCarville Lung Transplant Fund, Farmers State Bank, P.O. Box 145, Hollandale, WI 53544.

UPDATE: The VanDruff's have something else up that I found interesting: Bible Study: Money in Scripture. I only skimmed it earlier, but I think it's worth reading through more carefully later.

Employer provided healthcare is obviously a good thing. It's so obvious that a local, Madison grass roots group is pushing the city to mandate health insurance for all local employers:

A grass-roots group of Madison-area residents wants the city to require employers to provide health insurance through a mandated fee. The group, Wisconsin Health Care for All, has proposed a universal health insurance plan called "Provide or Pay." It would force employers to make insurance available to all workers or contribute roughly 5 percent to 10 percent of payroll into a community health plan.

Thankfully, the name of this plan is perfectly descriptive. It is a threat to all local businesses: follow our demands or else. While their aim may be laudable, providing healthcare for employees of Madison-based businesses, their methods are deplorable. Their plan will immediately increase the expenses of local businesses by 5 to 10 percent. Increased expenses have to be met somehow. Local business will be forced to increase prices by an equivalent amount or will be forced to lay off employees. Neither outcome will be beneficial for the poor in Madison.

But backers of the insurance proposal call it pro-business, saying it would give companies an affordable way to provide insurance for all workers. "We're trying to create a standard that would make Madison a mecca for business," said Ann Fleischli, a leader of the group.

I'm thankful that we have these enlightened leaders to provide solid advice to Madison's businesses. While most business owners are struggling to balance revenue and expenses, these citizens have discovered the perfect way to provide affordable health insurance. Fortunately, they are willing to share their expertise for free. Who knew? It turns out that increasing expenses by 5-10 percent is not only a good business idea, but is also all that's needed to turn Madison into a mecca for business. And here I always thought that lower taxes was the only ingredient needed to make any area a mecca for business.

"The city doesn't have the authority to impose a payroll tax," [Michael May, Madison city attorney] said.

Fleischli, also an attorney, maintains that municipal law would allow the plan. "It isn't a payroll tax," she said. "It's a fee that's indexed to the payroll."

How's that again? Isn't that what an income tax essentially is: a fee indexed to one's income? I really think this is the most incredible statement in the entire article. Fee? Tax? What's the difference? If the government requires payment and the payment is indexed to some other variable, I'd say that's a tax -- no matter what name the government may choose to put on it. Wisconsin Health Care for All is proposing a new city-mandated payroll tax. It is anti-business, illegal, and potentially damaging to the city's economy.

Bright ideas like these are why Madison is described as "70 square miles, surrounded by reality". It would be nice if we could find some way to inject "Wisconsin Health Care for All" with a concentrated dose of reality. Until then, I'll oppose this plan unequivocally.

When Does a Fetus Resemble a Baby?:

We left off last night asking: when does a fetus begin to command moral respect, such that we should view it as something other than a mere clump of cells appended to a woman's body?

I have repeatedly noted AMac's comment:

Sometime in the 2 to 4 month time frame, an embryo becomes recognizable as a pre-human, sharing many of the features that a human exhibits as a born baby.

I have argued why many Americans may reasonably decide that the moment of conception is too early to treat an embryo as a full human, and why the moment of viability is too late to treat a fetus as a mere clump of cells. I think most people can understand these arguments.

Patterico then goes on to discuss how most people, viewing pictures of fetuses, can generally determine a specific point at which a fetus begins to resemble a baby. I'd advise you to click through and read the whole entry. He then concludes with:

So let's do it. Let's look at actual pictures of babies in different phases of fetal development. They are in the extended entry. Then answer these questions:

1. When do you think a fetus begins to resemble a baby?
2. Do you think the answer to Question #1 is morally important?

Here are my answers. I looked at the pictures Patterico provided. I think a fetus resembles a baby at the 6-week mark. However, I don't think that answer is morally important. A fetus is a baby, no matter what it resembles. At the time my little sister was born, she looked quite different from my grandmother. Both, however, were human females. Appearance is not important in determining identity. A 1-week fetus contains the same DNA as a 10-year old child or 100-year old adult.

From a moral point of view, it is not permissible to abort a fetus simply because it does not look like a baby. Frankly, that argument is one of the more morally reprehensible I have ever heard. Genetically, a fetus is a baby. The fetus requires only the passage of time to look like a baby. Killing the fetus before it can begin to look like a baby is a cheap way of assuaging one's conscience.

If you live in Colorado, you may be surprised at how hard it is to start a business. Coyote recently won a concession to manage the Elk Creek Marina on Blue Mesa Lake. He posted a list on Getting the Government's Permission to do Business. It's a 20 item list. Everything on there is either time-consuming, expensive, or both.

• To register as a foreign corporation, we need to hire a person to be a "registered agent" to be a contact with the state. The only real purpose of this person I have ever found is to provide an avenue for mail to get lost.
• We need to fill out a pretty elaborate application to sell Colorado fishing licenses, and may need to post another bond to do so. (Update: Confirmed, we need a $4000 bond).
• We need to go through an extensive application process to transfer three current liquor licenses into our name. I wrote about liquor license hassles here.
• The person on the phone today told me a corporation in Colorado cannot own more than two liquor licenses. If this is true, we will have to form a second company in Colorado, repeating all the tasks above plus the initial work just to form the company
• Our managers need to attend food handlers training in Colorado. Of course, they have attended the exact same course in California, but Colorado wants them to sit through it again within their state's borders

There's more. Lots more. Think of this if you wonder why there aren't more jobs available. Every potential employer has to go through this hassle before being legally allowed to offer jobs.

I saw this article earlier in the day and wanted to blog on it. Unfortunately, getting my wisdom teeth pulled and being on pain meds made blogging a risky proposition. Owen (of Boots and Sabers) wrote that the study mentioned in the article confirms the need for the Tax Protection Amendment. He said exactly what I wanted to say:

I read this study and said, "huh"¦ $5,200,000,000 less in government spending"¦ that would be nice.... $5,200,000,000 additional money in the economy.... that sure would help create jobs and raise our standard of living..." 3.8% growth is STILL faster than the rate of inflation. Most Wisconsinites haven't been getting a 3.8% raise every year for the last 20 years. In fact, personal income only went up by about 4.5% since 1990, so to increase government by 5.3% just seems criminal. Government has been increasing in size faster than the ability of the citizens to pay for it.

It must be an election year. Wisconsin Republicans indicated that they would work with Governor Doyle on a heating bill. Quick recap: Republicans hold a majority in both the state Assembly and the state Senate. Governor Doyle peremptorily summoned the legislature into session after the Republicans had previously refused to increase state heating aid. I have a few questions I'd like to ask about this plan.

Doyle wants to set aside $6 million from an environmental cleanup fund to offer one-time heating assistance to people who do not currently qualify for aid. Some 30,000 families would qualify for $200 to $300 dollars apiece, Doyle's office estimates. The Republicans agreed to work with Doyle after the governor last week called for a special session of the Legislature on Tuesday to take up his plan, which would expand eligibility to a family of four with an income lower than $40,000.

How were these numbers arrived at? How many people four-member families with an income lower than $40,000 are there? How many of them desperately need this aid? How much heat does the Governor want to pay for? A passable 68 degrees or a balmy 75 degrees? One is necessary, one is simply extravagant. Does the Governor's plan take this into account? Is this a true necessity or simply a vote-buying effort by a Governor desperate for good news? Will this money really be taken from the environmental cleanup fund or will Doyle later use the environmental cleanup fund as an excuse to raise taxes further?

Families "are left to worry for another week about how to pay the bills and whether they'll have to choose between heating and eating," [Governor Doyle] said at a news conference.

This statement is extremely misleading. Wisconsin law prohibits heating companies from cutting off the heat if citizens are unable to pay their bills. People can catch up on their bills during the cheaper summer months. If paying large bills during the winter is a worry, most utility companies allow people to pay on a "budget plan" that distributes the payments evenly throughout the entire year. No citizen of Wisconsin need to choose between heating and eating. If money is tight, the state allows them to choose eating now and worry about the heating bills later.

The eligibility expansion could help people such as Deanna Topper of Mount Horeb, a single working mother who was denied heating assistance last year. Topper, a case manager for a social services agency, said her heating bill had doubled since that time and any state aid "would be a huge relief."

I am sure it would be huge relief if the state would help. I would consider it a huge relief if the state of Wisconsin would help pay for my cable bill. That doesn't mean that the state needs to pay for Ms. Topper's bills.

Actually, I wonder if Ms. Topper has cable television? I don't know if she does or not, but let's hypothesize that she does -- just as a thought experiment. If so, I would argue that the state is subsidizing her cable bills. By helping to pay for her heat, they would be allowing her to spend her own money on a cable subscription. I'm not sure what the rates in Mount Horeb are, but here in Madison I would have to spend $45 a month to get cable television. Over the course of a winter, that would be a cool $225. If Wisconsin is determined to give people another $200-300 a month, they should force people to choose between cable television and heating, to pinpoint just one luxury that 62% of all Americans enjoy.

Fitzgerald, co-chairman of the Legislature's budget committee, said he also questioned spending $6 million more because the state and federal government are already spending a record $80 million to help the poor in Wisconsin pay their heating bills this year.

This has been one of the mildest winters on record for Wisconsin. We're already spending a record amount of money to pay for heating bills. A record amount of money in a year that has been very mild. Why do we need to spend even more money on heating? Keep in mind that no one will have their heat cut off this winter. No one will freeze to death if we don't spend this money. Why is it so urgent that we spend it now? Why are Wisconsin's Republicans so eager to help the governor spend even more money?

Patterico has posted part three of his continuing series. Again, I follow suit with my answers.

Position #1 "” Life begins at conception: Yesterday I asked these people questions designed to see how firm their stance is, such whether they would oppose abortion even for rape, and whether they support birth control. As to rape, Dana responded:

Abortion after rape is no different from abortion following consensual intercourse: a human life is destroyed. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but it is less than murder; we ought not to murder a living human being because someone else is suffering.

As to contraception, Dana responded:

Oral contraceptives normally prevent the ovaries from releasing an unfertilized egg, which is unobjectionable. But oral contraceptives also prevent implantation of a human zygote if an egg was released and fertilized; that I do find objectionable. Thus, were I emperor, they would be outlawed.

Do other "life begins at conception" people agree with these statements? And if you do, do you recognize that most Americans don't? Would you be in a favor of a compromise that recognized most Americans' belief that women should not be forced to have a baby if raped? Can you live with the fact that most Americans believe women should have access to the morning after pill?

I agree with the statement about abortion after rape. As I mentioned yesterday, 75-85% of women who are raped opt not to have an abortion. Now, the national rape rate is not that high: an average of .56 rapes per 100,000 people over the past five years (from the DOJ). Out of that group of people, only 32,000 women per year actually end up pregnant (from the CDC). If we assume that the study holds true, there is possibly only 8,000 rape related abortions per year.

Given the low number of rape related abortions, I would be willing to compromise and leave abortion legal for victims of rape and incest. However, my previous opinion from yesterday stands as well. I would want to see rape victims get counseling that counsels against an immediate abortion. I would want rape victims to hear and understand that having an abortion may make them feel worse not better. It is my opinion that giving such counseling would reduce rape-related abortions even further.

Now, on to the subject of contraceptives. Here I am definitely willing to compromise. If leaving oral contraceptives legal is the price of restricting the availability of abortions, I am willing to do so. I am not entirely convinced that oral contraceptives are true abortifacients. Until, and unless, I am convinced of that, I would not support banning them.

Patterico has posted A Discussion of Abortion "” Part Two: Follow-Up Questions. I'll follow suit by posting more answers. While the question was asked as one paragraph, I think it makes sense to break it down into three questions:

1. How do you define "conception"? As the union of sperm and egg? As implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall? I define conception as the union of the sperm and the egg. Here is my reasoning. The instant that sperm meets egg, the egg undergoes a biochemical change so that no other sperm can penetrate it. The chromosomes of the sperm and egg combine to form completely unique DNA for that new organism. The cells immediately begin to grow and divide. This "collection of cells" is a new organism that reacts to outside stimuli. While the new cells need to attach to the uterine wall in order to finish their development, this is a matter of nutrition not of fundamental nature.
2. Do you oppose the birth control pill? Which one? Plan B causes the uterine wall to be shed, thus depriving the new cells of nutrition. I would consider this to be equivalent to an abortion, albeit one at a very early stage of pregnancy. Oral contraceptives, on the other hand, prevent the hormonal spikes that lead to eggs being released in the first place. Because egg and sperm never meet, no new life is created and no abortion takes place. (It is possible that an egg could be released while using oral contraceptives. These contraceptives also serve to thin the lining of the uterus. Thus, it is possible that an egg could be fertilized and subsequently fail to implant itself in the uterus. On the other hand, this can also occur naturally, without the involvement of oral contraceptives. Thus, I wouldn't consider it to be a true abortifacient.)
3. How do you feel about abortion after a rape? I don't like it. I think it's a deceptively easy choice. Victims of major trauma are often not in the best position to make important decisions. I think there is a great danger that the mother will, in the end, feel great guilt over ending a life -- especially one conceived in violence. Indeed, according to an older study, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75-85% of rape victims chose not to have an abortion. For this reason, I think it would be wise to counsel against abortions in these situations, especially if the decision comes quickly on the heels of the rape itself. While I do not have citations close at hand, I have also heard many stories indicating that the children conceived in rape later became a great comfort and source of healing to the women involved.

Patterico published A Discussion of Abortion "” Part One: Setting the Stage yesterday evening. He invited his readers to answer two questions, as part of a multiple day discussion of abortion. I chose to answer his questions here rather than just answering in a comment on his blog. Here goes.

1. For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights? I believe abortion is a moral question. The decision to abort leads directly to the loss of a human life. In that context, property rights (over a woman's own body) must take a back seat to life itself.
2. What, for you, defines when a fetus is entitled to moral respect? A fetus is entitled to moral respect at the moment that the sperm unites with the egg. I have heard the argument that all living cells (regardless of type or function) should be treated with respect because cloning will one day allow us to create life from any cells. I don't think that argument is germane here, however. Even at the earliest moments, a fetus is a collection of cells that is on a direct collision course to becoming a recognizable homo sapien. That is the natural result of the development of those cells, unless the process is interfered with in some way. I don't think it's possible to look at the development of those cells and mark one specific point when it ceases to be a collection of cells and begins to be a human being. In my opinion those cells are always a human being -- just one at various stages of development.

The Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment is an amendent to the Wisconsin Constitution that limits the amount of taxes that the state and local governments can raise. If successful, it will protect Wisconsin residents from taxes that seem to rise endlessly. As someone who thinks Wisconsin is already grossly over-taxed, I am very supportive of this bill.

Owen from Boots and Sabers posted a detailed analysis of the Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment (full text).

Rather than focusing on the amendment itself (I couldn't possibly come close to Owen's efforts), I'd like to focus on the opposition to the amendment. The Wisconsin State Journal ran a story about it this morning.

[Opponents] said the latest proposal still ties the hands of local officials and limits government spending to a formula that doesn't match the needs of government or students, the poor, the sick and the old.

Wisconsin's $1.7 billion in programs for doctors and drugs for the poor, uninsured children and their parents and seniors has grown by an average 7.9 percent a year since 1989, nearly three times the 2.7 percent increase in overall inflation over the same period, according to the state Department of Health and Family Services.

Economist Andrew Reschovsky of UW-Madison's La Follette School of Public Affairs said the measure would likely substantially downsize government over time. If the proposal had been put in place 20 years ago, and without passing any referendum, the $15.5 billion the state collects in annual taxes and fees today would be about 20 percent lower, he said.

"We could eliminate the UW System completely and we would still have to cut more. It's a big number," he said.

The fact is, Wisconsin's taxes don't match the needs of Wisconsin's citizens. No one is helped by having their government help itself to a large portion of their income. These paragraphs are a classic example of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Government big spenders are trying to frighten everyone into believing that society's weakest members will be shoved out into the snow if taxes are raised more slowly. You can't get any more bleeding heart than mentioning students, grandmothers, and invalids in the same paragraph. Reschovsky would like to create the fear that Wisconsin will have to kill the UW if this bill passes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is, the amendment would still allow governments to raises taxes by 4% annually. I'd hardly consider that a hardship. My own income increases at a rate of 2-5% per year. My spending increases at a slightly slower rate. (I do have to set aside money for the lean years, after all.) Wisconsin's spending has increased by almost 8% per year. I have a hard time understanding why government should get to take my money faster than I can earn it. And that is exactly what they are doing. If I get a 3% raise and Wisconsin raises my taxes by 6%, the state is now taking 3% more of my money than they used to.

Carefully monitoring income and expenses is something that most Americans do every month. I have to carefully budget all of my income. I look at what I absolutely need to spend money on: housing, food, student loan debt, etc. Then, with the money left over, I have to make some hard decisions: should I help my brother with his college expenses? Should I take my wife out to dinner? Should I buy a new book or CD? Should I put more into my 401(k) or mortgage savings? I only have a limited slice of income to go around. As much as I would like to, I can't dictate my own income and spend whatever I want to.

Why should the Wisconsin legislature, the Dane County Control Board, and the city of Madison be any different? Why should they be allowed to take more and more of my money every year? I'm not trying to cripple the government or destroy it. I'm merely asking (requiring) it to live by the same rules and limitations I do. Prioritize spending. Focus on the most important needs first. Make some hard decisions every once in a while instead of trying to make everyone happy.

If you have any doubts whatsoever about the desparate need for reforming government spending, I'd invite you to read The Great American Pork Barrel from Harper's Magazine. I am disgusted by the manner in which our Congressional "representatives" act when spending the nation's tax dollars.

There was no time to produce a clean copy, so the version of the omnibus bill that Congress voted on was a fourteen-inch-thick clump of papers with corrections, deletions, and additions on virtually every page. Handwritten notes peppered the margins; typefaces varied from section to section and from paragraph to paragraph. First made available to lawmakers at around 12:15 A.M. on November 20 (and only to those who happened to be browsing the House Rules Committee website, where it was posted), the omnibus bill came to a vote before the full House some sixteen hours later, at approximately 4:00 that afternoon, and before the Senate at 8:42 that evening. For the legislators who approved it"”by a margin of 344"’51 in the House and 65"’30 in the Senate"”reading the 3,320-page bill before the vote would have been a mathematical impossibility.

As approved at the November 17 appropriations meeting, the Foreign Operations bill had contained a mere nine earmarks. The omnibus measure, which was completed after two feverish days of work, allocated money for 11,772 separate earmarks. ... In the end, the bill's earmarks were worth a combined total of nearly $16 billion"”a figure almost as large as the annual budget of the Department of Agriculture and roughly twice that of the Environmental Protection Agency. It was the biggest single piece of pork-barrel legislation in American history.

If you still believe that Congress should be in charge of medical care, education, retirement savings, and a host of other issues, I'd love to hear your reasons why. Any business that operated in this manner would find itself facing bankruptcy in short order. That supposedly mature adults would behave in this manner is frightening.

Thanks goes to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold for co-sponsoring the Pork Barrel Reduction Act along with Senators Coburn, McCain, Bayh, Kyl, Ensign, Graham, Sununu, DeMint, and Cornyn. Pork Busters is asking for you to help get this bill passed. Many people in the Senate (I'm looking at you, Senators Murkoswki and Stevens) will oppose this effort to reign in government waste.

You can read the full text of the Pork Barrel Reduction Act (S.2265) online and track the Senators who support it and oppose it.

Another John Stossel special will be airing on ABC this week. Reason Magazine reprints a summary of Myths, Lies, and Nasty Behavior.

The special will air in Madison on ABC-27 and run from 9pm to 10pm. We have a dinner guest tonight, but I'll be taping it to watch later.

Also worth reading is Stossel's older article Confessions of a Welfare Queen. You may be surprised at who's collecting welfare checks.

Most of the time, the Midwest is a peaceable place to live. Every so often, however, the wheels come off. When a Midwesterner (or worse, a Wisconsinite) goes on the warpath, things can get ugly very quickly. Observe the Seething Midwest:

Like a pot of bratwurst left unattended at a Lambeau Field pregame party, simmering tensions in the strife-torn Midwest boiled over once again today as rioting mobs of green-and-gold clad youth and plump farm wives rampaged through Wisconsin Denny's and IHOPs, burning Texas toast and demanding apologies and extra half-and-half.

The spark igniting the latest tailgate hibachi of unrest: a Texas newsletter's publication of caricatures of legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi.

Protestors demonstrated against the images throughout the Badger State yesterday, with violent egging and cow-tipping incidents reported in Oconomowac, Pewaukee, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Antigo, Oshkosh, Waubeno, Wauwautosa, Waunewoc, Wyocena, Waubeka, and Washawonamowackapeepee.