Minor Thoughts from me to you

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted to being a jerk.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is "incompetent."

Asked if Reid considered [Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq] competent, Reid responded, "Not as far as I'm concerned."

Reid has worked as a politician for the vast majority of his life. What, exactly, gives him grounds to determine whether or not a soldier is competent? He has zero military experience or background. He has no basis to judge competency. But he shoots off his mouth anyway.

By the way, great way to build moral there, Senator. Tell the troops that you believe their commander is incompetent -- that'll encourage them as they go out on patrol.

Michael Yon is a photographer, blogger -- and former special operations member of the U.S. Army. I trust his judgment about General Petraeus infinitely more than I trust Senator Reid's. Michael Yon has a tremendous respect for General Petraeus.

Petraeus' Values Message

One of the reasons I trust General Petraeus is he just comes right out and says what needs to be said. The letter which he sent to our forces serving in Iraq (posted below) is a case in point. The letter is more important than it might appear on first glance.

We are making progress but the odds are still against us. We cannot take chances or play fast and loose with our own values. In addition to something immoral occurring, it could be the final straw for this war. All it would take is a weak leader behaving immorally, or a tired leader not recognizing the stress level of his soldiers and reacting accordingly, and we might have the proverbial straw that breaks this camel's back.

This letter from General Petraeus deserves the widest possible dissemination. It should be published widely, and posted on every headquarters wall, and read aloud by every troop in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can pummel al Qaeda and other terrorists mercilessly and grind them into the dirt, but we cannot afford to turn local populations against us while we do it.

Has Senator Reid written a PhD dissertation on counter-insurgency warfare? Heck, has he even read General Petraeus' dissertation on counter-insurgency warfare?

I've been reading General David Petraeus' Ph.D. dissertation between missions. The title page looks like this:

THE AMERICAN MILITARY AND THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era

David Howell Petraeus

A DISSERTATION

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY

OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE

OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE

BY THE

WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

October 1987

In his dissertation, General Petraeus (Ph.D.) writes:

The Importance of Perceptions

Perceptions of reality, more so than objective reality, are crucial to the decisions of statesmen. What policy-makers believe to have taken place in any particular case is what matters"”more than what actually occurred. . . .

Here's a view of General Petraeus' surge strategy, from the ground.

If I might insert a personal opinion, I think Petraeus' plan has a serious chance of working despite heavy odds. In fact, within my first three days with 1-4, talking with Iraqi families and police, there were strong indicators that for this little neighborhood, local people and Iraqi police are definitely encouraged. This doesn't extend to the terrorists, however, and 1-4 Cav has been under fire.

Senator Reid, I'm giving you all due respect when I say, "Please, shut up!" You voted to confirm General Petraeus as commander in Iraq. You and all of your Democrat collegues. If he's incompetent, the only verdict that leaves for you is willful idiot.

Thanks for filling the role.

From the New York Times:

It's a seemingly simple solution to a nationwide problem: if people do not have health insurance, just require that they buy it.

Yes. It is seemingly simple. That's why most of the Democrat candidates for President, one of the Republicans (Romney), and an ever-growing list of states are considering the idea. It's so simple -- if people don't have something that you want them to have, just force them to buy it. The power of government is a wonderful thing.

Of course, there are a few downsides.

But [Massachusetts] is discovering that making health insurance mandatory is easier said than done. It has spent the past year dealing with questions about how much basic coverage people need, and how much they can be expected to pay. (The poorest residents receive free or subsidized coverage.)

Step 1: Require everyone to buy an expensive, all-inclusive healthcare plan. Step 2: Give government handouts to everyone who can't afford to buy the expensive, all-inclusive plan. People of all income levels will be using services that they don't directly pay for. Worse, many people will be using services that they don't even indirectly pay for. This sounds like a fantastic way to keep prices down.

Who are all of these uninsured anyway? And why don't they want health insurance?

Almost half of the roughly 400,000 uninsured people in Massachusetts are single males, and many young men think "health insurance is for sissies," Mr. Kingsdale said. Because young males are generally healthy, adding them to the pool of insured would most likely reduce the average cost of coverage over all, given that this particular group is not liable to need expensive treatment.

That sounds like an implicit tax on young males. They're being forced to buy insurance just as a way of getting more money into the pool. That money can then be used to be for treatments for all of the chronically ill and elderly in the pool. Why would any young man want to be part of such a scheme?

A low-premium, high-deductible health plan (combined with a Health Savings Account) would be a far better option for these men. Instead of blowing all of their money on premiums, they could be saving it up for the next 10-20 years. When they do need medical care, they could pay for it out of their savings, rather than out of a common pool that other people are forced to pay into.

Indeed, the problem with healthcare isn't that too few people have it. The problem is that the people who do have healthcare are completely insulated from the actual cost of their care. How much did your last checkup cost? Do you have any idea? How about your last prescription? Other than the copay, do you have any idea how much it cost? Was it the most cost-effective prescription possible or would a different drug have been just as effective with a cheaper price tag? Almost no one knows the answers to the questions.

Healthcare costs are widely variable. And more expensive doesn't always mean better.

In a Pennsylvania government survey of the state's 60 hospitals that perform heart bypass surgery, the best-paid hospital received nearly $100,000, on average, for the operation while the least-paid got less than $20,000. At both, patients had comparable lengths of stay and death rates.

Still, the Pennsylvania findings support a growing national consensus that as consumers, insurers and employers pay more for care, they are not necessarily getting better care. Expensive medicine may, in fact, be poor medicine.

"For most consumers, the fact that there is no connection between quality and cost is one of the dirty secrets of medicine," said Peter V. Lee, the chief executive of the Pacific Business Group on Health, a California group of employers that provide health care coverage for workers.

It's not just that there's no connection between quality and cost -- there's no connection between anything and cost. A monthly premium disappears into a black hole. At some point in the future, healthcare services may or may not come floating back through the black hole. No one understands how or why different services are covered by their plan or what the relation is between the cost of their plan and the services delivered by that plan. All they can see is that each year the amount of money thrown into the black hole gets a little bit bigger.

Is it any wonder that people are dissatisfied with American healthcare? Worse yet, none of the reform proposals on the table address this fundamental disconnect. Rather than improving transparency, most of their reform plans simply aim to get more people to throw money into the black hole. That's not thinking different on healthcare, that's just following the same broken formula over and over again. Insanity.

The best way to lower prices, increase transparency, improve quality, and deliver higher quality services for lower prices is to make consumers directly responsible for paying for healthcare. Third party payor setups will never be able to deliver a great service at a low price. As long as the person paying for care and the person receiving care are different, true satisfaction will never be achieved.

Wisconsin's finances are in worse shape than I thought.

According to Wisconsin's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or CAFR, the state ended the most recent fiscal year with a $2.15 billion deficit. Unlike state budgets that do not account for all future commitments, thus masking our true financial condition, the CAFR prepared by the state controller's office must follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) from the nation's Governmental Accounting Standards Board and recognize these obligations.

This explains why state budget officials said the 2006 general fund balance was $49.6 million, while the controller put the deficit at $2.15 billion. Last year, Wisconsin was one of only three states with a GAAP deficit and, relative to population, it had the largest deficit in the nation.

Wisconsin has a population of around 5.5 million people. That works out to a deficit of around $400 per person.

It gets worse.

The state controller reported a second figure regarding the state's net assets that also merits attention. Accounting lingo can be confusing; but, in household terms, net assets are simply savings and investments, plus the value of cars, housing, and other property, less any loan debt.

According to the controller, the state's unrestricted net assets for governmental purposes were -$8.23 billion. According to the CAFR, "a positive balance in unrestricted net assets would represent the amount available to be used to meet a government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors." Wisconsin cannot now do that without selling roads, buildings, parks, and campuses.

Maybe we should show some restaint in our spending. I'm wondering if the legislators in Madison have considered that? Nah, that'd actually be demonstrating some responsibility -- can't have that in politics.

I've been following the stories of red light cameras for a couple of years now. I read Matt Labash's 2002 five-part series for the Weekly Standard. I've read Glenn Reynold's 2006 article for Popular Mechanics. I've followed Glenn's links about the subject on Instapundit.com. You may have heard of the concept.

Local cities install cameras at busy or dangerous intersections. The cameras automatically snap pictures of anyone running a red light and police send out citations by the thousands. The idea is to decrease accidents by giving motorists a reason to stop on yellow. The reality is a bit murkier.

Reynold's article and Labash's series give a good run down on the tactics used to make these devices more popular: claiming that it's all about safety, claiming that the public is wildly enthusiastic about the devices, and claiming that the devices cut accidents. Then the articles go on to decisively debunk those claims.

Reynolds:

Others worry about safety. Red-light cameras are supposed to make us safer by discouraging people from running red lights. The trouble is that they work too well. Numerous studies have found that when these cameras are put in place, rear-end collisions increase dramatically. Drivers who once might have stretched the light a bit now slam on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, with predictable results. A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections.

Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in rear-end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall.

But if the emphasis is on safety -- rather than on revenue -- there are better ways of dealing with the problem. A recent study done by the University of Central Florida for the Florida Department of Transportation found that improving intersection markings in a driving simulator reduced red-light running by 74 percent without increasing the number of rear-end collisions. Likewise, a Texas Transportation Institute study found that lengthening yellow-light times cut down dramatically on red-light running. It also found that most traffic-camera violations occurred within the first second after the light turned red (the average was just one-half second after the light change), while most T-bone collisions occurred 5 or more seconds after the light change. If there's a problem, cameras aren't really addressing it.

Labash:

Across the United States and Canada -- where two provincial elections have swung for politicians promising to scrap local photo radar programs -- citizens have made it clear why the supposedly beloved technology is installed inside bullet-proof casings. In Anchorage, photo radar operators were pelted with water balloons before cameras were finally banned. In Denver, police thought somebody fired on their photo radar van, though the projectile turned out just to be a rock. Elsewhere, camera units have been smeared with lubricant, pulled out of the ground with tow chains, and rammed by automobiles. In Paradise Valley, Arizona, where the city council once contemplated shooting motorists with photo radar cameras concealed in cactuses, one civic-minded citizen decided to shoot back, emptying 30 rounds of bullets into two photo radar units.

This is the information I'm used to hearing. (For lots more on the increases in accidents, the benefits of longer yellows, and the safety myth read the full Labash series.) That's why I was so intrigued by the recent article in Madison's progressive newspaper, the Capital Times. It pulled out every one of the standard lines.

It's all about deterrence.

The red light camera program works because of deterrent theory, McLay said. People weigh the likelihood of getting caught before they make the decision to violate the law. In a heavily populated urban environment there are too few squad cars policing too many vehicles, he said. It is not possible to have police cars at every intersection looking for red light runners.

It's not about money, it's about safety.

McLay said if police were to implement a program locally they would use the proceeds to operate the system. There would be a firewall between the revenues generated and the Police Department budget, he said.

"We don't want the money, we just want to do something effective to reduce the number of crashes due to people running red lights in the city."

It's supported by Madison residents.

Ald. Robbie Webber, who represents the Regent Street area, said she also gets a lot of e-mails and calls from people who think the city should be using cameras to catch red light runners.

"There is a lot of support for this because people are tired of being afraid on the road," she said.

Tell you what. Let's try increasing the yellows first, and see what that does to the accident statistics. Also, let's the local cities volunteer to send the money from fines to be put into a state pool. If the cities will agree to those two stipulations, I'll keep an open mind on the proposal. Until then, it's just another Madison scheme to shake down residents for more cash.

Recently, Congress has been going nuts over ethanol production. Government money has been thrown at every imaginable ethanol-related project.

If the current tax credits, grants and loan guarantees are extended, the package would cost taxpayers an additional $140 billion over the next 15 years. New proposals under consideration in Congress could raise the tab to $205 billion.

The biggest single item would be an extension of an existing 51-cent-a-gallon ethanol tax credit, scheduled to expire in 2010. It would cost the federal government an extra $131 billion through 2022 under a fuel mandate that recently cleared by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (It would cost $18.36 billion in 2022 alone.)

Besides the ethanol tax credit, other current incentives include a $1-a-gallon biodiesel tax credit, a subsidy for service stations that install E85 pumps, spending by the Agriculture Department on energy programs, and various other Energy Department grants and loan guarantees.

Some lawmakers want to provide aid for ethanol infrastructure since ethanol is too corrosive to be transported through existing gasoline pipelines. ... Another bill would establish a Strategic Ethanol Reserve for years when corn harvests were reduced by droughts. ... a House Agriculture subcommittee approved a proposed new energy provision that would provide $2 billion in loan guarantees for new biomass plants and $1.5 billion for research into cellulosic ethanol technologies.

The only problem -- nobody's quite sure how to pay for any of this. Especially as Democrat presidential candidates are proposing billions in new healthcare and education spending. All of those billion have to come from somewhere, but Democrats have been pledging to keep the budget balanced. Obviously, those are code words for "hike taxes on the rich to pay for our new toys", but even tax hikes on the rich only go so far. After all, how many separate billion dollar toys can repealing the tax cuts for people who earn $200,000+ really pay for?

As always, the best quote is saved for the end of the article.

Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa., who chairs the House Agriculture subcommittee dealing with energy, contended that "we need a Manhattan Project ... we need to be less dependent on energy."

Less dependent on energy? As in, the entire nation should start using less energy? How? Ban air conditioning? Ban driving? Mandate thermostat limits in the winter? Take away our iPods, cellphones, laptops, and digital cameras?

I'm afraid Representative Holden is a bit nuts. As are all of these energy subsidies. Knock it off. When an innovator finally comes up with a better, cheaper way to produce energy, the world will stampede to his doorstep. Until then, quit throwing tax money at the problem. None of you idiots in Congress know how to produce energy any more efficiently, so stop using my money to pretend like you're making good investments.

You're worse than a trust-fund teenager taking Daddy's stock portfolio for a test drive. Knock it off already.

UPDATE: Not only that, but the rush to invest in ethanol could lead to a food shortage down the road:

A recent study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (which receives funding from grocery manufacturers and livestock producers) reported that U.S. ethanol production could consume more than half of U.S. corn, wheat and coarse grains by 2012, driving up food prices and causing shortages. The study estimates that booming ethanol production has already raised U.S. food prices by $47 per person annually. In Mexico, protests have already erupted over the high price of corn tortillas, a staple food in the local diet.

Planting more corn is one solution, but that means planting less of other crops that are also widely used in foods, such as soybeans and wheat. Tilling fallow land could create more growing space for corn, but might lead to soil erosion and impacts on wildlife habitats.

According to a December 2006 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute, producing enough ethanol to fuel all of the world's vehicles would require five times more corn than is planted today and 15 times as much sugar cane.

So. Ethanol investment isn't just a waste of taxpayer dollars. It could also have some very detrimental effects on agricultural production, land management, and food prices. Quit distorting the market and have the patience to let a level playing field reveal the next energy technology. Please.

In an interview with Spiegel Online, Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati made an impassioned plea for first world nations to stop sending aid to third world nations.

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

He explains why rich nations shouldn't be the ones helping poor nations -- and what happens to the corn when rich nations ship it over.

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

The Cato Institute recently hosted an event about this very point. Pan-African Free Trade Agreement: Helping Africa through Free Trade. (If you visit the event's page, you can watch it, listen to it, or read a full transcription of it.)

African tariffs are some of the highest in the world.

While OECD countries cut tariffs from an average of 23.7 percent to just 3.9% in the 20 years from 1983, Sub-Saharan Africa only cut its tariffs from 22.1% to 17.7%.

And astonishingly, many African countries impose tariffs on the import of medicines, and even Tanzanian-made anti-malaria bednets.

These are, effectively, killer tariffs.

While the world as a whole cut tariffs by 84 percent between 1983 and 2003, Africa only reduced theirs by 20%.

For most Africans, it is harder to trade with those across African borders than with distant Europeans and Americans.

In 1997, the World Bank found that countries in Sub-Saharan Africa imposed an average tariff of 34% on agricultural products from other African nations, and 21% on other products.

The results are clear.

Only 10% of African trade is with other African nations.

The first world isn't doing the third world any favors with our generous aid packages and handouts. We're preventing the Africans from taking the tough -- but responsible -- steps to improve their own welfare. It's time to stop coddling the contintent and start expecting it to walk on its own.

Senator Bill Frist wrote about his ONE Vote '08 campaign over at Captain's Quarters this morning. He wants Presidential candidates to publically commit to increasing aid to Africa. While it sounds like a noble goal, I'm afraid that it would only enable the African nations to continue electing corrupt politicians and continue to duck responsibility for their own welfare.

Let's listen to James Shikwati and make our own tough decision. Just stop. Please.

I'm going to start at the beginning. Merchants price a good based on several factors: the raw materials in the product, the difficulty of obtaining the product, the supply of the good locally versus the number of other merchants selling the good versus the consumer good demand for the good, and any relevant taxes. Taxes are the only truly arbitrary part of the price. It is also the only part of the price that is a constant for all merchants.

Well, all merchants that follow the law. Any merchant that is willing to break the law can sell a product for less than the competition is charging. If the difference between the untaxed price and the taxed price is great enough, merchants and buyers will form a "black market" to buy and sell products free from all government interference.

How does this tie into cigarettes and terrorism? As you may have noticed, many states have begun to impose punishing cigarette taxes. Rates vary from $3 in New York City ($1.50 in New York state) to a mere $0.07 per pack in South Carolina. 21 states charge $1.00 or more -- per pack -- in cigarette taxes. These high taxes provide a large incentive for buyers and sellers to skirt the law and buy cheaper "duty-free" cigarettes.

Organized crime has been quick to notice this and provide a ready source of smuggled cigarettes. In a post at the Belmont Club yesterday, Wretchard connects the dots between cigarette taxes and terrorism.

Why are cigarettes such an attractive commodity for organized crime groups? First, the difference between the duty-free and duty-paid prices are substantial, thereby allowing smugglers to make profits at relatively low street prices. Second, they are very easy to handle and transport. For example, a container load of cigarettes carries a potential tax value of $1.2 million, almost all of which is potential profit for the smuggler. Third, cigarette smuggling requires a willing market and a good local distribution network, which have already been established by drug-trafficking organizations.

...

In Colombia, cigarette smuggling is directly related to money laundering schemes through the so-called "black market peso exchange." During the exchange, drug-dealers convert U.S. dollars into clean pesos, while cigarette smugglers buy U.S. dollars in order to purchase international goods. The U.S. Treasury Department calls this system "the most dangerous and damaging form of money laundering ever encountered"

...

Tobacco smuggling is a ruthlessly efficient and highly organized trade which involves some of Britain's most vicious criminal gangs, as well as the Eastern European crime groups and the Italian Mafia. British police estimate that Italian organized criminal groups account for 15% of the illegal trade, while Eastern European gangs are responsible for 10% of the smuggled cigarettes in Great Britain. The ferocity of the competition is likely to contribute to violent confrontations as the gangs compete for control.

Wretchard notes that Interpol was establishing a link between terrorists and smugglers before the attack on the World Trade Center.

Structural links between political terrorism and traditional criminal activity, such as drugs trafficking, armed robbery or extortion have come increasingly to the attention of law enforcement authorities, security agencies and political decision makers. There is a fairly accepted view in the international community that in recent years, direct state sponsorship has declined, therefore terrorists increasingly have to resort to other means of financing, including criminal activities, in order to raise funds. These activities have traditionally been drug trafficking, extortion/collection of "revolutionary taxes", armed robbery, and kidnappings.

Maybe it's time that we struck a blow against terrorism. Let's end the "War on Drugs" and drastically cut cigarette taxes. By taking a lot of the profit out of smuggling we can dramatically cut funding to terrorist organizations.

It would certainly be an innovative approach.

Yesterday, the Guardian took a moment to point out that 3,500 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since the war started. Today, I'd like to point out another number: 29,000. That's the number of U.S. soldiers that died between June 6 and August 25, 1944 in the Battle of Normandy. Otherwise known as D-Day. That's more than 8x as many soldiers, killed in one battle, in a nation that had less than half the population that America now has.

The importance of the Iraq war shouldn't revolve around the number of soldiers killed. Our sense of winning and losing shouldn't be determined by a simple head count. Our verdict on the war should depend on our enemy and our goals. Our enemy is Al-Qaeda in Iraq and a host of other terrorist organizations. Our goal is to stay long enough and provide enough security to enable the Iraqi people to establish a free, democratic state. I believe that our enemy is hideous and our goal is worthy.

It's no use arguing about whether or not we should or shouldn't have gone into Iraq. It's done. That conversation is over. We're there now and we can't change that. The question now is: do we stay long enough to clean up our mess? Do we stay to finish what we started? Or do we pull out now and leave the Iraqi people to be slaughtered in mass, by terrorists. The terrorists will not stop killing just because we leave. If we pull out, the violence will only get worse. If we pull out now, the Iraqi people will lose any chance that they have at peace and prosperity.

The odds are against us and the situation is grim. But I do not believe that a simple body count is sufficient enough argument to dictate our actions. Pulling out now, after the historically small losses that we've received, is not worthy of our heritage. I believe that we must stay and do everything that we can to enable the Iraqi people to succeed where only one other Middle Eastern country has succeeded. Let's give peace and democracy a chance -- let's protect the Iraqi people and support the mission that our troops have volunteered for.

A few days ago, I wrote about government regulators preventing progress. You may be interested in another example.

My mother was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. By itself this fact is not particularly exciting. But, when I was younger, I learned about the burning Cuyahoga River. Once I realized what had happened, I never lost an opportunity to tease my mother about her hometown.

Recently, I learned the rest of the story. It turns out that excessive government regulation bears a large amount of the blame for the fire.

Incomes were rising and concern about industrial wastes was mounting. Pollutants were corroding sewage treatment systems and impeding their operation. In another part of the state, the Ohio River Sanitation Commission, representing the eight states that border the Ohio River (which runs along Ohio's southern border), developed innovations to reduce pollution. The municipalities and the industries along the Ohio began to invest in pollution control technology.

Unfortunately, this progress soon ended. The evolving common law and regional compacts hit a snag in 1951 when the state of Ohio created the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board. The authorizing law sounded good to the citizens of Ohio. It stated that it is "unlawful" to pollute any Ohio waters. However, the law continues: ". . . except in such cases where the water pollution control board has issued a valid and unexpired permit."(3)

The board issued or denied permits depending on whether the discharger was located on an already-degraded river classified as "industrial use" or on trout streams classified as "recreational use." Trout streams were preserved; dischargers were allowed to pollute industrial streams. The growing tendency of the courts to insist on protecting private rights against harm from pollution was replaced by a public decision-making body that allowed pollution where it thought it was appropriate.

Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes, who helped draw attention to the Cuyahoga fire, criticized the state for letting industries pollute. "We have no jurisdiction over what is dumped in there. . . . The state gives [industry] a license to pollute," the Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted him as saying (June 24, 1969). Stokes was not far off the mark.

...

In sum, the Cuyahoga fire, which burns on in people's memory as a symbol of industrial indifference, should also be viewed as a symbol of the weaknesses of public regulation.

It's worth reading the whole thing, if only to see what I left out.

Regulation will always be "captured" by those who have a vested interest in the regulations. Rather than strictly controlling an industry, the regulatory agency will soon be controlled by the industry. This is what is happening (has happened) to the FDA and this is what contributed to the Cuyahoga River fire.

Whatever you do, don't put your faith in a regulatory agency. It will only let you down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Futility in Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not very well.

What We "Know" About Gaza

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

The first is the notion that power would moderate Hamas.

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

Wrap Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Hat tip to Coyote Blog.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the punishment definitely fits the crime:

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

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

So true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go, go, go!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, there's this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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