Minor Thoughts from me to you

In American politics today, there is a simple question that divides us: who makes our choices? Do we make our own choices or do we stand aside and let someone else make our choices for us? This is the question that fuels the debate over school choice, over ethanol mandates, over FDA drug approvals, and over a host of other issues.

There are those that believe that only government employees can be trusted to make decisions. They believe that parents cannot be trusted to choose a school for their own children. They believe that drivers cannot be trusted to choose the best fuel for their vehicles. They believe that patients cannot be trusted to choose which medicines to take. As a result, they established the FDA to pick and choose our medicines for us. They established local School Boards to run the schools, making it as difficult as possible for parents to use non-government schools. They support ethanol mandates, to make us use the fuels they like best.

This governmental paternalism is always presented as a benevolent service. A service that government willingly provides to its citizens. But is it benevolent? Does government paternalism really make our lives better? Are we really better off if the government makes our choices for us?

Let me make this entire issue more personal: do you trust the FDA to make the right decisions about your drugs? Be cautious how you respond. The FDA has two criteria for approving drugs: is it safe and does it work? Every drug must be tested thoroughly -- a process that often lasts 10 years or more. Some drugs make it through these tests and are approved for sale, most don't.

What does it mean when a drug fails its tests? It means that the drug doesn't work more often than it does. It means that the drug hurts more people than it helps. It doesn't mean that the drug never works and it doesn't mean that the drug always causes harm. FDA employees look at the test results and make a decision. Does the drug work often enough, in a safe enough manner to be sold? In some manner, these decisions are arbitrary. There is no hard and fast line that can determine whether or not a drug is appropriate for human usage.

FDA doctors look at all of the variables, all of the tests, all of the evidence and make one decision. This decision is binding on all 300 million American citizens. This decision is no mere recommendation. It is a crime to use a drug that the FDA has not certified as being safe and effective. Both the patient taking it and the doctor prescribing it can be thrown into jail if their usage of the drug does not meet FDA "guidelines".

Is the FDA's decision really that valid? Is it really valid for all 300 million Americans? Probably not. There are tradeoffs involved in the decision to take any drug. Is it going to work? How well will it work? What side effects will there be? How severe will the side effects be? Is there a danger of death? How big is that danger of death? What benefits does the drug offer? How dramatic are those benefits? Are those benefits worth the danger of death? These are questions that don't have a one-size fits all answer. Some drugs may be very dangerous for some patients and very safe for others. Some drugs may have no effect on one person and a life-changing effect for another person. And yet, the FDA makes the same decision binding on both people.

Case in point: yesterday, the FDA heard testimony from patients with multiple sclerosis about a called Tysabri. This drug has been called a breakthrough for the treatment of M.S. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disease that affects about 400,000 Americans. It wouldn't be surprising if a drug that treats neurological defects has neurological side effects. So it is with Tysabri. Tysabri has been linked to P.M.L. (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy), a rare but deadly neurologic virus.

On the one hand, we have a drug that's been hailed as a breakthrough treatment for a debilitating disease. On the other hand, we have a drug that can kill those who take it. Should it be available for patients to take or not? The FDA is currently deciding. The FDA is currently deciding whether or not M.S. patients can take a potentially life-changing (and possibly life threatening) drug. Why is the FDA deciding this issue? Why can't these patients make their own decisions? Pamela Clark of Salt Lake City told the agency that "We understand the risks of using experimental drugs, but we also understand the risks of doing nothing." She also reported that "Tysabri had allowed her to walk to a duck pond with her two 5-year-old sons and stand up long enough to cook dinner."

Tysabri has made Pamela's life better. It's allowed her to enjoy life again. She weighed the risk and decided that the benefit of the drug was worth the risk. Unfortunately for Pamela, she's not allowed to make that decision. She has to wait for the FDA to make the decision for her.

Do you think that's right? Do you think that Pamela should be prevented from deciding for herself? Do you think that her illness distorts her judgment in such a way that she is incapable of making her own decision? Would your answer change if you were in Pamela's shoes? Are you willing to turn control of your life over to government employees?

It's time to make a choice.

About two weeks ago, I stumbled on to an interesting article. The founder of Domino's Pizza is planning on building a town that would be run strictly according to Catholic principles.

Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.

Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino's Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria's pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town's cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.

The town will be centred around a 100-foot tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university's president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should "help rebuild the city of God" in a country suffering from "catastrophic cultural collapse."

Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town's commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases -- notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Simon said the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled "ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion." "If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that's fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority."

Adam and I promptly discussed this idea. Because we were using instant messenger to discuss it, you can read our thoughts.

Adam: Wow. That's fascinating. So what's your reaction?

Joe: I like it. It's going to kick up a huge mess of controversy. Probably spawn a Supreme Court case (or seven). It gets back to the roots of a lot of Constitutional areas that have gone off of the rails, freedom of contract being the most obvious. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et. al. would have considered it to be constitutional. I'm not sure about Messrs. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Souter, and Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The only person on the court that I know would rule the town legal is Justice Thomas.

Adam: And in the eyes of the LORD?

Joe: Biblically, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's basically the church, writ large. I see it as an Acts 2 type of situation. Only, more formal.

Adam: How is Ave Maria like Acts 2? Not sure I follow.

Joe: It's a bit of a stretch, admittedly. but the early church was a lot more closely knit than the modern church is. I think Ave Maria would do a lot to bring back the centrality of the church, to life. Church members would actually be required to live according to church teaching, which is a fairly radical concept right now.

Adam: But the original church was surely more closely knit because of the oppression it faced and the maturity and belief of its members, not simply because they had people looking over them more. And is centrality particularly important to the work of the Gospel? The Christian church only truly began to grow when its very head was cut off.

Also, if this is ultimately what it seems to be-a haven for Catholics-what does that say for those people's understanding of their mission here on Earth: to go ye out onto all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature? That is, the Church is a missiological creature, not an institutional one.

Joe: The Great Commission still applies, obviously. And witness in the local town is only a part of the Great Commission. A larger part involves going out into the surrounding region: county, state, nation, etc. This town could provide a valuable (both in the material and non-material sense) base of operations for missions work. A place to raise a family and a place to return to in time of need or when spiritual renewal is needed.

Having the town literally built around a church need not necessarily involve centrality of government (although that will obviously play a role). It will, more importantly I think, emphasize how faith is supposed to be a central defining part of our daily lives. Having the entire town run along those lines will only reinforce that centrality of faith to life.

I think excommunication has always been a vital part of church discipline. Obviously, it's a last line of discipline, but I think it needs to be a valid option. In today's society being excommunicated from a local church doesn't mean a whole lot. Being kicked out of town, certainly would mean something.

I also view the aspect of "people looking over them" with a somewhat benign eye. It's true that the church would have a lot of authority in the town. On the other hand, everyone that lives there does so with the full knowledge and expectation that that will be true. Thus, the "coercive" aspects could be viewed as a form of hyper-accountability.

Adam: Hm. I take issue with the idea that there is any relief from the Commission, or that separation from mainstream society will ever ultimately service it. I am certain at the least that the raising of a man's family is not to be, as conventional wisdom would dictate, done in the most secure place possible. Every man's possession is to be given up freely to the LORD's service, and that includes his family, as horrifying a thought as I know this is (and one day, it will be all the more horrifying to me; I can't know the half of it now, quite literally). Point is: a Christian in NYC has far more opportunity to serve the Master and affect change than a Christian will in this Ave Maria, because all our knowledge and keeping of the law is ultimately of no consequence. As for excommunication, I agree that with far more individual churches out there now, many of which might not look into a new member's history, it might not mean as much-were we the full arm of God. But we discipline to our extent, I think, and should not concern ourselves with anything further. I guess what I'm saying here is that I see $400 million going to the creation of a greater structure-Catholic town for people who are Catholics-which is not an increase in the Church, which would be $400 million going to, say, church planting by Catholics for heathen. Community transformation.

Like Roberts Jr. said: If this Catholic town were wiped off the face of the planet, who would miss it? Catholics. Who does it serve? Catholics. Am I calling this foray selfish? No; but self-centered, yes. And the two are different, I think.

A friend of mine I consider a spiritual father to me has always told me that if you want to grow in Christ, in your faith, the best way to do it is to pray for others and to serve others. We might extrapolate from that and say that the best way for the Church to grow in Christ and in its faith is to pray for and serve others. I'm inclined to think that in focusing solely on such, I neglect myself and leave myself open to corruption by not 'shoring myself up', and perhaps if there is a total imbalance this is certainly the case. But might there not be point to the fact that Jesus's immediate reaction to hearing about John's death was to start ministering to others again?

That is, the recipients are not the only ones to receive. And this seems to me very characteristic of the Gospel.

Joe: Paul grew up in a devout community and learned from the best before beginning his earthly ministry. Jesus was 30 before He began to minister. Samuel grew up in the temple, before beginning his ministry. Moses lived a fairly insulated life before getting kicked out and into reality. These may be isolated exceptions to the rule, but I'm not positive that they are.

I'm also certain that I'm over-simplying the case a bit. Still, I think it's possible that Ave Maria has the potential to become a training ground for evangelists, apologists, ministers. I don't think it's a town that one should necessarily spend one's entire life in. On the other hand, I don't think that living there for a few years would be a negative experience either. I think it would be a good place to be from.

Adam: Moses may be out. He spent nearly 40 years being raised by the royal family, another 40 in Midian, which was pagan. And the royal family wasn't exactly a group of synagogue-lovers. :)

Joe: Well, yeah. My broader point was that ministry didn't always start at a young age. There is precedence for going through a long period of preparation. Of course, the opposite is true as well. Which just goes to show that the Boss likes to mix things up.

Adam: This is true, which is why I'm not outright condemning it; not sure it's possible to condemn any approach when He's that versatile.

What do you think, readers? Please hit the "Comments" link below and let us know your thoughts on this idea.

Local radio personality John Peterson wrote a blog post yesterday called The Voucher Wedge. In it, he talked about his displeasure with the voucher program that allows students to leave the Milwaukee Public Schools and enroll in various types of private schools. He has two specific complaints about giving families vouchers to use at non-public schools:

First, the choice program is sending taxpayer dollars into private schools that are not accountable to people of this state. I had heard Republicans were the party of accountability. Not only is there is no standardized test to compare private and public schools ability educate children, but choice supporters have blocked an honest evaluation to support their contention that private schools are better.

Second, public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Suggesting that there be no cap demonstrates a lack of business savvy.

As a supporter of vouchers, I'd like to respond to John's complaints. Now, I'm definitely not an "educational expert". I'm a guy with a blog that likes to ask questions and raise concerns. I'm probably overlooking some subtleties of the educational system. I'm not an expert on the Milwaukee Choice Program or on the private schools that are currently accepting vouchers. These are simply my reactions to John's assertions.

I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by his first complaint. He claims that private schools are not accountable to "people of this state". Well, as I see it, the private schools are accountable to one very important group of people: the parents who are sending their children to these schools. The vouchers, that the parents receive, are usable at many different schools. If the parents see that their children are doing worse in a voucher school than they were in a public school, it's a simple matter to move the children to a new voucher school or back into the MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools).

That's why I think this complaint is a bit of a red herring. WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers union) would love to keep Milwaukee's children in their schools. To that end, WEAC moans about a lack of oversight and a lack of standardized testing. What they really mean, is that WEAC is not able to oversee the schools or determine if Milwaukee's children are measuring up to WEAC's standards. (Now it's true that John only mentioned state oversight of the private schools. But really, which group has the most influence over Wisconsin's educational policy? WEAC does. Therefore, it seems to me, that any state oversight of eduction really boils down to WEAC oversight of education.)

I don't think a teacher's union should be the final arbiters of whether teachers are doing a good job. I don't think teachers should be determining which school system does the best job of teaching children. I think doing so creates an inherent conflict of interest for the teachers. I believe parents are the best judge of school effectiveness. I think parents are the best judge of which school does the best job of teaching their children. I think parents will do a better job of providing school oversight than other "people of this state" ever would. I may be wrong. I'd love to hear from anyone who can point me to widespread examples of parents making poor educational choices for their children.

John's other complaint revolves around the budgeting process for MPS. Specifically that with vouchers public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Again, I'm not an expert at this, and I may be wrong. It seems to me that, with an expanded voucher program in place, public school enrollment will only be going down, not up. If that's case, what's so hard about budgeting? Stick to the same budget that was used in the previous year. It should be more than adequate to cover expenses for the current year. It will probably even have money left over. Am I wrong? Am I missing something obvious that would make the budget process something truly worrisome?

Owen reminds us about today's hearing on the Taxpayer Protection Amendment:

I'll be there to speak up for myself and my family. Will you be there to speak up for yours?

I'd love to be there. Unfortunately, we're still a one car family and my wife needs the car this afternoon. I'll be stuck in Madison, but my thoughts will be in Pewaukee. Owen, make sure the legislators know about the people who aren't there, as well as the people who are.

I didn't post anything yesterday. I probably won't post anything today. I have several good essays in the hopper, but work commitments and personal commitments have kept me from being able to finish them. Stick around, there's definitely more to come.

Callimachus on why George Washington matters:

Washington is beginning to recover his reputation; he deserves it. He was the steady hand on the tiller when we set sail as a nation. Steadiness, not reckless innovation, was the thing America needed at the time. It's to his credit that we forget the serpents of tyranny and mob rule that slithered about the American cradle. To remember, read the history of the French Revolution.

To me, Washington is American history's grand exemplar of the virtue of civic duty. Say "actor-president" and people think Reagan, but Washington played a role so thoroughly, and so perfectly, that people still think he was that regal, noble Roman hero. When you read the accounts of him written by his intimate circle during the Revolution, you see the American man -- vain, hard-driving, hard-cussing, clever in a farmer's ways. And you appreciate what he did to get America launched on an even keel: passing up a life he could have spent happily among his horses, transforming himself into a living virtue as a gift to the new nation.

Now regarded as almost surely mythical, Cincinnatus was a real hero to the Founders. And when Washington resigned from public life in 1783 after the great victory and returned to Mount Vernon rather than mounting the throne of the new nation, he was the marvel of the world, and he was behaving quite deliberately on the classical model.

As America's first president, Washington literally had to invent the job of being an elected leader of a nation, because there was no model for it in modern times. He had to parse out decisions about what title people should use when addressing the president, how a president should interact with Congress, how he should receive dinner invitations.

I've never thought about Washington in quite this way before. Please do, go read the full essay. It is doubtful whether America would have survived without Washington's leadership. Callimachus reminds of what George Washington did, why he did, and why it mattered so very much.

Madison's liberals spend a lot of time talking about helping the poor and improving the lives of the poor. This is, bluntly, a load of hogwash.

The Capital Times published another article about Wisconsin Health Care for All and their plan to offer health care to everyone in the city of Madison. In this article, I learned that most of the group's members are former Kerry campaign members. They were, understandably, depressed after Senator Kerry's loss in the 2004 election:

"We decided that we wanted to keep working," said Barbara Spar, who teaches human resources management at Madison Area Technical College. "We wanted to be for something. We wanted to use our energy instead of being depressed."

They decided to use their energy to implement universal health care on a local level -- Madison, specifically. As I wrote previously, the group wants to implement their plan by requiring all businesses in Madison to pay a portion of their payroll into an insurance fund. Businesses that already provide healthcare will be exempt from this new "fee".

The group boasts that they have an economist as one of their leaders: John Kalfayan. Therefore, group members are certain that their plan will not hurt businesses in Madison or lead to layoffs. Quite possibly they're right. If they are able to implement their plan, I have every confidence that no existing businesses will close. Furthermore, I'm fairly confident that no one will be laid off as a result of this plan.

That's not to say that this plan will good for everyone. This is one small group of people that would be hurt by this plan: those who have few marketable job skills. As an economist, I would expect that Mr. Kalfayan is familiar with the idea of "marginal utility". Simply put, marginal utility is the value that someone gets from the last unit of something. Think of it this way: for a hungry man, a single burger has great value. A second burger would be appreciated, but a little bit less than the first burger was. A third burger would be okay, but he might not miss it if it wasn't there. A fourth burger might even be ignored. The fourth burger then has a much lower marginal utility than the first burger did.

The same principle holds true in business. As businesses hire more employees, each employee will have a lower marginal utility to the business. If it is too expensive to hire an additional employee (for instance, if the employer must provide healthcare in addition to minimum wage), the business may choose to make do with the employees they already have. Thus, while this healthcare plan may not cause any layoffs it will, quite possibly, prevent new jobs from being created.

There is another factor that will come into play. As employees become more expensive, businesses will choose to hire only the best employees. If this new "healthcare fee" causes the minimum wage to rise from $5.50 an hour to $5.94 an hour, the employer will only hire employees who can contribute more than $5.94 an hour to the bottom line. This means employers will only hire someone who is fully trained and competent.

What about less qualified applicants? What about people who might have had trouble holding down a job in the past or who have limited work experience or who simply require a lot of on the job training? The answer is simple: it will be much harder for them to find work. They will be passed over in favor of applicants who can justify the higher pay scale.

Implementing this healthcare plan would remove the lowest rung from the economic ladder. Implementing this healthcare plan would lead to businesses squeezing out applicants who are inexperienced or under-qualified. For these people, Wisconsin Health Care for All is not offering a choice of a job without healthcare benefits or a job with healthcare benefits. No, for these people, Wisconsin Health Care for All only offers the choice of a job with healthcare or no job at all. Which do you think a desperate man would prefer: a job without healthcare or no job whatsoever?

I know which option I would prefer. The simple fact of the matter is, this plan would neither help the poor nor make them better off. It is a purely cosmetic fix that will have large, hidden repercussions. While Madison's liberals will pat themselves on the back for the workers they've helped, they'll be completely oblivious to the people they've hurt.

I'd rather focus on why Madison's businesses can't voluntarily offer health insurance. I have a sneaking suspicion that it might have something to do with the fact that only four states in the nation have higher taxes than Wisconsin. Unfortunately, that problem will only be made worse by taking a new payroll "fee" from local businesses.

Boots and Sabers has been all over the Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment. Yesterday, Owen reported on a conference call, concerning TAPA, sponsored by American's for Prosperity. Dr. Milton Friedman participated in the call. This is important because:

Milton Friedman, for those of you who may not know, is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been fighting for tax and spend restrictions on government since Proposition 1 in California in 1973, when Governor Ronald Reagan began trying to bring our governments back to fiscal sanity. Proposition 1 failed to pass, but it helped start a revolution. He has seen measures like the TPA written and tried across the country for 30 years and knows what works and what doesn't.

He came out strongly in favor of the amendment. Good enough for me.

Earlier in the week, Owen relayed information about a public hearing on TAPA. The hearing is Wednesday afternoon. Pending approval from my boss, I plan to leave work early so that I can attend. I support this amendment and I want to make sure that Wisconsin's Republicans know that.

In no particular order:

• Tibetan monks, who overstayed their immigration visas, were arrested by a SWAT team. A SWAT team? For Tibetan monks? It's not enough that they get visited by paramilitary Chinese troops? They have to get raided by paramilitary Americans as well?

• Frank Miller is writing "Holy Terror, Batman!", a story that chronicles Batman's fight against al-Qaeda. Says Miller:

I'm doing this mainly as an explosion from my own gut in reaction to what's happening now, but also as a reminder to people who've seem to have forgotten that we're up against an utterly ruthless existential foe who is as vile as any we've ever faced. I'm appalled at the equivocations, and I wish that the entertainers of our time had the spine and the focus that the ones who faced down Hitler did. Superman punched out Hitler. So did Captain America. That's one of the things they're there for. These are symbols of our people, of our country. These are our folk heroes. It just seemed to be kind of silly to be chasing around the Riddler when you've got al-Qaeda out there.

• Kevin Robke is selling DoubleUps, sheets designed to end the problem of sheet-stealing, forever.

• Rule changes for figure skating have had some unintended consequences: skaters are skating uglier, less artistic programs because falling is more valuable than skating clean.

• Ever wondered about the origins of ethnic slurs? I have. Callimachus has the answers.

• Who is more objective about reporting: the "real" reporters or the bloggers? Take a look at reactions to the Gillette Fusion Razor and see for yourself.

• The New York Times reports favorably on the many ways that capitalists are solving societal needs like poverty, literacy, and the environment.

• David Friedman thinks that police officers should execute search warrants in the nude. He has good reasons too.

• Did you know that your parking spot is worth more than your car?

• Most people talking about the trade deficit are criminally clueless. (I'm looking at you, Lou Dobbs.)

We're now using the veryplaintxt theme by Scott. We think it gives the site a simpler, cleaner look. What do you think?

I present: Feet of Clay. This is a new feature here at Minor Thoughts. Many Biblical characters are far more interesting than we realize. With all of the familiar stories floating around, it's easy to forget just how, well, human they sometimes were.

This first edition of "Feet of Clay" grew out of a recent IM conversation between Adam and me. The ideas are Adam's. The presentation is mine. Enjoy.

Moshe was the creepiest man on Earth. Think about this, really: This was the guy with all this power, but he never spoke when he came into the courts, etc. Aaron always talked for him. Maybe Moshe whispered into his ear or something, but he was the silent big guy that gave orders to the man who talked. Plus after Exodus he always wore a veil across his face because his face was radiant -- from talking to God -- and frightened the heck out of everyone. So, really, you have this image of this old man who doesn't talk, constantly veiled but there's a glow underneath that cloth... More than intimidating as a visual image, if you ask me.

He killed an Egyptian at 40. And the rest wasn't physically strenuous, so by the time he's walking around with a stick and glowing he could just be old and thin.

I'll bet the Midianites didn't recognize him when he returned to kill them all. And isn't that the big twist at the end of the Torah, incidentally? The Midianites are all put to the sword by the Hebrews. You have to wonder how Jethro felt about that, his wife, etc. His wife didn't Moshe anyway ("you are a bridegroom of blood to me" is hardly a flattering remark), but...

Incidentally, do you think Moshe divorced his wife or just literally sent her out of Egypt? Because the Bible uses the phrase "sent her away", which is the phrase that's always used for divorce... Which makes Moshe all the more interesting. Divorced and the product of an incestuous marriage. He can hardly get more interesting. (ed: Somehow I missed the whole incestuous marriage angle. That certainly wasn't covered in Sunday School. :-) ) Oh, yeah. His father married either his sister or his half-sister. Either way. It was a marriage that Moshe would go on to condemn in the giving of laws.

It's something Christine and I aren't doing. However, it looks like Alan Greenspan's legacy just might be helping millions of Americans to get comfortable with debt. The entire linked article is worth reading, but I'll provide a few excerpts:

Today, borrowing against equity in real estate occurs at rates never seen before. Mortgage equity withdrawal was unheard of generations ago - a second mortgage was the last recourse for a family in trouble.

Today it is routine.

Septuagenarians shake their heads as they see young people living lifestyles which don't square with what they know of their incomes and expenses. Debt it seems has not taught any hard lessons lately - debt has become too friendly, too tame, and too forgiving.

In the last three years alone, nearly three trillion dollars of new mortgage credit has been extended - first mortgages, second mortgages, home equity loans, and lines of credit.

Some dismiss concerns of too much debt by pointing to the bottom line.

Debt, they say, is not a problem because household balance sheets are the best they've ever been. Today, household net worth does look impressive - against a meager 12 trillion dollars in debt stands a hefty 64 trillion dollars in assets.

A closer look at net worth, however, shows that while liabilities have marched steadily upward, assets can go up or down

What happens if real estate assets suffer the same fate as equities did a few years ago? Or, what if real estate values simply go flat for an extended period of time?

My wife and I voted in Madison for the first time, this evening. I was already registered, she registered at the poll (taking advantage of Wisconsin's notoriously lax voter ID requirements). Madison's 56th Ward was voting in two elections: a primary for Seat 1 on the Madison School Board and County Supervisor for District 24.

We voted after I got home from work, around 7pm. We cast the 93rd and 94th votes of the day, for our ward. I wouldn't have known about the election if it had not been for Jenna, at Right Off the Shore. She blogged about her vote, which alerted me to the fact that an election was actually happening.

Unfortunately, while I knew about the primary for the Madison School Board, I hadn't noticed that we were also supposed to be voting for a County Supervisor. So, we just cast our votes for Maya Cole and abstained in the County Supervisor's election.

I'm still in the process of getting plugged into the political scene here in Madison. I was surprised today, I don't intend to let it happen again. Fortunately, there will be another election in April. I'll be ready for that one.

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.

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.

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.