On a separate topic

In a previous post I mentioned the Gainesville area jackass preacher who plans to burn a copy of the Quran this weekend to "show them darned Muslims what's what" (well, he didn't exactly say that).

The only way I knew about this, of course, was that this pitiful little publicity stunt is all over the news.  General Petraeus has pointed to this as something that extremists will use in shoring up "the story" - the big lie that the US is at war with Islam.  Religious leaders of multiple faiths are pleading with this bozo gentleman to call off his little charade.  And the mayor of New York has stated that while he disagrees with this man's actions, he will defend his right to do it.

In my view the news organizations should have treated this as the non-event it should be.  This is a book, people.  People print them, people buy them, and people dispose of them. Pakistan has had several mosque fires in which copies of the Quran were undoubtedly burned up - where were the mass riots?  People rip copies of the Bible - where's the outrage.  People burned copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - did Ms. Rowling shed tear one (hint:  she's been paid enough in royalties to be richer than, well, royalty)?

In this country you can burn anything you own (either because you built it or bought it) on your own property unless you're creating a nuisance, committing a fraud, or violating outdoor trash burning laws.  Heck, I'd go outside a burn a copy of Ken Ham's book The Lie: Evolution today if I owned a copy and didn't think it would set the grass on fire.  And would I get national press coverage, calls from famous clergy, and people rioting in the streets?  I should think not.

So how should this have been handled?

• Most people should have ignored it.
• Spiritual leaders should have called this guy the ignoramus doofus ill-informed oaf goober that he is.
• Assuming the Islamic world heard about it at all, they should have taken this for what it is, not as the official policy of, well, anybody.

September 9th Update:

The madness continues.  Protests in Indonesia and Afghanistan, statements from the State Department and White House, and calls from the Pakistani government (whom you'd think would be preoccupied with real problems like, say, the millions of people made homeless by flooding).  All over someone with no authority and limited following declaring he mihgt - just might, mind you - burn a book.

Book Burners Anonymous

Based on recent news, it appears that the pastor of a minuscule church near Gainesville, FL has decided to burn copies of the Quran this weekend to send radical Muslims a message.  The message is something about Islam, evil, sin, and some such rot.

Given how people reacted to the rumor that a Quran was placed in a toilet, I can imagine that they may be offended actual video footage of someone deliberately burning one and calling their religion evil.

This is a blatant cry for attention ("look at me, I'm being a firebug!") and this jackass clearly does not speak for me.

Piracy, Murder, and Kidnap? Really?

In a recent blog post at DC's Improbable Science titled Rachel Corrie: piracy, murder and kidnap on the high seas, Professor David Colquhoun started his comments on the raid by Israel on ships attempting to run their blockade of Gaza by stating, "Once again the Israeli defence force has shown behaviour worthy of Auschwitz guards."

I'm finding it very difficult to understand his comparison with the Auschwitz concentration camps in this incident.  Did the Israeli defense forces (IDF) kill nearly a million people through a variety of means?  Did they torture their captives? Did they force their captives to labor making, say, synthetic rubber or fuel?  Did they perform cruel "experiments" on them?

The worst I can find they did was to shoot people armed with clubs and knives who attacked them.  Many were wounded, several died.  They also used non-lethal force in boarding other ships when the occupants attempted to repel them without weapons.

And what of Professor Colquhoun's post title?  It was a funny sort of kidnapping, if it was that, as ransom was neither sought nor paid and the alleged kidnappees were treated for their injuries and sent out of country.  Add the fact that the alleged kidnapper was a sovereign nation - and typically the term "kidnap" does not refer to the official act of a nation.

Likewise "piracy" seems like an odd choice of words.  The official armed forces of a sovereign country enforced a blockade, which was an official policy of that country.  It even appears they sent most (if not all) the captured cargo to the intended destination.  It seems particularly inept as piracy; certainly even the Pirates of Penzance would have done a better job of it.

Professor Colquhoun certainly has every right to his opinions on the Gaza blockade and the actions of the IDF.  His use of hyperbole does nothing to further his case.

Maybe I'm a Rino

So I've been worried for some time that I may no longer be a Republican. I know I'm for a limited role for government and I'm for fiscal responsibility. I'm certainly against slavery (as well as other forms of discrimination) and favor keeping the union together. I think on the whole a free market and property rights are good things, though anything can be carried to excess. And, unless the Constitution's changed I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

However, it appears that in order to be a Republican these days you have to be strongly, violently against two things: abortion and legal recognition of marriages between people of the same sex. The current political campaigns in advance of the primaries has brought this to the fore. Our candidates for Senate make a big point of how pro-forcing-women-to-risk-their-lives-to-have-that-baby-hey-that's-what-happens-when-you-have-sex they are and how weak their opponents are on that same topic. Even county officials have this as a point on their campaign literature - though how that topic is likely to come up in the job of Judge Executive is beyond me.

Unfortunately, there's no other party I can believe in so far either.

The power of the purse, only less girlie

A recent letter to the editor in our local paper asked the question, "since when does the President have the authority to tell hospital administrators what their policies should be."

The answer, apparently, is when the hospital accepts funds from the Federal government.

To explain. President Obama has signed an order to the effect that hospitals that accept Medicare funds need to have policies more friendly to non-married people. This means no keeping significant others away from the gravely ill even if they aren't, technically, next of kin. It also means accepting the patient's stated (or apparent) wishes on who should have authority to make medical decisions on his/her/its behalf.

Under other circumstances, the President would have no authority to just order a private institution like a hospital to change its policies. The President could cajole, or advise, or yell at, and this might be cause the institution to reconsider - but couldn't order. But in this case, the institution relies heavily on Federal funds. The government has the right to declare which organizations it will do business with and which it won't. Presumably, the President has the authority to base those decisions on a number of factors, including the institutions policies (though I expect that this will go to the courts for a real determination). So the President - by the power of the purse - is using non-legislative means to achieve an end.

Now, I assume hospitals have their reasons for the policies they've adopted. They may even be good reasons from some point of view. However, I applaud President Obama for this action.

Two things you don't do on airplanes

Many years ago, you used to be able to walk into an airport, go up to the gate, and even board the plane without going through any kind of security check at all. You didn't even need a ticket. People greeted travelers as they were getting off the plane, and they could see people off at the gate. It wasn't unheard of for people without tickets to actually go on the plane to see people off - as long as they left before the door closed. Nobody thought much about danger from passengers in air travel.

Except, of course, for the cigarette smoke. People could actually smoke on airplanes. Eventually planes had designated smoking and non-smoking sections - but if you were within 3 rows of smoking, you were in smoking.

Of course both of these things changed. Security was first. I recall a trip to the airport when they had recently added a security station you had to go through to get to the gate (anyone could go to the gate, though). There was a big sign saying what you couldn't carry, along with a warning that all comments about weapons, hijacking, and the like would be taken very seriously.

One member of our group thought that was funny and (as a joke) said he'd better take his gun back to the car. The security person looked at him real hard and asked if he really wanted to say that. The correct response ("No, sir!") was given - the point was made and I don't recall other jokes being made about airplane safety at airports or on airplanes.

Some years later they gave up the farce that a small sign stuck on a headrest would magically keep the smoke away from the non-smoking section and made all US flights non-smoking. They make announcements about that before every flight, and apparently it's a federal offense to tamper with or disable the smoke detectors in airplane lavatories.

So, two rules that have been in effect for years - don't smoke on planes, and don't make comments (even in jest) that could sound like threats to airline safety.

Apparently not everyone got the memo. According to the news, a Qatari diplomat on a trip to Denver used the airplane restroom for a smoke break. When people became concerned about the amount of time he had spent in the lavatory, he is alleged to have made a reference to lighting his shoes.

Naturally the nice air marshals sat with him the rest of the flight to keep him company, and made sure he had an escort when they landed (along with some shiny steel bracelets). The FBI spent quite some time discussing this matter with both the diplomat and with the other passengers.

The diplomat did not pose an actual threat and is the beneficiary of diplomatic immunity - which means this will never go to trial. While many were inconvenienced, nobody was hurt.

Assuming the news stories are correct, I don't know if he was simply clueless and self-absorbed or an incredible jerk.

Reform ... or business opportunity?

Presuming the new health insurance reform law is not overturned in the courts or repealed by Congress before many of the provisions take effect, things in the US are going to change. And in all of the comments for and against, I haven't heard anything about the exciting new business opportunity I see for a few enterprising souls. That opportunity is: health insurance sales offices at or near hospital doors.

The new rules will make pricing health insurance considerably simpler due to community pricing. The fact that existing conditions can't be used to deny insurance suddenly makes it worth ones while to buy insurance while, say, being wheeled off the ambulance.

Hospitals have everything to gain from such an arrangement - not only rent and a possible commission, but just because someone with insurance is statistically more likely to pay their bill than someone without. "You don't have insurance? Would you like some? We can hold off admitting you while you go to the office just past that pillar. If you prefer, I'm sure our friendly concessionaire would be happy to meet you halfway."

As for the insurance agent (or agents), this is an ideal situation. The buyers are motivated and are unlikely to request competitive quotes while bleeding. Indeed, the very fact that the patient arrives without insurance suggests he/she/it is not familiar with the prices in the market, and may be open to a more expensive policy. Much like a book store in a large airport, the insurance agent can command a higher premium due to location and timing.

And even the soon-to-be-insured patients benefit. They get convenient service while waiting for the x-ray technician to do those horrible things x-ray technicians have to do ("OK, now bend your arm backward and hold it flat against the plate while making a shadow rabbit with your hand. Smile!"). Their hospital bills, less a deductible and co-pay, are paid for without regard to preexisting conditions like, oh, a broken femur. And of course it's in the hospital's interest to only allow legitimate policies to be sold in their facility, so the patient has some reason to believe they're dealing with an honest, though not necessarily inexpensive, product.

But what of those who can't buy insurance before being admitted? Say they can't sign the forms due to being unconscious or having two broken hands? What of them? An enterprising agent would make room calls once the patient or the patient's next of kin is ready to buy insurance. Granted, no insurance will pay for treatment given before the policy is purchased, so it is clearly to the patient's advantage to buy early. However, this policy may cover a significant portion of the patient's treatment.

It's surprising that this isn't discussed more in the popular press or political speeches.