This Mother Jones blog post - "The Venn of Ron Paul and Other Mysteries of Libertarianism Explained" - is ostensibly a rebuke of libertarianism by dumping on its (alleged) chosen vessel, Ron Paul. Unsurprisingly, the author, Josh Harkinson, does not understand libertarianism. The diagram:

I know, ha ha. Especially with the additions of the accompanying "Libertarian Theology" glossary and the "Rand of the Free" poll. It's so powerful.

If only it were true. To quote David Boaz:

... Libertarians are not against all government. We are precisely “advocates of limited government.” Perhaps to the man who wrote the speeches in which a Republican president advocated a trillion dollars of new spending, the largest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, federal takeovers of education and marriage, presidential power to arrest and incarcerate American citizens without access to a lawyer or a judge, and two endless “nation-building” enterprises, the distinction between “limited government” and “anti-government” is hard to see. But it is real and important.

And:

A government is a set of institutions through which we adjudicate our disputes, defend our rights, and provide for certain common needs. It derives its authority, at some level and in some way, from the consent of the governed… What we want is a limited government that attends to its necessary and proper functions… Thus libertarians are not “anti-government.” Libertarians support limited, constitutional government — limited not just in size but, of far greater importance, in the scope of its powers.

Admittedly, in the comfortable mindset of someone who likes ignorant gotchas, I probably violated my libertarian principle of individualism because I let someone else speak for me. I just stole his words. Nevermind that I cited Mr. Boaz and provided the necessary links. As a libertarian, I'm required to live without assistance from anyone for anything, forever. Hell, I drive on government roads every day. Eventually I'm going to figure out that this makes me not a libertarian.

To show that anyone can have fun with drawing, I've attempted my own Ha Ha.

To finish the point, I have an entire blog category in which I explain why more state action is warranted and necessary. So, yeah, "anti-government"? Not so much.

Link via Boing Boing. (Note: Original venn diagram re-sized to fit my out-of-date blog template.)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Back to the Occupy movement...

I have some sympathy for Occupy Wall Street and its offspring around the country. There is enough broken in the way our economy works that only a fool would advise inaction. Where I quickly part ways is with the obvious implication that our government can fix crony capitalism (i.e. corporatism). Our government is complicit in this problem. It serves the needs of politicians. Where power exists to grab, it will be grabbed. If this involves buying access to or the use of that power, it will happen. The solution is to limit power, not to pretend that human nature can be changed.

This interesting post from writer Lauren McLaughlin addresses an approach for going forward. She's right that the movement needs to stop protesting and Do Something. I don't think she's right on what should be done.

For example, she suggests:

Early complaints about the movement’s lack of specific demands is also falling away as an increasingly focused platform centering on economic justice comes into focus. Poll the former residents of Zuccotti Park or any of the other occupation sites and you’ll hear a variety of ideas, but the most common seem to be the following:

- Regulate banks in a way that disincentivizes the reckless gambling that puts all of us at risk.

- Tax investment returns at the same rate as income.

- Reform campaign finance laws so that we’re no longer being governed by Goldman Sachs.

On the first item, banks were regulated before the financial crisis hit. That we still had a financial crisis may indicate that crimes took place, although I'm doubtful the evidence is strong. But it also demonstrates how difficult it is to get the correct regulation. Unintended consequences will occur. If we radically alter and/or increase regulation, what happens?

It's also worth noting that capitalists, rather than corporatists, advocate letting banks fail. The fear of failing, including bankruptcy, is a motivator. It's unlikely to be the exclusive answer, but we haven't tried it in conjunction with anything yet.

I'd flip the second to suggest taxing income at the same rate as investment returns. Power is the problem, not inadequate revenue. The point of reducing the government is not mere animosity to government (or worse insinuations). As long as power exists, it will be abused.

On the third, I'm not clear enough on the implication of the item to comment extensively. If it's a response to Citizens United, then I disagree. Corporations are not people in the literal sense, but in the legal sense they are, and for good reason. Corporations (and other forms of organization) are made up of people. Those people do not lose rights because they've chosen to work together. If they do, it's not a large leap to discredit democracy. But, again, reduce the scope and amount of power available within government and the incentive to buy it will reduce.

Ms. McLaughlin's next paragraph is revealing from my perspective:

Of course, there are other ideas, like making banks finance their own future bailouts through a financial transaction tax, but I think it’s fairly easy to see the big idea at the heart of the movement: American capitalism and democracy are broken. The big difference between Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party is that the latter sees the government as the big evil, whereas the former fingers a reckless and under-regulated banking industry that has captured our government and bent it to its will.

I'm not a Tea Party guy, so I'm not so concerned about the difference. But the two have similarities and should recognize that the root causes are very similar. Why does the Tea Party see the government as evil? I think there's some truth to the assertion, but I don't know the answer. I also know many Tea Party members have taken the initial, singular focus on government spending and turned to other causes in which they want more government, not less. I'm not sure the analysis that it thinks government is evil is accurate.

Either way, if that's true, the only way "a reckless and under-regulated" - both subjective terms, with the latter being much less defensible - banking industry could capture our government and bend it to its will is with the full participation of our government. Corporatism is a sinister cooperative effort, not a sinister takeover. Trusting the same government that's been captured so readily and thoroughly to provide a solution is bizarre. As long as there is power to abuse, this will continue, even if it takes a different form. Any action that is to be a solution rather than a perpetuation of chasing new problems must account for this. I haven't seen evidence that the Occupy movement understands this. It may yet win, but I fear the outcome if it does.

In related news, the government that will somehow help is the same government that sees no problem with pepper-spraying peaceful, if disruptive, protesters with a callous disregard for the necessity or safety of the force. This is the state in action. This is what Occupy requests when it calls for more government regulation. All government is force. Why is it wrong to use against you, but okay to use against me?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Continuing with the Occupy Wall Street theme, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee released an "Open Letter of Support for the Occupy Movement". It's predictably full of pointless nonsense which I think underlies the larger problem with the Occupy protests. To be clear I do not assume that UUSC speaks for the movement. I'm only aiming at it because it states ideas that appear to be generally applicable to Occupy Wall Street.

From the beginning:

I stand with people around the country and the world who are calling for economic justice.

"Economic justice" doesn't say anything. What's meant by the term? Equality of process? Equality of outcome? There are different possible meanings. Some are legitimate and principled. Others are naive. Which is it here?

My values affirm that each person has inherent worth and dignity; that justice, equity, and compassion should be the guiding principles for human relationships; and that all people deserve access to the democratic process.

More ideals without evidence to demonstrate we do not have them in some form. In the abstract, sure, these are great. But what does it mean in reality? Who doesn't have access to the democratic process? What are the intended consequences? What might be the unintended consequences? Can "the democratic process" create valid outcomes that you don't like?

My recognition of the inherent worth of every person compels me to speak out against policies that privilege the demands of corporations over the human rights of people. I support the Occupy movement in its affirmation that protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that basic human needs are met must take precedence. All people have a fundamental right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families.

Please provide examples of where the demands of corporations are privileged over the human rights of people. Government requires a balancing of rights. It's primary task is protecting the rights of individuals. Corporations are individuals, which is to say a collection of individuals. If individuals have a human right to free association, the form of that association shouldn't matter, right? Is the Occupy movement free association? Are the human rights of people the rights of individuals or the abstract of a right, like "free speech"? Are "workers' rights" a subset of human rights or separate and applicable to everyone?

If someone believes my last paragraph, how does free association and an individual's inherent worth and dignity matter only to the extent that their "fundamental right" to a standard of living is met? If the solution is to tax the rich (more), and that seems to be the Occupy movement's demand, then there's an implied point at which an individual becomes a valid target for the rest of society. Justice and equity require both a floor and a ceiling?

I also join the Occupy movement in decrying the wealth disparity that leaves millions struggling for economic security. Policies and legislation that promote economic marginalization are morally unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a government that recognizes and promotes basic economic rights. Justice, equity, and compassion should be foremost in our government’s decision making.

Is this alleged wealth disparity the cause, or merely a coincidental fact? Wealth and prosperity is only fixed in the moment. But we don't live in a moment. There is tomorrow, and if we create and produce, there will be more tomorrow. Some will get rich, some will not. This isn't necessarily problematic or unfair. Stating that everyone should have some minimum is not the same argument as assuming that no one should have above some maximum. Is Occupy interested in creating and producing, and is it interested in consent in achieving economic security, which is not well-defined here?

I agree that policies and legislation that promote economic marginalization are morally unacceptable. However, the solution includes limiting government power, not relying on the right mix of benevolent politicians. The latter don't exist in sufficient numbers to make a technocratic democracy work without horrible, rights-violating offenses.

Economic oppression is not only a violation of fundamental human rights, it is also a blow to democracy. When economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few and when corporations are awarded the same status as actual human beings, the democratic process is fundamentally compromised. Basic fairness requires that all people have equal opportunity to participate in political debate and to be represented in government.

Define "economic oppression". Provide examples. Explain how the Occupy movement's undefined solution resolves the problem. What are the intended economic consequences of democracy? What might be the unintended consequences? Can "the democratic process" create valid outcomes that you don't like?

Economic power is concentrated for many reasons, including cooperation from politicians. Politicians will be involved in democracy. Democratic tyranny is possible. This is why equality of process is superior to equality of outcome. Democracy does not guarantee equality of process. How would the Occupy movement address this?

Have corporations been awarded the same status as actual human beings? Who will Apple vote for next week? In 2012? What about Starbucks? Again, corporations are a collection of people exercising their natural right to free association. Do they lose certain rights because they join collectively rather than act alone? What would be the consequences - good and bad - of altering the current corporate structures?

I envision a powerful and radically inclusive movement for economic justice. I recognize economic justice as a right that is due to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, immigration status, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status or distinction.

Is economic justice a right due to "rich" people who are to be taxed? What does this right look like for anyone classified as rich?

I sign this letter as an expression of gratitude to all who are working for economic justice in the United States and around the world, as an affirmation of my hope for fair and compassionate economic reforms, and as a renewal of my commitment to help make it so.

Are we listening to those working for economic justice who know nothing more than the slogans and solutions, those who haven't attempted an understanding of the complex problem?

Link via Ethics Alarms.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been a decent chunk of time since I last posted, but I have things to say again. (And Google removed shared items from Google Reader.) We'll see how long it lasts.

What better (i.e. easier) way to jump back in than to comment on Paul Krugman saying something stupid and lacking in self-awareness. As always it's "you shouldn't do that, but ignore that I'm doing it." Consider this, from last week:

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been getting mail accusing me of consorting with Nazis. My immediate reaction was, what the heck? Then it clicked: the right wing is mounting a full-court press to portray Occupy Wall Street as an anti-Semitic movement, based, as far as I can tell, on one guy with a sign.

I have a lot of sympathy for this complaint, given one of my major interests. It's a pathetic generalization and an embarrassing reflection on the person willing to dabble in stereotypes without individual evidence. It's a dishonest tactic, which suggests fear dominates rather than confidence. Any large-ish movement is going to attract its share of crazies who value conspiracy theories over logic. Unless the movement is based on the conspiracy theory itself or a plainly evil belief, the extreme views are probably not widely held within the group and many group members are likely fighting the nonsense out of public view. Generalizing in this way is flawed and stupid, as any case of being uninterested or unwilling to think is.

So, one paragraph in, Krugman has my sympathy. If this had been the issue Krugman intended to pursue, fine. He didn't.

My first thought was that OWS must have the right really rattled. And there’s probably something to that. But actually, this is the way the right goes after everyone who stands in their way: accuse them of everything, no matter how implausible or contradictory the accusations are. Progressives are atheistic socialists who want to impose Sharia law. Class warfare is evil; also, John Kerry is too rich. And so on.

Krugman makes no distinction between those making accusations and those who share (some) similar, conservative views. It's "the right", without specificity. That stroke is too broad.

The key to understanding this, I’d suggest, is that movement conservatism has become a closed, inward-looking universe in which you get points not by sounding reasonable to uncommitted outsiders — although there are a few designated pundits who play that role professionally — but by outdoing your fellow movement members in zeal.

He's closer here, since it's clear that "movement conservatism" implies "professional". But his aside is not enough to excuse what he's doing. Most people see the distinction between Rush Limbaugh and a neighbor, perhaps even when the neighbor praises Limbaugh. I hope the same is true of anyone tempted to make a professional pundit like Bill Maher the spokesperson for every liberal progressive everywhere. It's a silly, immature way to view the world (and a key reason I hate partisanship).

Krugman continues:

It’s sort of reminiscent of Stalinists going after Trotskyites in the old days: the Trotskyites were left deviationists, and also saboteurs working for the Nazis. Didn’t propagandists feel silly saying all that? Not at all: in their universe, extremism in defense of the larger truth was no vice, and you literally couldn’t go too far.

Many members of the commentariat don’t want to face up to the fact that this is what American politics has become; they cling to the notion that there are gentlemanly elder statesmen on the right who would come to the fore if only Obama said the right words. But the fact is that nobody on that side of the political spectrum wants to or can make deals with the Islamic atheist anti-military warmonger in the White House.

The last line says it all. (It's not the last line in the post; just the last important line.) Is it only "that side" engaging in heated, sweeping accusations? "That side." Krugman is in pot-meet-kettle territory. Everyone who believes anything and shares that belief is a propagandist, literally. In the pejorative, as Krugman implies here, he's claiming that only the right propagandizes. It wouldn't take long to find instances of the left engaging in the same tactics against the right, considering I read Krugman's post.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've read many bizarre, irrational rants advocating for non-therapeutic child circumcision. This recent opinion piece by Barbara Kay in Canada's National Post is the worst drivel of that sort I've encountered. (It's a response to a counter opinion piece by Jackson Doughart.)

She begins:

In 1970, some 97% of American males, and about 70% of Canadian males were circumcised. Those numbers have fallen dramatically, thanks in large part to ardent activism by anti-circumcision “rights” groups.

Jackson Doughart believes that the Canadian government should pass legislation that would prevent religious leaders and health-care legislators from performing or authorizing the ritual circumcisions of newborn children. He bases his argument on two often-adduced moral grounds: that the circumcision of infants violates their human rights, because they cannot give informed consent to the procedure, and that male circumcision is a “mutilation,” comparable to female genital mutilation (FGM), already outlawed.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is morally and ethically wrong. It violates the individual's human rights (e.g. right to be free from harm), regardless of the individual's gender or the subjective reasons provided for the surgery. It would be no less ethical to cut off healthy, functioning fingers or ear lobes than to cut off a healthy, functioning foreskin.

To her second point, there are forms of FGM that are less invasive than male circumcision and performed for many of the same non-therapeutic reasons. Yet, these forms of FGM are still illegal. We recognize that they violate the child's rights because they cause unnecessary harm.

Before addressing Mr. Doughart’s moral concerns, I stipulate to set aside any religious argument for our debate. I can assure Mr. Doughart that Jews, myself included, would unequivocally renounce the ritual of male circumcision if scientists provide a causal link between circumcision and increased risk for morbidity. But after 5,000 years of what is essentially a massive controlled study of Jewish and Muslim men, from which no negative effects can be ascribed to male circumcision, that is unlikely to happen.

She establishes a ridiculous straw man in an attempt to demonstrate that, religious argument aside, child circumcision is moral. It's unfortunately all too easy to prove that circumcision increases the risk for morbidity, but that's not the proper argument. There's far more to the ethical question than her implication that it's obviously good and unassailable if it doesn't kill the patient. And the 5,000 year "controlled study" of Jewish and Muslim "men" really involves children who become men. There's an important difference there beyond the obvious issue of consent since circumcision of an infant is subtly different from circumcision of an adult.

Carrying the straw man to its illogical conclusion, she writes:

Conversely, Mr. Doughart should stipulate to endorse male circumcision if it can be shown to decrease the risk for morbidity. Which it can.

She's ignored the ethical argument of rights, apparently because putting quotes around a word proves it doesn't apply. Somehow. But she's also dismissed the concept of ethics. To her, any intervention is ethical if it decreases the risk of morbidity. In her misguided view, it doesn't matter if the person wants it or is ever likely to need that intervention. If it can decrease some risk, it's automatically ethical.

That's ridiculous, of course. Should we begin studying female genital cutting to determine whether or not it reduces some risk, no matter how small the absolute risk is? What about removal of breast buds from infants? If SCIENCE! trumps any ethical concern, as Kay expects the reader to accept, then there is no intervention on children that can be considered irrational or offensive if it reduces the risk of morbidity in some way. To Kay, science and the application of science (i.e. medical ethics) are the same. They are not the same.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends male circumcision on the basis of irrefutable evidence that it dramatically lowers the rate of HIV, not just in men, but in women and children (according to one British researcher, “The foreskin of the penis is a magnet for HIV.”)

With the availability of Google, it's not difficult to learn what WHO recommends. Its recommendation isn't what Kay states it is:

... WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. ...

That statement does not describe the United States or Canada. Ignoring that - to the point of calling the finding a "miracle" in the next paragraph - is egregious. I'd be curious to understand why she and her editor made this inexcusable mistake, but regardless of the reason, she's wrong. Its actions show that it ignores ethics, like Kay, but WHO does not recommend male circumcision, full stop.

Yet Mr. Doughart shrugs off this miracle, claiming there are “far better ways” to eliminate HIV, like “educating youth about sexual health and condom use.” Actually, both have been tried. They don’t work in significant numbers (although sexual-fidelity campaigns have been effective: is Mr. Doughart on board for those?).

There are (at least) two problems with this. First, the studies in Africa were not long-term. We do not know if the percentage of HIV infections among circumcised males will eventually match the percentage among intact males. There are portions of Africa where circumcised males have higher HIV infection rates. It's reasonable to suggest that males engaging in unprotected sex with HIV-positive women over a long-enough period will become HIV-positive, that circumcision can't prevent HIV. Or they could wear condoms...

Second, the ethical problems with non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting individuals isn't resolved by studies on groups of people. The individual is an individual, with his own preferences and possible actions. "Most" males may not use condoms, but any male might. The preferences of an individual who never engages in risky sexual behavior should not be ignored because some number of his peers engage in risky sexual behavior.

Passing to the moral realm, the argument of “informed consent” is easily demolished by the fact that we routinely vaccinate our children against disease without their consent for their own good. Even before we knew of the HIV connection, amongst those circumcising their sons, health and hygiene were always the reason. STDs are much more common in uncircumcised men, and circumcision causes a 12-fold reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections. Complications from circumcisions performed by experienced surgeons and mohels are as rare as those springing from dental procedures or vaccinations: that’s to say, statistically negligible.

Vaccinations are a red herring. They protect against diseases by activating the body's natural immune response. Circumcision amputates healthy skin on the theory that it might cause problems. (Worth noting: The link between circumcision and reduced risk of female-to-male HIV transmission is not fully understood.) This comparison ignores the likelihood of problems or the means by which the individual becomes sick. An individual can get measles by doing nothing more than venturing into his community. Becoming HIV-positive requires a bit more active behavior, and specifically with one's penis. Preventing such infections is easy, and the method is known. Proxy consent for circumcision can't be sufficiently compared to proxy consent for vaccinations.

As for the rest, earlier in her essay, Kay said there were no negative effects from circumcision. Now she's acknowledging that there are, in fact, complications. That's relevant to her mistaken belief that only increased morbidity matters. She should also prove that such complications are "statistically negligible." (Are they negligible to the males who receive those circumcision complications?)

Kay is also engaging in the common tactic of presenting relative risk rather than absolute risk. For UTIs, the relative risk is impressive in the absence of critical thinking. She neglects to mention that this benefit only exists for the first year of life. The absolute risk of a UTI, however, is not as impressive. It's only 1% for intact males, which is less than the 3% risk of UTIs for females in the first year of life. For the majority of those in the 1%, treatments less invasive than circumcision will be sufficient to resolve the infection.

On to the pernicious myth that male circumcision, a 30-second procedure, is a “mutilation” and the obscene canard that it is the equivalent of sexist FGM. FGM is a horribly protracted and painful cutting of girls under terrifying circumstances, with the specific intention of eliminating the capacity for sexual pleasure, and rightly considered a criminal action. According to UNICEF, at least 100 million women have been genitally mutilated. Compared to their uncut peers, these women are 69% more likely to hemorrhage after childbirth, and up to 55% more likely to deliver a dead or mortally ill baby. For every 100 deliveries, the WHO estimates FGM kills one or two more children.

Not all FGM is "sexist" in the way Kay implies, since it's perpetuated and carried out by women. Nor is all FGM performed with the "specific intention of eliminating the capacity for sexual pleasure." This is the most common result, but we don't look at intent when criminalizing this in the Western world. The federal anti-FGM act in the United States explicitly excludes any parental intent. The act is separate from why it's performed. Parents who cite reasons similar to what society permits for male circumcision are given no more credence than those who intend to inflict the vilest outcomes. The act itself, rather than intent, is the sole criteria. The same must be true for boys.

“Mutilation” is a disgusting word to apply to the excision of a non-essential bacteria trap, nearly painless and instantly forgotten (those who claim otherwise are fantasizing; no credible study demonstrates lasting effects). Unlike ordinary circumcised men, FGM victims know they have been mutilated in the real sense of the word. Feminists constantly remind us that men have all the power. If true, how is it that after so many thousands of years — coincidentally up to the advent of the sexual revolution and the privileging of erotic freedom over ethical mating — so many millions of intelligent and even powerful Jewish and Muslim males never spoke up about their alleged victimhood?

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is mutilation. Among the definitions of mutilate is this: To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. Kay just described circumcision as excision. She is wrong to maintain this disconnect between her accurate word and her inaccurate understanding.

Beyond that, calling the foreskin non-essential ignores the individual. It's absurd. Anything that doesn't kill the individual can be considered non-essential. The term has no relevance to proxy consent for non-therapeutic genital cutting. A male may value and prefer what she considers non-essential on his body. Her belief that the opinion of a male's parents' matters with regard to what is non-essential on his body is wrong. Each person is the arbiter for himself. As long as the individual is healthy, removing any normal body parts is unethical.

Calling the foreskin a "bacteria trap" is no more accurate than calling the vagina a bacteria trap. Bathing is quite easy in our society. Surgically excising a child's foreskin is an abdication of parental responsibility, not a prudent response.

The ability to make a procedure painless does not render it ethical. The ability to "forget" the surgery assumes that the child's experience during the procedure and healing are irrelevant. That is a monstrous view. And the implicit "you can't miss what you never had" argument is equally ridiculous. Circumcision removes the male's foreskin, not his brain. The male is capable of knowing that he has been mutilated, even in the typical scenario where his mutilation is less severe than a female victim's.

The obvious reason why so many men, including but not limited to Jewish and Muslim males, never speak up is because they were circumcised as children. They incorrectly perceive circumcision as normal, rather than common. And, from my discussions with other men, there is a very strong defense mechanism against seeing themselves as harmed. (This same response can be seen among victims of female genital cutting, some of whom don't view themselves as victims.) Our world is more complicated than this imaginary world Kay conjured up.

The responses of these millions of men is irrelevant to the ethical question involving individuals. Kay ignores this. What the individual prefers for himself is what matters for non-therapeutic surgery. If he does not want non-therapeutic genital cutting, he is correct for himself. The rights Kay incorrectly dismisses belong to the individual, not to the majority opinion within his society. If any right belongs to the majority, it is meaningless. Stating that most males don't care about being circumcised is not a defense for forcing it on any individual male.

On the point about "erotic freedom over ethical mating", it's a strange non-sequitur that ties into her last paragraph. So far, she's propped up her indefensible argument with ignorance, straw men, and selective fact-checking. She ends with ad hominem:

Set aside the rights-based rhetoric. It’s about sex: Circumcised men have greater pre-orgasmic endurance; non-circumcision permits more frequent ejaculations. What matters most to the anti-circumcision activists is their diminished pleasure with frequently changing sexual partners, as befits an era where the number of conquests is a more common metric of romantic success than long-term relationships. Our legislators have better things to worry about than this.

On par with calling the foreskin a "bacteria trap", stating that circumcision imparts "greater pre-orgasmic endurance" is propaganda. She is saying that circumcised males take longer to reach orgasm, which she expects us to grasp as "good". She's making a value judgment that endurance is objectively better. It isn't because she's unavoidably declares that sex is changed by circumcision. Again, all individual tastes and preferences are subjective. Some males will value "pre-orgasmic endurance." Some will not. Each is right for himself, so imposing it on all is unethical.

Instead of attempting to prove that the subjective is objective, she states that males against non-therapeutic child circumcision merely want to have lots of promiscuous sex with as many people as possible. She presented no evidence to suggest what activists prefer or what circumcised males would do if left intact. Her smear attempt is embarrassingly stupid.

However, it's worth exploring the implicit sentiment in her ad hominem attack. "Ethical mating" is supposed to be better than "erotic freedom" in some objective, provable manner to Kay. Since circumcision allegedly promotes "ethical mating", circumcision is allegedly good. But what she's saying is that circumcision can and should be used by parents as a tool to control male sexuality. She rightly denounced sexism that attempts to excuse female genital mutilation, so why does she endorse sexism to excuse male genital mutilation?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week, Paul Krugman did his hacktastic best to suggest that the two competing sides of government philosophy are the far right and the center. He paints himself as part of the caring center, of course, opposed to the meanies on the right who inevitably despise anyone lesser. It's all kinds of ad hominem fun, and concludes with this bit about how we need to end the heated political rhetoric that's apparently only been happening since President Obama's election in 2008:

It’s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law.

Or Mr. Obama alone if necessary? President Obama can do nothing constitutionally to end such not-new rhetoric. Krugman's point is silly and makes me think of this:

That seems about right.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article about a recent study (on a semi-related topic) that suggests the U.S. infant male circumcision rate fell to 32.5% for 2009. This has been floating around for a few weeks. Frankly, I don't believe it, as much as I'd like it to be true. When the data are fully analyzed, we'll either see the rate climb or the exclusions will reveal circumcisions that weren't counted but must logically be assumed (e.g. ritual). I'm aware of my culture's insanity.

This story has, predictably, brought out the usual folks and their BUT TEH AIDS!!!!1 rhetoric. For example, a year after showing her ignorance and bias¹ for circumcision, Hanna Rosin returns to prove that she's still willfully ignorant.

The New York Times reports today on new findings that circumcision rates have declined precipitously in the United States, from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent last year. That’s a phenomenal decline in just three years. ...

No kidding. It's so phenomenal that, were she ever willing to break out her critical thinking skills, she might focus her blog entry on that point. Instead, she regurgitates the same incorrect, irrelevant propaganda.

... The story quotes doctors saying that of course no one in the profession should ever tell a parent to circumcise their child and the Centers for Disease Control declines to comment because they never do on this issue, even though they know full well that the drop in circumcisions is a potentially serious public health problem. ...

That quote is this:

“No one is going to tell a parent, ‘You have to circumcise your child.’ That would be foolish,” Dr. [Michael] Brady said. “The key thing physicians should be doing is providing information on both risks and benefits and allow the parent to make the best decision.”

Any doctor who agrees with that is an unethical coward. The key thing physicians should be doing is rejecting the offensive parental request to surgically alter healthy children boys.

As for what they "know full well," this from the New York Times article:

Some 80 percent of American men are circumcised, one of the highest rates in the developed world. Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.

Context matters, a caveat Rosin ignores.

Continuing:

... But circumcision has become like abortion these days, where allying yourself with the Mengele doctors who mutilate infant boys risks bringing a horde protesters to your office door.

Doctors (and non-doctors) who circumcise healthy boys mutilate them:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Words have meaning independent of the desired preference of pro- or anti- child circumcision arguments. For mutilation, that meaning is independent of the victim's gender and the proxy's intent.

She continues:

It does not really matter if any individual parent decides that circumcision is not for them, as I explained in this New York magazine story, “The Case Against the Case Against Circumcision.” ...

This is the crux of her mistake. The (unnecessary) circumcision Rosin defends is not for the parent. It's imposed on the individual child boy. This is why it's unethical, regardless of all the unimpressive, incomplete facts she shares. It's not about what the parents want, but what the boy needs. Proxy consent has objective, logical limits. That our society ignores these does not reduce their validity.

Continuing:

... But it absolutely matters if a whole society turns against the practice. The exact relationship between circumcision and the prevention of certain diseases – from AIDS on down – is not perfectly understood. ...

Promote anyway, apparently, since there's no chance missed factors could contribute to the conclusion.

... But it is absolutely understood that societies in which the majority of boys are circumcised have lower rates of such diseases than other societies.

From AVERT, worldwide AIDS & HIV statistics from 2008 show that North America has an adult prevalence of 0.4%. Most 15-49 year old American males are circumcised. Canadian circumcision rates are declining, but a large percentage in that age group are circumcised. Western & Central Europe, where most males are intact, has an adult prevalence of 0.3%. But it is "absolutely understood" that mutilating societies have lower rates of such diseases. Rosin is entitled to her own facts, apparently. She knows.

Still more:

Anti-circumcision activists have convinced us that circumcision is harmful and dangerous and does a lifetime of damage. ...

Circumcision is surgery. It removes healthy tissue and nerves. That's harmful. Every boy suffers some form of harm (e.g. scarring), but some boys suffer far worse. Collectively it is not "dangerous", but individuals are not statistics. And since this damage is permanent, it certainly lasts a lifetime.

If a male chooses circumcision for himself, that is his right, regardless of his reason. The issue is its imposition on healthy, non-consenting children boys. Their health proves how the science involved is twisted, since only potential benefits seem to count as "science". Their lack of consent proves the ethical argument against permitting prophylactic circumcision (i.e. ritual, cultural, and "scientific"), unless Rosin wishes to open proxy consent to medically unnecessary genital surgery on female minors.

¹ I also highlighted her ignorance and bias here and here.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I wrote this when it was topical but forgot to post it.

It seems that Eugene Robinson doesn't know the difference between a Republican and a libertarian. In this two-weeks-old column discussing the self-inflicted political wounds of Rand Paul, Mr. Robinson lumps these in as a part of Paul's "Libertarian La-La Land." This would be a useful approach if a) Rand Paul happened to be a libertarian (or Libertarian) or b) Robinson understood liberty. Regarding Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Actually, there are quite a few direct questions that Paul will be asked. Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago? I have a personal stake in this one, since I live in a neighborhood where a legal covenant once kept African Americans out. Is this sort of thing cool with him?

Inherent in the way Mr. Robinson asked these two questions, he believes they're related closely enough that Paul's answer must be the same for both. It's a "gotcha" question. Say that private-sphere discrimination should be legal and you're a racist, no thinking necessary. But saying you believe someone has the right to be an asshole doesn't require you to believe that person should be an asshole, or that such a person shouldn't be criticized and excluded from polite society. Am I a racist for saying you can be a racist, as much as I despise it?

From the end of his column:

Now that he is running for the Senate as a card-carrying Republican, Paul is going to have to abandon, or pretend to abandon, many of his loopy beliefs. This won't be easy, as illustrated by the hemming and hawing he did before finally endorsing the Civil Rights Act. Even then, he suggested that the law was justified only by the prevailing situation in the South. As soon as Paul is allowed out of his cave, someone should ask him whether the landmark legislation properly applies to the rest of the country.

As an exercise in critical thinking, did Paul say the Civil Rights Act should only be applied to the South? If he did, he's an idiot and Robinson should say so directly. If Paul didn't say that, stating only that the South was the problem that justified a federal (i.e. national) response, is Robinson's tactic here legitimate?

Next, Robinson highlights Paul's response to the BP oil spill (emphasis added):

And while we're at it, what about Paul's recent analysis of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The Obama administration faces growing criticism for not being tough enough on BP for its failure to stop the gushing flow of crude that is fouling Louisiana's ecologically sensitive coastal marshes. Paul, however, sees things differently. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,' " Paul said. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

The "un-American" part is consistent with the campaign by Republican cynics and Tea Party wing nuts to delegitimize Obama's presidency. But the general idea -- that it's wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters such as the gulf spill -- appears to be something that Paul really believes, since he also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.

"We had a mining accident that was very tragic," he said. "Then we come in, and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."

But maybe accidents are less likely to happen when appropriate safety standards are established and enforced. This kind of cause-and-effect reasoning is meaningful only to those who live in the real world, however. From all evidence, Paul lives in Libertarian La-La Land, where a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.

I'll speak to general libertarian philosophy, not Rand Paul's ideas. It's not wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters for which they are responsible. That's what society should do. And to the extent government regulation is justified, a response according to pre-existing rules and procedures is appropriate.

That's not what happens now. We have public outrage and figurative spankings from our President-as-father. (This is not exclusive to President Obama.) The financial crisis of 2008 shows this, as Obama has repeatedly demonized everyone associated with Wall Street while Congress funneled public money to them and configured new regulations to entrench their businesses against competition. It's naked populism, not enlightened principle in the face of depraved "Libertarian La-La Land" philosophy.

As for established and enforced safety standards, only the government can be trusted to do that?

I want none of what I've written to suggest that I support or seek to defend Rand Paul and his comments. There's more complexity to the Civil Rights Act and libertarianism, as evidenced by what's missing from Mr. Robinson's column and much of most reporting on the story. Anyway, Paul strikes me as a politican at his core, like his father, who is also not a libertarian. No one should act as though he discredits libertarianism.

For example, from Robinson's column:

I'd also like to know whether Paul really believes in a conspiracy among the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments to turn North America into a "borderless, mass continent" bisected by a 10-lane superhighway. Because that's what he said in 2008.

"It's a real thing," he said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, "and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it's a conspiracy, they'll paint you as a nut."

Very little paint is needed.

Fair enough that Paul is a nut, but libertarians won't view "borderless" countries with fear and disdain. Lumping the two together is silly to the point of ignorance (or dishonesty).

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I wrote about the American Academy of Pediatrics' revised policy statement on ritual genital cutting of female minors, I sensed some misunderstanding of what the policy says. Then the story hit the New York Times, among many outlets covering it, confirming what I suspected.

In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.

Saying that the AAP now supports female genital cutting grabs attention, but it's not an accurate summary of the policy statement. The AAP's conclusion:

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

1. Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm.
2. Encourages its members to become informed about FGC and its complications and to be able to recognize physical signs of FGC.
3. Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC.
4. Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.

I stand by my original interpretation that the AAP left itself room to appeal to both sides of the argument. It brought up a ritual 'nick' for ceremonial blood, but avoided anything more declarative than hinting that it should be discussed. But it did not endorse female genital mutilation, unless one defines genital mutilation as any blade-to-genitals. (If that's your definition, I agree from my rights-based perspective, but the same applies to male genital cutting.) If the goal is to reduce and eliminate harm to children, it's stupid to suggest that we factor anything other than harm from non-therapeutic genital cutting and sexist to suggest the victim's gender matters, somehow.

So, to be clear, I don't have much respect for the AAP, for multiple reasons. It's revised statement is cowardly. And I'm angry that the story has careened in a manner that requires me to defend an organization unable to reject non-therapeutic male circumcision, a practice it admits¹ is harmful. But here, with this statement, the AAP did not recommend that doctors perform female genital mutilation, nor did it initiate discussion of anything other than the least harmful forms of Type IV as a substitute for Types I, II, and III in a context where some form of genital cutting is likely.

To its credit the New York Times called the AAP:

A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context.”

Dr. Friedman Ross said that the committee members “oppose all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm,” and consider the ritual nick “a last resort,” but that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.”

I don't accept that ear piercing is benign, but for the purposes here, Dr. Friedman Ross shows that the AAP did not say what many now hysterically claim it said. The now-accepted misunderstanding of its revision is unfortunate because there's a relevant, necessary path for the discussion to take now that it's opened:

Dr. Friedman Ross said, “If you medicalize it and say it’s permissible, is there a possibility that some people will misunderstand it and go beyond a nick? Yes.”

But she said the risk that people denied the ceremonial procedure, usually on the clitoris, would opt for the more harmful one was much more dangerous.

I'd like to see research to back that claim, but for some (probably significant) percentage, I have no doubt she's correct. Unfortunately, the hysteria now present in the debate involves people who either have not read the revised policy statement or have poor reading comprehension skills, so we can't approach that topic. (Remember, too, that I wrote that I favor of zero tolerance on this if you wish to accuse me of anything for pursuing the discussion.)

Instead, we're left with people preening about an existing, incomplete (or inaccurate) narrative. The sentiment seems to be a determination to show that one cares about the issue in the correct way rather than figuring out how to minimize harm to children. I'm not saying that people who exhibit the former are uninterested in the latter, but they're inadvertently working against the legitimate goal.

Post Script: I'd planned to include examples from other sources. Since they generally raise issues that are tangential to my objective in this post, I will address them separately.

¹ The AAP exhibits its cowardice by admitting this indirectly. It engaged in obvious moral relativism as it acknowledged that male circumcision is more harmful than what it proposed we discuss and that causing harm violates the physician's "principle of nonmaleficence." But the proper conclusion that non-therapeutic male circumcision is harmful and should therefore be prohibited on male minors is unavoidable from the bioethics committee's statement on female genital cutting.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (27)

Our political obsession with identifying Others is potentially as dangerous as it is offensive. Safety is a legitimate role for the government, to the extent it can reasonably be achieved. But we need to uncover the psychopaths (or related variants) who would be murderers, regardless of skin color. Racial profiling is the appearance of safety for political cover. With this week's news about Colleen Renee LaRose, the Philadelphia woman (Image) suspected of recruiting for terrorist organizations, I want to repost an entry I wrote almost five years ago.

With a new terrorist threat to the New York subway system gripping the nation, the blogosphere is abuzz. I obviously share everyone's concern and want our police and security forces to thwart any (potentially) forthcoming attacks. In an effort to accomplish this, the debate seems to descend to an argument simple profiling. When the constitutionality of profiling inevitably arises, the proponent either responds with some variation of "Constitution be damned" or "random" searches. New York implemented a random search policy for backpacks, which was incomplete, at best. (ed. note: Dead links omitted.) Yet, the proponents of profiling continue to advocate ineffective policies. Consider this from La Shawn Barber, who writes extensively and credibly about the threat of terrorism:

Will Islamofascists bomb the NYC subway? Is it all just a rumor? Your guess is as good as the government s. Flip a coin. Draw a straw. Throw it against a wall and see if it sticks.

Are they still searching little old ladies and skipping young men of Middle Eastern descent because it would be racist to search them? Probably.

It would be racist but I'm not against if for that reason. Immediate threats to safety must shake the debate from simple intellectual discourse. But within that intellectual discourse, reason can provide insight into how such a policy could fail, and fail miserably.

I don't normally agree with Michelle Malkin on much, as evidenced by the posts here where I've referenced her blog. But with her reporting on last weekend's suicide bomber in Oklahoma, she's doing excellent work highlighting deeper facts in the case. There are indications that the bomber, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, was a Muslim. He attended a local mosque in Norman, OK. His Pakistani roommate hasn't been heard from since the bombing. Mr. Hinrichs' bomb included TATP, an explosive compound not commonly used in America, but popular with terrorists. He tried to purchase a large amount of ammonium nitrate. On Saturday, he apparently tried to enter the stadium during the Oklahoma football game before settling on the bench where he blew himself up (intentionally or unintentionally). Etc. I don't know what story these and other facts will eventually tell, but it seems clear that there is more to the story than just some depressed guy commiting suicide. While I'm not ready to declare this an Islamofascist suicide bombing on American soil, the details of this case should be pursued.

This case also highlights the ineffectiveness of racial profiling in our attempt to prevent further terrorism. Click this picture of Mr. Hinrichs. (Image Source) Ignore the beard; a roommate of mine in college had a beard like that and he was no terrorist, unless you count accidentally killing fish when his hydroponic fish tank failed. So let me ask the obvious question. Say Mr. Hinrichs had tried to bomb the New York subway. Would racial profiling for "young men of Middle Eastern descent" have caught him? Is it reasonable to assume that if we rely on racial profiling, terrorists will switch tactics to include racial (and gender) profiles we're not looking for?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's actress Debra Messing testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health in her role as an ambassador for PSI, asking for more federal tax dollars to support "voluntary, adult" male circumcision in Africa (emphasis added):

... I would like to tell you today about two prevention tools that could make a difference if there is continued investment: male circumcision and HIV testing and counseling.

First, voluntary adult male circumcision. There is now strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by about 60 percent, yet only about one in ten Zimbabwean adult men are circumcised. PSI and its partners run circumcision clinics in Zimbabwe and other countries, with support from PEPFAR and other donors.

I was invited to observe the procedure, which is free to the client, completely voluntary and according to the young man I spoke with who underwent the procedure, painless. The cost of the procedure at that clinic—including follow-up care and counseling—is about $40 U.S. dollars.

UNAIDS and the World Health Organization have issued guidance stating that male circumcision should be recognized as an important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.

Even with no demand creation, the clinic I visited serves upwards of 35 clients per day. It is estimated that if male circumcision is scaled up to reach 80 percent of adult and newborn males in Zimbabwe by 2015, it could avert almost 750,000 adult HIV infections—that equals 40 percent of all new HIV infections that would have occurred otherwise without the intervention—and it could yield total net savings of $3.8 billion U.S. dollars between 2009 and 2025. Male circumcision programs get robust support from the U.S. government in Zimbabwe and other countries, but greater resources would yield greater results.

Always remember that when public health officials - or actresses - talk about voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary or adult.

¹ Title quote reference here.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

For a brief summary:

The FBI is investigating a Pennsylvania school district accused of secretly activating webcams inside students' homes, a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press on Friday.

The school district has acknowledged that each student's school-issued computer has software that allows the district to access it remotely, including the ability to capture images. My guess is that, in the case of the student who's parents have sued, the alleged image was likely something the student downloaded and the school saw on his hard drive. If I'm right, it's still creepy, but (momentarily) relegates to possibility the theories that the school captured images of naked students.

Since the privacy implications must still be considered, the article includes commentary from privacy experts. The experts aren't quoted as saying anything surprising. The reporter offers a different perspective in her transition:

The Pennsylvania case shows how even well-intentioned plans can go awry if officials fail to understand the technology and its potential consequences, privacy experts said. Compromising images from inside a student's bedroom could fall into the hands of rogue school staff or otherwise be spread across the Internet, they said.

Which school officials would not be 'rogue' if such pictures fell in their hands? I take the implication that somehow there are school staff members who should be legitimately authorized to see such pictures, that some spying is appropriate. I'm sure that's lazy writing rather than a disturbing lack of skepticism of authority. But someone obviously authorized the installation of this software and didn't notify the students or their parents that it was included. I always assume stupidity first, if it's possible, but it would be unwise to rule out an conscious disregard for civil liberties.

(They're children, after all. They have no rights at school or away from school if school officials deem those rights an impediment to order.)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spoiler Alert: This entry includes a discussion of plot points from "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged."

In the New York Times Adam Kirsch reviewed Anne Heller's new Ayn Rand biography, “Ayn Rand and the World She Made.” I have nothing to say regarding Heller's book specifically because I haven't read it yet. Here I wish to focus on Kirsch's grasp on Ayn Rand's two major novels. There is nothing to definitively suggest he hasn't read them, although I suspect he hasn't. There is plenty to prove that he hasn't understood them if he has read them.

He reveals his ignorance in the first seven words of his review:

A specter is haunting the Republican Party — ...

The implications of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are as relevant against the Republican Party as they are against the Democratic Party. Neither cares about anything beyond handing out favors to its preferred group of insiders in exchange for continued power. The individual is a tool to be manipulated for the party's needs. Kirsch's references to Whitaker Chambers and Wendell Willkie should've been enough for him to at least explore the validity of his thesis. Instead he cited the rantings of outrage-huckster straw man Glenn Beck, who is not a libertarian.

(Note: The term libertarian is the easiest way to represent liberty here. But Rand was an Objectivist, which is similar but not synonymous. See here, for example.)

Next, Kirsch attempts to summarize Rand (emphasis added):

And while it’s not hard to understand Rand’s revenge-fantasy appeal to those on the right, would-be Galts ought to hear the story Anne C. Heller has to tell in her dramatic and very timely biography, “Ayn Rand and the World She Made.”

"Going Galt" is likely a revenge fantasy to those claiming they will now "Go Galt" as a result of some offense by the Obama administration, but that doesn't guarantee it reflects the meaning of what they've co-opted. First, Rand would've been no less an opponent of George W. Bush's administration than she would've been of Obama's. Or likely any other presidential administration since the publication of Atlas Shrugged because of the ever-growing control of the modern presidency (and legislature) over the choices of individuals.

More importantly, "Going Galt" is about withdrawing from a society that seeks only to act as a leech. Some of the words Rand gave to Galt:

There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.

Galt's speech is "goodbye," not "let's negotiate a compromise." But it's only a goodbye to the world of moochers and looters, not from producing or living as he wishes. Galt's Gulch was a society where men and women produced. This year's "Going Galt" meme was about going idle. It is a reaction to the ongoing problem identified by Rand, but it is not her solution.

For one thing, it is far more interesting than anything in Rand’s novels. ... The characters Rand created, on the other hand — like Galt or Howard Roark, the architect hero of “The Fountainhead” — are abstract principles set to moving and talking.

This is at once the failure and the making of Rand’s fiction. The plotting and characterization in her books may be vulgar and unbelievable, just as one would expect from the middling Holly­wood screenwriter she once was; but her message, while not necessarily more sophisticated, is magnified by the power of its absolute sincerity. ...

Rand was a Romantic, which is why her characters "are abstract principles set to moving and talking." I've heard it said (I forget by whom) that Rand was a 19th century writer in the 20th century. That's an accurate description, but as a criticism from Kirsch, it's purely subjective. The proper approach to criticism is to judge whether or not the literature works at what the writer attempted rather than whether or not the reviewer approves of the writer's intent and/or method. Her ideas, which are what Kirsch attacks¹ in his essay, are not false simply because he perceives her characters as abstract principles.

Personally, I enjoyed Rand's approach to both novels as literature. I found her characters and situations compelling and effective in achieving what she sought to present. However, she could not write sex scenes. The sexual relationships in both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged suggest that she had a bizarre concept of sexual intimacy. Whatever she believed in her life, Roark's rape of Dominique in The Fountainhead is an inexcusable error in her presentation of Howard Roark as an idealized man. She was not a perfect novelist never to be questioned.

Kirsch reveals his misunderstanding (or ignorance) of Rand's novels in this paragraph:

Rand’s particular intellectual contribution, the thing that makes her so popular and so American, is the way she managed to mass market elitism — to convince so many people, especially young people, that they could be geniuses without being in any concrete way distinguished. Or, rather, that they could distinguish themselves by the ardor of their commitment to Rand’s teaching. The very form of her novels makes the same point: they are as cartoonish and sexed-up as any best seller, yet they are constantly suggesting that the reader who appreciates them is one of the elect.

In Atlas Shrugged there is a difference between John Galt and James Taggart, but there is also a difference between John Galt and Eddie Willers. Rand presented the idea that talent is real and identifiable, but also that, while everyone isn't moral, anyone can be. Eddie Willers wasn't invited to "Go Galt" because he wasn't a creator, but he wasn't despised because the heroes of Atlas Shrugged knew him to be moral who recognized the difference between producing and looting. Patronizing to the untalented moral man? Probably. Evidence that Rand believed everyone could be an elite? No.

Kirsch next engages in the type of cartoonish characterization he attributes to Rand's novels. When discussing Rand's process for writing and publishing Galt's speech, he states (emphasis added):

... Rand labored for more than two years on Galt’s radio address near the end of “Atlas Shrugged” — a long paean to capitalism, individualism and selfishness that makes Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is good” sound like the Sermon on the Mount. ... [Random House's Bennett] Cerf offered Rand an alternative: if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life. Politically, Rand was committed to the idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization invented or conceivable. This was, perhaps, an understandable reaction against her childhood experience of Communism. ...

Yet while Rand took to wearing a dollar-sign pin to advertise her love of capitalism, Heller makes clear that the author had no real affection for dollars themselves. Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre. In fact, as Heller shows, Rand had no more reverence for the actual businessmen she met than most intellectuals do. The problem was that, according to her own theories, the executives were supposed to be as creative and admirable as any artist or thinker. They were part of the fraternity of the gifted, whose strike, in “Atlas Shrugged,” brings the world to its knees.

Wall Street is a fine film, but it's full of hogwash as an attempted refutation of capitalism. The movie is Oliver Stone's half-understanding of "greed", which is similar to the very common misunderstanding of Ayn Rand's vision of "selfishness." Advocates of capitalism don't push it as the best form of social organization in order to create an enclave of Gordon Gekkos. It is the best form of social organization because it is based on voluntary exchange. Decentralized decision-making is better at discovering and meeting individual needs and desires. It is based on the realization that elites can't possibly know what's best for everyone or anyone.

A key facet of economics is that all tastes and preferences are subjective. Rand's willingness to concede 7 cents per copy to keep Galt's speech unaltered indicates only that she valued the presentation of her unedited work more than 7 cents per copy. It was a voluntary exchange, mutually beneficial to her and Random House. Suggesting that this is a contradiction of her philosophy, that no "genuine capitalist" would ever give up money, is a pejorative little different than suggesting that "no genuine Jew" would choose principle over pennies. Kirsch's statement is a smear of lesser magnitude because his stereotype is more acceptable politically, but it is still a smear.

Rand presented her view of money in Atlas Shrugged, as spoken by Francisco d'Anconia in his speech on money. An excerpt relevant to Kirsch's cartoonish mischaracterization of capitalists:

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

The notion that Rand's only action consistent with her philosophy would be to hoard "lucre" reveals Kirsch's ignorance of Rand. His disagreement with her does not disqualify him from critiquing her. Not understanding her novels or her philosophy does.

11/1 Update: The more I think about Adam Kirsch's book review of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made, the more I realize it was worse than I depicted. Rand explained what she thought of Kirsch's idea of the "genuine capitalist" in The Fountainhead. His name was Gail Wynand, the news tycoon who published ideas he believed to be false in order to collect "lucre" from customers. Nothing was beyond Wynand's preference for pennies over principle, as evidenced by his publishing Ellsworth Toohey's words. In the novel's conclusion, Wynand did not get what he wanted because he did not deserve it. He'd sacrificed himself for something smaller.

¹ Remember, though, that his essay is ostensibly a book review of a Rand biography.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Robert Stacy McCain blogged about Hanna Rosin's first circumcision post at the Daily Dish:

She dares defend circumcision while guest blogging at the site of the world's foremost foreskin fetishist, Andrew Sullivan.

"Male genital mutilation!" scream the connoisseurs of uncut, preservationists of the precious prepuce.

Get over it, people. Only porn freaks and gay men -- having ample opportunity to comparison shop, as it were -- obsess so fanatically over the difference. ...

Is this typical of McCain's writing? Rather than deal with the issue up for discussion, he smears Andrew Sullivan, which would be bad enough if Mr. Sullivan had any direct involvement in Mr. Rosin's entry. That Mr. Sullivan is not involved in the post and yet is the direct target of the smear shows an appalling lack of class. But he was only having "some mocking fun", as he writes in a follow-up post, because he "knew" Andrew Sullivan to be a foreskin fetishist. More on this in a moment.

... As I was taught in commercial design classes 30 years ago, form follows function, and familiarity with the fact of foreskinless functionality (i.e., I've fathered six kids) indicate my circumcised state is entirely adequate to the rigors of the task.

This proves what? I'm not aware of anyone making the claim that circumcised men can't have sex or that humanity will die out because circumcision causes sterility. This is a pointless diversion. "My penis works after circumcision" proves nothing about the merits of infant/child circumcision because it's a "comparison" of one data point specific to one individual.

The advantages in terms of hygiene are well-known, and tend to be especially appreciated by mothers who have a difficult enough time getting boys to bath, much less to wash their winkies with health-conscious care. ...

The advantages in terms of hygiene are achieved easier with basic hygiene methods (i.e. soap and water), which are still required after circumcision. McCain's error likely centers on his apparent ignorance of human anatomy. The foreskin adheres to the penis at birth and will not separate for many years. This protects the penis. The normal separation process may last late into puberty, long after mothers have ceased washing their sons' genitals. Not only is there no need to go digging for dirt, it is potentially harmful to do so. Not that that stops parents from permitting doctors to forcefully break the natural adhesion in order to circumcise.

As for the throwaway point about circumcision easing the job of mothers, any parent who circumcises their healthy child to make their job easier is a bad parent. Child care is difficult? Don't have kids. Choose to have kids and you discard your right to place your laziness first.

Back to his claim about fetishists:

... And it is certainly my impression -- based on comments whenever the subject is raised -- that women generally prefer what we might call the kosher pickle.

If there are fetishists, which side are they on? Is it those who advocate for each male to keep his normal genitals and choose for himself for his reasons or those who believe that parents may impose unnecessary surgery on their son's genitals because they believe his future partner(s) will find his circumcised penis more sexually appealing? A woman can believe a man with a surgical scar on his penis is sexually preferable, yet it is those who state that the foreskin is a normal part of the penis, and each male should decide for himself, who are the fetishists? With this smear, McCain shows nothing more than an apparent character flaw deployed to mask his lack of curiosity.

He continues in his follow-up post (linked above):

Being quite happily married for 20 years, after having previously spent more than a decade as an equally happy and reasonably popular bachelor, I protest any suggestion that I really give a damn about anyone else's penis but my own. While quite satisfied with my own equipment, I think it unseemly that I should boast of its merits, or to cast aspersions on the equipment of others.

What obtrudes here -- and it obtrudes from only one direction in the present discourse -- is the Foreskin Lobby's repeated assertion that the circumcised penis is "mutilated" or in some other way inferior to the unmodified phallus.

I'm happy that he's happy with his circumcised penis. I do not intend to waste my time trying to convince any circumcised male that he needs to be unhappy and wish that he hadn't been circumcised. I'd gain nothing from such an endeavor, and it's unnecessary to my logical and ethical case against circumcision. What each male decides for himself is what's valid. No one is suggesting he has to give a damn about anyone else's penis. But he needs to give a damn about the males who will give a damn about their own penises being altered by their parents without medical need.

McCain's position, like most Americans, is that parents can decide and whatever they decide is fine, for whatever reason. It's not. The child is healthy. He doesn't need surgery. The legitimacy of proxy consent ends there. This should be blindingly obvious, especially when considering the inane, offensive reasons many parents give. As McCain highlights without awareness with his reference to women's stated preference, parents circumcise based on nonsense. They don't know what their son's future partner(s) will prefer or whether he would want to have sex with someone who would reject him for having normal male genitalia. There is no possible defense for non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. That is the issue, not that Robert Stacy McCain likes being circumcised or that I hate it.

So, are those who derogate the foreskinless phallus as "mutilated" expressing some sort of religious bigotry? I hesitate to suggest such a thing, but sincerely wish that these barbaric aficionados of heathen penises would cease inciting unseemly debates over a subject so offensive to so many.

I am not surprised that someone who would trot out the fetish smear - in mocking fun, of course - would also attempt the more offensive smear that having a problem with infant circumcision is just a charade for anti-Semitism. There is no problem with circumcision as a religious rite, only with circumcision of children as a religious right. An adult may choose circumcision for himself for religious reasons or any other reason he deems worthy. And, yes, I'm aware of what the Old Testament says about circumcision. I also know what it says about slavery and adulterous women and so on. Civil society does not permit those, either, because we grasp that individuals have rights. What someone would choose for himself may not be what someone else would choose for him. The only valid option is to default to the individual's choice. Hence, no circumcision of healthy children.

Because it's there... He concludes his original entry with this:

Those who prefer the sword-and-scabbard setup are perfectly entitled to their preference, ...

I'm not entitled to my preference, am I, because society allowed my parents to surgically entitle their preference on me? This is the point McCain seems determined to miss.

... without casting aspersions upon those of us who've forsaken the sheath and keep the blade ready. "Mutilation," indeed!

Without casting aspersions... Fascinating. Those who resort to name-calling are always the most thin-skinned, aren't they?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

In my second response to Hanna Rosin's posts on circumcision at The Daily Dish, I closed with this:

As a circumcised male, why do I care whether circumcision is mandated by the government or merely by my parents? The result - forced circumcision - is the same for me. Basically, Rosin engages in the "if you don't like circumcision, don't circumcise your son" defense. This is wrong. The case against circumcision centers on the boy as a (healthy) human being, not the boy as a son of parents making a choice.

This is the core of the ethical refutation of prophylactic infant male circumcision. Proxy consent cannot be justified on any grounds because the surgery is unnecessary, permanent, and carries an inherent risk of damage beyond what is deemed acceptable. On the last point, remember that no one considers the boy's potential future disagreement with society's definition of acceptable.

Ms. Rosin's passage that prompted my comment involved the question of government-mandated circumcision. The CDC is not recommending that, of course. My point stands because, to the circumcised child, an influenced decision is no better than a required non-decision if he does not wish to be circumcised. But it does raise an interesting point for the current debate over health insurance reform that I've attempted to make in the past. From Ed Morrissey:

I’m neutral on the issue of circumcision, which has become a controversial practice, but find this idea of interventions very, very odd. In the first place, circumcision does not provide an immunity to STDs, not AIDS or anything else. Studies indicate that circumcised males may have less danger of acquiring an infection, but as the NYT points out, that’s from heterosexual relations — a very minor channel of AIDS communication in the US. Men have much better choices than circumcision for avoiding HIV infection, including the use of condoms (still not a perfect defense, but better than circumcision), refraining from intravenous drug use with shared needles, avoiding high-risk sexual practices altogether, and so on.

Why should the CDC push circumcision at all? The government has no business being in the middle of that decision. Under ObamaCare, however, when the government starts paying more and more of the health-care tab, they will point to ambiguous cost savings down the road — in this and other cases, decades down the road — to pressure Americans into surrendering their choices now. [ed. note: surrendering the choices of their children]

Apart from unnecessarily cluttering the single-payer issue with the "ObamaCare" phrase, this is exactly right, I think. How often do we need to see the public health community ramble on about the cost-benefit analysis "proving" that the net effect of prophylactic infant male circumcision is positive? How many lies pretending that non-essential and non-functional are synonyms will be necessary before we accept that not everyone shares the same view about what individuals should do and have, when those same people so often prove that they mistake their opinion for fact? Those people are at least as likely to make it to positions of power as anyone who considers the child's lack of need and possible future objections.

It's useful to highlight that most countries with an explicitly single-payer health care system have infant male circumcision rates that don't approach 10%. Of course. But we can't dismiss that the rates are greater than 0%. We must consider why.

I think the question of why narrows to culture. American culture places a high, irrational value on circumcision and its alleged wonders. Whether it's the perceived health benefits for diseases that are already unlikely in a normal human state or a fear that schoolmates and sexual partners will laugh at him if he's normal rather than common, we don't evaluate circumcision factually. Ms. Rosin demonstrated this when she wrote that calling circumcision surgery is "a bit of an exaggeration." No, it's not, but our society possesses a strong anti-curiosity attitude on the topic. As Mr. Morrissey noted, the New York Times article provides all the necessary data to show that the CDC's thinking is irrational. Yet, it's picked up by people like Ms. Rosin who uncritically regurgitate only the parts they like and declare the resulting subset of findings uncontroversial. This is the low level of discourse in America surrounding circumcision and children.

If America had implemented a single-payer system at the same time England created its system, we could make a one-to-one comparison and the incidence of circumcision today would likely be close. But we didn't. Instead, we have 60 additional years of circumcision to defend and justify. We have irrational beliefs to refute, should those holding those beliefs be willing to question them. We have a society that "knows" the foreskin is "just a flap of useless skin" and isn't interested in hearing anything to the contrary, no matter how logical or based in scientific proof. A majority of our society still believes that the individual child is in the care of his parents for his medical decisions without a thought that this non-therapeutic surgical intervention is (social) experimentation, not medical care. The national discussion becomes about what people want to believe, not what is true. Cost is not a primary concern.

Patrick Appel posted the Ed Morrissey link at The Daily Dish, where I found it. Mr. Appel writes:

The CDC is thinking of promoting circumcision, not requiring it. Whether or not you agree with the procedure, this controversy has nothing to do with health care reform. If single-payer leads to more circumcision, then how come America has among the highest rates of circumcised men in the world, much higher than most if not all countries with socialized medicine?

Mr. Appel makes the same mistake. The argument isn't that single-payer leads to more circumcision. The argument is that American single-payer will not lead to a decrease in male circumcision. Either the system will pay or parents will pay. My view is the former because public health officials invariably think about the public rather than the individuals in the collective and politicians do not have the moral framework to say "no" to the inevitable backlash that would occur. Without legal reform recognizing the same rights for boys that we've already codified for girls, circumcision will continue in America, regardless of who pays.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hanna Rosin summarizes the responses to her circumcision post from yesterday "into three basic categories":

1. How can we do this to a child without his consent? There are so many things we do to children without their consent - change their school, banish their friends, give them drugs, abandon and neglect them. Removing a foreskin should not even fall in the top 20 ways to ruin your child's life.

Right, ethics. She again fails to address this valid concern. Stating that "X is worse than Y" grants no legitimacy to Y.

2. "Foreskins are, well, fun," writes one gay reader. My authority here is obviously limited. That said, all that research of specific areas of male sensitivity (Andrew cites some here) has always struck me as dubious. Erotic pleasure is a rich and complicated thing. Specific percentages of sensitivity can't possibly sum up the experience.

Those last two sentences are true. Yet, she's said nothing in defense of infant circumcision with either statement. Even if she'd explained why the research of specific areas of male sensitivity strikes her as dubious, what would that prove about infant circumcision? An extension of the ethical argument she's failed to confront involves each individual deciding what constitutes preferred pleasure and sensitivity from and for his normal body. Erotic pleasure is a rich and complicated thing unique to the individual. Specific percentages of sensitivity evaluated by another can't possibly sum up the experience for the individual.

3.Preventative surgery is a "bizarre notion." This is somewhat more convincing. But for one thing, "surgery" is a bit of an exaggeration. We certainly cause infants minor pain for the greater public good many times, in the form of vaccines. It depends, I suppose, whether you consider HIV and STD's a widespread public health crisis, or something affecting only a very few. I could get into the specifics of the research here, but I won't.

Why is surgery in quotes? It is not an exaggeration to call circumcision surgery. Even her source from yesterday's article, WebMD, defines circumcision as "the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head of the penis." If there is a risk of death, no matter how small, circumcision is surgery. Her statement suggests a lack of curiosity on the subject for anything beyond what she wants to believe.

The vaccine argument is interesting and related. However, circumcision is the (surgical) removal of healthy, functioning tissue. The associated pain is a separate, secondary aspect for consideration. Our ability to control pain and its temporary presence are not defenses for performing the offending surgical procedure. Controlling pain does not render the intervention humane.

Nor are a boy's genitals subject to the alleged needs of the public good. STDs require specific, individual actions. Those are actions that infants will not be undertaking for many years. When they begin engaging in those actions, they must use condoms, regardless of whether or not they still have their foreskin. Conveniently, a condom's effectiveness is considerably higher than that of circumcision.

On the specifics of the research, it would be useful for her to state them. I'll probably agree with her. It's not necessary, though, because the discussion must circle back to ethics because she's advocating circumcision on healthy infants, not adult volunteers. What we can do is not synonymous with what we should do.

I didn't include this in my objection yesterday because it disappears as an issue once we get the question of infant circumcision correct, but it's an interesting point to pursue because a willingness to comprehend circumcision from perspective of the child's rights is essential to ultimately grasping why circumcision is wrong. From her entry today:

..., my post defending circumcision taps into the current fears about "big government trying to mandate certain types of medical procedures," as one reader wrote in.

As a circumcised male, why do I care whether circumcision is mandated by the government or merely by my parents? The result - forced circumcision - is the same for me. Basically, Rosin engages in the "if you don't like circumcision, don't circumcise your son" defense. This is wrong. The case against circumcision centers on the boy as a (healthy) human being, not the boy as a son of parents making a choice.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (5)

Last week, in a post lamenting the not-odd fact that the words and actions of politicians do not match, Matthew Yglesias wrote this:

My personal feeling, the longer I spend in DC and working in the political domain, is that I get better and better at understanding other people’s ideologies. I also feel that people writing about politics often caricature opponents’ views as part of a rhetorical strategy. But I’ve been back-and-forth on the main issues long enough that I’m pretty sure I could switch this blog’s point of view and do a credible job of offering critiques-from-the-right of the progressive liberal health reform movement and the progressive liberal approach to domestic policy generally. One happy consequence of this is that I find the stubborn persistence of principled disagreement less mystifying than I once did, and have a greater appreciation for what I now think of as a certain irreducibly Kierkegaardian element to ideological commitment that, in turn, helps explain why so many “normal” people have such fuzzy political views.

The words I placed in bold are important to remember while reading an entry Mr. Yglesias posted¹ yesterday:

There’s lots of great stuff in this Ed Pilkington story about the dark side of free market health care (via Tomasky) but my favorite bit was this part:

Eventually his lack of motor control interfered with his work to the degree that he was forced to give up his practice. He fell instantly into a catch 22 that he had earlier seen entrap many of his own patients: no work, no health insurance, no treatment.

He remained uninsured and largely untreated for his progressively severe condition for the following 11 years. Blood tests that could have diagnosed him correctly were not done because he couldn’t afford the $200. Having lost his practice, he lost his mansion on the hill and now lives in a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs. His Porsches have made way for bangers. Many times this erstwhile pillar of the medical establishment had to go without food in order to pay for basic medicines.

This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for me to take seriously the idea that we can’t have the government give people health care because it might subject them to “rationing.” Depending on the details, it may or may not be correct to believe that any particular government program is being too stingy. But how does giving people nothing at all resolve that problem?

There are two issues here, closely related to Mr. Yglesias' entry from last week linked above. The initial problem is glaring but only if you follow the link to the Ed Pilkington story. You wouldn't know this from his excerpt, but the paragraph continues (emphasis mine):

He remained uninsured and largely untreated for his progressively severe condition for the following 11 years. Blood tests that could have diagnosed him correctly were not done because he couldn't afford the $200. Having lost his practice, he lost his mansion on the hill and now lives in a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs. His Porsches have made way for bangers. Many times this erstwhile pillar of the medical establishment had to go without food in order to pay for basic medicines. In 2000 Manley finally found the help he needed, at a clinic in Kansas City that acts as a rare safety net for uninsured people. He was swiftly diagnosed with Huntington's disease, a degenerative genetic illness, and now receives regular medical attention through the clinic.

Mr. Yglesias' excerpt is an incomplete representation of the complex facts, presumably to make the point - a caricature, if you will - that the free market has failed. But has it really failed?

Mr. Manley probably should've saved his money for potential later-life crises rather than buying a new Porsche every year, as the article states he did when his practice was strong. That is a relevant point, but it's little more than a distraction to the real issue underlying Mr. Yglesias' belief that everyone has an obligation to pay for everyone's care, especially where the free market (allegedly) fails. Regardless, we have the system we have, not the one either side wishes. It shouldn't have taken so long for Mr. Manley to receive the care he needed. Stating this needn't be considered a concession or profound.

What Mr. Pilkington, and subsequently Mr. Yglesias, failed to explore is the care that Mr. Manley eventually received.

[Dr. Sharon] Lee's clinic, Family Health Care, is a refuge of last resort. It picks up the pieces of lives left shattered by a health system that has failed them, and tries to glue them back together. It exists largely outside the parameters of formal health provision, raising funds through donations and paying all its 50 staff – Lee included – a flat rate of just $12 an hour.

Unlike Mr. Yglesias, I researched Family Health Care. It took approximately 10 minutes. Mr. Manley is getting care thanks to the "dark side of the free market." Consider the clinic's financial profile for 2005-2007:

The clinic receives 0% of its funding from government, meaning that the remaining 100% of its budget comes from the bank accounts of individuals, corporations, and non-profit organizations. Where is the free market failure to provide health care to those in need?

The structure of the American health care and insurance system is idiotic and needs reform. We should talk about that. The article even includes anecdotal stories to suggest problems that need to be addressed within the views of each side's extremes. But presumably that wouldn't have made the point for Mr. Pilkington or Mr. Yglesias that government needs to step in to protect the poor from the free market's alleged failures, which are, we are told, ignored by the mean-spirited right-wing capitalist liars opposed to President Obama's proposal. A neat, tidy box, indeed. That reaches closer to ideological commitment - propaganda, if you will - than journalism.

Update: I've struck the reference to propaganda. This isn't that. Rather, Mr. Yglesias' ideological commitment is more likely laziness embracing the appearance of victory.

¹ Normally I refuse to reprint an entire entry because links are survival. In this case, I can think of no other way to make my points.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's easy to talk about "public health" as if we're all in one giant collective, with the same needs and desires. But that's not true. We are each an individual, with specific, unique considerations. It is foolish to pretend that one approach is sufficient for everyone. It is offensive to behave as though the recipient of that one approach is irrelevant to whether or not it should be applied. Consider:

Public health officials [at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The article is little more than the latest 6th Grade Current Events drivel churned out from the New York Times' "Promote Infant Male Circumcision" template. Guess where the author/editor placed this paragraph in the story:

Circumcision is believed to protect men from infection with H.I.V. because ...

The paragraph demonstrating that scientists do not yet understand how circumcision is supposed to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission should probably appear early, before the committed sentiments from those wishing to transfer the findings on adult volunteers in Africa to infant non-volunteers in America. Yet, it's the last paragraph in the article. 916 words precede the significant fact that advocates do not yet know the relevant fact to support what they now wish to force on children.

Unsurprisingly, the word ethics appears nowhere in the article. The mere suggestion of potential benefits, despite the irrefutable fact that they are not needed and the high probability that they would not be desired, is enough to take pro-infant circumcision advocates seriously when the logic of basic human rights and medical ethics demands that we dismiss them from polite company. Instead, this passes for "serious":

But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Does "any potential intervention" have any ethical limitation? Removing the boy's penis would surely solve the transmission problem. Is that acceptable?

I am, of course, being intentionally ludicrous. Removing a boy's penis is not what Dr. Kilmarx is suggesting. Yet, he is promoting a mentality that how he fears HIV and values prevention is the only acceptable approach. Therefore, any intervention he deems appropriate must be appropriate. Because... HIV!

It will not work, for several key reasons, all easily identifiable and critical to the process:

He and other experts acknowledged that although the clinical trials of circumcision in Africa had dramatic results, the effects of circumcision in the United States were likely to be more muted because the disease is less prevalent here, because it spreads through different routes and because the health systems are so disparate as to be incomparable.
...

There is little to no evidence that circumcision protects men who have sex with men from infection.

Another reason circumcision would have less of an impact in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say.

Add to that the reality that any infant male circumcised today to prevent reduce his (already low) risk of HIV will not be sexually active until approximately 2024 or beyond. When he is sexually active, he'll still need to wear a condom. Circumcision will have added nothing to his life as an HIV prevention. It's success, however limited it would be, depends upon the male behaving irresponsibly. An assumption that a boy will be irresponsible is not a valid justification for the surgical removal of a healthy, functioning body part.

Yet, that basic human right - the same right accepted and codified for female minors - is denied to male minors for nonsensical reasons:

The academy is revising its guidelines, however, and is likely to do away with the neutral tone in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits even beyond H.I.V. prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys, said Dr. Michael Brady, a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

He said the academy would probably stop short of recommending routine surgery, however. “We do have evidence to suggest there are health benefits, and families should be given an opportunity to know what they are,” he said. But, he said, the value of circumcision for H.I.V. protection in the United States is difficult to assess, adding, “Our biggest struggle is trying to figure out how to understand the true value for Americans.”

This is the coward's path¹. They won't recommend it, but they'll tell parents it's really wonderful and prevents all these scary things. They'll dismiss the risks and ethics involved, and they'll ignore the statistics in context. For UTIs, the statistics show that all males, circumcised and intact combined, face approximately a 1% risk of UTI in the first year of life. The majority of those UTIs are easily treated without circumcision. Those that are not are generally caused by anatomical abnormalities, not the presence of the normal foreskin. [ed. note: Links when I can find them. It's late.]

But none of that matters to those who believe that parents should decide what is best for their family regarding their son's foreskin. We don't extend this appalling idea that the family owns the foreskins of its sons to the genitals of its daughters. No, a female minor's genitals belong to her, regardless of the parents' opinions. That's critical in displaying the hypocrisy and cultural blinders because the advocates are only discussing opinion. They've established a perceived value to non-therapeutic male circumcision. They've endorsed that with the power of their titles to those parents who want to believe the same illogical conclusion. Because they value it, they can't conceive that the healthy child who will be surgically altered could possibly mind. He wants it, don't you know, because dad likes it and mom likes it and what if his classmates laugh at him or girls won't have sex with him? He needs to have less to be enough. And because... HIV! That he could conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision performed on him as an infant is mutilation is inconceivable. The person who believes that is allegedly the fringe lunatic who rejects the public health. Because... HIV!

To the CDC: My non-therapeutic circumcision as an infant was mutilation. My parents had no legitimate authority to request it. The doctor had no legitimate authority to perform it. I do not value circumcision for me. I never will, no matter how much your unethical experts tell me I should. I have never and will never need any HIV risk reduction because I do not engage in unsafe sex. Should I encounter any of the other medical maladies discussed in relation to circumcision, I will prefer the least-invasive effective treatment available. I believe in evidence-based medicine, particularly the simple-to-understand truth that healthy genitals are evidence that no surgical intervention is ethical on a child. Not even on the genitals of American boys.

¹ It is also why appeals to the authority of an organization like the AAP are unwise. They may present a (barely) acceptable tone today, but tomorrow is always a new day to be irrational.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Former President Bill Clinton is now offering something resembling support for same-sex marriage:

After speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president was asked if he supported same-sex marriage. Clinton, in a departure from past statements, replied in the affirmative.

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, and in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In May of this year, Clinton told a crowd at Toronto's Convention Centre that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving." [ed. note: more commonly described as gauging the political winds]

Apparently, Clinton's thinking has now further evolved. Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

Any guesses on whether the key word is basically or support in his statement? You don't need proof, but here it is:

This spring, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. In his most recent remarks on the subject, Clinton said, "I think all these states that do it should do it." The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

I'm supposed to get excited because Bill Clinton endorsed the status quo?

Of course, because it's not only a Clinton, but the Clinton, organized advocacy groups must fawn over these statements as if the the common meanings of words are irrelevant.

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

He's not stepping "solidly" into the twenty-first century. He's dipped his toe in the late twentieth century to test whether he can continue coasting on perceptions rather than actions. Hence, his endorsement of treating same-sex couples like second-class citizens for federal purposes.

[From the libertarian perspective, of course the state shouldn't be involved in marriage. It is, and that's not changing any time soon. Thus, federal recognition is a defensible goal.]

Via Conor Clarke, guest-blogging at The Daily Dish. He has more faith than I do that Clinton is "on the right side of this issue."

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

There's a new meme popular among advocates of routine infant circumcision referring to those who oppose routine infant circumcision as "foreskin fetishists". It's not a surprising strategy because it's the type of tactic deployed when one is on the wrong side of logic and facts. It's been deployed against me, and I've seen it deployed as a general tactic. It's unwise to the point of being odd, since it's so easy to dismiss with a simple observation. But it's clear those who use it do so because they realize that most people believe what they're told if it fits their opinions, not what fits with reality. Smear your opponent and some will buy it.

So, the claim itself. I support the right for each male to choose for himself. If he chooses circumcision for any reason, that's his right. If he chooses against circumcision for any reason, that's his right. My only concern is that each healthy child be left his choice for when he can consent or refuse.

Circumcision advocates believe that parents should choose. They are wrong, for the many logical reasons I continue to write about. This isn't the place to rehash most of those directly. However, there is one that is relevant. I'll point to a claim by Professor Brian Morris, linked in the entry I posted yesterday.

Getting circumcised will result in:
...

• A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

And what about Dr. Edgar Schoen?

Women's Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect:

Sexual function is not adversely effected by NC. On the contrary, published evidence shows that circumcised men have a wider variety of sexual activity, and women prefer circumcised men, mainly because of better genital hygiene.

I can find any number of further examples, but the point should be clear. If there are fetishists, which side contains the fetishists? Is it those who advocate for each male to choose for himself for his reasons or those who believe that parents may impose unnecessary surgery on their son's genitals because they believe his future partner(s) will find his circumcised penis more sexually appealing?

Anyone who tosses this meme around is engaging in propaganda.

For an example, consider this entry from Dr. Amy Tuteur. She labels herself "The Skeptical OB", but it will be clear that she is hardly skeptical in any meaningful way on circumcision. She opens:

A visitor from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the most important part of the human body is the foreskin. It is, after all, the only part of the body that has multiple organizations devoted to its preservation in the natural state. The visitor might get the impression that the choice of circumcision is a fateful choice with profound implications for the rest of life.

It is the only part of the body that has multiple organizations devoted to its preservation in the natural state because it is the only body part we regularly remove from non-consenting individuals in its natural (i.e. healthy) state.

... Foreskin fetishists also employ inflammatory language to express their judgmentalism. Circumcision is “mutilation” and parents who choose to circumcise their sons are “mutilators”.

Does fetishist qualify as "inflammatory language"?

The foreskin fetishists are so obsessed with the foreskin that they actually dare to advance the misogynistic claim that male circumcision is analogous to female genital mutilation, in other words, that the foreskin is the analogue of the clitoris. The male analogue of clitoridectomy is is amputation of the penis. Comparing circumcision to clitoridectomy is like comparing ear piercing to having your ears cut off.

My claim is that unnecessary genital cutting on a healthy, non-consenting individual is wrong. Gender makes no difference to that principle. That is a different, and more fundamental, claim than what Dr. Tuteur puts forth for people who state (accurately) that female and male genital cutting are comparable.

She adds to this in the comments:

The comparison is essentially misogynistic. FMG exists specifically to prevent female sexual activity by permanently removing the possibility of sexual enjoyment. Male circumcision is performed for religious reasons or for medical benefits. It has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction, and is certainly not meant to interfere in any way with male sexual satisfaction.

Every claim in that comment is incorrect. There is no misogyny in stating that males and females possess equal human rights. FGM exists for many reasons and in different forms, not all of them intended to permanently remove the possibility of sexual enjoyment. (They may still do that, and probably do in most cases. But that's obvious because parental intent does not guarantee good outcomes, another point not specific to the gender of the recipient.) Male circumcision is also performed so that parents don't have to learn how to care for a normal penis or so that the son will look like the father or so the mean kids won't pick on him in the locker room or because his parents think women won't sleep with him if he has his foreskin. The latter point is clearly about sexual satisfaction. And whether or not it is meant to interfere is subordinate to the truth that it interferes with male sexual satisfaction. That interference could be positive, negative, or neutral, but only the male himself can make the relevant determination to that subjective question.

Anti-circ activists like to claim that there only risks and no benefits to circumcision, but that is not true.

Dr. Tuteur links to zero sources making this claim. I don't doubt that some people are making that claim. People on both sides make ridiculous claims. Still, if one wants to make a sweeping claim, defend it with evidence.

Yesterday, I wrote that "[t]he reduction in UTI risk is likely real. The reduction in HIV-infection risk is likely real, at least in the short-term. And so on. I accept this." This is not complicated, but as I added after that statement, it is not enough to dismiss the fact that the child is healthy at the time of the surgery. That makes the ethical evaluation the primary focus. Non-therapeutic circumcision fails this test. Yet Dr. Tuteur seems uninterested in anything more than potential benefits as an excuse to permit parents to make the decision.

She defends this opinion in the comments:

Parents have the right to consent to ANY surgery, brain surgery, heart surgery, so consenting to removal of the foreskin is hardly a big deal. Moreover parents have the right to consent to piercing, removal of birth marks and other forms of body modification.

Do parents have the right to consent to non-therapeutic brain or heart surgery for their healthy children? A heart stent for a 2-year-old because he might have problems at 50?

The core evaluation is very simple. If the child is healthy, no surgery is indicated or justifiable. Chasing benefits for children is an illogical path that can be pursued to other irrational avenues and on both genders. It has no place in the proxy decision-making of parents for the genitals of their male children, as we already understand clearly for female children.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (9)

Following on my last entry, Lauren at Can You Be A Part of My Life continues her series on circumcision with information from her next source, a list at Justmommies.com titled "Common lies about circumcision". I'll get to that in a moment. First, this from Lauren's second entry, "Follow Up Facts and Statements":

It isn't necessary for a Harvard bullshit artist to come and spout his manipulative opinions either or any other such nonsense. And furthermore there are serious HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS happening right now in the world toward women, mostly in MUSLIM countries right at this moment. Girls being "honor killed" and women being flogged or hung because they spoke to a man outside of their family or because they were raped by thugs. So please spare me the human rights cockamame argument about less than an inch of skin that is done to increase the health and well-being of little boys as well as grown men.

An action doesn't have to be "serious" to be a human rights violation. Major violations occur every day. They should not be overlooked. Killing a woman (or a man) is worse than cutting the genitals of a man (or a woman). This does not negate the argument that male genital cutting is a human rights violation. Unnecessary genital cutting on a healthy, non-consenting individual is wrong.

We can look at gender, but that is analyzing degrees of reality, not separating the two actions from each other. Anti-FGM laws rightly dismiss any reason for cutting a female minor other than immediate medical need. No consideration of religion matters. No consideration of extent of cutting matters. No consideration of potential benefits, either medically or socially, matters. Only the child's immediate, objective health needs inform the decision.

How is that logic exclusive to females? Males are equally human beings, with equal human rights. The undeniable fact that great atrocities occur against women in other parts of the world does not excuse violations in the Western world. Nor does calling infant male circumcision a violation suggest an indifference to or acceptance of genital mutilation (and other atrocities) committed against women. Again, unnecessary genital cutting on a healthy, non-consenting individual is wrong. How we punish each depends on the circumstances of the actual cutting on the individual and why, but gender is not the proper identifier for what is and is not harm.

Like her last entry, Lauren provides a list from her source without additional commentary. She lists the first four items. The justmommies.com list of "common lies" icludes twenty-six items. I will address the statements that need comment or rebuttal.

2) No organization in the world recommends circumcision:

... Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UNAIDS) have recommended circumcision as a preventative measure against AIDS.

The studies WHO and UNAIDS rely on involved adult volunteers. Children are neither. Nor are infants sexually active, in need of protection against STDs. The ethical issue can not be dismissed simply by assuming that the findings from Africa, where the HIV epidemic is different, should be transferred to male minors in Western nations.

Remember, six days after the findings, UNAIDS stated that circumcision plans should start with infants. If there's an epidemic that warrants circumcision as an action plan, it is irrational to start with those males who will not be sexually active for more than a decade. I won't respect their judgment on ethical issues, which is what prophylactic genital cutting is.

4) Circumcision is a human rights violation:

Not true. I agree there are some people that think that circumcision should be a human rights violation and they have every right to feel that way. Still, that doesn't make it a reality. We have accepted organizations that deal with these issues and decide- based on many factors- which activities are acceptable and which violate basic human rights. These organizations have agreed that circumcision IS NOT a human rights violations because of it's a very safe procedure and it carries some medical benefits. This myth usually goes hand in hand with a comparison of male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). However, the two practices are completely different in every single aspect: physical, psychological, emotional, social and religious. They're not comparable in the slightest, but since they're both done is the same general area, and because FGM is a degrading practice and an accepted human rights violation, anti-circumcision activists usually use it to try to put circumcision in a more negative light. Sadly, it does the opposite. By comparing something as traumatic, damaging, dangerous and degrading as FGM with a simple, safe and beneficial procedure demeans the impact of FGM. It's a poor way of treating the women that have been victims of FGM and a way to demean their pain.
Finally, Amnesty International has directly declined to accept male circumcision as a human rights violation 3 times.

I've already addressed this, and the justmommies approach should convince no one otherwise.

To one specific claim, I've long thought that people who reject the simple claim that unnecessary genital cutting on a healty, non-consenting individual has no valid gender distinction are determined to believe that my argument intends to diminish the violation of FGM rather than change society's mistaken beliefs about male genital cutting. I have been very clear that FGM is mostly worse, and to a large extent. That does not change the core point. Murder is the ultimate violation, but that does not mean that a punch to the face is therefore valid because it is a lesser violation. The issue is the act, not the gender.

For a slight deviation to continue this point, in her entry Lauren responds to a comment with this:

@Rhonda- yes you did what you felt was best and right and that is the point. KUDOS! and hugs.

The point is is what is done, not why. They are separate. A well-intentioned action can be flawed. This gets to the core that the right belongs to the individual child, not to the parents to decide based on their preferences. Very often those preferences are objectively indefensible.

8) Circumcision affects sexuality

No reliable study has proven that circumcision has any effect on sensitivity and overall sexual function. ...

Circumcision clearly affects sexuality. That is not open to dispute because it changes the structure of the penis. How that change is evaluated may be positive, negative, or neutral. Only the person losing a portion of his healhty genitals is may make the unnecessary decision based on his conclusion on whether the change is positive, negative, or neutral. His evaluation may not match that of his parents.

10) Informed parents will choose not to circumcise

Actually, since information exists to support arguments from both sides, informed parents can make either choice.

The fact that there are two sides demonstrates that parents make a subjective decision. When that decision is unnecessary, as it is with almost every child circumcision, informed has no meaning. The parents act without input from the child on an irreversible - and, again, usually unnecessary - surgery. That is different than what #10 attempts to reject.

The shorter version: the circumcision decision for a child should be informed only by whether or not it is necessary.

12) Most babies are circumcised without pain relief-

Lies, lies. Unless you're stuck living in the 70s.
But for the rest of us who accept and embrace the new millenium, the vast majority of circumcisions are now performed with pain relief.

I was circumcised in the '70s, probably without pain relief. Was that a violation of my rights? And is it not a violation for the boys not in the "vast majority" who are given pain relief?

Proper pain relief does not make the surgery defensible. Behaving humanely in an indefensible action changes nothing.

13) Moms who choose not to circumcise are protecting their sons

Nice emotional outburst, completely in character of intactivism who love to use guilt and fear to spread their message, but completely false.
Protection is highly subjective and according to what we believe, our definition of "protecting" will be different. Sure they're "protecting" their children from initial pain and from the tiny risks of circumcision. But parents who choose to circumcise will tell you they're protecting their children from penile cancer, phimosis, balanitis and all that list we now know by heart.
It's a common anti-circ tactic- language twisting.

First, it's interesting that throughout the list the author rejects the simplifications used by those against infant circumcision, yet it's somehow reasonable to engage in the same behavior against those people.

To the issue in #13, saying that you're protecting your son from penile cancer, phimosis, etc. is the same tactic. The correct analysis in this silly use of protect is that not circumcising a healthy child protects him from the risk of complications. Without need, the risks inherent in the surgery are all that are immediate.

14) How can it be cleaner to have urine and feces directly up against an open wound?

Ok, first of all, the "open wound" lasts for like two days. ...

If it is "like two days", that's two days longer than an intact penis is an open wound.

16- Circumcision isn't "just a snip"

Actually, that's exactly what it is. You see, a "snip" is "to cut with a small, quick stroke, or a succession of such strokes, with scissors or the like." and "a small cut made by snipping". Both describing circumcision perfectly.
Why the common lie saying that it isn't a snip? Because intactivists love to say that the adult foreskin measures 3 x 5 inches. But we're not talking about adult foreskins, are we? At the moment the foreskin is removed, it's a small piece of skin, therefore, regardless of how big it becomes, at that moment, it's a "snip". So infant circumcision is just a snip. Adult circumcision is a little more complicated.

The author rebuts on semantics while ignoring the word that is the center of the argument. "Just a snip", not "just a snip". One word is an objective claim, a fact the author pointlessly focuses on. The other word is a subjective evaluation. Who is to decide what qualifies as just anything?

I could use a reference to boys who suffer serious complications and ask if they consider it just a snip. That's valid, but the more common outcome is more useful here. Does the male who receives the expected results from the surgery think it's just a snip? Would he value the subjective benefits of having his normal body more than the subjective value of the potential benefits his parents forced upon him? Words have meaning.

Like Lauren's use of "about less than an inch" in the excerpt above, the author thinks we should focus on what foreskin is removed rather than what will be if we don't remove the foreskin. But what will be there matters. Like in economics, what is unseen must still factor in the process. Removing X will have a result as an adult. Removing X - Y will have a different result as an adult. Removing X + Y will have a different result as an adult. X - Y can lead to adhesions. X + Y can lead to painful adult erections. It is impossible to know. That is the key. We can't pretend that what we want to be will be what is if we ignore inconvenient facts.

17) Doctors who perform circumcision violate the AMA's Code of Ethics:
...

A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

I'm going to break this excerpt apart to deal with two principles separately. With this one, surgically altering a healthy child who will most likely grow into a healthy adult is a violation of that child's human dignity and rights. The child is the patient. What he needs or doesn't need is the only factor in competent medical care. If it is wrong to cut a healthy female, it is wrong to cut a healthy male.

A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.
...

VIII. And seeing as all medical organization agree that the "best interests" of the patient in the cases of infant circumcision are to be determined by the parents, a doctor abiding by the wish to circumcise doesn't violate this principle.

Responsibility to the patient is paramount, but somehow bowing to the wishes of the parents to surgically alter their healthy sons, even for non-"medical" cultural and religious reasons, doesn't violate this because medical organizations agree that it's okay? No. The analysis must focus on objective facts, not what people simply agree to believe.

Using the author's convoluted rationale, female genital cutting was acceptable in Victorian England and America in the 1800s because doctors agreed that it was beneficial. Or today, countries that cut females could use the same rationale because of what they collectively believe. The author's requirement that a majority consensus is all that's necessary is unbounded by principles, just socially approved behavior. How do we decide whether the medical organization is correct? Consensus means nothing by itself.

19) Considering male circumcision acceptable and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) wrong is a "double standard".

First of all, what IS "double standard"? Here are some definitions.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

double standard
n. A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another, especially the granting of greater sexual freedom to men than to women.
...

Now, if we STRICTLY adhere to what a "double standard" is by these definitions, then we can consider underage prohibition to drink, smoke or vote, the Olympics, non-smoking rules, etc, "double standards" and therefore unacceptable.

This means, obviously, that there are certain acceptable double standards. Furthermore, it means that in order to consider something an actual double standard, there are other considerations besides the treatment received by the two groups. So basically, to speak of an actual double standard, all things being equal, one group is being treated differently.

Men and women ARE different. I don't see anyone claiming that we should remove the gender categories from the Olympics because it's a "double standard". Why not let men and women compete against each other if we're SO "equal"? The answer is because we're not absolutely equal. It's a physical fact that men are generally stronger and faster than women. It would actually be unfair to have women compete against men as the former have a physical advantage.

And if we're saying that men and women are physically different, nowhere is this difference more pronounced than in the genitals. Male and female genitals are different. Therefore, the consequences of removing the foreskin cannot be compared with those of removing/altering female genitalia. And because of this, differentiating between the two IS NOT a double standard.

A female minor may not be cut even if the culture she is born into believes that cut female genitals are preferable, yet male minors may be cut for this cultural reason. How is that not included in "a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another"? Females are granted the liberty to decide what to do - or to not do - with their normal bodies that is not granted to males. That is a double standard.

The remaining arguments are unconvincing. To compare forced genital cutting to voluntary involvement in something like the Olympics is ridiculous. We do not agree that male and female genitals are different in the way they're being discussed. There is not a set of principles that apply to the vagina and another set of principles that apply to the penis. The set of principles apply to human beings. Human beings have genitals. Those genitals have reproductive, sexual, and excretory functions. Consideration of male versus female in how genitals should be protected is an incorrect deviation from logic. The individual human beings matter exclusively.

Yes, we make distinctions for smoking, drinking, and voting. However, those distinctions apply to everyone. The difference is that everyone has the the opportunity to be included in that group. Everyone will reach the minimum age for each (in most cases). Not everyone will meet the distinction the author demands for protection from unnecessary genital cutting on a healthy, non-consenting individual. There is no point in my life when I will become a female, reaching a basic level of protection. I was unprotected in childhood, and my genitals were altered. Females are protected from birth from having done to their genitals what was done to mine. That is a double standard.

21) Adult circumcision is easier and safer than neonatal circumcision

Nothing could be farther from reality.

And most males left intact will never need or choose circumcision. The fact that something can be done easier in childhood is not a justification that it should be done. It changes the decision from "Should it be done?" to "Is it difficult?". This is the "he won't remember it" defense. What else may parents do to their children because their children won't remember it? If a parent punches the child, the child will not remember it. And it will do less damage to the child than circumcision. But we know it's wrong to punch a child in the face. "Is it difficult" to recover from is not part of the equation.

23) Circumcision is a "cosmetic" procedure

No. Circumcision is a MEDICAL procedure, with proven HEALTH benefits acknowledged and admitted by every single medical organization in the world. Therefore, it's not just "cosmetic", it's prophylactic.

Why the intactivists' insistence that it's just "cosmetic"? Very simple, really. By saying that parents are doing something "cosmetic" to their children it makes the choice seem shallow, selfish and useless. By even admitting that there's one advantage to being circumcised, they would be giving some validity to circumcision and there's no way a self-respecting intactivist will ever agree to any validity. Therefore, they spread the lie that it's just "cosmetic".

Infant circumcision is a surgical procedure performed without medical need because it offers potential health benefits. The latter defense is what proponents obsess on, as the author does here. But just to prove that the author's last claim is ad hominem deployed to prop up her indefensible case, there are potential advantages to being circumcised as an infant. The reduction in UTI risk is likely real. The reduction in HIV-infection risk is likely real, at least in the short-term. And so on. I accept this.

But so what? That gives no validity to prophylactic infant male circumcision. There are better, more effective, less invasive ways to achieve every single benefit or to treat the maladies in the unlikely instances where they occur. The objective health is what matters for proxy consent for a child. Is the intervention indicated and necessary? Infant circumcision fails this core test. Moving forward is unethical because objective reality trumps the subjective chase for justifications.

However, if the author wishes to imply that the potential benefits dismiss the cosmetic nature of the surgery as a reason why some parents circumcise their sons, she is mistaken. There are parents who circumcise for cosmetic reasons. They find the foreskin "icky" or dangerous or bothersome. The fathers and mothers prefer circumcised penises sexually (for different reasons, obviously). They push this preference on their sons because they assume that the child's future partners will share their opinion on the aesthetic value of a circumcised penis and thank them. Sometimes, they also assume that the child will agree, although they assume that the opinion of his partners will determine his opinion. For this segment of parents, circumcision is a cosmetic decision. We allow child circumcision for this subjective reason because we mistakenly believe that this determination can be defended as the parents making a decision in the child's best interests. It is not because parents are not psychic. They can't know what he will prefer, or whether he would willingly enter a sexual relationship with someone shallow enough to expect his body to be changed to meer her (or his) expectations.

It is appalling that parents consider their opinions relevant on the subjective question of unnecessary genital cutting. It is obscene that they consider them superior to the child's opinions, both real and potential, for these irrational excuses. That is a shameful mark against our society, and should be recognized as such by the law.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

In an entry titled "The Facts As Promised", Lauren at Can You Be A Part of My Life fails to consider the context of her selected (and occasionally incorrect) facts about infant circumcision. I expected little going in because she opened with her attributions. Among her three sources were the websites of Professor Brian Morris and Dr. Edgar Schoen. It would be difficult to find a greater propagandist than either of those two.

Throw that truth out, though. Where they are correct with statistics, they ignore the most important fact present in almost every case where they advocate infant male circumcision, which Lauren readily ignores along with them: the child is normal and healthy. No surgery is indicated. There is no need to weigh against the inevitable risks. That is the only proper evidence-based analysis. One need not reject any of the statistics claimed to understand that the individual does not require circumcision. Circumcision by parental proxy is therefore unjustifiable.

But the claims merit a response. Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph of substance on circumcision in Lauren's entry:

... And it is MUCH harder to keep this area clean in infant babies for various reason and therefore leads to: a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

WebMD, a site that generally endorses unnecessary infant circumcision, states this about the normal infant foreskin, with emphasis in the original:

Do not force the foreskin back over the tip of the penis. At first, a baby's foreskin may be difficult to pull back over the tip of the penis. After the first few years of life (though it may take somewhat longer), the foreskin will gradually become more retractable. By the time a boy is age 3, his foreskin is usually fully retractable. Up to this time, wash the outside of the penis with soap and water. Pushing your son's foreskin back too early can cause scar tissue formation and damage.

Is washing the intact penis that MUCH harder to keep clean than the circumcised penis? Considering the process is identical, it's clearly not MUCH harder. Pretending otherwise is misinformation. It is also worth remembering that circumcision creates an open wound that must be cared for properly to avoid infection and readhesion. This makes care for the circumcised penis more complicated for parents than properly caring for the normal penis.

Here I'd like to add a special caveat. If you don't wish to care for normal, healthy children, don't reproduce. Otherwise, the proper care of your normal, healthy children is an obligation, not a chore to be discarded in reverence to fear and mistaken beliefs.

For the the remainder of this entry, I'll take the issues point-by-point. However, I want to make it clear that from this point forward, I'm challenging the claims of Professor Brian Morris. The bulk of Lauren's entry involves only a copy-and-paste from Morris' site. Lauren (wisely) provided some editorial input, omitting several absurdly irrelevant claims proffered by Morris. Of course, those should be considered to fully understand his judgment in pushing the other claims over the objective reality of health for most infant males. "A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive" is not an indication of medical necessity. It's a sign of an ability to think only collectively, to not understand that all tastes and preferences are subjective and individual. That is flawed because it ignores ethics and human rights.

So, addressing Professor Morris' claims. (Link is here: http://www.circinfo.net/summary.html) Under the section titled "The benefits are clear" from Lauren's entry, this list from Morris titled "Getting circumcised will result in":

• Improved hygiene.

This is misleading, at best. See my comments above on this.

• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

The risk is lower, by a factor of approximately 10. However, the risk is already very low. More on this in a moment. (Note: The risk for girls is also approximately 3 times higher than it is for intact boys. We treat UTIs in infant girls if/when they appear.)

• Much lower chance of acquiring AIDS heterosexually.

Condoms and monogamy or condoms, monogamy, and circumcision. Those are the two choices. Circumcision is superfluous. Unprotected sex with HIV-infected partners will lead to infection. Circumcision has not helped me avoid HIV infection because I do not behave irresponsibly. Had my parents used this excuse, it would've been misguided. Parents are not Nostradamus.

Notice, too, how easily this omits the fact that the studies were performed on adult volunteers, not infants. Surgery is different technically and ethically for the two patient groups. The infant foreskin must be forcibly retracted. Infants aren't sexaully active.

• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

The risk of penile cancer is small, regardless of foreskin status. From the 1999 AAP statement on infant circumcision, the risk of penile cancer varies little among Western nations. It is generally around 1 per 100,000 males. Other risk factors appear to be more significant. The consensus seems to be that, circumcised or not, healthy, responsible living is the best way to protect against such illnesses.

For context, there were 1,250 new cases of penile cancer in America in 2008 and 290 deaths. There were an estimated 1,990 cases of invasive breast cancer in American men in 2008, including 450 deaths. Time to panic and remove infant male breast tissue? The logic would be the same.

• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.

This can be read as either a claim that women prefer a circumcised penis because it is cleaner or that it improves female hygiene. I've already dismissed the former claim, and Lauren correctly points out the absurdity of suggesting that adult males are incapable of cleaning their foreskins. The latter claim would tie in to the next bullet point.

• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

The ethical questions aside, there is a vaccine for HPV. That aside, as it relates to the foreskin, personal responsibility among the sexual pair matters: "In men with low-risk sexual behaviour and monogamous female partners, circumcision makes no difference to the risk of cervical cancer." It is flawed to assume at birth that the male will be promiscuous. It is also flawed to assume that it's ethical to surgically alter one person to protect his potential sexual partners. For example, what if he is gay?

• More favorable sexual function and no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

Circumcision clearly alters sexual intercourse. Whether or not that is "more favorable" - a subjective evaluation - can only legitimately be determined by the individual himself. The foreskin contains thousands of nerve endings. Again, removing those alters sexual intercourse. Whether or not that reduces sensation is impossible to compare once the foreskin is removed. Only the male himself is qualified to make that decision.

Now, to Morris' claims under "lack of circumcision" linked in Lauren's entry. He states:

Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well.

He provides no source for his claim of a 12-fold higher risk. I assume he's pulling this from a study by Thomas Wiswell, but I'm guessing, since he didn't source it. I have no idea where he found the risk to be 1 in 20. According to the more recent statement from the AAP, estimates are "that 10 of 1000 (1%) uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life compared with 1 of 1000 (0.1%) circumcised male infants." Claims like "12-fold higher risk" don't look quite as compelling when considered in context. Also, females in the first year of life have a risk of UTIs equal-to or higher-than intact males. We treat those without surgery, even after they actually occur.

Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

I addressed this above with the hygiene issue, so here I'll take a different approach. What is that risk of death? Professor Morris does not state the risk, nor does he link to a source for his claim. I have no problem accepting that it's true, but are we debating a 50% risk of death from the foreskin? A 25% risk? Or are we discussing a risk significantly lower than 1%? I would wager the third option is closest to the truth. Ultimately life has risks. We can't live in bubbles to prevent bad things from happening, particularly when those bad things are very unlikely.

One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which is over 20 times higher in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).

The often-quoted figures are quoted by the AAP. I'm willing to consider that it's misquoted, and I'll correct if it is. But Morris does not show here how this statistic is misused. He merely attempts to scare us with a few numbers that are not impressive in the context of actual population sizes and risk factors. He expects the reader to accept his cost-benefit analysis, weighing the 400-900 and 200 against the 1,000,000+ infant males circumcised to achieve these results. I do not because we are discussing surgery on individuals, not groups. Actual human beings, with opinions, preferences, and needs are involved. I refuse to behave like an irrational collectivist.

Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

Balanitis

Balanitis is easily treated. Practising good hygiene and avoiding substances that irritate the penis will often clear the balanitis. (See the Treatment section for more information).

The rest...:

Phimosis

Phimosis is when the foreskin is very tight and cannot be pulled back over the head of the penis (glans). It's normal for the foreskin to be attached to the head of the penis up until about age five. Parents should not try to pull the foreskin back because it can cause pain or injury. However, after the age of five, the foreskin will usually separate by itself and can be pulled back.

In some boys, phimosis can continue up to the age of 10 and, occasionally, it can continue into adulthood. Boys who have phimosis, and are under the age of six, do not usually require circumcision, but it may be considered after this age if the foreskin is damaged. Damage can happen as a result of severe or repeated infections. However, in the majority of cases, the foreskin will loosen naturally, with true phimosis (see below) only accounting for about 1% of cases.
...

Paraphimosis

Paraphimosis is a tight foreskin that cannot be pulled back, meaning the penis is squeezed, which causes pain. It forms a ring around the penis, cutting off some of the blood flow to the glans, and making it swell up. Doctors can sometimes treat paraphimosis by gently squeezing the trapped glans until the foreskin is able to slide over it. However, if this is not possible, circumcision may be needed.

I do not deny that risks exist, and that maladies occur. These conditions indicate a legitimate need for medical treatment. If parents must make a decision here, so be it. But the clear evidence is that these can - and therefore should - be treated with methods less invasive than circumcision, if possible. That is the reasonable medical approach to a permanent, irreversible decision.

Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be not as good as when done in infancy.

Morris would circumcise 10 in 10 male infants to avoid circumcising 1 in 10 males later in life. He states that the cost is 10 times higher. The overall financial burden to society is unchanged, contrary to what he's trying to convey through fear. (Future financial burden is not a valid reason to circumcise a healthy child.)

Speaking strictly from a finance perspective, advocating for infant circumcision is the more expensive approach. His analysis is that the cost is 10 times 0.1 for his preference and 0.1 times 10 for his worst case. The present value of $1 spent over many years in the future is less than the $1 spent today. Professor Morris prefers the more expensive option.

Nor should convenience be considered. That is not a medical indication. If the male wishes circumcision more than the inconvenience, he will choose it. If not, it is not acceptable for parents to choose that for him, against his (probable, based on statistics) future choice.

As for cosmetic results, this is simply insane. Circumcising an infant places the parents' aesthetic sexual preference as the justification, even though the child may not choose it. He gets zero choice, and the cosmetic results aren't guaranteed to be good by whatever future subjective standards he develops. If he is left with his decision, he can decide if he values the risk of a poor cosmetic outcome versus his normal penis.

Increases by 2-4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, chancroid and, in some studies Chlamydia.

And:

Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 3 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

And:

In the female partners of uncircumcised men is associated with a 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, extopic pregnancy (each caused by Chlamydia), genital herpes, and other conditions.

Condoms and monogamy are necessary, regardless. Forcing circumcision on sexually-inactive infant males does not change the necessity of practicing safe sex when they become sexually active. At its core, this is merely a belief that males will be irresponsible and/or female health is more important than a male's normal body. It also assumes that his future female (or male?) partners will not be responsible enough to protect themselves from STDs.

The core evaluation is very simple. If the child is healthy, no surgery is indicated or justifiable. Chasing benefits for children is an illogical path that can be pursued to other irrational avenues and on both genders. It has no place in the proxy decision-making of parents for the genitals of their male children, as we already understand clearly for female children.

UPDATE: I corrected one point of grammar and added the word males to "1 in 10" for clarification. I also added if possible to my statement that less invasive treatments should be used to treat foreskin ailments. Circumcision is sometimes necessary, of course, but it should be used as the last option, not the first.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

The Washington Post admits what anyone willing to look at facts knows: the United States has a progressive tax system that leads to progressive taxation:

In 2006, the top 20 percent of earners paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. On average, they paid 26 percent of their income to the government. The very richest -- the top 1 percent of taxpayers, with household incomes of over $332,000 -- paid 28 percent of all taxes, with an effective tax rate of 31 percent. The middle three quintiles paid rates of 10, 14 and 18 percent. The lowest 20 percent of households paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes -- and the bottom 90 percent of households paid only 45 percent.

You know this still isn't going to end well, right? Just look at the sleight-of-hand commonly used among advocates of further progressivity. A household with an income over $332,001 may not, in reality, be "the very richest". In DC, $332,001 before taxes would make that household very comfortable after taxes, but only in the short-term. It would still take many years of that income to be considered "rich", and more still to be "the very richest". Contrary to what the Post implies, $332,001 is not $100-bills-as-toilet-paper rich.

But that's the buildup. Here's the Post's sales pitch:

Based on these numbers, it would be hard to argue that the country doesn't already have a significantly progressive tax system. Taxes aren't just for suckers, with cashiers paying more of their income than corporate chief executives. Nor is the system egregiously stacked against the wealthy -- who, after all, receive the bulk of the income. The top quintile earned over 55 percent of the income, and the top 1 percent earned a full 19 percent of all income.

The "wealthy" do not receive income, just as the "poor" do not receive income. People of all incomes earn. The Post uses the proper word in the last sentence, but only in the populist context of whining towards an argument of fairness. Can something earned be unfair?

I will give the Post proper credit for acknowledging that spending cuts are the best route to balancing the budget, which politicians will never embrace. (Politicians engage in a more extensive version of the populism the Post engages in here.) Still, the editors drag out "income inequality" in the fifth paragraph of a six-paragraph editorial. It can't possibly get a sufficient analysis. Are the higher incomes earned? They should at least address that question. Instead, this:

When taxes go up, they should be increased in a way that makes the tax code more progressive. Income inequality has widened for the past three decades, and it only makes sense for those who have benefited to pay more. ...

It only makes sense for the Post to prove that those who earn more do so because of the government provided by the the taxes they remit. I'm not sure a direct case can be made. Opportunity exists for those who wish to pursue it. There are no entry requirements based on economic class.

It's obvious that government plays favorites. Or, if you must believe that government is above reproach, it gets played through rent-seeking. Where this occurs, it must stop. Unlike what the Post argues in its editorial, I believe words like fair and equal mean fair and equal. No free benefits for the "poor", but no free benefits for the "rich". But even if we go with the Post's populism, rent-seeking isn't going anywhere as long as there are favors available. That is why limited government is so essential to true fairness and equality (of opportunity).

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't think much of Men's Health magazine after its recent, flawed article on male circumcision. This entry on the Men's Health Life blog still managed to disappoint. The author describes having his sons circumcised, yet manages to work in this sentence without any apparent awareness:

The beautiful, fragrant flesh of a newborn shouldn't mix with steel blades unless absolutely necessary.

And yet, he and his wife hired a doctor to unnecessarily take a steel blade to the "beautiful, fragrant flesh" of their newborn sons. Should anyone expect more throughout the rest of the article? After implying that the risk of severe complications is the only risk involved in circumcision, and comparing that to the risk of an individual getting hit by a rogue asteroid, the author attempts to defend his action with this:

Much more likely is the scenario that that beautiful boy grows up, is considered beautiful by another of our species (male of female), and begins expressing that attraction through sex. And that's when the superfluousness of the foreskin morphs into a decided health threat. ...

His foreskin is only a threat if he engages in unprotected sex with infected female partners.

Notice, too, the inclusion of "superfluous" to describe the foreskin. That's a subjective word. The foreskin has sexual functions, so its removal changes his sexual experience. Does the male himself consider his foreskin superfluous?

In the U.S., then, circumcision can be regarded as a worthwhile precaution against debilitating STDs later on in life. ...

The findings on circumcision involved voluntary, adult circumcision. I have no problem accepting that voluntary, adult circumcision can be regarded as a worthwhile precaution against anything, down to the owner's revulsion at his anatomically-normal body. That is not what the author is suggesting. His perception of the risk of STD for his sexually inactive sons is enough for him to make their decision. That's ignorant.

... In Africa, where AIDS runs rampant and garden-variety STDs are a contributing factor to transmission, circumcision is a humanitarian issue. ...

That's a very convenient reframing that ignores the actual epidemic in Africa. Unprotected sex with multiple concurrent partners is the problem. Circumcision status is possibly related only to the extent that individuals regularly ignore safe sex practices. Who wants to put confidence in that as a long-term solution?

If a small bit of skin is the only sacrifice needed to stop a humanitarian and health crisis, I say off with their heads!

When the person who makes the sacrifice and the person who makes the decision to sacrifice are different, the decision is unethical. Of course, as I mentioned regarding safe sex, circumcision is clearly not the only "sacrifice" needed. But call it a humanitarian issue and the circumciser becomes noble.

Still, this is the key paragraph:

But the N.O.C.I.R.C. people will be after my own head, now that I've joined the anti-foreskin forces. And listen, I understand their emotion. The penis is a sensitive body part, and babies are a very touchy subject. Combine the two, and people's forehead veins begin to bulge. But N.O.C.I.R.C.'s bellicose attitude toward the debate is pushing aside rational consideration of the evidence, and scaring parents into making decisions that are against the best interest of their babies. And society at large.

The only person pushing aside rational consideration of the evidence is the author (and every pro-infant circumcision advocate). Here is the proof:

The beautiful, fragrant flesh of a newborn shouldn't mix with steel blades unless absolutely necessary.

The child is healthy at birth. No indication exists for surgical intervention. Therefore, no intervention is justified. The only guarantee from routine/ritual infant circumcision is the child's exposure to surgical risk. That is not in his best interest.

If we didn't follow this, any intervention on children could be excused based on scientific studies on adult volunteers. The author claimed to believe that evidence matters, but he dismissed the fundamental evidence that was inconvenient to what he wanted to do. That is pushing aside rational consideration of the evidence.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm slow getting to this story, but the United States loves irrational fears when it comes to the foreskin, so it's still as relevant today. A re-evaluation of one of the studies used to claim that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission suggests that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of herpes transmission by 25% and HPV transmission by 30%.

To the extent that adult males want to volunteer for these reasons, so be it. Everyone is entitled to his own decision. Personally, I'd rely on safe sex, not surgery. But that's not how the data are being used in the U.S. Here, it's predictably OMG 25% 30% OMG YOUR SON IS GONNA DIE A SAD HORRIBLE PAINFUL DEATH IF YOU DON'T CIRCUMCISE HIM BEFORE HE HITS THE DOCTORS HANDS IN THE DELIVERY ROOM OMG! OH AND WOMEN PREFER CIRCUMCISED PENISES WINKWINK. From one of the researchers involved:

Dr Judith Wasserheit went on to say: "All providers who care for pregnant women and infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know that circumcision could help protect their sons from the three most common and most serious viral sexually transmitted infections, all of which cannot currently be cured."

Again, notice how easily Dr. Wasserheit dropped voluntary and adult from the study's results. If voluntary, adult circumcision was enough to protect the men involved in the study, surely the exact same is capable of protecting American males. Maybe she wants to suggest that the American STD situation is more dire than the situation in Uganda to justify dropping voluntary or adult?

But to her point, all providers for infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know the objective status of their son's foreskin health. Almost always that will mean a statement that no intervention is indicated or warranted. There is no defensible reason to impose surgical risks for a surgery that is a) not needed and b) can be postponed until the child can choose. That was the ethical standard applied in the study. American public health officials have not explained why American infant males should be provided fewer ethical protections.

As the BBC journalist shows, it's possible to find different views. First, the key point that everyone forgets in the hysteria:

The reason why a foreskin might increase the risk of infection with various viruses is unclear.

Whatever the data reflect, this should not be forgotten. It's reasonable to consider the possibility that there is a methodological flaw, for example. What if improper controls existed? What if the timeline was too short? This should not be ruled out, which further highlights the already clear ethical flaw in pushing these results as an excuse to circumcise infant males. And what if the mechanism suggests that some level of female genital cutting would also reduce risks? Would the current advocates endorse that research, or are findings like the current re-evaluated study merely a solution in search of problems?

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

He said: "Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually."

That's what I mean by a flaw in the timeline. If a male has unprotected sex - the only way circumcision could provide protection - with HIV-positive females, he will become infected. The choices are condoms/monogamy/circumcision or condoms/monogamy. Circumcision is superfluous and unnecessary, so infant circumcision is indefensible.

Keith Alcorn, from the HIV information service NAM, also warned against a knee jerk reaction.

He said: "We have to be careful not to take evidence from one part of the world and apply it uncritically to others.

Given the U.S. reaction, it's too late for that.

"Male circumcision will have little impact on HIV risk for boys born in the UK, where the risk of acquiring HIV heterosexually is very low.

The same applies to the United States.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

LINK: From the April issue of reason, Matt Welch addresses the ongoing topic of "liberalterianism" and how it's doomed. The heart of his argument, which I agree with completely:

It is certainly no surprise that any party, let alone the Democrats, would want to use that fancy government once it held the awesome reins of power. Unified Republican governance this decade should disabuse even the most gullible from the notion that either of our two major parties is ever going to enact a small-government agenda, especially during a perceived crisis. But already during Obama’s first 100 days we’ve seen how quickly liberals will turn against libertarians once they’re no longer swinging at the same piñata.

Small-l libertarians will never find sufficient common ground with anyone interested in maintaining partisanship at the expense of ideas.

LINK: Also from reason Ronald Bailey discusses a free market approach to health care coverage proposed by University of Chicago economist John Cochrane.

So how does health-status insurance work? As Cochrane explains, "Market-based lifetime health insurance has two components: medical insurance and health-status insurance. Medical insurance covers your medical expenses in the current year, minus deductibles and copayments. Health-status insurance covers the risk that your medical premiums will rise." Cochrane offers the example of a 25-year-old who will likely incur $2,000 in medical expenses in a year. His medical policy component would thus cost about $2,000 per year, plus administrative fees and profit. For purposes of illustration, Cochrane then assumes the 25-year-old has a 1 percent risk of developing a chronic medical condition that would increase his average medical expenses to $10,000 per year. In that case, he would be able to buy medical insurance for $10,000 per year—which is a big financial hit. That's where health-status insurance comes in: It insures that you can be insured in the future.

I'm not fully convinced that this would work, but I'm not unconvinced, either. I don't know enough. However, the idea seems to be based in personal responsibility. Life is unfair, so some of us get sick. There are costs involved. It's unfortunate if medical costs cause financial distress. We should mitigate that, but provide individuals the options to do that for themselves. That is the right approach.

Mr. Cochrane also discusses how his plan would help separate health insurance from employer provision. That will be a feature of any responsible health care reform. (Transferring the incentive from employer to government does not qualify as that type of responsible reform.)

LINK: Harold Meyerson is an incurious propagandist:

But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations -- but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.

Universal education is not "free". The minimum wage costs jobs. Financial regulations overlooked obvious warnings of Bernie Madoff. "Nearly 50 million" uninsured is not true. Infant mortality is more complex than a quick comparison can demonstrate.

He also wrote this, so it's clear that he's interested in his narrative more than facts.

Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.

We do not have laissez-faire capitalism. No amount of stating preferred explanations will make them true.

LINK: Steven Pearlstein defends President Obama's budget in a way I don't fully understand.

In the meantime, the federal government is one of the few entities that is still able to borrow in the current environment, and given the perceived safety of buying government bonds, the cost of that borrowing is about as low as it has ever been. From a purely cash-flow point of view, substituting 18 percent credit card debt with 3 percent Treasury bond debt is a positive development for the grandchildren.

The 18 percent credit card debt makes no sense here. Government borrowing isn't replacing that. And my hypothetical grandchildren do not have any debt right now. Adding more, even at 3 percent, is hardly a positive development for them. The administration intends to grow the debt, not refinance it.

Refinancing costs are relevant, too. If the so-called positive development of new debt at 3 percent interest helps us, what will this new debt look like at 4, 5, or more percent when interest rates rise, as they will? Maintaining the apparently-permanent interest payments is a cost.

He continues with a bit about how infrastructure creates lasting economic value without defending it. Would the Bridge to Nowhere have justified its cost? Doesn't matter, it seems. He reassures:

Strange as it may sound, there are times when it's necessary to make things worse in order to make them better. Fighting a war to achieve a lasting peace. Making a patient sick to cure his cancer with radiation or chemotherapy. And, yes, taking on more debt to help get the country out of a debt-induced recession.

Unlike chemotherapy, where doctors eventually stop dosing a patient, what evidence do we have that politicians will ever believe we've reached the "ideal time for the government to deleverage and put its financial house in order"? The new deficit spending is permanent. The only open question once the budget passes is who will pay for it. Right now, the answer is "the rich" and the Chinese. Eventually, it will be the middle class, including all of our grandchildren.

LINK: Wanting an iPhone does not mean a consumer is entitled to an iPhone with the carrier of his choice.

The Consumers Union, the New America Foundation, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as software provider Mozilla and small wireless carriers MetroPCS (PCS) and Leap Wireless International (LEAP), are lining up in opposition not only to the Apple-AT&T partnership, but to all manner of arrangements whereby mobile phones are tethered exclusively to a single wireless service provider.

Apparently a voluntary contract between two parties means nothing if it means a consumer has to then make a choice that she doesn't like. I want an iPhone with Sprint, but I can't get it. My response is to decide which has more value and act accordingly, not whine to the government.

More Consumers Union nonsense here and here.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm a bit behind on this, but I didn't read the transcript of President Obama's Tuesday speech to Congress until last night. The people who see little starbursts every time the President speaks scare me. Because they'll listen to that speech and see change. They argue that we finally have an adult in the White House. Probably, but he's still a politician. That speech was not change. It wasn't even well written. It was political theater, a giant lie masquerading as the maturity of a statesman. It was drivel.

I pulled many bits out of the speech to highlight, but that review would be too long and too detailed. The general theme is the same from every point, anyway. I narrowed my focus to three passages that I think capture the essence of the charade. First:

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.
...

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't -- not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am.

What was the deficit spending bill, if not the pursuit of short-term gains? President Obama made a case that he's investing in the future, but the fear he used to quickly sell it suggests otherwise. Only productive activity puts new money in people's pockets. The money the government seeks to put into people's pockets today is money extracted from future productivity. It is borrowed, as our ballooned deficit proves. That is a short-term gain prized over long-term prosperity.

Packed in there is also the lie that President Obama does not believe in bigger government. If he believed that, his speech would've been very different. He wouldn't have asked Congress to join him "in doing whatever proves necessary". He wouldn't have promised new ways that government would "rebuild" America. "Remake" would've been the accurate word choice. His call is for more government. For example, how else can he square this paragraph with his small government claim?

We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we've fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.

President Obama argues that "the largest effort in history" is how to measure what a country is doing. Forget benchmarks that would clearly show the Chinese much further behind us in modern energy technology. Forget future results from the efforts. It's the largest effort in history. They must be doing it correctly. He's shifted the debate to big actions that he will tell us only the government can undertake.

The real clue is the last line. If we make plug-in hybrids, that's not enough because Koreans are making the batteries. A global economy involves exports and imports. President Obama is making a moral argument that we We should make batteries without making the argument that they They make the batteries less productively than We would make them. Nor does He he make the case that overall production is worse off. If we have a comparative advantage in making batteries, that's interesting but incomplete. What else would we make if the Koreans freed us from making batteries? Or are the Koreans just supposed to wait for us to make everything and then they can buy our cars with... If we take over the world's production, what exactly would they pay us with?

President Obama is a politician engaging in populist rhetoric. He shows this again when he gets to taxes.

We will root out -- we will root out the waste and fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier. We will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

There's more that follows, and much of it reads as though he's tacking fantastical lie after fantastical lie to his speech as he thinks of them. But these two paragraphs provide enough insight into his political goal.

First, it's nonsense to think of jobs as "our jobs". There's more to economic success than Us Doing Something. Something has to be more than anything. What are we good at? What are others good at? These are economic questions to be sorted, not political questions to be dictated.

Second, President Obama is surely aware of how the income tax burden is overwhelmingly shouldered by the highest income earners in America. (There is a difference between wealth and income that President Obama ignores.) We have lost our sense of fairness and balance, but taxing the more productive members of society more will further distort the unfair imbalance, not rectify the problem. President Obama is a politician engaging in populist rhetoric.

KipEsquire provides a concise summary of why progressive taxation is inherently unfair, in the context of President Obama's newly-proposed budget. Matt Welch explains how President Obama contradicted his statemen's pose with his own words. Cato @ Liberty's Daniel Ikenson explores a different explanation (e.g. the high tax burden faced by American corporations) for why American companies outsource "our" jobs.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Imagine you work for Reuters and this study crosses your desk.

Conclusion.The key factor associated with acquisition of HPV was lifetime number of sex partners, whereas circumcision was the most significant determinant for clearance of any HPV infection and oncogenic HPV infection.

You deem that worthy of a write-up. How do you write that up? If you highlighted the greatest risk factor the study identified, you'd be thinking like a responsible journalist. You'd also be unqualified to work at Reuters, apparently, as the story (run by Fox News) shows:

Men who are circumcised may be more protected against persistent infection with the virus that causes genital warts, a new study suggests.

The study, which followed 285 men ages 18 to 44, found that among those who became infected with the human papillomavirus (HPV), circumcised men were more likely to have their immune systems "clear" the virus by the end of the 18-month study.

When it came to the risk of acquiring the virus in the first place, the biggest risk factor was having a large number of lifetime sex partners, the researchers report in The Journal of Infectious Diseases.

The story waits until the third paragraph to present the largest finding, and then it's only as an afterthought. The key lesson we're supposed to take is that circumcision appeared to protect men. That's bias, a conclusion seeking support.

Yet, notice how the article must clarify. The risk is identified "among those who became infected". Isn't that a useful key? We know how men (and women) can protect themselves. Don't sleep with lots of people. Wear a condom. Actions have consequences.

If adult men want to use this study to justify circumcising themselves, I don't care. I think it's unnecessary because there are better ways to protect themselves. Someone else might think differently. But that's not the point of headlines like this. It seeks to push infant circumcision. "See, it has medical benefits," proponents claim. It's propaganda wrapped in the appearance of good intentions.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I loosely follow a rule in my blogging that I don't bother with press releases. They're skewed to push the angle of whoever is paying the bill. It might be worth picking out the propaganda from a press release to find the facts, but I can usually achieve that with less effort by going to news sources to make a point. (Of course, most news sources reporting on circumcision are filled with propaganda, too.) Generally a press release is only good for demonstrating propaganda. This recent press release is a good example:

Hospitals in states where Medicaid does not pay for routine male circumcision are only about half as likely to perform the procedure, and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV infection among lower-income children later in life, according to a UCLA AIDS Institute study.

The first half is fact. The second half is conjecture. News, then propaganda. The HIV-circumcision studies researched the effect of voluntary, adult male circumcision in reducing the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission from heterosexual intercourse. It is inaccurate to draw the conclusion that the foreskin puts men at higher risk of HIV. Unprotected sex with HIV-infected partners increases an individual's risk of HIV infection. The male must first engage in that specific activity to become infected. Focusing on the foreskin distracts from efforts to reduce such behavior.

But that doesn't sell the way fear sells.

But recent clinical trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda have revealed that male circumcision can reduce a man's risk of becoming infected with HIV from a female partner by 55 to 76 percent. In June 2007, the AAP began reviewing its stance on the procedure.

By now you know what was left out of that summary, right? When public health officials talk about voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary, adult. Never.

As the press release so helpfully theorizes in its opening line:

Lack of coverage puts low-income children at higher risk of HIV infection

Think of the (poor) children. That's not very original. It has the added bonus of being inaccurate. Are these children sexually active? Specifically for the age of the children discussed in this press release, the answer is no for 100% of them. They are not at risk of (female-to-male) sexually-transmitted HIV infection. But those necessary, contradictory details must be ignored. Think of the (poor) children.

That is how propaganda is done.

Not to let an opportunity go to push for a collective response to an individual problem, the Family Planning Cooperative Purchasing Program helpfully regurgitates this press release, with the necessary bits of speculation helpfully emphasized in bold. An example:

In addition to the overall lower circumcision rates, the researchers found that the more Hispanics a hospital served, the fewer circumcisions the hospital performed. For Hispanic parents, the circumcision decision was about more than simply cost, since male Hispanic infants were unlikely to receive the procedure even in states in which it was fully covered by Medicaid.

What point is FPCPP trying to make with that emphasis, given the sentence that follows it? The only justification I infer is an implicit suggestion that we need to encourage Hispanics to "Americanize". That wouldn't surprise me because it's the typical, mindless support for non-therapeutic genital mutilation in America. And FPCPP files this under "Public Policy", among other categories. See above re: voluntary and adult. If it's not that, I'm stumped.

You and I, through a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, paid for this research. Mental Health? With mission creep like that, who could possibly worry about government-run health care?

However, this raises the question of national health care and the future of routine infant male circumcision in America. I've long held that the former would not end the latter. The political environment for defending non-therapeutic circumcision is too strong, as evidenced by studies like the one leading to the above press release. No politician is going to say that parents can't circumcise, despite the clear constitutional flaw in our status quo.

Ending public funding isn't sufficient. The state should not pay for mutilation, but fails to end the practice. Poor parents pay for the surgery out-of-pocket. They complain about it, citing the potential benefits as an excuse for why Someone Else should pay, but they pay the cost anyway. Their sons are not protected by their state's lack of Medicaid reimbursement. And ending government reimbursement doesn't always end government reimbursement, as Minnesota's politically-motivated solution showed.

Still, I need to have a think on my position. I won't suddenly support government-run health care, but I should explore the nuances further.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Steven Pearlstein began his Friday Washington Post column with this line:

To most Americans, the language on Page 52 of the report of the House Committee on Appropriations would have seemed perfectly sensible.

He's picking a fight, but he intends to pretend that he's not fighting because only the other side is fighting what is supposed to be "perfectly sensible". Given that President Obama uses this tactic repeatedly to push the deficit spending bill, Pearlstein is not alone.

He continues:

The report spelled out the committee's rationale for including $1.1 billion for something called "comparative effectiveness research" in the massive economic stimulus bill. For those of not steeped in the argot of health policy, that's research done by doctors and statisticians who troll through large number of patient records to determine, for any particular disease, which treatments work best.

"By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those [treatments] that are most effective . . . will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive will no longer be prescribed."

Those of us Pearlstein attempts to discredit are those who will ask the important question. It doesn't matter that comparative effectiveness research already occurs. Who will make those decisions? Stating without support that "nearly all experts agree [the effort] is a necessary first step to reforming a broken health-care system" does not dismiss the question.

After describing the opposition as a right-wing brushfire, he continues:

It's not that these various groups have no reason for concern. If comparative effectiveness research is done badly, or if the results are used simply as an excuse to deny insurance coverage for all expensive treatments, then there would be plenty of reason to get out the pitchforks and storm Capitol Hill. And there are surely examples from Britain and other countries of people being denied access to the latest drugs and procedures, including some that are significantly more effective than other treatments.

So, we're in agreement, right? What were we arguing about?

What the critics don't have, however, is any shred of evidence that the professionals who do this research are incompetent or have any but the best intentions in trying to figure out what treatments are the most effective for patients. ...

This is a bait-and-switch. We're not arguing about the ability or integrity of the researchers. No one said anything about that. The issue is who will make decisions resulting from the research. Pearlstein's desire to obfuscate the issue suggests he has an intention he doesn't want fully known. It's obvious since he spoke of experts he did not quote, but he gives it away as the paragraph continues:

... There is no reason to believe that once this clinical research is completed, it cannot be used in a disciplined, scientific way by physicians, economists and medical ethicists to determine whether there are drugs, tests, surgical procedures or devices that simply don't deliver enough benefit to justify their cost. ...

Physicians? Sure. Many could use a lesson about cost-benefit mixed with ethics. It's easy to fall into a pattern of inertia, despite evidence. But where do economists come into this? Again, who is making the decision? I don't think he means economists at insurance companies or parents as economic actors. As Pearlstein continues:

... And there is no reason we cannot set up reasonable procedures, overseen by independent health professionals, to protect patients who can demonstrate a special need for a treatment that is not normally cost-effective.

We finally get there. Patients need procedures to demonstrate a special need for "not normally cost-effective treatments". When not trying to pretend that is enlightened, it's called rationing. Regardless of an individual's willingness to pay, someone else must decide if it's cost-effective rather than first asking if the treatment is effective, followed by the question of how much it costs? That's government-run health care, despite Pearlstein's pretense that it is not.

Remember: Good, cheap, and universal. We can only have two. Yet, we actually try for three, despite Pearlstein reciting the tired lies that America denies "vital medical services to the 40 million Americans without health insurance". Lies, plural, because we do not deny care to the poor in the manner Pearlstein implies, nor are there 40 million Americans without insurance because of it's cost. He's advocating services without visible sacrifice. Why would anyone think the goal of this is government-run health care?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arguing in favor of circumcising male infant to reduce their risk of HIV infection is flawed thinking, even in places like Africa. It's exceptionally ridiculous when looking at the extent to which pro-circumcision advocates bypass logic. From a recent Reader's Digest Australia article on male circumcision, included in the section labeled "Verdict", this quote:

"‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is the understandable attitude of many Australians," says [University of Melbourne] Professor Roger Short. Yet he questions this wisdom. "Australia is blessed with a low prevalence of HIV infection, but parents need to remember their children will encounter high rates in many countries they visit."

How does he know male individuals will visit other countries? How does he know that those countries will have high rates of HIV infection? How does he know male individuals will have vaginal intercourse with HIV infected women? Where logic demands a different conclusion, Professor Short relies on propaganda. He began with his conclusion and grasped for assumptions to build around that to defend what is objectively indefensible.

That's unsurprising because the article is structured to reach one conclusion. Among the arguments offered in favor of circumcision, the article includes "Appearance":

Research by Professor Marvel Williamson from the School of Nursing at Oklahoma City University found women prefer the look of a circumcised penis. "Generally women said it is more sexually appealing," says Williamson. "Ninety per cent of women said it looks sexier and 85% said it’s nicer to touch."

This is a non-medical argument used to excuse surgery on a non-consenting, healthy child. It's also a subjective criterion that will be irrelevant to the 10% and 15% of women, respectively, who disagree with the majority. It will also be irrelevant if the male is gay. This conclusion also demands that we accept an external locus of control for all male sexuality. What the society wants matters more than what the individual wants for himself. Human rights belong to the individual, so we must reject all of this.

But look at what the article explicitly ignored. It's obvious by the location of the research. A quick scan of the study reveals the omission.

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men.

Yeah, noting that the conclusion concerns American women might help Australian parents, except Australian statistics look nothing like American statistics in 2009. Also, this assumes that the mother's preferences - or the father's opinion about his own penis - matters. We're not assuming that because it doesn't matter. Professor Williamson incorrectly thinks it does, as shown in the design of her study:

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, ...

Are we really so stupid that a parent's opinion on the sexual aesthetics of a child's genitals is considered a valid reason for surgical alteration? I want to believe we are smarter, but the evidence is very clear that parents can and do use this excuse. That position is indefensible. Remember that all tastes and preferences are subjective, unique to each individual. The choice on whether or not to allow the subjective tastes and preferences of his future sexual partners to influence his decision regarding cultural, medically unnecessary circumcision must be left to him. Ethically, parents may offer proxy consent to circumcision only when medical need exists, and then only when less invasive solutions are insufficient.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Charles Munger has a column in this morning's Washington Post. I'd use an insulting adjective to preface "column" if I could think of one awful enough to accurately depict his nonsense.

Our situation is dire. Moderate booms and busts are inevitable in free-market capitalism. But a boom-bust cycle as gross as the one that caused our present misery is dangerous, and recurrences should be prevented. The country is understandably depressed -- mired in issues involving fiscal stimulus, which is needed, and improvements in bank strength. A key question: Should we opt for even more pain now to gain a better future? For instance, should we create new controls to stamp out much sin and folly and thus dampen future booms? The answer is yes.

Sin. That's how you know you need to go no further. But we must, just to know where it will lead because central planners never understand that "imposing" is not a synonym for "restoring".

Sensible reform cannot avoid causing significant pain, which is worth enduring to gain extra safety and more exemplary conduct. And only when there is strong public revulsion, such as exists today, can legislators minimize the influence of powerful special interests enough to bring about needed revisions in law.

Speaking of synonyms, "strong public revulsion" is a synonym for "populism". Through the first two paragraphs, it's clear that Munger has no interest in the economics of the current recession. Its narrative offends him so we must all act with the force of the government, consequences be damned.

Many contributors to our over-the-top boom, which led to the gross bust, are known. They include insufficient controls over morality and prudence in banks and investment banks; ...

Insufficient controls over morality. Does Munger explain this? Of course not, because strong public revulsion covers it. We're all outraged, so we must Do Something. His something is to increase taxes because it is our duty to "demand at least some increase in conventional taxes or the imposition of some new consumption taxes" to punish ourselves for our immorality.

The rest of the column is an incoherent, crusading mess.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

President Obama said the following last night:

"I can't afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people," Obama said just hours after the legislation narrowly cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate, where it is likely to gain final passage today.

But he can play (not really) unusual political games last week.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Or last month:

... What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

President Obama is a politician. Politicians play political games. That's no surprise, so back to last night:

"So, you know, we can differ on some of the particulars, but again, the question I think that the American people are asking is: Do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation," he said. "But doing nothing -- that's not an option, from my perspective."

If we're willing to accept the parameters he dictates, then we can talk. Otherwise, we're cynics to be ignored. I see "change" in where the efforts are directed, not in how they are directed.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

If the communists were capable of reaching for false economic claims when Orwellian information control tactics are available, I'm sure they'd violate Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy to excuse fire destroying a new luxury hotel.

As the sun rose on Tuesday, throngs of Beijing residents flocked to the headquarters of China’s national television network hoping to catch sight of the futuristic steel behemoth that had been consumed by flames the previous night. The blaze, ignited by an errant firework set off on the final night of the lunar new year, destroyed a luxury hotel and theater, left one firefighter dead and injured six others.

Bonus points if you find an example of someone explaining how this will stimulate the Chinese economy because another luxury hotel can be built in its place. The humorous attempt mentioned¹ at the end of the New York Times article doesn't count.

Lest anyone think that's the key lesson to pull from this, always remember that China is a communist dictatorship:

A directive sent out by propaganda officials left no room for error: “No photos, no video clips, no in-depth reports,” read the memo, which instructed all media outlets to use only Xinhua’s dispatches. “The news should be put on news areas only and the comments posting areas should be closed.”

Information is king, unless murderous thugs make themselves king instead.

¹ Dear New York Times: The article is on the web. Include the link.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Compare and contrast two articles (all emphasis added). First, coaches removed Buck Burnette from the University of Texas football team:

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president Tuesday night, Burnette wrote on his Facebook status: “All the hunters gather up, we have a (racial epithet) in the White House.”

Screen captures showed this apology from Burnette before his Facebook page was taken down: “Clearly, I have made a mistake and apologized for it and will pay for it. I received it as a text message from an acquaintance and immaturely put it up on facebook (sic) in the light of the election. Im (sic) not racist and apologize for offending you. I grew up on a ranch in a small town where that was a real thing and I need to grow up. I sincerely am sorry for being ignorant in thinking that it would be ok (sic) to write that publicly and apologize to you in particular… . I have to be more mature than to put the reputation of my team at stake and to spread that kind of hate which I dont (sic) even believe in. Once again, I sincerely apologize.”

Second, Californians explain why they voted to eliminate rights from others:

"I think it's mainly because of the way we were brought up in the church; we don't agree with it," said Jasmine Jones, 25, who is black. "I'm not really the type that I wanted to stop people's rights. But I still have my beliefs, and if I can vote my beliefs that's what I'm going to do.

And:

"I don't discriminate against people," [Pablo Correa] said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. "I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I'm not against these people."

He added: "But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family."

Buck Burnette is the least despicable of the three people in these two stories because his bigotry was impotent and harmed only himself. But maybe I'm wrong. Jones and Correa aren't bigots. They said so.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week I saw both of these Tom Toles editorial cartoons, but never together.

And:

The second cartoon, from Friday, is much more effective because it's correct. The first cartoon, from Tuesday, is full of sentimentality but devoid of truth. (To be fair, we moved closer to truth, although not as much as everyone believes.) The success of California's Proposition 8 demonstrated that "All men are created equal" isn't fully realized yet. Maybe it will never be. And there are many issues where our society falls short of the ideal. Denying those because we want some warm, fuzzy feelings for a day is unproductive.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm a huge fan of Penn Jillette. He's consistently libertarian, as evidenced by his Showtime! series, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Also, his Vegas show with Teller is entertaining. So I read with interest this recent interview he did with reason about the presidential election.

reason: You were critical of the old newsletters that were revealed during the primaries, but on balance was Ron Paul good for libertarians?

Jillette: The basic underlying premise of that question I disagree with. I believe in individual rights so much that I don’t like any sort of “what’s good for the cause”-type question. A little while ago I was at skeptics, atheists conference and a question like that came up. How do we best win people over? As soon as we ask that question, we’re pigs. We have to leave open possibility that other side is right. Even as we call them assholes!

A lot of people listened to Ron Paul and a lot rang true to them. A lot of what he said, I agreed with. But my job professionally, my job as human, my job as an American citizen is not to do what I can to further the libertarian cause. If Obama came out and said “when I’m elected I’d make government as small as I can” I’d really get behind him. I’m not trying to get Libertarians elected. I’m even uncomfortable telling people who to vote for.

I heard Jillette say good things about Ron Paul on the Howard Stern Show too long after Paul's past racist associations became clear, which I felt was unfortunate. But, yeah, it's about the ideas. It always will be. I'm interested in liberty first, process second. That comes through here, and it's the takeaway point.

For example, does this arugment make sense under any skepticism?

And here we see a fundamental difference between the progressive worldview and the conservative worldview. Progressives believe in a robust safety net for everyone. It’s very possible, as we’re seeing, that you’ll experience financial hard times for reasons that have nothing to do with you. A lot of the people doing unskilled service work in the Lehman Brothers office may lose their jobs as a result of this unwinding even though they didn’t do anything wrong. And that sort of thing happens all the time — people get laid off because adverse things happen to the companies they work for. Or people are struck by other kinds of misfortune — they get hit by buses, hurricanes destroy their houses, all kinds of stuff. Misfortune strikes ordinary people, and not just billionaires. And in the case of ordinary people, just as in the case of billionaires, you can offer improve social welfare by helping people out when they wind up in trouble.

But conservatives don’t believe in that kind of safety net for regular people — just for the billionaires. Guaranteed health care? Forget it. Guaranteed retirement income? No way. Just let the market work, and when it stops working the executives will be okay and the rest of us will, oh, something or other.

This is a bit out of date (mid-September), but the flaw is timeless. First, an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the bailout plan. Do they not count as progressives? Does the claimed need to Do Something outweigh the obvious welfare for the billionaires?

But note how this kind of statement is a nasty simplification that could be rebutted if the accuser - in this case, Matt Yglesias - replaced his assumption with a question directed at the target of his attacks. I'm including myself in his definition of conservative, even though I identify as a libertarian. The comparison is close enough because what he's attacking is the idea that government shouldn't be providing X service (i.e. safety net). That's not what he's saying, of course. Instead, it's a veiled "you hate poor/unlucky people because you don't support my solution". Any worldview condensed to such inanity is a sad commentary on the believer.

I support a reasonable safety net for the truly incompetent. I'm even willing to consider temporary safety nets for such cases as layoffs, hurricanes¹, or whatever. However, those are questions of how to effectively resolve the problems with minimal interference (i.e. taxation, regulations). I don't think widespread government-provided safety nets are the universal solution. We can agree that not having mass numbers of people living in the streets is worth achieving. It does not flow from there to the implication that those who disagree on how to achieve the goal are selfish degenerates who want babies to die in the streets.

Stretched back to the context of Penn Jillette's statement above, I can vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, but I'm not saying I think the Libertarian Party is the only, or best, way to achieve liberty. Like he said, if Obama stands up tomorrow and proposes a policy that enhances liberty, I will support it. It's the principle, not the policy. All of politics is the same idea.

¹ It's not too much to expect, in return, for the government to stop incentivizing stupid, risky behavior. This applies more to building homes in flood plains, I suppose, but it's applicability to hurricanes is almost the same. Also, financial risks. Don't encourage bad luck and then expect me to pay those who embraced it.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since I commute a reasonable distance to/from work, I took advantage of early voting on Saturday. I waited in line approximately 75 minutes, which was very close to my limit, given the choices before me. It helped that the sun filled the evening sky and the temperature hadn't dropped. I had one point of indecision going in, although I had a strong inclination how I planned to vote. Without further buildup:

President: Bob Barr (Libertarian)

Senate: William Redpath (Libertarian)

House: Myself (libertarian)

I realized several years ago that I could never vote for Sen. McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary, a vote I stand behind because I think President John McCain circa 2000 would've been better than President George W. Bush. I even advocated for a Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004. (I no longer stand behind that opinion.) But I've lost all respect for John McCain because I've finally seen the politician rather than the marketing campaign. Acknowledging his military career and sacrifice does not require me to assume those equal competent civilian leadership skills. So, he was never under consideration.

I considered Sen. Obama after initially rejecting any possibility of that. I might've been able to cast a vote for him if he hadn't shifted from bad economics to insane economics as he sought to wrap up the nomination. Maybe he'll cast that idiocy aside. I'm not confident of that.

In recent months I considered voting for Sen. Obama as a vote against the probable Supreme Court nominations from a President McCain. With the choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate, McCain forfeited any benefit of the doubt about his calm, reasoned approach to judicial nominations. As the polls suggested the race was still close, I thought I might have to vote Obama against my preference.

In finally deciding, I disregarded any consideration of polls, although I'm aware of them. Sen. Obama's recent pandering on all matters of the economy made a vote for him impossible. I fear he actually believes the insanity he's spewing. Civil liberties matter, but economic liberties matter, too. I can't endorse a race from one brink to another.

My vote for Barr does not imply that I support him. Okay, so it does imply that. I considered that and decided the benefit offset that problem.

I do not think Barr is a libertarian. After reading this reason interview with Barr, I'm convinced he's learned the language. I perceived his answers to be forced. He knows what to say and when, but he doesn't necessarily believe them. Maybe that his personality interfering. Maybe he is a libertarian. It doesn't matter because he won't win. I voted to signal "libertarian" and to encourage continued ballot access. (The matching funds, I could do without.)

For Senate I couldn't endorse former Gov. Jim Gilmore. He's a rabid social conservative. Also, as evidenced by his nonsensical "abolition" of property taxes on automobiles, he has no sense of responsible or limited government. If I care about reducing taxation, I'm not fooled that you shift taxation from counties to the state.

I couldn't vote for former Gov. Mark Warner, either. Either he's pandering in matching Democratic nonsense on economics or he really believes his policy proposals. I find the latter hard to believe since he built a large business. Regardless, I don't want to find out. And I'm not voting to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate.

When I began researching this year's election, I realized Virginia had a Libertarian running for the Senate. I expected to be disappointed and perhaps embarrassed. (Think Michael Badnarik.) Then I read through William Redpath's campaign site. Anyone who repeatedly references the Cato Institute probably has the right idea. Redpath has no chance of winning, of course, so it's a no-risk vote in that sense. But anyone willing to push for the Flat Tax and not wrap it around social conservatism (i.e. Steve Forbes) receives the benefit of the doubt. I made this choice readily.

For the House (Virginia's 11th District) the same logic applies for the Democrat (Gerry Connolly) and Republican (Keith Fimian), although the only third party candidate represented the Independent Green party. No thanks to that. Here I almost voted Republican to push for an offset of Democratic gains. But Mr. Fimian's campaign site offered only the vaguest rhetoric, with no actual governing principles. Since even a useless blowhard like outgoing Rep. Tom Davis could hold the 11th District for more than a decade, I decided against a vote for any future incumbent¹. So I voted for myself as a write-in candidate. Keep your fingers crossed on my chances.

There are no ballot initiatives or bonds to vote on this year, so that's it. I would've voted "no" to any bonds or taxes, "no" to any further theft of rights, and "yes" to any further protection or expansion of rights.

Further election thoughts at A Stitch in Haste, Postive Liberty, no third solution, and Freespace.

¹ If I should win the 11th District, this logic does not apply to future incumbents. Naturally.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading USA Today I encountered this headline:

Majority of economists in USA TODAY survey back 2nd stimulus

I was skeptical, so I skimmed the article to figure out how the paper got to such an unlikely conclusion. Will you be surprised that the headline derives from this?

Congress should pass a second economic stimulus bill that could include tax cuts, an extension of unemployment benefits, or funds for roads and bridges, say a majority of economists polled recently by USA TODAY.
...

Thirty-two of the 43 economists (74%) who answered the question last week in a survey by USA TODAY said lawmakers should pass a stimulus bill to soften the blow. "It won't keep us from going into recession," PMI Group chief economist David Berson says. "But it may make the difference in preventing a worse recession."

"Majority of economists who responded to USA Today Survey back 2nd stimulus" is not quite the same, is it? It loses a little punch. At the expense of some truth, since self-selected responses to a politically charged question is hardly objective. But the news isn't about the objective, I suppose.

Note: Every blog entry can't be a winner. I'm distracted by the World Series, so I needed to flex my blogging muscles.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've been wrapped up in playoff baseball for the majority of the last three weeks. Much of the world is passing through my filter with scant attention. But Senator Obama managed to poke through that filter with a loooooong commercial about taxes. I sat dumbfounded through the second minute because I couldn't believe he'd use such an obvious pander. From the ad:

...

On taxes, John McCain and I have very different ideas. Instead of giving hundreds of billions in new tax breaks to big corporations and oil companies, I'll cut taxes for small and startup businesses that are the backbone of our economy.

Instead of more tax breaks for corporations that outsource American jobs, I'll give them to companies who create jobs here. Instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest -- I'll focus on you.
...

If he is speaking to all Americans, as he clearly wants us to believe, who are the non-"you" taxpayers he is speaking about rather than to? Has there ever been a clumsier example of creating a "Them" for "Us" to despise?

Senator Obama may think he can pass off his class warfare bribe as an enlightened, good-for-society measure. Given the unthinking, partisan nature of much of America, he'll probably pull it off with his half of the electorate. That does not change the undeniable fact that there is a group - consisting of "all men are created equal" Americans - he thinks he can harm because a) they have something he wants and b) they're a minority of the population to be demagogued into submission. How very progressive.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here are three stories to demonstrate that media reporting on male circumcision borders on propaganda. First, from Aidsmap:

A meta-analysis of studies of circumcision in gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) has not found sufficient evidence to show that being circumcised reduced their risk of acquiring HIV. Although it finds a small reduction in the risk of HIV infection in circumcised men, this is not statistically significant - in other words it could just be a chance finding. Furthermore, the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that although circumcised men who were exclusively insertive for anal sex had a lower risk of infection with HIV, the difference with uncircumcised men was still not statistically significant and could have been chance.

Fair enough, and there are further possibly-relevant nuances in the article. Those aren't my focus here (nor do they overcome my principled objection to forced circumcision). Rather, consider how the editor titled this news:

Jury still out on whether circumcision protects gay men against HIV

What would it take for the jury to finally be in? We see how quickly it's in on unstudied results assumed from a study that appears to give the results the researcher wants. (The answer? Six days.) When the jury gives an answer you don't like? Deliberate further. I don't wonder why.

Note: We can debate the semantics of scientific investigation of the hypothesis and findings, but pro-circumcision researchers use only a very loose application of either.

Second, from Time (emphasis added):

Circumcision is believed to lower H.I.V. transmission in several ways. The inner surface of the foreskin is rich with cells that are more vulnerable to H.I.V. than cells on other parts of the penis; because they are also closer to the epithelial surface and at higher risk for tears during intercourse, they increase susceptibility to infection. Removal of the foreskin further lowers men's odds of developing genital ulcers (from diseases such as syphilis), which in turn lowers their vulnerability to H.I.V. during intercourse. In theory, circumcision should be protective for all men who participate in insertive sex, including heterosexual men and men who have sex with men.

Believed to lower is accurate, because all studies involving (voluntary, adult!) male circumcision and HIV risk reduction look at results. None of them have shown what generates the results researchers claim. There are theories, but nothing concrete. It could be nothing more than flawed methodology, right? Yet, Time reported male circumcision's claimed role in reducing HIV risk as its 2007 medical breakthrough of the year. Has the magazine changed its opinion to one of logically-defensible caution?

Third, from the Jerusalem Post:

Almost a third of male immigrants from the former Soviet Union are uncircumcised, according to a survey by the Geocartography Institute commissioned by the Jerusalem AIDS Project.
...

The survey also found that 2.2% of women who immigrated from the FSU "didn't know" whether their partner was circumcised, and 72.8% of female partners of uncircumcised new immigrants would prefer that they don't undergo ritual circumcision.

That 72.8% figure is interesting. It's subjective, a point I actively make, even when it benefits me. But this is the type of irrelevant statistic pro-circumcision propagandists like Dr. Brian Morris love to spew when their carefully-chosen studies suggest that women prefer circumcised partners. We mark anyone who would argue in favor of compulsory breast implants for teen girls because their male partners prefer large breasts as intellectually ridiculous. The same applies here. What women prefer only matters if the male choosing circumcision for himself wants it to influence his decision. For the anti-intellectuals who don't get this, the propaganda can work against them. They'll never notice, of course.

Continuing, with emphasis added:

Research carried out abroad shows incontrovertibly that circumcision reduces by 60% the risk of a man being infected with HIV by a female carrier. In many African countries with high HIV rates, men are lining up for circumcision, and Israel's experience in circumcising thousands of adult males has aroused interest in the UN and among African governments.

How does incontrovertibly reconcile with believed to lower? In the same way that "six in 10 circumcised men are immune to HIV infection"?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is old, but I still want to write about it. In the lead up to the bailout bill, executive compensation caught fire as an issue. It's something shiny because the numbers can be large. It's also convenient because it enables partisans to avoid the complex discussion of causes and factors that might implicate them as part of the problem. From Ezra Klein (via Andrew Sullivan.):

One quick point on the bailout negotiations: The Democrats are making a big deal over limits on executive compensation. Such limits are nice, but in the context of this crisis, utterly meaningless. If Democrats extract concessions such that CEOs can be paid a lot of money rather than an obscene sum of money, but are unable to add provisions protecting homeowners, they will have lost, and lost badly.. Limits to executive compensation are a feel-good provision with little real world relevance or impact, and while it would be nice to have them in the bill, no one should be fooled into thinking them a high-level priority, nor believing that a compromise where compensation limits feature as a key Democratic boast suggests anything other than a total collapse in the negotiations.

This is why I'm not a partisan. I can't (correctly) dismiss a provision as little more than a quest for happy feelings and then suggest that the provision should be in the legislation anyway because I want those happy feelings. There are real principles and, more importantly, real people involved.

In Mr. Klein's defense, that isn't quite enough evidence to support my argument, nor am I implicating him beyond that sentiment. Rather, nonsensical rhetoric from Senator Obama on the proposals then under consideration is a perfect example. (Mr. Klein sourced this without a link, which I tracked down.)

First, the plan must include protections to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to further reward the bad behavior of irresponsible CEOs on Wall Street. There has been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multi-million-dollar salaries. I cannot imagine a position more selfish and greedy at a time of national crisis. And I would like to speak directly to those CEOs right now: Do not make that mistake. You are stewards for workers and communities all across our country who have put their trust in you. With the enormous rewards you have reaped come responsibilities, and we expect and demand that you to live up to them. This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives.

This is collectivist crap. Executives are stewards for the shareholders. Their responsibility is to run the business according to the goals of the owners, which is presumably to earn profit. Sometimes this goes badly. The owners should learn to write better compensation contracts for the future if they dislike their current results.

The political side is irrelevant, but Congress doesn't think so. Where contracts exist, including for excessive subjective adjective compensation, government has a responsibility to honor the binding nature for all parties (i.e. not the politicians). Where politicians don't like the contracts they're buying, they should not buy the contracts. (They shouldn't buy them, regardless. I'm sticking with the bailout line of reasoning.) Bitching that J. Dom Pérignon should suffer to make Joe Six-Pack feel better is obscene. If you need your schadenfreude, don't bail J. Dom Pérignon out of his mess.

I'd question why we can't agree on this, but I realize that punishing J. Dom Pérignon is more about implementing more regulation. The happy feelings are the bonus.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have a new post up at Publius Endures discussing Ron Paul's endorsement of Constitution Party Chuck Baldwin for president.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Via Amy Alkon, I see that TSA has new uniforms. (Conveniently unveiled on September 11th. Symbolism, woohoo!) I have no doubt this will improve the airport security experience. It says so right on the website. Click on What's Behind the Uniform and you'll be treated to exciting claims. For example:

ENGAGED WORKFORCE

TSA is revamping the checkpoint process and relying on more personal interaction to detect suspicious behavior. Training officers to increase one-on-one passenger interaction will foster a calmer, quieter environment that will result in a better experience for travelers and increased security.

Should I assume that the gaggle of TSA officers who attempted to bully me last month for exercising my rights hadn't undergone the new training yet? Will new uniforms enable them to foster a calmer, quieter environment that doesn't include 7 attentive thugs blocking the line for all passengers and patronizing me that their thuggery is somehow making us safer? Have they been corrected to understand that personal interaction that ends with me exercising my rights does not, in fact, mean that I have engaged in suspicious behavior in need of detecting?

I'm not counting on it.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Whatever the other guy doesn't like, that's what you don't need to do. It says so in every central planner's happiest fantasies. So, you say you want your high-performance BMW to push 100 miles per hour for the occasional track day, but you just haven't realized that you're threatening someone's life every moment you're not on the track. Is it good that someone wants to decide that for you?

SPEEDING is the cause of 30 percent of all traffic deaths in the United States — about 13,000 people a year. By comparison, alcohol is blamed 39 percent of the time, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But unlike drinking, which requires the police, breathalyzers and coercion to improve drivers’ behavior, there’s a simple way to prevent speeding: quit building cars that can exceed the speed limit.

It's hard to pick what else I should excerpt from this horrible opinion piece; every sentiment in it is execrable. Where the obvious point that technology enables society to go much further than the suggestions mentioned is surprisingly ignored, I'd like to pretend that it's because the author possesses even a tiny bit of concern for actual rights. I'd like to, but the author provides reasons to trust that no concern for rights exists. Consider:

Most cars can travel over 100 miles an hour — an illegal speed in every state. Our continued, deliberate production of potentially law-breaking devices has no real precedent. We regulate all sorts of items to decrease danger to the public, from baby cribs to bicycle helmets. Yet we continue to produce fast cars despite the lives lost, the tens of billions spent treating accident victims, and a good deal of gasoline wasted. (Speeding, after all, substantially reduces fuel efficiency due to the sheering force of wind.)

I'm amazed the writer thought he could sneak the line I italicized through the reader's crap detector. I could throw my computer through the windshield of my neighbor's car, damaging his property. That would break the law. I could potentially do it. Let's ban computers under a reasonable weight the average person could lift with ease so that we can preserve all the car windows of the world?

It continues:

Despite all this, we Americans insist on the inalienable right to speed. Imagine, for a moment, if E-ZPass kept track of exactly when each car entered one toll booth and exited another, which would allow local governments to do some basic math, dividing distance traveled by time spent. If this calculation showed you to be a speeder, the authorities would send you a traffic ticket. Lives, money and oil would be saved and proof of wrongdoing would be undeniable, but the public outcry would be deafening.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and the rights implied - is the correct approach, of course, because that allows everyone to use products with the potential for danger, as long as they use them responsibly. Do no harm and remain hassle-free. Harm and do not remain hassle-free. It's not complicated.

In the author's E-ZPass example, I'd toss mine in the garbage the moment such a plan passed the legislature. Should I assume the author would then demand mandatory E-ZPass usage? GPS tracking in every car? Is there any intrusion too far? It's usually irrational to believe there isn't, but nothing irrational is too irrational for central planners.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Sen. McCain selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. Interesting.

So now that the election's outcome is now longer in doubt, I'm looking for the partisan nonsense suggesting otherwise. I found it at The Corner. Every piece reminds me why I don't bother to read NRO, not for mockery and certainly not for information. A few winners from today, in no particular order...

First:

A Little Dubya Love [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Readers heard Palin say "nucular" and wonder ...

Given his track record, let's imitate Bush's shortcomings. Brilliant.

Next:

Hope and Change—for McCain [Victor Davis Hanson]

The brilliant timing of the post-Obama speech/kick off Labor Day weekend in the appointment of the anti-pork, middle-America charismatic Palin ... The 72-year old McCain is still running behind the Messiah, and who knows whether the sudden 3.3 GDP good news on the economy, the stability in Iraq, and cooling off of gas price spikes will hold or play a role. ...

Alaska is middle America? But poor geography skills are minor in the face of clear delusion.

Next:

Why Sarah Palin is No Dan Quayle [Peter Robinson]

... But whereas Dan Quayle never actually did anything for Bush, Sarah Palin has helped McCain in two important ways: She has cut short the attention the press would otherwise have lavished on Obama all weekend, limiting Obama's bounce. This has solved McCain's most immediate tactical problem.

Forgive me for thinking a candidate should choose a running mate on credentials rather than political (mis)calculation.

Continuing:

... And she has thrilled the GOP's conservative base, which can now in good conscience give itself to the McCain candidacy with enthusiasm—not feigned enthusiasm, real enthusiasm—for the first time since the senator entered the race. This has solved McCain's worst strategic problem.

Give itself? That's just icky. But thank God only the Democrats are looking for a messiah.

Finally, my favorite:

Jubilation, Cont'd [Peter Robinson]

A reader:

The surest sign Palin has fired up the base is the high volume of Corner posts on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day—and the fact that I am deliriously hitting refresh every 5 minutes.

This is why the "Stupidity" tag had to beat down the "Propaganda" tag for primary category honors on this post.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now this is an issue, as we reach the closing ceremonies?

Ambassador Clark T. Randt Jr. pressed the Chinese government on Saturday to immediately release the Americans, the statement said. U.S. officials would continue to raise concerns about the detentions with senior Chinese officials, it said.

"We are disappointed that China has not used the occasion of the Olympics to demonstrate greater tolerance and openness," the statement said.

It urged China to show respect for human rights, freedom of speech and religion.

It is a savage view that believes the best individuals should hope for is to be tolerated by a government.

The blunt criticism came just hours before the end of the Games, which have largely followed the plan of China's leaders for a smooth-running event that would increase the country's international prestige.

And the world played the willing dupe, despite the Communist government's well-known lack of respect for human rights. Somehow, participating in the games would convince the rights-abridging propagandists to not be rights-abridging propagandists?

Under pressure to address human rights and free speech concerns, China said it would allow protests during the Games in three designated areas. But none of the more than 70 applications to demonstrate was approved, and some people were arrested as they sought the permits, rights groups and relatives said.

"We found it unusual that none of these applications have come through," [IOC president Jacques] Rogge said at a news conference Sunday.

Unusual? What part of rights-abridging propagandist makes arresting people seeking permits to protest - an infringement on at least two rights - in any way unusual or unpredictable?

Similar thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

In three minutes, this video neatly summarizes much that is wrong with the American mindset surrounding infant male circumcision.

After a bit about "what is circumcision", we have this exchange:

Teen: "Does it hurt the baby?"
Adult: "It doesn't feel good, but they don't remember it."
Teen: "Yeah, but it doesn't matter the memory of pain, it matters the pain or not."

The teen has a natural, reflexive push for simple logic. She gets it entirely correct. As I've argued before, following the "he won't remember it" angle could justify anything short of murder. Something else (ethics, medical need) must get in the way, rendering "he won't remember it" irrelevant. He will experience it. That matters.

Continuing on through the video, the adult pushes to replace logic with emotional conditioning. One of the teen girls asks why all (circumcised) men have "an awkward scar around their penis". After laughter and a bit of disbelief, the adult responds:

"He's talking about probably the separation from the shaft and the head, okay?"

This is ignorant. A scar results from every circumcision. It may be at the separation of the shaft and the glans, although it's usually further down the shaft than that. (Not much, unfortunately, since there are nerve endings in the now-excised foreskin.) But there is a scar. No circumcised male is unique in being free of this inevitability. Any person who's seen a circumcised penis, or even the result of another surgery, knows this if he or she is willing to acknowledge reality despite its interference with preferred fantasy.

Next comes the low point of the discussion from the adult:

"You want your husband or boyfriend or whoever... your husband, yeah, there we go, to be circumcised."

If I told my (fictional) son that he wants his wife or girlfriend or whoever to be large-breasted, implying that he shouldn't be with a smaller-breasted woman because their natural bodies are defective, you would consider me a piggish ass. Rightly so. Forcing one person to conform to the opinion of another is wrong. Including when it involves surgery. Especially when it involves children.

We all remember our economics, right? All tastes and preferences are subjective. Even if I ignore the preferences of the male subjected to circumcision so that he will presumably please his future partner's aesthetic preference, as this woman does, what about the subjective tastes and preferences of these females? They're entitled to their own opinion, as long as it's the adult's opinion that foreskins are gross? Conformity for all? That is wrong.

Apart from witnessing how the development of a young mind is perverted by an adult's careless lack of curiosity, this video is instructive of how males are not the only people injured via circumcision. We expect conformity among females. They just get less unlucky in this debate. We achieve their conformity through manipulation rather than mutilation.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

As if I needed another reason to hate the Party Before Principle mentality that pollutes politics, this:

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as immigration judges and line prosecutors, according to an inspector general's report released today.

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, said investigators, who interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other job seekers at Justice. Sampson developed a system to screen immigration judge candidates based on improper political considerations and routinely took recommendations from the White House Office of Political Affairs and Presidential Personnel, the report said.

Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs: "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" the report said. One former Justice Department official told investigators she had complained that Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion, according to the report.

A novelist wouldn't write something so ridiculous because no reader would believe it, yet this too-stupid-for-make-believe mindset is how the Bush Administration tried to rebuild our justice system. Permanent majority and all that. I'll pass.

Not that I think Democrats will not be ridiculous in their own way when they regain control in November. Hopefully they won't appoint a new Monica Goodling. But if they do, no doubt he or she will be an economist. "What is it about the profit motive that you most distrust?"

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via a friend's tip, a few anti-gay bigots are protesting McDonald's for some reason or other. Sometimes the idiocy - something about exposing McDonald's sinful bowing before the Homosexual Agenda™, I think - is so ridiculous that it just isn't worth my time to investigate closely. As evidence, consider the statement by the protest's organizer, Peter LaBarbera, as reported by Good As You:

"The people involved in this boycott of McDonald’s are good family people — not vegans, America-hating leftists, or some other fringe group."

Wow. I see that LaBarbera has been so busy investigating the Homosexual Agenda™ that he doesn't understand a few things about vegans. One, I have a family, although I'm about as indifferent as I can be to any concern over whether Peter LaBarbera thinks I'm a good family person. Especially if being good means hating people for who they are, as opposed to liking a person who chooses to be an ass.

Two, some vegans might hate America, but those vegans do not hate America because of veganism. But if LaBarbera took a quick (non-gay) stroll around Rolling Doughnut, he'd figure out have all the information necessary to know that I love America and its ideals. Not enough to endorse everything America does, which naturally makes me a pinko, I know. Still, I love it enough that it's hardly plausible to lump me in with people who hate America. If I want to be embarrassingly stupid, I might suggest that LaBarbera is an America-hating terrorist because his dietary choices match those of Osama bin Laden. But I won't because I'm not a complete moron.

Three, "fringe" is a very subjective term. I would think that, of course, since if I thought veganism was wrong, I'd change. I don't because I think I'm right. Many fringe opinions in American history have become the norm. So, fringe doesn't mean bad. Also, forgive me if I don't take my ideas from the popularity contest view of what is acceptable rather than a reasoned consideration of principles.

Four, McDonald's is not exactly vegan-friendly. The french fries aren't even vegetarian. The key difference, though, is that McDonald's ignores me because I am not in it's large, core market. I am on its fringe, but it doesn't feel compelled to express complete contempt for me. I didn't think that was noble, but LaBarbera makes me wonder if I set the bar too high.

Post Script: I suspect I belong to at least one other group LaBarbera despises as part of the "anti-American fringe".

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Yesterday, actually, but I've been busy.

Democrats See a Need for Further Economic Stimulus

This should probably be filed under "Duh", if I had such a category. I'll assign "Propaganda". But let's consider the idea.

“We ought to see how the first one works,” Mr. Bush said. “Let it run its course. I’m an optimist.”

Oh, wait, that's considering the issue. That's not how politicians work. (That President Bush was complicit in the first round of Free Money and will inevitably sign the second round is noted and irrelevant for my purpose here.) Instead, they seem to believe they can do nothing wrong. Forget that some checks from the first round of Free Money haven't been mailed. It's not working. It's not not working because it's a stupid idea. Of course. No, it's not working because it's not enough. So, Free Money is good. More Free Money is better. Who doesn't realize that $1,200 (or whatever figure the Congress invents as necessary) is better than $600? I'd raise my hand, but my opinion doesn't count. I was ineligible for the first $600 of Free Money that I will nevertheless have to repay.

I'm realistic without being cynical about the value of our currency. That position is getting harder to maintain. For example, I'd love to have a contract to supply the paper the government uses to print all the new money it keeps imagining. And I'm honestly thinking of how fascinating the loop will be when the Fed has to raise interest rates to pay for the money Congress prints. At least the worthless paper will earn high returns!

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm happy that we don't live in E.J. Dionne's fantasy world. Yet. Because Dionne is trying as hard as he can to reduce our world to his fantasy. He starts with the premise that capitalism is dead and then pretends that the pomp surrounding his pronouncement is enough to distract from the missing body. The whole column is a mess, amounting to little more than Dionne mooning anyone who doesn't believe that government is benevolent, productive, and wise.

I don't want to spend too much time mucking around in that. Allow me to offer one example and then I'll move on. Writing on how conservatives now understand the need for regulation, he writes:

Bernanke said the Fed needed more authority to get inside "the structure and workings of financial markets" because "recent experience has clearly illustrated the importance, for the purpose of promoting financial stability, of having detailed information about money markets and the activities of borrowers and lenders in those markets." Sure sounds like Big Government to me.

Or I could read Mr. Bernanke's statement that "having detailed information" means better disclosure, not a call for government management of financial markets. Oversight is not control. Words have meaning.

The rest of the essay is the same boring appeal to authority when facts are inconvenient. Any argument that relies on an emotional appeal from an individual whose credibility is supposed to be based on facts - "A cozy boardroom back-scratching operation offends me." - is not an argument worth entertaining longer than the time it takes to suggest the debater grow up.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Ignorance can speak truth, even when ignorance doesn't intend something so broad (emphasis added):

... I feel that "female circumcision" gives this practice a veneer of respectability to hide behind. Uninformed people likely know that male circumcision is done mainly for hygienic or religious reasons and has nothing to do with sexual pleasure or causing other problems down the road, as mutilation may cause with menstruation and childbirth. Circumcision is pretty much the opposite of mutilation as far as having an effect on a person.

So "female circumcision" sounds kind of like a benign minor medical procedure, while "female genital mutilation" tells it like it is. I don't think calling the practice circumcision will fire many people up against it - it almost sounds like a P.R. phrase for genital mutilation, designed to mask what really happens.
This practice has also made its way to the United States, through immigration.

I don't think calling the practice circumcision will fire many people up against it - it almost sounds like a P.R. phrase for genital mutilation, designed to mask what really happens. Indeed. It's almost as if Americans embrace that mentality with our treatment of male children. Almost, of course, because only They™ engage in immoral actions. We™ are always correct, never to be questioned again.

I will be using that quote frequently in the future.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I wonder if these two Ugandan MPs have ever spoken to each other. First:

THE parliamentary food forum has asked the Government to provide funds for the a campaign against female circumcision. Addressing journalists at Parliament on Friday, Bukwo Woman MP Everline Chelangat urged the Government to establish vocational institutions for girls to fight the custom.

Second:

THE chairman of the parliamentary HIV/AIDS committee has appealed to men to embrace circumcision to reduce the risk of contracting the virus.

“There is nothing to lose when you remove the fore skin of the penis. Men who are not circumcised are more prone to HIV/AIDS,” Dr. Elioda Tumwesigye said on Saturday.

Dr. Tumwesigye is wrong about what a man loses from circumcision, and he is too broad in his declaration of the benefit against HIV because he ignores the necessary contributing factor, an HIV-infected female partner and condom-less sex. But where he accepts the distinction of choice in losing his perceived nothingness, these statements on male and female genital cutting are reasonably congruent, if slightly tone-deaf. As I've always advocated, I do not care what an adult - male or female - chooses to do to his/her genitals. Leave it alone or hack away. MP Chelangat is clearly arguing against forced cutting. I just wonder whether or not that distinction of choice exists in Tumwesigye's intent:

Tumwesigye noted that attempts to make circumcision compulsory for men had failed because of the misconception that it was a practice only for Muslims.

I won't read that as a statement that Tumwesigye isn't interested in choice, although I think such an inference makes sense. Where are those attempts originating? If that's what he's saying, I'm not surprised. Respecting the science makes many doctors forget the ethics. I don't know why, but it does. I think I'll have more on that idea in the near future.

There isn't much more to say than, from a marketing perspective, it's fascinating that these two articles appeared on the same day in the same news outlet.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Commentary on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (pdf) is widespread around the Internets. I won't delve any deeper than to say I agree with the ruling and much of the libertarian commentary. The Second Amendment is an individual right. Reading it any other way is ridiculous. Yesterday was a good day for the Constitution.

With that behind us, Eugene Robinson understands and accepts the principle behind the Supreme Court's decision:

This case, for me, is one of those uncomfortable situations in which my honest opinion is not the one I'd desperately like to be able to argue. As much as I abhor the possible real-word impact of the ruling, I fear that it's probably right.

I'm not a fan of guns anywhere other than in movies and television. I don't own one, and don't expect to in the future. Partly this is because my father died in an accidental shooting. But that part of me can't be used to interpret the Constitution. It says what it says.

Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson follows that reasonable statement with this support for his apprehension:

The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

The use of the word effective is key. Gun prohibition has been the law in D.C. for decades, yet people still die regularly. It doesn't work, if only because we haven't figured out how to make it effective. If a 100% prohibition is not effective, I'm not convinced anything could be.

There's also the pesky matter of his unscientific assumption of what statistics would show. Theoretically it's probably true that fewer guns would mean fewer shooting, but reality shows we're back to (in)effective. And the idea that we'd have fewer funerals is little more than an appeal to "don't kill Bambi". There are plenty of ways to kill people.

But come on, it's not as if the law was making gun violence in the city any worse -- and it's not as if striking down the law, and perhaps adding hundreds or thousands of weapons to the city, will make things any better. The law was flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing.

Do we really know that the law wasn't making gun violence in D.C. any worse? It's at least as reasonable to assume that a law-abiding citizen who owns a (legal) gun could stop her murder better than a law-abiding citizen who would own a gun if she weren't prohibited by the D.C. City Council.

E.J. Dionne, meanwhile, sticks to his partisan line.

In knocking down the District's 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.

The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.

Mr. Dionne fails to acknowledge the difference between a principle and a preference. He also can't seem to understand that his boogeyman - the contemporary political right - is not quite reality. Agrees With Me and Disagrees With Me aren't political parties.

Also, Justice Scalia is the broken clock of legal jurisprudence, not the bulwark of any particular principle.

Finally, this gem:

It was telling in the gun case that while Scalia argued that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home" -- note that the Second Amendment says nothing about "self-defense in the home" -- it was Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent who called for judicial restraint. He asked his conservative colleagues where they were able to find an expansive and absolute right for gun possession.

Mr. Dionne writes this despite having written in the previous paragraph that the Supreme Court "ran roughshod" in its ruling striking down a portion of campaign finance law. Where in the Constitution can he find the power in the Constitution for Congress to make laws abridging the freedom of speech?

The rest of his editorial suggests fealty to the democratic majority. I wonder how much he'd bow to that if his perception of that opinion if he felt the majority had a disdain for gun control. The Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but democracy certainly is.

Bonus question: Why does the editorial in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling have a 600x204 pixel picture of a handgun? Admittedly I get most Washington Post editorials through RSS, but I've never seen a picture added to the editorial column. Perhaps a giant picture of the Constitution preceding Dionne's editorial would've been equally appropriate?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I don't wish to be a part of the new social contract proposed by two history professors. Contracts are, or should be, voluntary. I don't think the authors have that in mind.

For the first time since 1964, Democrats have a good chance not just to win the White House and a majority in Congress but to enact a sweeping new liberal agenda. Conservative ideas are widely discredited, as is the Republican Party that the right has controlled since Ronald Reagan was elected. ...

I'm not interested in defending the Republican Party, but this is petty, partisan propaganda. We haven't tried "conservative" ideas, which I take to mean limited government, in many years. The current administration, and its sychophants in Congress, hardly represent conservative, limited government. Do we really need to walk through a list of the past seven years? Or do we need to wait until the next four-to-eight years are finished and look back and compare successes, or more likely, failures?

The new agenda focuses on protecting middle-class families from the insecurities of the global economy.

How about an agenda focused on all individuals in our society, rather than just middle-class families? Besides, isn't an obsessive focus on families as the building blocks of society a conservative idea that's been discredited?

Obama speaks of strengthening families by putting "the rungs back on that ladder to the middle class," giving "every family the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had."

He also speaks of breaking the rungs on that ladder that lead higher than the middle class. Striving higher would be bad, but attempting to stay higher would also be bad. This is implicit in much of his tax ideas.

Also, many of our parents and grandparents had no indoor plumbing at some point early in their lives. It's a shame we've only progressed backwards.

He calls for a tax credit to offset the Social Security tax ...

It would be more efficient (and honest) to restructure the payroll tax to reflect an exemption up to a defined salary figure.

Social Security gave support to the elderly, lessening the burden on their children.

This is the height of the fantastical nonsense in the essay. Social Security gave support to the elderly, (possibly) lessening the direct burden on their children. It also increased the indirect burden on their children all younger workers. Not that the return on that support (i.e. payroll taxes) is sufficient to support a retiree. I earn a decent income and I could not live now on the benefits I'm being promised in 2040.

The authors eventually seem to unite on a vision that reshaping our nation on a vision of a national, unionized economy will resolve everything. Like the rest of their pleasant proclamations, they provide no basis for any of this superficial argument. They ignore the all data contradicting this wishful thinking. How are unions treating the auto industry in Detroit, for example? And bowing before the record of FDR is an unwise tactic to convince anyone who's bothered to understand basic economics.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's another example of why Sen. Obama's economic thinking scares me. (Not enough to vote for Sen. McCain, but more than enough to not vote for Sen. Obama.)

Sen. Barack Obama rolled out a proposal yesterday to curb speculation in energy markets, which his advisers said would help stabilize soaring gasoline prices.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee laid out a four-step program that would, among other things, close an "Enron loophole" that protects some trading in energy futures from federal oversight, his advisers said.

I don't know enough about oil futures to offer any educated comment. But I know that suggesting placing allegedly-benevolent government regulators with a specific goal in mind (i.e. lowering gas prices) is a recipe for disaster. Central planning does not work. The laws of economics are not mere suggestions. Where price can't reach its natural point, even if that includes speculation, supply will decrease.

An interesting insight into how economic facts are irrelevant to all politicians:

"I think everyone believes there's too much speculation in the oil markets, and a lot of it flows directly from that particular loophole," New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) said on a conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.

I do not believe that there is too much speculation in the oil markets. I believe there may be unwise speculation in oil, but that will catch up to the speculators.

I, like everyone who travels any distance in a vehicle powered by gasoline, feel the effect of any speculation in oil. So what? What legitimate claim do I have to say to you that you can't speculate in oil? The arrival of speculators in baseball cards in the late '80s/early '90s killed the economical fun of the hobby for me. Where a pack of cards used to cost 50 cents for a dozen or so cards, the price changed to $2 for six cards. Should the government have regulated that? It even had the built-in "for the children" excuse.

But oil is different!

Is it? People have made choices, whether to live far from work or drive inefficient cars (relative to other available choices). Choices have consequences.

If we approach this debate honestly, many of those being hurt today by the rising price of gas are speculators. They speculated that oil would be cheap and abundant forever. They speculated that oil prices would stay within their comfort zone. They lost. And now the market for less efficient SUVs is changing.

Why should I trust that politicians actually care about the problem when proposals like this clearly demonstrate that the most recent lesson - the speculative effect on housing - is entirely lost on politicians? More importantly, will this increase in "gotcha" regulation decrease if/when the speculative bubble pops? Speculating does assume that prices are artificially high, that there's some lower point at which prices "should" be. It is about nothing but the price of gas, right?

Post Script: Proposals like this strengthen my belief that Bob Barr's candidacy will harm Sen. Obama. There are libertarian/moderate voters who will never vote for Sen. McCain and want to see the death of George W. Bush-style Republican government. Where they might've voted for Sen. Obama, spewing stupidity after stupidity in a populist appeal to those ignorant of economics will cost him votes. Maybe the net will benefit him, but there will be a trade-off. How is Sen. Obama a new kind of politician?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have two comments on this story:

As high-level delegations from the United States and China meet this week in Annapolis for their latest talks on economic coordination, the Bush administration's concerns about the value of the Chinese currency have been overshadowed by anxiety over the global price of oil.
...

On the first day of talks, U.S. officials repeated their call yesterday for China to stop subsidizing fuel for its citizens, arguing that it contributes to surging demand for oil and thus higher global prices. Since Chinese citizens pay a fraction of the market price, they have less incentive to pull back in their use of gasoline and heating oil.

Comment the first: It's pathetic for a country that subsidizes so many products, to the detriment of its own citizens, to criticize another country for subsidizing a product. It makes zero difference whether the product is corn, milk, sugar, or oil. Subsidies lead to distortions in an attempt to bypass the price system. There will be unintended consequences. It's transparent when acknowledging this on one product and playing dumb on others.

Comment the second: If you're meeting with representatives from another country for talks on "economic coordination", it's a bit embarrassing to be criticizing a country's "economic coordination". Central planning is as central planning does.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

With the news that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would support the proposed Sirius-XM merger after achieving "voluntary" "concessions", a merger (without the extorted concessions) I've loooooooong supported, I should've known some further rent-seeking would interfere. It's just too obvious for politicians to bypass the blood in the water when the companies are willing to cut themselves. And so it was yesterday:

Senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus yesterday criticized a compromise plan for the proposed merger of the XM and Sirius satellite radio companies, saying the deal does not provide enough opportunities for minority-owned programming.

The companies already agreed to lease 4% of their channels. Central planning now should surprise no one since the FCC created this mess by stipulating from the beginning that exactly two companies would be involved in the satellite radio business. Hubris is a bizarre flaw inherent in central planners. Still, this new extortion extension of the sleaze is amazing. I can think of no recent examples quite as bold and shameless.

[North Carolina Democrat Rep. G.K.] Butterfield said he got the idea for the 20 percent set-aside for minority-owned companies from Georgetown Partners, a minority-run private-equity firm based in Bethesda, and its managing director, Chester Davenport.

The firm, which has invested in wireless and media companies, objected last year to the merger, arguing that a monopoly could limit opportunities for minority programming.

Georgetown Partners isn't claiming that it expects to receive that 20 percent. (Nor does it suggest terms that will inevitably be dictated rather than negotiated.) And I'm sure its political donations to certain Democratic congressmen is entirely coincidental.

Delving further into the role of mafioso as public servant, this:

"It's shocking to the conscience in this day and age, where "the minority populations" comprise a significant part of the satellite radio audience, that Mr. Martin would settle for what I deem to be crumbs that have fallen off the table," [Maryland Democrat Rep. Elijah] Cummings said. "We can do much better. I am hoping that this can be revisited."

If "the minority populations" are listening, it's incomprehensible to think that Sirius and XM are not already serving this market in a manner that the market deems acceptable enough to pay $13-plus-taxes each month. It's also incomprehensible to imagine that "the minority population" does not already own a portion of the satellite radio market. I am neither a minority nor a woman, but I imagine that many individuals who qualify for one or both of those distinctions own stock in Sirius and/or XM, just as I do. Amazing as it is, no one is restricted from being financially involved. With Sirius' stock price, each 100-share block is under $300. The Free Money Congress is mailing could buy nearly 250 shares.

As I suggested above, it's also possible for anyone, minority or not, to approach Sirius and/or XM about creating programming aimed at segments of the market. I'm speculating, but I doubt executives at either company would refuse to consider such new ideas. Not that they're actually new.

This is just another example of the inevitable embrace of ego, greed, and power become the only reason for regulation. Protecting consumers is the ruse. Whether regulatory actions benefit consumers is irrelevant to the regulators. Cummings demonstrates this with his contradiction that "the minority populations" demand minority-owned channels, even though they're already listening to satellite radio and have yet to advocate for divesting of some assets to (other) minority-owned companies at shareholder meetings.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Andrew Sullivan nominates this Douglas Kmiec editorial for his Malkin Award, which is given "for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric." (see here) Mr. Sullivan quotes this:

"In a depopulating world, the claim that there is a universal right to marry regardless of gender becomes a frightening ally of a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children."

Strangely, there is nothing to build to that anywhere in the essay. Nor does Kmiec word the next sentence - his concluding sentence - correctly to argue for what he wants. Perhaps it's not an intentional "mistake". Judge for yourself:

People should reject this claim by returning traditional marriage to its rightful place.

No one is removing traditional marriage from its allegedly rightful place. To achieve accuracy, though, the proper assessment is to request that people reject this (again, unsupported) claim by returning marriage to its traditional place. The use of "traditional" still assumes a history of marriage that is not based in facts, but it would get to the debate a smidge better.

The rest of the essay is a rather ridiculous example of the form, which is surprising since it comes from an attorney. Has Kmiec never studied the concept of rights independent of the majority? He doesn't give any basis for rejecting that concept other than to make a feeble bow at the altar of mob rule. That's not enough. For example:

Voting to overturn the court's ruling should not be misunderstood. Gay and lesbian individuals are within the humanity acknowledged to be created equal and worthy of respect in the Declaration of Independence, but that responsible reaffirmation of equality of citizenship does not deprive the community of making a necessary and reasoned distinction for its own survival.

The community, apparently defined as America, will not survive if we grant equal rights to all citizens. "You're equal, don't get me wrong, but you understand that we don't want to die out, right? It's not personal?" It gets more pathetic, though:

Beyond correcting the court's disregard of the separation of powers, insisting upon preserving the link between marriage and procreation: 1) promotes the orderly continuation of the species; 2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing); and 3) takes respectful account of the difficulties of accommodating religious freedom that arise subsequent to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. Oddly, and incompletely, the California Supreme Court managed to ignore these important issues in its 170-plus page opinion.

People will not stop having children because gays and lesbians can marry. If you decide that two gay men marrying means you no longer wish to have children, you're mistaking cause and effect because you're an idiot. You retain your choice. If you make the choice not to have children, it's still your choice, one that is not forced upon you.

If you wish to avoid uncertainty, do not have children. Children change the lives of their parents in unpredictable ways.

There is no difficulty in accommodating religious freedom that arises from the legal acceptance of same-sex civil marriage. That's all that's under discussion. An attorney should understand that, so Kmiec is either ignorant or shameless.

For good measure, Kmiec throws this out:

When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

First, our Constitution is not based on democratic equality. Those two words do not complement, they compete. We get one or the other as a default. If we get the latter from the former, it's a happy accident. I'm not inclined to organize the state around praying for happy accidents.

Second, is a married couple using a surrogate to carry an embryo created from the couple unnatural? What if they raise the child in Kmiec's Catholicism?

Kmiec wants to run from the non-looming end-of-the-human-race slippery slope he fears. In doing so, he sets himself on the non-looming forced-child-rearing slippery slope. That's better?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

I groaned when I read the subtitle to this article on wounded soldiers returning to the United States through Andrews Air Force base.

At Andrews Air Force Base, medical evacuees from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make their first stop in the homeland.

Can we please reject adopting this nationalistic nonsense? When we accept it, we hinder our ability to fight the next, inevitable wave of nationalistic nonsense. I know our government thinks it's wonderful, but that does not mean it is, in fact, wonderful. It's not. It's designed to make Us™ hate Them™, which makes Us™ much more pliable to the hysterical whims of ignorant politicians who are only smart enough to understand that they can change the definition of Them™ without significant feedback on the truth or implications of such othering.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

My schedule's been a bit chaotic over the last two weeks. It's too late to start any in depth blogging tonight, so instead, here are a few quick recaps of the news items I've logged as interesting over the last week or so.

First, I know nothing of the legal argument involved in the recent case of Major League Baseball and "its" statistics. I don't doubt that the Supreme Court was correct to reject the case because there's just no property right there to describing what happens during a game. The recap from a specific service provided would easily meet a licensing requirement, but I'm not paying a fee for saying that Chase Utley has a home run in five straight games or that he was 3-4 with a homer and two singles last night.

That said, anything that gives Commissioner Bud Selig a figurative black eye is good. He had "good enough", which was more than the owners could legitimately claim. Yet they let greed at the expense of fans interfere with basic long-term business sense. Again. More than any other sport, statistics dominate baseball. Let fans have that and they'll continue to demonstrate their love for the game by buying tickets and jerseys and the $200 television package. This is not complicated.

I haven't paid enough attention to the FLDS case in Texas to remark on the judge's ruling that the State must return the children to their parents. However, this is not proof for those libertarians who believe that the state has no role in parent-child relationships. An anecdote makes a strained theory, at best. Many libertarians have made convincing arguments that the state has a legitimate role in the parent-child relationship, principally in protecting the rights of the child.

Sebastian Mallaby misses on "pro-growth":

... Given the yawning budget deficit and the coming demographic crunch, tax cuts aren't affordable anyway.

The same goes for deregulation. Getting the nanny government out of trucking and airlines yielded huge benefits in the 1970s and 1980s. But the "price-and-entry" regulations that used to cosset such industries have long since gone, and remaining regulation is harder to demonize. We are left with government rules to protect the environment, check the safety of medicines and prevent systemic financial crises. These rules are generally helpful. There's nothing "pro-growth" about bashing them.

"Generally helpful" is enough? Is Sarbane-Oxley hard to demonize for being only generally helpful? On what criteria may we base future decisions to cause just a little, allegedly inconsequential harm?

Like extending movie franchises 20 years later, old habits die hard:

Members of the Russian Communist party have called for the new Indiana Jones film to be banned in the country because they say it distorts history.
...

St Petersburg Communist Party chief Sergei Malinkovich told the Reuters news agency it was "rubbish".

"Why should we agree to that sort of lie and let the West trick our youth?"

He said many Russian cinemagoers were teenagers who would be "completely unaware of what happened in 1957", when the film is set.

Good thing the censoring communists are no longer in charge in Russia. Oh, wait.

(I liked last year's Die Hard movie, and I'm looking forward to seeing the new Indiana Jones movie.)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

From John McCain's speech to the NRA:

Real activists seek to make their case democratically -- to win hearts, minds, and majorities to their cause. Such people throughout our history have often shown great idealism and done great good. By contrast, activist lawyers and activist judges follow a different method. They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes, and all of that. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.

Is there an upper bound on how many individuals may have their rights violated before we conclude a constitutional solution is better than a democratic solution? If so, what's the number? Is there a distinction marking which rights are sacred and which may be violated at will by a majority? Is there any reservation worth considering to limit this complete trust in The People that might acknowledge those hearts and minds that are either incapable or unwilling of being won?

Like every politician, John McCain is a propagandist unworthy of being in a position of leadership. He will not behave as a leader.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I agree with almost everything in Andrew Sullivan's entry titled "Obama's Cowardice On Marriage". Marriage equality is not a "far left" position when the core principle is considered. Any dismissal based on such a belief is at least partially an attempt to avoid uncomfortable analysis that might reach an "incorrect" outcome. I'm not as certain that it's possible to minimize the federal implications of equal rights in favor of federalism given that our reality (14th Amendment, DOMA, etc.) is what it is. But Mr. Sullivan quickly gets to the point of why this "far left" charge is mistaken.

Still, I must qualify my agreement as incomplete because of this:

I should add that Obama's position strikes me as transparently flimsy. ... Marriage is the one issue where Obama is still politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward.

His position is transparently flimsy because he's a politician and marriage is a "tough" that politicians don't want to address as long as there are voters who treat equal, individual liberty with the same approach used by children being asked to eat foods they don't like. I'm loathe to compare politicians to parents because they already act that way too often, but it fits here. Proper parenting involves telling the child that she must eat broccoli instead of the candy she wants. The same applies here. Politicians Leaders must tell voters that some parts of American life are not up for a vote because they involve more fundamental principles of individual liberty. Majoritarianism on issues of how many rights society should respect for certain groups is the nutritional equivalent to liberty of serving only M&M's for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

But is this really the only issue where Obama is "politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward"? He is a politician, right? As I see it, pandering on free trade to win votes is hardly a sign of bravery, especially when it's apparent that the only way he will back his pandering with action is if he handcuffs himself too tightly into the position to weasel out of it later. He wouldn't pander if he trusted voters to support the difficult truth rather than the pleasant lie. And I trust that he understands the value of free trade and the hollowness of his anti-NAFTA rhetoric in Ohio.

As I've said before, I think Senator Obama is the least bad of the three two options we now have in this race. That's not enough for me to vote for him, but I can acknowledge that my analysis suggests his superiority over Senator McCain as the next president. Still, we shouldn't pretend that Obama is anything more than a politician until he demonstrates a longer string of statesmanship when it's politically inconvenient.

Note: The title reference is an inside joke.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm calling a technicality on this one because it doesn't specifically refer to the release of Exxon Mobil's quarterly earnings. Still, Sen. Obama is currently airing this ad in Indiana in anticipation of the coming primary. It has all the hot button issues: windfall profits, energy independence, foreign oil, and high gas prices. And there's a belief that more money "invested" by the government will bring about a solution. That's enough for a disqualification.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

President Bush talks about the economy, a topic he has proven himself qualified to discuss on par with his podium's ability to explain game theory. Not that it matters, of course, because the best a president can do is get in the way. Talk of helping is politics, not economics. As it was today:

President Bush today blamed Congress for many of the nation's economic woes, charging that lawmakers have blocked his proposals for dealing with problems ranging from soaring gasoline prices to the increasing cost of food.

Wasn't the Free Money economic stimulus package the solution? That hasn't even gone out yet, so it's advertised benefits are unproven. I did get the letter telling me I might be getting the Free Money. I won't, but why let that save me the cost of the postage and paper?

And he charged that instead of dealing with rising food prices, lawmakers are "considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem" and would not "eliminate subsidy payments to multimillionaire farmers." Describing the U.S. farm economy as "thriving," Bush said now is the "right time to reform our nation's farm policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies."

When he vetoes one of these massive, bloated farm bills, maybe I'll think he's serious.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm not an attorney, so I can't get completely into the questions of what Congress has restricted explicitly versus what leeway is authorized. But the Department of Justice has an insightful, albeit obviously broken, theory of how a liberty-minded society should fight an open-ended, poorly-defined war:

The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.

While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

This administration can't be trusted. We knew that already, so this is just another example. I'm more amazed at my capacity to be surprised by this egregious implication.

Forget the injured and dead prisoners, I suppose. The former will heal, unless they won't, in which case we'll classify them with the latter, who deserved it. I do sometimes forget that our government only incarcerates terrorists, not accused terrorists. As long as the intent of the is to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, it can't possibly be humiliating or *gasp* abuse.

I'm so tired of the argument that intent matters more than the act, that it should be enshrined as a rule. Beyond the obvious fault that the potential for abuse dictates clear rules limiting government, it's impossible to completely legislate a competent determination of the subjective distinction between good and bad intent. The mere potential for an exception where a vile, illegal act can be excused becomes the rule. That is not a sane path. Prosecute the act; acquit the legitimate exceptions.

Don't worry, though. Our government still cares a little.

“The fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant, but there are things that a reasonable observer would deem to be outrageous,” [a senior Justice Department official] said.

Who determines what is a "legitimate security purpose"? Congress? The president? What if the reasoning is classified, as it most certainly would be, an assumption the administration demonstrates¹ repeatedly? Are members of the administration who authorize such measures the reasonable observers who decide? The answers are important, since they speak to the continued development of what is supposed to be an open and free society.

¹ To be fair, the Bush administration is not alone in this inclination, nor is it unique to a party.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Here's an interview (part 2 of 3) with Stephen Lewis¹, a former diplomat now involved in HIV/AIDS issues. Here are a few curious excerpts (italics added):

What do you think should be done [to fix PEPFAR]?

People should demand more – much more. No one denies that when you pump several billion dollars into a response it will mean something. Of course it will; millions of people will be treated. That's terribly important.

But that's what we deserve to expect from the United States. You don't kneel down before a country because it's doing… something that the world has a right to receive. The American administration is so discredited, George Bush is such a lamentable president, that when anything of a positive kind happens people are prostrate at the unlikelihood of it and they shouldn't be.

It gets worse from there, but it's most important to focus on the key assumption. The world has a right to receive American funding for its problems. I'd like to know the socialist theory Lewis is using to arrive at the conclusion. Presumably we're only allowed to call our giving "charity" if we need to feed our American egos. The world will acquiesce with that concession, but the dollars must continue to roll in to satisfy the world's right to receive.

I don't have anything else nice to say about that, so I'll move on to the next interesting bit. (Again, italics added.)

How about the response of the United Nations to HIV/Aids in Africa?

There is just so much more to be done. Frankly, one of the things that is inadequate is the United Nations agencies. Some of it is bewildering.

For example, you get the Minister of Health in South Africa (Dr. Manto Tshababala-Msimang [sic]) attacking and dismissing circumcision as a preventive technology. Here you have three determinative studies, definitive studies, we have UNAIDS and WHO encouraging male circumcision as a way of reducing transmission and you get an attack on it by the minister of health in South Africa. Where is the United Nations' voice? Why haven't they taken on the minister? Why haven't they said what should be said, which is that she's effectively dooming people to death and it need not be done? You have to have a much stronger voice of advocacy from the United Nations in dealing with disease and related matters.

Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang is nuts is HIV, yes, but Lewis' rant against the United Nations is bizarre. Whether it's pushing circumcision through UNAIDS with breathless calls-to-action, issuing press releases touting the latest hype on the original story from WHO, or endorsing gender-based human rights violations through its remaining organizational reach, I'm not sure it's possible to do more for the organization to insert its reach any further into this debate on the wrong side of human rights. But that's defensible. Instead, let's complain that they never criticized Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang for being stupid and dangerous.

Except, they did.

The United Nations special envoy for Aids in Africa has closed a major conference on the disease with a sharp critique of South Africa's government.

Speaking at the end of the week-long gathering in Toronto, Canada, Stephen Lewis said South Africa promoted a "lunatic fringe" attitude to HIV/Aids.

Mr Lewis described the government as "obtuse, dilatory and negligent about rolling out treatment".

Hey, wait a minute. Stephen Lewis? Stephen Lewis, working as special envoy for AIDS in Africa, attacked Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang's comments in August 2006. Denouncing idiotic statements is necessary, but move on. Leave the grudge match to the WWE. Instead, every microphone is dead horse meets Stephen Lewis' stick.

I did thoroughly enjoy this, in an "I'm disgusted" way:

"It really is distressing when the coercive apparatus of the state is brought against the most principled members of society," he said.

Clearly Lewis is exhibiting a textbook case of Kip's Law. I would challenge Lewis' assertion that he is principled, since the UN's Declaration of the Rights of the Child clearly forbids medically unnecessary genital cutting, without exceptions for gender or potential disease prevention. Nor am I particularly moved by his claim of oppression. Are infants subjected a coercive apparatus when they are circumcised, in part based on the rantings of individuals like Stephen Lewis?

¹ The following biography accompanies the article:

Formerly the special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa for United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, [Stephen Lewis] is now chairman of the board of the Canada-based Stephen Lewis Foundation, which endeavors to ease the pain of HIV/Aids in Africa by funding grassroots projects. Lewis is also co-director of Aids-Free World, a new international Aids advocacy organization based in the United States.

This will be important later in the entry.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Let's all show our surprise that abstinence education doesn't work.

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

Teens will have sex. Who knew? And they will make bad choices, as well as "bad" choices. Yet, if the information is structured with a "just say no" pretense, everything will be okay. People who believe that should not be in charge of anyone else's money. They probably shouldn't operate heavy equipment, either.

More pathetic, though, is the resort to ad hominem from our culture warriors, aka politicians.

Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, said that it seems "rather elitist" that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate. "I don't think it's something we should abandon," he said of abstinence-only funding.

I guess "elitist" is the new "for the children." But about those parents providing preferred types of sex education, if they're the ones teaching their children abstinence, why is the federal government spending taxpayer money on something that parents know how to teach? Isn't there an implication that parents won't provide their children the appropriate type of sex education if it's not funded by taxpayers? I guess that doesn't qualify as "elitist".

Link via John Cole.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have a lingering internal question over whether my mistrust of government is still a healthy skepticism or is now in mired in the depths of cynicism. I don't think the difference matters significantly because I still reach the same conclusions. But the latter might make the rare exceptions harder to accept when they appear. And yet, as I wonder, a story like this on Senator McCain's proposed "gas-tax holiday" comes along (link via John Cole):

Earlier Monday at a community college in the Philadelphia suburbs, Obama rejected a tax holiday as bad economic policy. “I’ve said I think John McCain’s proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea,” Obama said, warning consumers that any price cut would be short lived before costs spike back.

“We’re talking about 5 percent of your total cost of gas that you suspend for three months, which might save you a few hundred bucks that then will spike right up,” Obama said. “Now keep in mind that it will save you that if Exxon Mobil doesn’t decide, ‘We’ll just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost.’”

I'm calling my mental approach skepticism because Senator Obama demonstrates here what cynicism really is. Where he could talk exclusively about the stupidity of a tax holiday bribe, he had to jump into talking points. Let's assume Exxon Mobil, since they're the working man's evil oppressor du jour right now, would "just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost". Then what? I, as a price-conscious consumer in need of gasoline, drive to the Shell station where the 5 percent isn't "just tacked on". Although it could be, because in a competitive market, companies are able - and certainly willing, the evil bastards - to "just tack on" whatever little windfall profits they want.

I've heard Senator Obama is a new kind of politician. I'm not buying it. A new kind of politics would rely on something a little more honest than pandering to voters with a scapegoat and misrepresentation of economics. This is one more reason I will not be voting for Senator Obama in November.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senator Obama had some interesting comments the other day. Oh, not those comments. No, he shared a thought or two on public financing for political campaigns.

Senator Barack Obama said today that the public financing system for presidential campaigns, which has been in place since 1976, is antiquated and should be overhauled in the era of Internet-driven fundraising.

“I think that it is creaky and needs to be reformed if it’s going to work,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a morning news conference. “We know that the check-off system has been declining in participation and as a consequence, the amount of money raised through the public financing system may be substantially lower than the amount of money that can be raised through small donations over the Internet.”

The check-off system is a tax on those of us who are smart enough to ignore that $3 box by those of us who are not. But there's a better point buried in there. Senator Obama has found a new, better way to finance a campaign than big, moneyed interests. (I'm correcting the ridiculous hyphen placement used in the article.) Isn't this the same new, better way to finance a campaign advocated by Jerry Brown in 1992, with the Internet being the only difference? What Sen. Obama is ultimately saying is that the Internet is an equalizer. But that would mean that the system is no longer necessary, not that it should be swept into an updated First Amendment infringement campaign finance regulation. His campaign is showing that government can never keep up with efforts to avoid the letter of the law. His political spidey sense tells him we should still try, subjecting ourselves to a permanent game of public catch-up that "we" can never win.

Of course, it's not about the power of the voice of the small donor, is it?

... “I would like to see a system preserved. And I intend, if I am the nominee, to have conversations with Senator McCain about how to move forward in a way that doesn’t allow third parties to overwhelm the system.”

I don't believe that Sen. Obama is stupid enough to think that a third-party candidate is going to overwhelm the system in 2008. At the current pace of legalized incumbent entrenchment in Washington, I'll be amazed if a third-party candidate can win in 2108, to say nothing of overwhelming "the system". But what if some third party's candidate did make noise? Is that bad, or do the voices of those parties not matter because we already have our two deserving parties to balance each other?

This is just a useful, if unsurprising, reminder that Senator Obama likes the outside role until he's an insider. Just like every other politician.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

The narrative is established:

Just as subprime mortgage borrowers were teased into taking out loans they later could not afford when the interest rates spiked, scores of municipalities, schools, hospitals and even museums are now facing soaring interest payments on unconventional bonds that proved too good to be true.

Ready to be unleashed on any and every victim:

The District has begun paying an extra $1.2 million every month because its interest payments have doubled, and in some cases even tripled, on $601 million of these bonds. That represents nearly one-seventh of the city's total debt and includes $24 million for the Washington Nationals' new stadium, the District's treasurer said. City officials were convinced by investment banks that these types of loans would be safe and cheaper than traditional borrowing.

Naturally, deceit (i.e. "teased into") is the only explanation. We can't expect politicians to be diligent when subjected to the avarice of evil capitalists. They couldn't possibly be stupid or greedy themselves.

The surge in the cost of these bonds is the primary way taxpayers are being burdened by Wall Street's credit meltdown.

The insatiable appetite among all politicians for spending unbounded by tedious constraints like tax receipts is the primary way taxpayers are being burdened. Without debt, there would be no upwardly-fluctuating interest payments.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Wired, the Los Angeles Times reports on a scheme to fight global warming. Or, rather, I should write that the scheme is claimed to fight global warming, although the specifics (unsurprisingly) suggest otherwise. Consider:

Motorists in Los Angeles County could end up paying an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump, or an additional $90 on their vehicle registration, under proposals aimed at getting them to help fight global warming.

Voters would be able to decide whether to approve a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" under legislation being considered by state lawmakers and endorsed by the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

So state lawmakers are offering a Pigovian tax, right? Their interest is in countering the negative externalities of carbon pollution, right? You know the answer, right?

The money would fund improvements to mass transit and programs to relieve traffic congestion at a time when transportation dollars from Washington and Sacramento are hard to come by.

Of course. Sin taxes always purport to be about reducing the offending behavior, but are never actually designed to correct the problematic outcomes. The politicians always end up saluting General Fund.

And it often comes with "words mean what I say they mean" baggage.

[Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn] also objected to the measure's being called a "fee" -- which requires a simple majority for approval -- instead of a "tax," which requires two-thirds approval.

[Assemblyman Mike] Feuer's bill would allow the MTA board to ask voters either for a fee of up to 3% of the retail price of gas, or for a vehicle registration fee of up to $90 per year. The money would pay for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Want to bet how quickly lawmakers would revisit "3% of the retail price" tax if the retail price of gas falls, lowering tax receipts? Bonus points to anyone who can find an example of Assemblyman Feuer endorsing an expansive governmental role in lowering the price of gas. Oh, wait, scratch that. Finding an example is actually quite simple. Surprise!

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

John McCain offered useful insights into his (dangerous) political mind at the Naval Academy on Wednesday. For example:

I'm a conservative, and I believe it is a very healthy thing for Americans to be skeptical about the purposes and practices of public officials. We shouldn't expect too much from government -- nor should it expect too much from us. Self-reliance -- not foisting our responsibilities off on others -- is the ethic that made America great.

But when healthy skepticism sours into corrosive cynicism our expectations of our government become reduced to the delivery of services. And to some people the expectations of liberty are reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee.

Actually, my healthy skepticism is still healthy. I expect government to ineffectively deliver services it shouldn't be attempting, even though it tries and tries and tries. And when it fails, my healthy skepticism knows that it will try harder, but with more money.

My definition of corrosive cynicism looks something like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold. This is the belief that individuals can't be trusted, so someone smarter must look after their interests for them. That brand of corrosive cynicism believes expectations of liberty should be reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee. My healthy skepticism understands that competing brands of political speech are a form of liberty thankfully enshrined in the First Amendment. The corroded cynic speaks of quote First Amendment rights.

Continuing:

Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

Senator McCain and I have different opinions on how our rights are protected. As noted above, we don't share the same opinion on our rights. But the problem here is his idea of a "cause greater than yourself". Who decides what cause is greater than me? Who decides whether or not my actions constitute sacrifice? And I'm not thrilled by the idea that "success, wealth, and celebrity gained and kept for private interest" is allegedly a "small thing".

I've long believed that we are a citizenry who behave as though we are rightfully subjects of the government. Among his many faults, Senator McCain is too friendly to perpetuating that mistaken belief. We are electing the president of a government (previously?) limited by a constitution, not a king limited only by his mandate by his higher calling.

Link via Hit & Run.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Monday the Los Angeles Times offered a typical analysis of infant male circumcision. There are many points to address from this story, so I've broken them up into multiple posts. (Posts 1, 2, and 3.)

Point four:

FOR nearly all of Nada Mouallem's pregnancy, she and her husband, Tony, had a running argument. She wanted to have their son circumcised. He didn't. "Many days, I'd go off and research all the pros. He'd go and research all the cons. Then we'd get together at night and fight," she says.
...

For the Mouallems, family tradition and religion were not factors. "We kept those separate and focused only on the scientific reasons," says Tony Mouallem, who was against circumcising his son because he didn't think it was necessary. Plus, he's not circumcised. "You have to work a little harder to keep it clean, but that's not a big deal."

His wife, Nada, however, worried about the responsibility of keeping her newborn's penis clean. She thought circumcision would help reduce the risk of infection and disease. "I wasn't keen on my baby having a surgical procedure, but then I thought, why not if we can offer him more protection?"

In the end, Tony sided with his wife. Their son was born Feb. 10, and was circumcised the next day. Tony held him during the procedure. "There was no bleeding and he didn't even cry," he says. "I'm still not convinced it was medically necessary, but I didn't want to burden my wife with the worry of cleaning it. And maybe it will be easier for him in the locker room."

Choosing surgery over responsibility is the abdication of an obligation when having children. No one states that an intact penis can't be kept clean. Even ignoring the absurdity that it's more difficult to clean in his early years when his foreskin adheres to his glans and shouldn't be retracted, keeping your children clean and eventually teaching them to care for themselves is parenting. Anything else is the selfish subjugation of the child's needs to the parents' whims. In this case, that whim is further discredited because the father presumably understands how to keep an intact penis clean.

Post Script: This most fits the "typical" analysis. These "balanced" articles always contain a couple who can't decide. And the couple always chooses "yes".

More analysis of this article and the CDC's obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Monday the Los Angeles Times offered a typical analysis of infant male circumcision. There are many points to address from this story, so I've broken them up into multiple posts. (Posts 1, 2, and 4.)

Point three:

Robert and Cara Moffat of Los Angeles, who are expecting their first child, a boy, in May, had no trouble deciding, and plan to have their son circumcised. Robert, who is 30 and circumcised, said, "I grew up with it, and my wife has a preference for it, so that's what we'll do. We're doing what the family is comfortable doing."

His father is happy being circumcised, so the boy will be happy with it. This is an unverifiable assumption at birth. His mother prefers having sex with circumcised partners. This is irrelevant because I presume she does not intend to have sex with her son. So it leaves the conclusion that his future sex partner(s), who they apparently know will be female, will prefer that he be circumcised. This is an unverifiable assumption at birth. Finally, "what the family is comfortable doing" is hardly a principle of ethics, liberty, or science.

Also note that the parents have said nothing about (potential) medical benefits in forcing this on their son. Yet, they're allegedly qualified to decide that their son will want this. And legally we're all supposed to think this is reasonable.

As parents and task forces sort through the variables surrounding this intimate decision, [Dr. Andrew] Freedman offers parents in turmoil this comforting advice: "Rest assured. No matter what decision parents make for their son, most men think whatever they have is just fine."

There are four potential realities for an adult male when he is finally legally protected to make his own genital decisions the way females are protected from birth. He can be intact and happy. He can be circumcised and happy. He can be intact and unhappy. He can be circumcised and unhappy. In the first scenario, he could do something but he wouldn't. In the second, he can't do anything but he doesn't care. In the third, he can do something and he will choose either the perceived benefits of circumcision he seeks or not facing the drawbacks from adult circumcision. In the fourth, he can do nothing and society rejects his opinion as an individual.

In the first two scenarios, we conclude that the child validates the parents' decision. We mistake an unrelated outcome for causation. In the third scenario, whatever we conclude, we've achieved the minimum standard of liberty that the male retains his right to choose (or reject) medically unnecessary procedures. In the fourth scenario, we either deny its validity or babble on about the rights of the parents. This generally involves some hand-wringing about parents making lots of tough choices while actively missing that none of the other choices involve removing parts of his anatomy. (You didn't forget that parental rights are greater when speaking of sons, did you?)

Dr. Freedman's opinion tells every man in scenario four his parents' opinions about his penis matter more than his own. Anyone who argues this refuses to reconcile the complete lack of medical need with any notion of ethics and individual rights. Just because science can (allegedly and potentially) achieve an outcome does not mean it should try to achieve that outcome. That is a slippery slope unbounded by any consistent rule or principle.

More analysis of this article and the CDC's obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Monday the Los Angeles Times offered a typical analysis of infant male circumcision. There are many points to address from this story, so I've broken them up into multiple posts. (Posts 1, 3, and 4.)

Point two:

In the first year of life, 1 in 100 uncircumcised [sic] boys will develop a urinary tract infection. Only 1 in 1,000 circumcised boys will. "While that's a tenfold reduction, you have to keep in mind that the risk was only 1% to begin with," says Dr. Andrew Freedman, pediatric urologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Proper hygiene can prevent most infections.

When considering potential benefits, context matters more than an isolated statistic. For example:

The downside of letting the child make the decision later is that adult circumcision is more expensive, painful and extensive. During an infant circumcision, practitioners numb the site with local anesthesia, then attach a bell-shaped clamp to the foreskin and excise the skin over the clamp. The clamp helps prevent bleeding. In adults, the procedure involves two incisions, above and below the glans (tip of the penis), stitches and a longer recovery. The cost is about 10 times that of a newborn procedure.

Let's ignore the rights of the individual for the moment. I don't, but the hypothetical does, so I'll stick with it. The cost is about 10 times that of a newborn procedure. So what? As a fact on its own, it means nothing. How likely is it that an intact male will need circumcision in his lifetime? If it's less than 10%, and it is, then a basic cost-benefit analysis shows that we will spend less overall by circumcising only those males who medically require circumcision. The "ten times more expensive" meme is worthless upon minimal inspection.

Dr. Freedman seems to understand this:

"The HIV data is the most compelling to date that circumcision can help prevent the transmission of the virus in male-female sex," Freedman says. "While this is important to sub-Saharan Africa, the question is how many infant boys need to be circumcised in the United States to prevent one case of HIV transmission 25 years from now? Factoring in even the rare complication that can occur with circumcision may render this study insignificant."

No kidding. Aside from not being able to predict who (or if) circumcision will help prevent HIV, we can also not predict who will suffer a complication. I seriously doubt the few children who suffer a significant mutilation of the penis care that most circumcisions are "successful". Nor do I suspect the few boys who die from circumcision care about the general outcome. Of course, this should matter now, even before reducing a child to his (unknown) place in the statistical herd.

But he might not get it:

If parents do opt for the procedure, Freedman advises that they do it when the baby is a newborn, have someone trained and experienced perform the procedure, and use pain control. "The older a child gets, the less benefit there is, and the greater the risk," he says. "I would ask parents of an older child to strongly reconsider if the only reason they're doing this is cosmetic."

The parents of a newborn who choose circumcision for cosmetic reasons? Those are somehow okay? Again, the individual - the patient - matters. When he is healthy, every other outside opinion is meaningless to the consideration of his body.

More analysis of this article and the CDC's obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Monday the Los Angeles Times offered a typical analysis of infant male circumcision. There are many points to address from this story, so I've broken them up into multiple posts. (Posts 2, 3, and 4.)

Point one:

Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology in the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention, says the CDC is looking at how the findings apply here. "The early opinion from the consultants -- and not the position of the CDC, which involves a peer review process and public comment -- is that, given all the previous data on circumcision plus the recent HIV African studies, the medical benefits of male infant circumcision outweigh the risks and that any financial burden barring parents from making this decision should be lifted," he said.

Nationalizing health care will no more end routine infant male circumcision in America than the elimination of Medicaid funding has ended it in the states where Medicaid no longer pays for the unnecessary procedure. There is a political constituency that strongly supports imposing this on children. Until the universal principle that each individual owns his or her body is codified into law for males the way the Female Genital Mutilation Act now protects female minors, medically unnecessary circumcision will continue. And the state will pay for it when parents can't (or won't). Any protection of the individual based on entrenching an existing, or establishing a new, collective will fail.

Here's a half-point in which I doubt Kilmarx understands the missing half:

"The procedure is so ancient, and steeped in cultures, I'm not surprised that the rate of adult circumcision in civilized countries doesn't track with medical evidence," Kilmarx says. "But as scientists, we don't solely rely on what other countries do as a guideline."

But as Americans, we don't (mustn't) solely rely on what science tells us as a guideline. Ethics matters. The rights of the individual matter, particularly the healthy individual. There is a hierarchy for decision-making concerning surgery on children. Kilmarx, among many, does not start at the beginning (i.e. medical need). That leads to mistakes, as clearly shown by the million-plus unnecessary infant circumcisions performed every year in America.

More analysis of this article and the CDC's obtuse approach can be found here and here at Circumcision and HIV.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I haven't posted on Monday's long-anticipated decision from the Justice Department on the proposed Sirius-XM merger because I didn't have much to add to the announcement. (It's also not the final hurdle, so over-analysis, to say nothing of celebration, would be premature.) But Steven Pearlstein's column is worth dissecting.

The latest example of a government bailout of a troubled industry has nothing to do with Bear Stearns. It is, instead, the Justice Department's decision to give the green light to the merger of the satellite radio companies XM and Sirius.

It's already clear that his position will be staked on rhetoric rather than principles. While it's good to know that from the beginning, it's bad economics. The goal of Pearlstein's idea of competition is not to discover winners and losers other winners, but to pick the correct winners and losers. As he makes clear, that means consumers must win and businesses must lose.

For the past several years, these two companies have been competing so hard for talent, distribution channels and customers that neither has been able to turn a profit, and probably wouldn't have for years. Consumers have been the big winners, with great programming at affordable prices.

Any cursory look at financial results demonstrates that consumers aren't winning in a vacuum. At least with respect to Sirius, its cash flow is improving. This matters to a growing company more than bottom-line profitability. But why should we expect such an acknowledgment from a business columnist?

All that is about to change now that the Bush administration has concluded that we'll all be better off if these heretofore fierce rivals are allowed to stop competing and concentrate instead on reducing costs, paring down their combined offerings and finally delivering profit to their shareholders.

This reveals the problem in Pearlstein's analysis. In setting up the satellite auction that led to the creation of Sirius and XM, the government decided that exactly two competitors was the best approach. It depended on an assumption that two could compete effectively. It ruled out the possibility for a third (or fourth or fifth or ...) to compete, possibly encouraging a different development of the market. It ignored the idea that human involvement might take it in a different direction than the ideal world envisioned by the sages at the FCC. And now that reality has messed with the centralized planning, the only response is to knew what it was doing, facts be damned. That's not convincing.

More importantly, what new innovations in the business will arrive if the combined companies don't need to waste resources on two '80s channels, two popular country channels, or two channels carrying C-Span? I trust competition with other competing forms of entertainment to drive the outcome because I don't pretend to know what is best.

Pearlstein disagrees, going so far as to analogize a combined Sirius-XM to a combined Coke-Pepsi. Yet, I don't drink either, so I'm fairly certain humans don't need them to live. Perhaps the availability of alternatives to non-necessities puts pressure on those evil, profit-maximizing corporations. Instead, Pearlstein deems it reasonable to argue that consumers should have ideal conditions for any and all requests. Anything that helps the corporation must, by definition, harm the consumer. It must be regulated, if not stopped.

He uses interesting logic to get there:

... You would particularly want ... vigilance in the case of a government-sanctioned duopoly, which is how the Federal Communications Commission viewed XM and Sirius when it granted only two licenses for satellite radio.

This irrational faith in the wisdom of government planning is matched only by his absurdity in arguing that Sirius and XM might develop substitutes for each other if forced to compete.

It makes no allowance for the possibility that, if you force the two companies to compete, XM might come up with a morning host who is funnier and more outrageous than Howard Stern. Or Sirius, lacking a Major League Baseball offering, might take a chance on World Cup soccer or college lacrosse and tap into a whole new audience that nobody knew existed. The prospects for that kind of innovation will be greatly reduced after XM and Sirius merge and the combined company focuses on protecting its existing hit channels rather than creating new ones to displace them.

As if college lacrosse will compete with Major League Baseball. Pearlstein looks at the possibilities (allegedly) eliminated from a merger while ignoring the tangible benefits customers already receive. He also dismisses the notion that the possibility that customers will leave if the channel lineup bores them won't be an incentive to innovate. He ignores that "free" radio is already following the exact path he fears satellite radio will take and ignores the innovations that satellite radio has given and can continue to give as a combined company. (Uncensored Howard Stern counts as an improvement, as does national access to sports broadcasts.) But why worry about details when this story can just be twisted into another screed concluding that the Bush Administration wants to screw the proletariat at every opportunity?

The FCC should immediately match the Department of Justice's decision and let the merger proceed.

(Disclosure: I'm a Sirius shareholder and customer. I've been an XM shareholder and customer in the past. I also desperately want XM's Major League Baseball with Sirius' Howard Stern. Economics and free market competition are still the reasons I support the merger.)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Harold Meyerson's column in today's Washington Post is propaganda. It is so obviously biased in its consideration of facts and creation of myths that any other conclusion is impossible. Any essay that begins with this:

Putting together everything we've learned over the past 10 days about high finance in Manhattan, one thing is clear: If Eliot Spitzer had saved all the money he apparently paid"Kristen" and her co-workers at the Emperors Club, he could have bought Bear Stearns.

... derives from a partisan ever-interested in stuffing the events of the day through to his predetermined conclusion. In Meyerson's case, that's always some derivative of how government must act more, control more, and protect more. His political mind is one giant Care Bear Stare at the problem du jour.

Today, he's concerned with workers.

The key lesson Americans need to learn from today's troubles is how to distinguish faux prosperity from the genuine article. Over the past hundred years, we've experienced both. In the three decades after World War II we had the real thing. Led by our manufacturing sector, productivity increased at a rapid clip and median family incomes rose at a virtually identical rate. The value of the American work product grew significantly and that value was shared with American workers.

That value that's shared with workers is generally referred to as a salary. Unless workers have stopped receiving salaries for the work they do, this argument is sophistry. Meyerson isn't interested in anything more than pushing anti-capitalist, anti-corporate class warfare.

In the broadest sense, the American economy over the past three decades has been powered by ever more ingenious extensions of credit to a people whose incomes were going nowhere, unless they were in the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. There were some limits, as a result of New Deal regulations, on how old-line banks could extend credit, but investment banks and other institutions not legally obliged to keep a certain amount of cash in reserve operated under no such constraints. The risk was that one day, burdened by debt and static incomes, American homeowners would have trouble making their payments and the house of cards would come tumbling down. But what were the odds of that?

His entire argument is built on the italicized statement. To work, he needs both a conspiracy by his enemy class and a lack of self-control within his comrades in arms spending. The former is a pathetic assumption not worth consideration. The latter is worth a simple demolition.

When I bought my house, I had a set income with a projected path of growth. For consistency within Meyerson's frame, I'll remove the assumption of growth. I also had a (declining) amount of debt consisting of my car and my education. I took on a fixed-rate mortgage for approximately half the amount a bank would've given me in 2005. I'll also assume what a bank would offer me now is less than what it would've offered me in 2005, although it would no doubt still cover my original mortgage with a comfortable margin. My (assumed stagnant) income covered my obligations.

How is "burdened by debt and static incomes" relevant, as opposed to poor judgment and financial forecasting by consumers (and financial institutions)? Meyerson sees only the parenthetical and assumes that amounts to conspiracy. And oppression. The notion is biased.

Meyersons demands are unsurprising. I wonder if he wrote this paragraph first.

Pretty good, it turns out. And out of this debacle emerge two paramount lessons for our highest-ranking policymakers: Regulate the American financial sector, which is now turning to the government for a bailout. And commit the government to doing all in its power to generate broad-based prosperity, through laws enabling workers to bargain collectively, through a massive public commitment to projects "greening" the economy, through provision of universal health coverage and affordable college educations.

The lesson from Bear Stearns is that we need the government to give us broad-based prosperity through a massive public commitment to boilerplate progressive talking points. Yep, further buffering Americans from the costs of their financial decisions is exactly what we need, lest they learn to exercise the self-control Meyerson knows they do not possess because they've been conspired against by the goal of oppression executed by our financial elite.

But, if I may, a question. When the government makes a college education more affordable, should it regulate who may study finance, and which branches of finance, since its eventual practice carries the risk of unleashing more evil on workers?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I (obviously) haven't read everything written on the Fed's Bear Stearns intervention. No need. Today's column from E.J. Dionne is the most intellectually dishonest piece possible, relying on a skewed, limited set of the facts. There's too much to excerpt and comment on to fully highlight its idiocy, but this is close to a summation:

But in the enthusiasm for deregulation that took root in the late 1970s, flowered in the Reagan era and reached its apogee in the second Bush years, we forgot the lesson that government needs to keep a careful watch on what capitalists do. Of course, some deregulation can be salutary, and the market system is, on balance, a wondrous instrument -- when it works. But the free market is just that: an instrument, not a principle.

Dionne mistakenly assumes that the American economy is a free market. It is among the freest on Earth, but it is not free. The free market is a principle. The American economy is an instrument.

It is an instrument for Wall Street tycoons who like corporate welfare. It is also an instrument for people like Dionne:

So now the bailouts [ed. note: this isn't a "bailout"] begin, and Wall Street usefully might feel a bit of gratitude, perhaps by being willing to have the wealthy foot some of the bill or to acknowledge that while its denizens were getting rich, a lot of Americans were losing jobs and health insurance. I'm waiting.

If the "wealthy" who will be "asked" to foot some of the bill had no financial interest in (i.e. shares) or transactions with Bear Stearns, why is it her responsibility to pay more for the Fed's actions? As a response to corporate welfare not benefiting her? And what if she already acknowledges that a lot of Americans were losing jobs and health insurance? Not that acknowledging that matters to anything; why does it matter?

Believing welfare is a dangerous policy for government is a principled stance. Believing that corporate welfare is a dangerous policy for government is a stance that serves as an ideological instrument for further regulating the American economy away from the free market.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)