Both candidates for the presidency, and most certainly the lone straggler in the race, will focus only on $10.9 billion in profit, ignoring the full story:

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said Thursday record crude prices helped its net income grow 17 percent in the first quarter, but the results came in below Wall Street forecasts.
...

As expected, margins at the company's refining operations dragged heavily on the bottom line as the big jump in prices on refined products such as gasoline, while a menace to consumers, failed to keep pace with the rapid increase in crude prices.

Still, queue the countdown clock to when Exxon Mobil will be once again demonized by politicians. Forget that the price increases at the pump are based in market dynamics and not just arbitrarily set to claim more windfall profits so that the CEO can make more money for himself. The correct answer will be ignored because the ignorant fairy tale purchases votes.

I wish to make a pledge. I will write a nice entry praising a policy position of whichever presidential candidate waits the longest to cite Exxon Mobil as an example of rising gas prices and why government needs to step in.

Posted by Tony at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

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 at 05:00 PM | 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 at 07:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Advocates for Youth is

... dedicated to creating programs and advocating for policies that help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. Advocates provides information, training, and strategic assistance to youth-serving organizations, policy makers, youth activists, and the media in the United States and the developing world.

Helping young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health is a noble goal. This is not that:

• Human rights—Planners must take an approach to offering male circumcision that acknowledges the human rights of the client:
  • Every adult male who is considering circumcision for himself should be able to give informed consent.[1]
  • Where a minor is the prospective client, counselors must take extra time to ensure that the minor and his parents understand the procedure and that the young male consents to it.[1]
  • When an infant is to undergo the procedure, his parents must be fully informed.

If he is an adult, the male must consent. If he is young, the male must consent. If he is an infant, no human rights principles apply to him. That is a pathetic view of human rights. Anyone who accepts that view is not an advocate. At best, he is a propagandist who does not believe in principles, only principals who may act on another according to an undefined criterion.

What is the delimiter indicating when a male ages out of "pre-young" and into young, conferring a human rights requirement for consent before his healthy genitals may be surgically altered? I reject the answer in advance for reasons I've explained in detail. Still, I want to know because I do not understand the magical powers wrapped around the penis that reduces mankind's ability to think when applying principles to its anatomical sanctity. So, advocates of the "pre-young" qualifier within human rights, when do "pre-young" males get the (ahem) equal right to consent - or refuse consent - to the surgical alteration of their healthy genitals that young and adult males possess?

Post Script: The footnote attached to the young and adult requirements points to an excuse from the usual suspects in infant male genital cutting advocacy. I will not provide a link to that report here.

Post Post Script: I addressed a similar, gender-based ethical lapse in a previous entry challenging nonsense from UNAIDS.

Posted by Tony at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I used to feel some reservation about quoting parents when they've said something stupid about circumcision. You've probably figured out that I shed that a long time ago. When someone says something stupid to a reporter, I highlight it solely to point out that people are using stupidity to justify imposing permanent, medically unnecessary surgery on their child. (Doctors are complicit in this nonsense, which will also be obvious.) From an article out of St. Louis:

"I tell people there's not a real medical reason for them to have [ed. note: Have? Force.] a circumcision," said Dr. Jack Klein, chief of obstetrics at Missouri Baptist Medical Center, where 1,873 of the 2,144 boys born in 2007 were circumcised. "I will tell you the majority reason that people get circumcised is because they want their kid to look like other kids."

That social conformity is reason enough, say some parents concerned about future locker room comparisons and sexual relationships.

"I really didn't want to be faced with a teenage boy asking me why I didn't do this and not have a really good reason for him," St. Louis resident Amy Zimmerman said of her 2-year-old son John.

Notice who she is concerned about. Her concern was about her own feelings, her own desire to avoid the potential for (allegedly) tough questions from her son. That was enough for her to justify unneeded surgery on her son. She seems to wish to parent her son only in ways that do not exceed her level of comfort with potential issues. If it might be uncomfortable for her, her fear is enough to dismiss the healthy, intact (i.e. normal) individual he was, as well as the preference he may one day hold for having his genitals intact. Ms. Zimmerman fails to understand what it means to "not have a really good reason".

Not that he would've complained if she didn't have him circumcised. That's speculation. But even if he would eventually complain, it's an easy position for parents to say "We didn't cut your healthy penis because it was healthy." That's rather simple. If he's not placated by that, it would still have been possible for him to choose circumcision. But if she's faced with a teenage boy asking why she did this, and he is not happy about it, what then? Oops?

If an individual does not want to parent his or her children, that person should not have children. Cosmetic surgery on healthy children to avoid future questions is a coward's solution.

Unfortunately, doctors are complicit in this abdication of parenting. Dr. Klein's statement above makes this clear, since the surgery is objectively not indicated. But they cede this point in the name of parenting, a very poor conception of that responsibility.

Ultimately, it's a personal decision, said Dr. Joseph Kahn, chief of pediatrics at St. John's Mercy Medical Center.

"Like every decision for every surgery on every child," he said, "it really needs to be something that's discussed with the parents."

Ultimately, we don't treat it as a personal decision. The male choosing or rejecting circumcision for himself would be a personal decision. And like every other decision for every other surgery on every female and male child, it really needs to be something that's medically necessary. That's the first principle that's ignored. Or can parents just order any cosmetic surgery for their child son(s)?

Female genital cutting is prohibited, of course, regardless of the "personal decision" parents might wish to make. We don't listen to nonsense about parents deciding what's best for their family, the newest mantra I see developing around male genital cutting. What's best for your family, when you decide to have a family, is that each person's bodily integrity is respected. You decide to have children. When they arrive healthy, you do not then have a special veto power over the form of that child's body just because he is a he and not a she.

Where medical need is absent, intervention is illegitimate.

Posted by Tony at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm slowly beginning to figure out that politics is a test of wills. Whoever has the most endurance will win. My resolve is based on strength of ideas. Unfortunately, politicians are supported by power to be used as freely and stupidly as possible. Eventually, they'll win because everyone with sense will go insane.

I'm not quite at insane, so today, this:

The Senate on Thursday passed a bipartisan package of tax breaks and other steps designed to help businesses and homeowners weather the housing crisis.

The measure passed by an impressive 84-12 vote, but even supporters of it acknowledge it's tilted too much in favor of businesses like home builders and does little to help borrowers at risk of losing their homes.

The plan combines large tax breaks for homebuilders and a $7,000 tax credit for people who buy foreclosed properties, as well as $4 billion in grants for communities to buy and fix up abandoned homes.

And what about those of us who, while stupid enough to buy in the bubble, were smart enough to finance at a fixed-rate on a loan properly proportioned to our income? We get nothing? Mind you, I don't want anything because I'm not interested in sending money to the Treasury so that it can then be returned to me masked as a constituent service. I'm already paying indirectly for the mistakes of others, as everyone is and must in a free market. I'm content with that because I know it works. This is just part of the process. But why should I also pay directly for the mistakes of others?

Specifically, the last thing homebuilders need right now are tax breaks that will inevitably encourage more speculation. There is an existing inventory of homes that may be purchased. Perhaps those aren't the homes people want. I don't claim to know, nor do I need to know. But expecting willing buyers to find a willing builder to produce the correct new home in the correct location without incentive from the government is the only reasonable position. A tax break just covers up the risk of speculation and the reality of failure. Dumb.

That's not to say the proposed $7,000 tax break for buying a foreclosed home is any better. That incentivizes buyers into a foreclosed home over a non-foreclosed home. If they prefer the foreclosed home over a non-foreclosed home, they'll be willing to negotiate a price without the incentive. If they prefer the non-foreclosed home over a foreclosed home, the incentive may skew their decision away. Sure, the owner(s) of the non-foreclosed home could lower their price by $7,000, but that just demonstrates the perversion Congress is imposing on them to benefit another party. It's the same game of picking winners and losers outside of the marketplace.

Remember, though, that the actual marketplace is not a zero-sum game. Both parties gain from their transaction, or they wouldn't enter into it. If they would agree without an external incentive, the incentive is unnecessary. If they would not agree without an incentive, the incentive skews the market away from its optimal point. Buyers have a required range of acceptable terms and sellers have a required range of acceptable terms. If the two do not overlap, that is not a failure of the market. The market is working as expected.

The housing market needs to stabilize. Unfortunately for me it will stabilize below what I owe. However, I want that to happen sooner rather than later because that is better for me, as it would be for any homeowner, whatever their equity status. More information is better than less information. But the market will not stabilize correctly, or as quickly, as long as Congress forgets that its job description does not include "Do something".

Posted by Tony at 01:05 PM | 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 at 01:10 PM | 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 at 01:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Warning: Although it's semantically incorrect that revealing facts presented in a television show based on a biography of a historical figure as large as John Adams counts as a spoiler, this entry discusses how those facts are presented. If you wish to watch HBO's John Adams and judge its merits for yourself before reading my impressions of the show, stop reading now. End warning.

I eagerly anticipated John Adams when I first saw an ad for the miniseries. It's good, except it's not. It's compelling entertainment, as much of what HBO produces seems to be. But as history, it's becoming quite clear that it's at best a CliffsNotes version of John Adams' life, and then only if sections of the CliffsNotes version were lost or cropped. Why?

The series leads the viewer to believe all sorts of strange interpretations of events that happen to be at best inaccurate. Events have been smushed together, with little things like periodic visits home being omitted. This may give dramatic tension to the filmed version of John Adams' reunion with, separately, his wife and his children, but it has the inconvenience of being false. While I understand that turning a book into a film requires edits, alteration is not editing. The miniseries is poorer for it. As a result, my enthusiasm for the remaining three episodes is waning.

Worse, the end of episode four, "Reunion", angered me. I can't find my copy of David McCullough's John Adams because we've temporarily piled our books into a closet as we remodel, so I can't verify whether or not this appears in the source text for the miniseries. However, Mr. McCullough consulted on the script, so I doubt he wasn't given a chance to comment on episode four's conclusion, which involved the inauguration of George Washington. To be more precise, it involves John Adams' reaction to George Washington's inauguration, but it presents Washington's oath of office to demonstrate the point.

The episode depicts George Washington reciting the oath in a quiet reserved tone to suggest the humble nature of a great man. After "...defend the Constitution of the United States," Washington bellows "so help me God." Are we really to believe that George Washington said this? What does Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution say about this?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Is it realistic to believe that any of the founders, having spent more than a decade to realize the fruition of a new republic based on limiting the power of government over the people, would deviate from a rule so basic as the oath of office as proscribed in the Constitution? I know our politicians violate the Constitution every day, but is anyone so morally defective that they'd blatantly do so in 1789, in this specific manner? (Yes, I'm aware that the First Amendment was not yet ratified in 1789.) If he was as smart as he must've been, would he overlook the absurdity of ignoring the Constitution while swearing to uphold it? And if Washington did add "so help me God," would he essentially mumble the oath, only to loudly proclaim faith in God at the new nation's birth? That's inconsistent on multiple interpretations.

Personally, I lean to Kip's view that the original appearance of this "fact" precludes any conclusion other than willful deceit. For a more cautious view, read Jonathan Rowe's analysis.

Unfortunately, America's founding fathers are misrepresented to push the Christian nation myth. They all believed in a single god, so clearly they wanted us to include God in everything the United States government does. We're to ignore the controversy from not including a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution presented to the States, as well as the rather quick ratification of the First Amendment after the birth of the new Constitution. It's ridiculous, but people want to believe it. And nonsense like this episode of John Adams encourages it. For example:

I hope this show can let some people remember that this country was founded by a bunch of men who were extremely religious [sic]

Even if that were true in the way that the writer believes, so what? Some of our founding fathers owned slaves. Are we to conclude that we should own slaves as a result? Or are we to conclude that imperfect men created a system of government capable of filtering human deficiencies from the exercise of power better than any other structure yet created? The text of the Constitution is sufficiently clear on this topic to know that the specific religious views of the founders are interesting but rather irrelevant to how we should operate today.

Posted by Tony at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As usual, Kip has the correct take on a news item. In this case, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is interrogating three CEOs without any clear reason why a committee created to investigate the government is investigating private market individuals. But politicians are involved, so there you go. I recommend Kip's entry in its entirety.

I'm frustrated by something within the hearings:

Lawmakers confronted corporate executives Friday about how they managed to take home hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation while their companies were taking a financial nosedive from the subprime mortgage crisis.

"It seems that CEOs hit the lottery when their companies collapse," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said at the opening of the hearing. "Any reasonable relation between their compensation and the interests of their shareholders appears to have broken down."
...

Waxman noted that [Countrywide Financial Corp. CEO Angelo] Mozilo received more than $120 million in compensation and sales of Countrywide stock last year while that company recorded losses of $1.6 billion. Merrill Lynch lost $10 billion in 2007, but [CEO Stanley] O'Neal got a $161 million retirement package.

I'm sure there's an explanation for this. Not being a shareholder of any of the companies involved, I do not care what they are. And neither should Congress. Perhaps this matters?

CBO estimates that the government recorded a deficit of $262 billion during the first five months of fiscal year 2008, compared with a shortfall of $162 billion recorded in the same period last year.

Why isn't our CEO, President Bush, hauled before Congress to explain his failure to veto excess (and illegitimate) spending? It couldn't have anything to do with Congress being the body that sends those spending bills to his desk, could it? I'm sure it's also defensible to send free money to Americans, as long as Congress prints borrows sends a large chunk but divides it among many Americans rather than concentrating it in a few hands. It's also defensible to pay it to people who didn't "earn" a refund by actually paying any taxes. At least the CEOs performed a task, however (incorrectly) one wishes to judge the results.

This is another reason why I am not a political partisan. None of them are competent at anything other than struggling for power. I don't admire that, and I'll never follow it blindly.

Posted by Tony at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This doesn't sound like a good idea. Someone, somewhere, might post something interesting that I need to know about.

The conclusion to the strip is correct. I'm willing to listen to whatever suggestion you have, as long as it doesn't involve disruption of my access to the Internets.

Posted by Tony at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The push for separate rights based on gender has never been so obvious.

Ten U.N. agencies have launched a campaign to significantly reduce female circumcision by 2015 and eradicate the damaging practice within a generation.

In a statement released Wednesday, the agencies said female circumcision violates the rights of women and girls to health, protection and even life since the procedure sometimes results in death.

That is, of course, a noble goal. But how is permitting encouraging male genital cutting any less worthy? (I'll get to "health" in a moment.) Do boys not deserve the same respect? Does every boy facing the circumciser's blade survive his ordeal?

"Today, we must stand and firmly oppose this practice because it clashes with our core universal values and constitutes a challenge to human dignity and health," Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro told the Commission on the Status of Women where the campaign was launched.

"The consequences of genital mutilation are unacceptable anywhere, anytime and by any moral and ethical standard," she said. "Often, female genital mutilation is carried out on minors, violating the rights of a child to free and full consent on matters concerning her body and body functions."

These agencies¹ argue that males don't require human dignity. They argue that males don't require their full, healthy bodies. They argue that moral and ethical standards do not fully apply to males. They ignore that unnecessary genital surgery is carried out on male minors. They reject the notion that a male child has an equal human right to free and full consent on matters concerning his body and body functions.

They defend this idiocy with the following note in the press release (pdf):

In contrast to female genital mutilation, male circumcision has significant health benefits that outweigh the very low risk of complications when performed by adequately-equipped and welltrained providers in hygienic settings Circumcision has been shown to lower men’s risk for HIV acquisition by about 60% (Auvert et al., 2005; Bailey et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2007) and is now recognized as an additional intervention to reduce infection in men in settings where there is a high prevalence of HIV (UNAIDS, 2007).

Significant is subjective. The missing word potential before "health benefits" is necessary, since most males have a healthy foreskin with no history of problems when they are circumcised². Very low is subjective. But the key word in that note is outweigh. Who is the appropriate person to evaluate the balance of those two sides? For example, who decides that the inherent risk of death is low enough? These agencies claim that every female must decide for herself from birth, but every male is subject to the decision of his parents until he reaches the age of majority. Females are assumed to be against medically unnecessary cutting until they state otherwise. Males are assumed to be indifferent, at worst, to medically unnecessary cutting until they state otherwise, when it's too late because a portion of their genitals are already gone forever.

The ten agencies involved place political correctness before principle. They possess no moral or ethical credibility.

¹ The agencies are The Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS; the U.N. Development Program; the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa; the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; the U.N. Population Fund; the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights; the U.N. refugee agency, UNHCR; the U.N. children's agency, UNICEF; the U.N. Development Fund for Women and the World Health Organization.

² This omission is damning to the intellectual integrity of the agencies.

Posted by Tony at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The FCC creates an interesting concept [emphasis mine]:

The Federal Communications Commission erased nearly all of a proposed $1.2 million indecency fine against a number of Fox television stations yesterday, saying the Rupert Murdoch-owned network should be fined for airing an offensive television show only in markets where viewers complained about it.

Instead of ordering all 169 stations that aired it to pay the larger fine, the FCC ordered 13 Fox-owned and -affiliated stations to pay a total of $91,000 in indecency fines for broadcasting an episode of the long-canceled reality show "Married by America" nearly five years ago.

This action attempts to apply the (illegitimate) majoritarian "community standards" as the FCC's guide. In reality, it now permits only the minoritarian requirement of one offended viewer in a community, with viewer defined quite loosely. This is not progress. The First Amendment still says what it says.

Posted by Tony at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My pregnant sister-in-law's water broke last night, so I'm going to miss the family gathering surrounding the birth of my niece today by approximately 12 hours. If she's lucky, my niece can have the same opportunity should she dare to exercise her constitutional right to vote in 2026.

Have I mentioned that I'm in favor of professional jurors, individuals who would be competent and paid a market wage to voluntarily work?

Posted by Tony at 06:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To review:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That's the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tomorrow, my government intends to violate that amendment by requiring me to report for jury duty under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. It has charged me with no crime. It has convicted me of no crime. Yet I am being forced into involuntary servitude. I must accept the revocation of one liberty to avoid the revocation of another liberty. This is supposedly my duty in exchange for exercising my Constitutional right to vote. That is immoral.

I love the United States Constitution. Tomorrow appears to be the day I finally grasp that my country does not.

Posted by Tony at 07:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Via Greg Mankiw, here's Senator Obama on NAFTA:

... We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.

It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.

It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard.

Kip offers an excellent rebuttal on Obama's pandering to the Wal-Mart and Exxon non-angles, so I'll point you there.

What struck me most in this nonsense is the last line. Apart from missing the truth that we need a President who understands that the President's primary role in the economy is to get out of the way, Senator Obama is backwards on his spin. Telling people we're going to erect barriers to free trade in an effort to protect domestic interests is easy. Telling people we're going to stop listening to lobbyists while indirectly telling them we're going to start listening to a different set of lobbyists is easy. Pitting one group of people against another group of people in order to win votes is easy.

The only hard task in American politics is telling people no. I haven't seen a politician in my lifetime capable of doing that. Barack Obama is a politician.

The free market - which we do not have - works. There are winners and losers in the short-term as change disrupts the existing manner of operations. That is inevitable, and we can discuss a minimum safety next mechanism (public or private) necessary to squeeze through the turmoil. There will also be winners and losers in the long-term, but that hinges much less on individual skills and much more on motivation to adapt. Specific losing is not inevitable in the long-term.

Pandering to this type of class warfare, which is exactly what Sen. Obama engaged in, will lead to economic turmoil as government intervention designed on fixing perceived injustices only creates different injustice. It skews market incentives. It distorts individual tastes and preferences. It encourages inefficient economic behavior. That is not leadership. To any extent that he believes pretends otherwise, Senator Obama is not running on a platform of change.

Posted by Tony at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is this disgusting act criminal because the man assaulted the children or because he practiced medicine¹ without a license:

A Gaston County man, who is the father of a dozen kids by two different women, is now facing even more child abuse charges in Caldwell County.
...

Marlowe and his two wives lived in Lenoir for several years and during that time Amber says he delivered and then circumcised two of his youngest sons.

Police reports indicate that Marlowe used a utility knife and one of the boys even bled extensively.

I understand what most people will argue is the difference between this story and common American practice. I reject such arguments outright. If you think that an operating room and training would be sufficient to overcome the clear assault, you're ignoring that ritual male genital cutting takes place outside of a sterile surgical environment. You're ignoring that training is required because the act is surgery. You're ignoring that surgery was not indicated in the circumcision of these two boys, just as it isn't in more than one million American male infants circumcised every year. You're also ignoring that female genital cutting could pass the same low test, yet we understand that the location and training is indicative only of the person's sense within the confines of insanity. The physical act is assault.

Anyone outraged by the circumcisions in this story who does not object to circumcision as it is commonly practiced in America is a hypocrite.

¹ To the extent that this is "medicine" in its common form, an objectionable claim.

Posted by Tony at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A sane person barely trusts politicians to perform their limited, legitimate duties. No sane person could possibly believe that expanding their power beyond that small scope is anything but a terrible idea.

With that in mind, Sen. Arlen Specter has a stunning belief in the government's boundaries, even by politician standards. He wants an explanation from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on why the NFL destroyed the Spygate tapes.

"That requires an explanation," Specter told The [New York] Times. "The NFL has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes, or any time you have records destroyed."

The destruction of tapes proving that a football team cheated against another football team is analogous to the government's destruction of tapes proving that it tortures prisoners. I can't possibly give that any further boost. Sen. Specter forced the fullest possible amount of grotesqueness into this conversation.

He went on to say:

"I don't think you have to have a law broken to have a legitimate interest by the Congress on the integrity of the game ... What if there was something on the tapes we might want to be subpoenaed, for example? You can't destroy it. That would be obstruction of justice," Specter said to The Times.

If violation of the law (even illegitimate laws) need not be the criteria, is it reasonable to assume that we'll soon have an anti-tape destruction bill zipping through Congress to prevent Joe in Milwaukee from destroying his tapes of that night in Tijuana where he got just a wee bit tipsy and took pictures of himself giggling at the window displays advertising drugs that aren't legally sold over the counter in the United States. I imagine such a bill would garner 97 votes¹ in the Senate and 434 votes² in the House, just as soon as the economic stimulus package passes.

Anyone else think this is grounds to remove Specter from office? He hasn't broken any law, but he's clearly not mentally capable of carrying out the duties of a United States Senator.

¹ Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton are too busy to do their jobs vote.

² Ron Paul will vote against it, although he will stuff it full of pork for his constituents. But he'll vote against it, so that makes it okay.

Posted by Tony at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This will probably be long; please humor me. Also, there are many issues of custody that I'm ignoring. I'm specifically focusing on how the Oregon Supreme Court addressed male genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) in its decision. Lest you decide from my last entry that I'm happy with the outcome, I'll spoil the conclusion now and tell you that I am not. The decision is terrible in its dismissal of the clear violation of forced circumcision. I predict that the boy will eventually be circumcised, regardless of his wish. If he says no, the court will decide that the custodial father retains the "right" to impose elective surgery.

With that, the Court's opinion in detail:

We allowed mother's petition for review and on de novo review we now conclude that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether M desired the circumcision as father contended or opposed the circumcision as mother alleged. (1) Because we view that finding as a necessary predicate to determining whether mother alleged a change in circumstance sufficient to trigger a custody hearing, we reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remand the case to the trial court.

This seems so fundamental that I question how the Oregon Supreme Court can be blind to the issues surrounding circumcision. Obviously the proposed patient should be consulted. Indeed, barring medical need, his decision is all that matters. As we'll see in a moment, all other considerations are extraneous. (Again, I am ignoring the custodial questions here.)

In the normal course, religious and medical decisions such as the one in this case, are considered private family matters determined by the parents or between parents and child, without resort to the courts. Unfortunately, however, these parties cannot or will not resolve this matter without court intervention.

As I've written before, normal and common have different meanings. They are not synonyms. The Court is correct that we commonly misbehave this way, but that is not normal. Just like having a foreskin is normal, while being circumcised is common.

Oregon does not allow parents the decision to cut the genitals of their daughters for any reason other than medical need. They cannot claim a deity's commandment. They cannot claim a potential benefit. Without medical need, the state applies an absolute prohibition. As our society is built on individual rights, proxy consent must have strict rational bounds. Non-medical elective surgery is outside those bounds. Gender is not a valid basis for distinction.

Father also argued that the court lacked authority to grant mother's motions because (1) granting the motions would violate father's freedom of religion under the religion clauses of the United States and Oregon constitutions; ...

The First Amendment's protection of religious freedom is an individual right. By practicing your religion on the body of another, you have negated his individual right through substitution. That violates the spirit and letter of our Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a mistaken display of ego.

... (4) the circumcision was medically advisable independent of the religious reasons for it; ...

Doubtful. I'll explain more on this in a moment.

... and (5) although M's wishes were "legally irrelevant," ...

A child does not possess the option to fully exercise his (her) rights while still a minor. That is a reasonable acknowledgement that minors do not possess the mental ability to comprehend their actions. That does not mean they are the property of their parents until reaching the age of majority.

We would not permit parents to surgically amputate a child's finger without medical need. There is no valid distinction that the foreskin from the same protection given to the pinky. Or the labia and clitoris. The father's claim here is absurd bordering on obscene. The Court should've rejected it.

[M's urologist Dr.]Ellen also stated that there was evidence of "glandular adhesions" on M's penis that should have disappeared by age three, and that that fact alone was cause for recommendation for the procedure.

Again, this is normal versus common. It is normal for the foreskin to adhere to the glans at birth. This adhesion commonly breaks by an early age, but it is possible for the adhesions to remain into the teen years. The presence of adhesions does not automatically indicate medical need, just as an absence of adhesions does not automatically indicate medical health.

As the boy ages, the presence of adhesions merely raises the question of whether penile functioning is being restricted. If he can urinate successfully and normal erections are not hindered, there is no reason to hurry nature. If he cannot urinate successfully and/or normal erections are hindered, that is medical need requiring intervention. (Such intervention does not automatically mean circumcision.)

It matters that this case began three years ago when M was 9. There is a difference between 9 and 12. Also, irregular readhesions will occur if the foreskin is forcibly separated from the glans before the adhesion naturally breaks. This is common among the children of parents who are ignorant of proper care of the normal (i.e. intact) penis.

Under no circumstances is it normal to break this adhesion at birth on a healthy foreskin and penis, as the bond must be forcibly broken to circumcise. The results can be bad, beyond the guarantee of scarring and loss of erogenous tissue.

Ellen averred that circumcision is a safe procedure, that there would be some minor discomfort for about three days that would not prevent M from carrying on normal activities, and that M's circumcision would greatly reduce M's risk of penile cancer and certain infections.

It is a safe procedure that causes injury to every male circumcised, as evidenced by the scarring, and occasionally leads to more serious complications, up to and including death. Who is the best judge of whether or not this inherent risk is acceptable in the complete absence of medical need?

The doctor's statement that circumcision would cause minor discomfort and a short healing period should be noted. The actual post-operative constraints from adult circumcision are little different, contrary to the scare tactics generally offered as an excuse to push the surgery onto children. This doesn't have a direct connection to this case, but Dr. Ellen is using standard arguments to treat a specific case, so it warrants mentioning.

Of course, no circumcision advocate's argument would be complete without the grand reliance on potential benefits against extremely minor risks. Remember, too, that those risks are almost universally based on behavior (e.g. smoking, promiscuity, lack of hygiene) rather than anatomy.

We agree with the trial court that the authority of the custodial parent to make medical decisions for his or her child, including decisions involving elective procedures and decisions that may involve medical risks, is implicit in both our case law and Oregon statutes.

Once again, Oregon already has a statue to forbid parents from imposing genital cutting on their daughters for any of the reasons the Court accepts here for male children. That is wrong. It violates Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution:

Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: ...

I'm having trouble understanding any exception to that which excludes only the genitals of male minors. I don't doubt that the law allows it, but where it does, the law is a ass.

Mother, joined by amicus curiae Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC), asserts that there is no more important decision to make for a male child than to require that the child undergo permanent modification to his body, and argues that an evidentiary hearing is required to find out whether M objects to the circumcision. She also contends that an evidentiary hearing is required so that she may present evidence regarding the harmful effects and permanent nature of circumcision. Indeed, mother and DOC assert that, because of the significant medical risks associated with circumcision, M should not be circumcised even if he states that he wants to undergo the procedure.

I agree with the last sentence, although I have written that I will not object in this individual case if M specifically wishes to be circumcised. But the primary logic in that paragraph is so fundamental that every lower court that ignored it should be ashamed. Individual rights, individual rights, individual rights, individual rights. This is not complicated. I'm not an attorney and I can grasp that. No individual is another's property. It's elementary, despite attempts to make it appear more complicated and nuanced. Male children are treated as such, but that does not make it legitimate. History will not be kind on our long dalliance with barbarism.

In response, father, joined by amicus curiae American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (collectively, AJC), argues that the trial court did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing, because M's attitude about whether he wants the circumcision is not legally significant. Father asserts that a child is not the decision-maker on such questions, any more than an infant who is circumcised. If the legislature had wanted a male child to have a say in whether he is circumcised, he contends, it could have adopted a statute to that effect, as it has done in other statutes such as ORS 109.610 (giving minors the right to consent to treatment for venereal disease without parental consent). Father also contends that the health risks associated with male circumcision are de minimus. In any case, father maintains that the affidavits he supplied to the trial court demonstrate that M does want to be circumcised.

Not legally significant. Again, what if a parent wanted to cut off a child's finger? The child's opinion would be legally significant then. There is no valid reason for an exception on the genitals of male children. It doesn't matter if the child is 17 minutes or 17 years old.

The father is an attorney. I have no doubt he is aware of the law against female genital cutting. Firing up the Way Back machine to yesterday, the legislature's silence on an issue is not the end of the discussion. Whenever the law and the constitution are in conflict, the constitution must wins. In other words, the law loses, legislatures be damned. Oversight does not grant legitimacy. The constitution guarantees equal protection. The law discriminates based on gender. The law is a ass.

For what it's worth, I doubt the males who suffer complications from the inherent risks of circumcision do not consider them trivial. He can never guarantee that M will not suffer a complication. As such, we're back to medical need. It is not necessary. Therefore, it is unacceptable to impose it. That is the only debate.

Finally, father and AJC argue that father has a constitutionally protected right to circumcise his son. They maintain that American Jews must be free to practice circumcision because it is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish tradition. Father concludes that, if this court requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing, we would usurp the role of the custodial parent and violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Lifting religious text above a constitution founded on principles of liberty is the way of theocracy. Worse, picking only the preferred requirements of a religious text is the worst possible intellectual dishonesty.

Slavery is in the Bible. We do not allow it. Polygamy is in the Bible. We do not allow it. Vigilante justice is in the Bible. We do not allow it.

And what of other religious texts? Do we start allowing any act that involves one person violating the rights of another, as long as it's printed in an old book that many people value? Tradition, sacred or not, is a claim made when principles contradict the desired outcome.

We conclude that, although circumcision is an invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks, the decision to have a male child circumcised for medical or religious reasons is one that is commonly and historically made by parents in the United States.

What kind of mental gymnastics must one engage in to marry the pre- and post-comma statements into one argument? Liberty demands that we stop at the comma when there is no medical need. Regardless of need, nothing after the comma is valid.

If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

The qualification here leads me to believe this victory will be pyrrhic. Sure, the court is acknowledging that someone should've asked the boy¹ for his opinion on what happens to his body. But it is not saying that the court must deny the father's desire to circumcise his son. Even if the boy says he does not want his genitals surgically cut², the standard becomes whether or not forced genital cutting on the boy will impair the father's ability to continue raising his son. The Court is actively embracing the stupidity that, if he doesn't want it, he may still be treated like property. The Court considers permanent genital modification on a child no different in legitimacy than his father telling him he has to eat Brussels sprouts rather than chocolate. Our society is insane.

¹ His age is irrelevant. We can't ask infants, but we should. Since they can't give an answer, the only course of action is no action. Until he can ask for an "invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks," do nothing while he is healthy.

² Some argue that a hospital circumcision is invalid as a Jewish rite because the surgery must be performed by a mohel.

Posted by Tony at 01:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

This is only in the House so far, so there's a chance, however slim, for cooler heads to prevail. I'm not counting on it.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.
...

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

Before addressing the plan, is the economy "slumping"? On what economic data is everyone falling all over themselves to give away public treasure? On what economic data is everyone reporting that the economy is in a recession (allegedly) requiring government intervention? Speculation rarely makes for good public policy.

Now, about that plan... This is naked welfare. If a "taxpayer" hasn't paid any taxes, he is not a taxpayer. Under this plan, he will be a welfare recipient. If that's what Congress intends to do, it should be honest about it. Because politicians are involved, they can't be honest. Instead, they wrap their redistributionist garbage in "for the children". Children do not stimulate¹ the economy.

As for subjecting this welfare to an income cap (there is a $3,000 income floor), is there an expectation that lower income non-taxpayers will spend the rebate free money better than others? Are there restrictions on how the money may be spent? Momentarily ignoring income distinctions, there will be a deadweight loss of some portion that will inevitably be spent on unproductive consumption (e.g. beer and cigarettes). There is no concern for the effect of this nonsense, only whether or not it buys more votes.

To those receiving my tax payments, you're not welcome. To those distributing my tax payments, you're economically illiterate scumbags.

More thoughts, both specific and general, here, here, and here.

¹ Stealing money from X and giving it back to X can no more stimulate the economy than stealing from X to give to Y. Welfare is an additional problem, but it is not the only problem. President Bush's preferred "solution" would fail to achieve economic stimulus just as well.

Posted by Tony at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Following on my last entry, via The Liberty Papers, I see that Mike Huckabee is spinning (video here):

On last night’s Hannity & Colmes, Colmes cited Huckabee’s quote about changing the Constitution and said, “That makes people a little worried. It sounds like you’re looking to have a theocratic state when you make statements like that, talking about changing the Constitution in keeping with your view of God.”

Huckabee responded, “Not at all. On two things. The context is two things: Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And, by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it. Nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform. And it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear… Except for you, Alan. I think maybe you should, maybe you should obey those things.”

Colmes said drily, “Well, thank you for the suggestion.”

Does he really think we're all that stupid? He didn't make a mistake in saying what he really meant. He said it with the right words. He's just not happy he got called on his anti-American, anti-Constitution crap.

But I'll take him at his revised word, if only temporarily, in order to demonstrate exactly why he's using selective interpretations of the Bible because he is a bigoted fraud more interested in his codifying his bigotry than in hiding his lying. Remember the Bible passage I quoted in my last entry:

If a man has two wives, ...

That is a statement of fact, not a refutation of the idea that a man may have two wives. Will Huckabee's proposed amendment in order to keep consistent with his God's law include a provision legalizing polygamy in the United States?

Mike Huckabee is a bigot and a liar. (The two flaws have a "strange" habit of appearing in the same person. Interesting.)

Posted by Tony at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've used Newsgator as my RSS reader for several years. I've generally been happy with how it works because I like the ease with which I can set a structured layout to my folders. The "generally" caveat is necessary because Newsgator has a way of messing with my settings to force me to use its product how it wants me to, even though it continues to give me the option to use it my way. I must switch my settings back after Newsgator changes them every few months. This has been tiresome, but I haven't liked any other readers I've tried. I've reluctantly stuck with Newsgator.

No longer. A few days ago the company switched me again to the beta of its newest version. It's done this in the past, but I've always had the ability to switch back. Again, tiresome, but only mildly taxing. This time, though, I have no option to go back to the Classic reader. That's a shame because the beta version is awful. And in addition to being awful, they forced my settings this afternoon from what I'd chosen.

I'm done with Newsgator forever.

I need to fill the void, of course. I like having a web-based RSS reader. Bloglines is okay, but I don't like the way it organizes folders, or at least the limited way I've been able to figure out how to organize folders. I do not want everything in a big list without sub-folders. Every time I attempt to use Bloglines, I abandon it within a few days.

I'm now trying Google Reader, but Google is trying very hard to lose me. I can log in with no problem, as evidenced by my joint login to my Gmail account. But when I log in to Reader, the page refreshes to the login page every time. I will not use the product if I can't use the product.

The help section suggests that my cookies are not set correctly. I figured this was the explanation, but when I verified my settings, I am within the range of what Google requires. I will apparently have to open my firewall settings below my comfort zone if I am to use Google Reader.

This is a terrible implementation by Google. Google wants to market stuff to me. I will consent to being marketed because I retain the option of overlooking that marketing. I will not consent to having my computer invaded so that Google (or others, inadvertently) may market me stuff in a more intrusive manner than having a computer scan the contents of my e-mail or blog entries for keywords¹. My computer hardware is mine.

There really isn't much of a point here, other than to rant against stupid software design. I don't know what RSS reader I'm going to use going forward. But I'm not going to accept a poor interface or cumbersome requirements just because the software is free.

¹ Google regularly serves up ads to me recommending circumcision services. It's technology is stupid.

Posted by Tony at 02:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've been summonsed for jury duty. I am not thrilled.

Forget the inconvenience involved; let's pretend that I would normally be indifferent to being on a jury. Consider the basic fact of what jury duty offers with respect to wages:

You will be paid an attendance fee of $40 for each day you report to the courthouse.

$40? For a full day of work? Hours of operation for the court are 8:30am-5:00pm. Assuming 30 minutes for lunch, that means the court will pay me $5 per hour. Federal minimum wage is $5.85 per hour. I do not have to agree with a minimum wage law to expect the United States government to honor that law. I will work no more than 6.8376 hours per day. Otherwise, I will sue the federal government.

My other option would be to ignore the summons and take the punishment:

The consequences of not reporting for jury service are severe. You could be escorted to the courthouse by a deputy U.S. marshal to explain to a judge why you did not report. You also could be fined up to $100 or imprisoned for up to three days or both.

At my normal income, it would be more economical for me to accept the full fine of $100 and three days in prison because it would leave me with the other seven days to earn income. Something is very clearly, very extensively broken in that system. Particularly:

Does my employer have to pay me while I serve?

No, but most private employers do pay employees during their jury service. Some pay employees in full, while others deduct your $40 daily juror pay from your regular wages.

I am my own employer. I can put a policy in place to pay myself while I'm absent, but that's a fairy tale with no validity. There is no one else in my organization to compensate me in a socialist manner by subsidizing my absence. If I don't work, I don't get paid. So I'm back to deciding if it's emotionally worth suffering criminal charges to significantly protect my economic well-being. Something is very clearly, very extensively broken in that system. I'm not buying claims of duty:

In our democratic system, there is no more valuable service a citizen can perform than to be a juror.

In our constitutional system, there is no more valuable concept than recognizing that forcing an individual to work at a job he does not want, for pay that is below even the minimum rate the government mandates for all other employers, with a specific requirement on how he must present himself for evaluation, is a violation of that constitutional system. It is illegitimate to violate my rights to liberty in order to grant another American his right to a trial by jury. Exercising my right to vote can not be morally wrapped in an obligation to submit to temporary slavery.

Being a juror should be a profession, with market wages and the liberty to enter and leave the occupation within mutually agreed contractual terms.

Posted by Tony at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)