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 (1)

A fan ran onto the field during last night's Phillies-Cardinals game, one night after a fan was tased for doing so. The volume of comments supporting the police officer's use of the Taser on Monday night were appalling. The pre-emptive defense of deploying it again was inevitable. From Cardinals starting pitcher Adam Wainwright (emphasis added):

"That was tired, that was bad. You know what? The Phillies fans should be mad at that guy because he might've gotten in the way of Cole's mojo he had going. That's terrible timing. And if you don't want to get Tased, don't go on the field. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting Tased if you're on the field."

I'll assume Wainwright isn't aware that the Taser can be lethal, and that lethal force is never justified for trespassing. If I don't assume that, I'll think even less of him than I do after reading his obvious ignorance from that quote.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

UPDATE:I corrected a word from the original entry to clarify my intent. I understand that the AAP is not a government organization. I've corrected the poor wording.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Bioethics issued a new policy statement on female genital cutting, titled "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors". It updates the organization's previous stance. Mostly it's predictable statements against all female genital cutting (FGC), which won't be controversial in the United States. But there are a few bits of odd reasoning included.

From the abstract:

... The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.

This is unobjectionable without focused reading. But it explains what is coming in the policy statement. Most Americans will read "opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm" to mean no cutting should be permitted on healthy girls. The policy statement doesn't refute that because, as it acknowledges, all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors is prohibited in the United States. In the body of the statement, this:

Protection of the physical and mental health of girls should be the overriding concern of the health care community. Although physicians should understand that most parents who request FGC do so out of good motives, physicians must decline to perform procedures that cause unnecessary pain or that pose dangers to their patients' well-being.

Reading what isn't being said demonstrates that the committee fails to endorse complete opposition to FGC, either. For example:

... Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

I think there's merit to this argument. It fits the details of proposed accommodations at Harborview Hospital in the '90s for Somalian immigrants. From a practical standpoint, a ceremonial nick to draw a drop of blood is better than an excision. Discussion without invectives would be helpful.

However, I don't want to imply that I endorse this strategy. I reject it as a matter of law and practice because children possess the same basic, natural human rights as adults. (There's no distinction for the gender of the child, which I'll address shortly.) Legislating such an exception, or refusing to prosecute such violations of existing law, legitimizes ritual and cultural genital alteration. It moves the discussion from should it be allowed to how much should be allowed. It dismisses the child, the individual whose genitals face the scalpel.

Related to that, the statement includes this:

There is also some evidence (eg, in Scandinavia) that a criminalization of the practice, with the attendant risk of losing custody of one's children, is one of the factors that led to abandonment of this tradition among Somali immigrants.

There are options and paths to pursue before we embrace moral relativism.

Predictably, the statement avoids acknowledging American hypocrisy on the topic of male genital cutting. This is particularly worth noting as some seek to move the AAP's (and assorted governmental bodies) official stance on non-therapeutic male child circumcision from its relative neutrality to deliberate advocacy. In the introduction of its updated FGC policy, it states:

The language to describe this spectrum of procedures is controversial. Some commentators prefer "female circumcision," but others object that this term trivializes the procedure, falsely confers on it the respectability afforded to male circumcision in the West, or implies a medical context. ...

Any fair, honest treatment of its words would recognize that male minors have the same rights. That excerpt should be rewritten to state that referring to female genital cutting as circumcision "confers on it the false respectability afforded to male genital cutting in the West".

This follows the last excerpt:

... The commonly used "female genital mutilation" is also problematic. Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West. ...

This is from the same organization that "opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm." The newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West imposes objective physical harm in every case, yet the AAP refuses to reject it, preferring platitudes about parental choice. From the abstract of its policy statement on male child circumcision:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

According to the AAP, parents may impose physical harm on their sons, violating the "principle of nonmaleficence" cited as a reason to reject FGC. Yet, in its revised FGC policy statement, the committee writes:

Parents are often unaware of the harmful physical consequences of the custom, because the complications of FGC are attributed to other causes and are rarely discussed outside of the family.

Changing "FGC" to "MGC" in that statement makes it no less accurate. Briefly perusing almost any news article or essay discussing male circumcision will reveal this.

Near its conclusion the committee writes:

The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals. Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. ...

Including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals is not legitimate. It is unethical, immoral and offensive to anyone who alleges to respect universal principles against causing harm. The committee's second sentence shows its hypocrisy. It tells pediatricians to respect and aid parents who (ignorantly but unintentionally) wish to harm their sons. It's moral relativism instead of clear principles respecting individuals. It's unworthy of a civilized society.

Contrary to my initial concern, the revised policy statement does not explicitly advocate acceptance of lesser forms (i.e. Type IV) of female genital cutting. But it hints that it's willing to look the other way if anyone wants to substitute Type IV for a type that won't be practiced in the United States. Discussing such substitutions is a reasonable approach, but the committee cowardly avoids taking a stance, choosing to introduce the topic while letting others draw conclusions. It attempts to straddle both sides of the FGC debate to let each side read into its statement what it wants, if they're unwilling to question or acknowledge anything that contradicts their preferred, limited viewpoint. Anti-FGC advocates are (correctly) upset, but the appeal of this approach is to those who believe that a potential benefit is science but the objective current health of a child is not. The AAP can plausibly say it opposes all female genital cutting, while also plausibly saying it recognizes the complexity of FGC as it's practiced and is sensitive to the people who practice it on their children.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is why television broadcasts should show fans running on the field at sporting events:

... A Philadelphia police officer Tased a fan who ran onto the field before the eighth inning. The kid seemed to be running around and waving a towel, but police took no chances. In fact, neither did Jayson Werth. He readied himself for a possible altercation when the fan jumped onto the field near right field, but the fan quickly darted past him before being takent [sic] down in left.

The Phillies said in a statement: "This is the first time that a Taser gun has been used by Philadelphia police to apprehend a field jumper. The Police Department is investigating this matter and the Phillies are discussing with them whether in future situations this is an appropriate use of force under these circumstances. That decision will be made public."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported the fan has been charged as a juvenile with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and defiant trespass. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsay defended the officer's decision to Taser the juvenile.

"It was inappropriate for him to be out there on the field," Ramsay told KYW Radio (1060-AM). "Unless I read something to the contrary, that officer acted appropriately. I support him 100 percent."

An individual is tased for trespassing. Officials with the Major League Baseball team involved understands that this deserves scrutiny, talking about an "appropriate use of force." [Disclosure: As I've made clear throughout my blogging, I'm a Phillies fan.] The police commissioner believes that the officer was justified in tasing the individual because trespassing is "inappropriate". This should scare everyone.

Of course trespassing is inappropriate, as the property owner controls his property and every sports team has a policy against fans entering the field of play. But tasers can be lethal. Would the cop shoot the kid in the back with his firearm for this? Was he just compensating for being out-of-shape and not wanting to engage in the physical confrontation necessary to subdue the individual? The taser, as it's being used, isn't a tool for police to do their job. It's now a substitute. That is worthy of actions to rein in police, not chuckles.

For reference, watch this video about a suspect who died after police tased him. There are many implications, but notice how the spokesman blamed the now-dead suspect for getting himself tased and subsequently choking on a bag of marijuana he'd previously, visibly shoved in his mouth. Is that the mentality we want to endorse for any police force?

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)

I still have Andrew Sullivan's blog in my RSS reader, but only as a way to stay informed on what's happening. Most days I only skim it, not carefully. Where he used to be open to questions, however scattered he may have bounced around on his emotional responses, now he usually exhibits a single with-me-or-against-me attitude. In anticipation of Brown's victory in yesterday's special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy, Sullivan wrote (emphasis in original):

The second explanation is the Brooks/Noonan theory that somehow everything feels wrong to the Independent or conservative-leaning voters. They have an instinctual fear of more government and, even though the Senate bill couldn't be more minimalist within the confines of expanding access and controlling costs, this gnaws at them. I think this is a legitimate feeling (I have it too) - but an illegitimate argument.

Look: the markets conservatives have believed in have failed.

As the more honest conservatives (Greenspan, Posner, Bartlett) have noted, the financial crisis was a clear indicator that we need a more active and vigilant government in regulating the financial sector. And when you look at the results of America's hybrid and dysfunctional healthcare system, it is more than clear that the status quo is unsustainable. Yes, this system has pioneered amazing breakthroughs and a pharmaceutical revolution that has transformed lives. But the cost and inefficiency of this is simply staggering. Look at the graph above. If you think it's great, support the GOP. They don't want to change anything, but a few tweaks.

Which part of America's hybrid and dysfunctional health care system proves that the market has failed? It's an interesting claim, but it's not an argument. It's a silly analysis of what the market should provide and how much it should cost. There's nothing objective here. There's only the expectation that we all agree that the government is the only way to fix the market failure of our hybrid health care system. As he writes later in his post:

At least Obama seems interested in government. The GOP seems interested only in politics and rhetoric that can sustain the bubble of deep denial they live in.

Obama and the rest of the Democrats are interested in government as the solution, which is the wrong approach. It's easy to suggest that government will be reformed in the process, but that's a rather nonsensical assurance when the problem is systemic in our interest-driven political system. Wishful thinking will not stop the flow of special handouts and exemptions that result with government involvement.

There's a complex case to be debated, which hasn't happened because it's easier to spew anecdotes as universal fact. It's easier to write "...Tea Partiers are just opposing the working poor having a chance to buy health insurance," as Sullivan wrote in November, than it is to confront a group's objections. In fairness, Sullivan has questioned what Republicans would do instead. But assuming indifference and malice in the face of silence is unhelpful speculation.

This is not to endorse the Republican approach. I find the party to be devoid of any value, which is to say I hold Democrats and Republicans in equal esteem. Nor am I endorsing Senator-elect Brown as a beacon of principled leadership newly arrived in Washington. From the little I've read, he's more of the same, defending torture by the American government, for example. But him not having a coherent or satisfactory answer on the current Senate and House health care bills does not equate with there being no coherent or satisfactory rebuttals to the current bills. As Mark at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen wrote:

It is increasingly frustrating to me that, for many supporters of Obama, any belief that the existing health care reform bills will do more harm than good is automatically written off as being in bad faith or, as it were, “nihilistic.”

I believe I've advocated here that any health care reform aimed at reducing costs must start with untangling health care from employment. An individual's employer is no more responsible for her health than it is for insuring her automobile or home. It's a holdover from the ridiculous tax rates of the World War II-era, where offering health insurance as an employment benefit was economically wise. Rather than fix the rates, government enshrined the concept in tax law. That was stupid, but it worked when people worked at a single company for life. Today it's uncommon to have had only a single employer by age 30. If we don't fix that broken government-provided incentive, we'll continue to have people lose their health insurance when they lose their jobs.

The current legislation keeps that tie, but punishes indiscriminately for receiving "too much" of a benefit. That's just doubling down on the madness of the past, thinking that government can fix what government broke by adding more government. It's the nonsensical thinking of the central planner, the kind who believes that anything that isn't what it should be in a hybrid market is clear proof that the market has failed, requiring more of the planner's expertise.

To show that other ideas exist, Megan McArdle offers her suggestion:

Raise the Medicare tax by half a percentage point, and eliminate the tax-deductibiity of health insurance benefits for people making more than $150K a year in household income, $100K for singles. Then make the federal government the insurer of last resort. Any medical expenses more than 15% or 20% of household income, get picked up by Uncle Sam.

I'm not a fan of this because it still messes with the tax code, encouraging employers and employees to tinker with non-cash compensation for borderline salaries. Other people may want that approach, but I'd rather have cash and make my own decisions. Social engineering is not good. For example, a $100k threshold means different realities in D.C. versus Omaha. It's a lot of money either way, but that punishes people unfairly in areas with a higher cost of living. The tax code would need to be more complicated to rectify this problem, which proves the need to simplify away from government trying to influence "correct" decisions.

That said, I'm willing to consider it as an opening to ridding the tax code of the health insurance exemption.

So, alternative ideas clearly exist. But it's easier for Sullivan to vent, lumping everyone who disagrees with him into a tidy, immature opposition. In a later post yesterday, he wrote in a post titled "A Libertarian Revolt?" (emphasis in original):

Since so much of the energy behind the Brown candidacy seems to be driven by anti-government sentiment, why is someone like me - who actually criticized Bush for being big government long before these late-comers - so dismayed?

Here's why. The rage is adolescent. It did not exist when the Republicans were in power and exploded government during years of economic growth. Fox News backed Bush to the hilt through it all, as he added mounds of unfunded entitlements to the next generation's debt, and then brought Beck in as soon as Obama inherited the mess. Scott Brown, moreover, has no plans to cut the debt or control government: none. He is running in defense of every cent in Medicare. He wants to increase the deficit by more tax cuts. He favors an all-powerful executive branch that can suspend habeas corpus and torture people. He has no intention of cutting defense. His position on the uninsured is: get your own states to help. His position on soaring healthcare costs is: stop the first attempt to control them.

We hear Karl Rove lamenting big government! We hear Dick Cheney worrying about deficits! The cynicism here is gob-smacking. And the libertarian right is just happy to go along.

Like I said, I don't endorse Brown for these reasons. If I lived in Massachusetts, I wouldn't have voted for him or Coakley in yesterday's election. So why am I lumped into the nihilist group because I'm a libertarian who thinks the current health care bills would cause harm to the nation? Sullivan is aware enough to understand that Libertarians ≠ Republicans, yet he pretends they're synonymous without looking at what libertarians offer because both groups oppose the solution he wants. It's unfair to rant incomprehensibly against something that is clearly untrue. One might say it's adolescent, which is why The Daily Dish is no longer must reading for me.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

This:

The man who is believed to have slipped into a secured area of Newark Liberty International Airport and to have caused a six-hour shutdown of a major terminal on Sunday has been arrested, Port Authority officials said on Friday night.
...

Mr. [Haisong] Jiang’s arrest [on a charge of defiant trespass] came a day after a video showing security footage of the incident was released by Mr. Lautenberg. It shows a man in a light-colored jacket standing near where arriving passengers exit a secured part of the airport. When a security guard leaves his post, the man embraces a woman and slips across the rope into the secured part of the terminal. The two then walk away together.

I don't have much to say on the facts of the case. I haven't seen the video, so I can't decide whether or not the Mr. Jiang's alleged actions were intentional. Instead, I want to comment on this:

The security guard has been on administrative leave since Tuesday, and he faces disciplinary action, according to the Transportation Security Administration. Derrick F. Thomas, a national vice president with union representing the guard, told The A.P. that the guard has “been rated a model employee.”

While in high school, I worked at a drug store. One day, the assistant manager in charge of the store during my shift left for approximately 30 minutes to run personal errands. She left a senior clerk in charge. If my memory is correct, that clerk was a high school student like me. Nothing occurred at the store during her absence. The next time I reported to work, I learned the manager had fired the assistant manager for her action.

If secure restricted areas of an airport demands attention and scrutiny to each individual entering, as we're told it does, what's less severe here than what occurred at a drug store twenty years ago that makes administrative leave appropriate rather than immediate dismissal?

My initial conclusion is to accept the obvious distinction. The drug store was a private enterprise. The TSA is a government entity. The former requires accountability. The latter can't. I'm inclined to be skeptical of this conclusion, since I don't wish to be an ideologue. Then I read this (via KipEsquire):

A bystander waiting for an arriving passenger noticed the breach and told the guard. TSA officials then discovered that surveillance cameras at the security checkpoint had not recorded the breach and were forced to consult backup security cameras operated by Continental Airlines.

There could be any number of issues why such a lapse might occur, technical or otherwise. None of them are acceptable. This is security theater, not security. And we're doubling down on our stupidity with every new, predictable incident.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I haven't written on Roman Polanski's arrest because everything worth saying is so blindingly obvious that those who need to hear are likely devoid of any capacity for understanding it. Still, one point thrown around bothered me most. The following excerpt from a New York Times article discussing cultural changes since the rape of a 13-year-old sums up the point I witnessed in more than one excuse for Polanski (emphasis added):

A 28-page probation officer’s report completed in September of that year presented a broadly sympathetic portrait of Mr. Polanski and his behavior, even while acknowledging that the victim, Samantha Geimer (who has since publicly identified herself), had offered grand jury testimony of forcible rape.

Submitted by the acting probation officer Kenneth F. Fare, and signed by a deputy, Irwin Gold, that report, which recommended against further jail time, said “the present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant.”

In a further conclusion that appeared to shed blame on the victim, it said, “There was some indication that circumstances were provocative, that there was some permissiveness by the mother,” who had allowed Ms. Geimer to spend time with Mr. Polanski. And, in a conclusion that might particularly jar readers today, it pointed toward evidence “that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.”

I do not want to meet the sort of person who would suggest that parents may consent to the rape of their children. Anyone who suggests such a right exists is a barbarian. It doesn't, because children are not property.

Posted without comment, I agree with every word of this assessment of the case (and the NYT article) by author Lauren McLaughlin, titled "She Was an Eight Grader." A choice excerpt:

They don’t mention the drugs he gave her, drugs with very specific muscle-relaxing properties, mind you. They don’t mention that she said no repeatedly. They don’t mention that, after fleeing his sentence, Polanski immediately took up with another minor, Nastassja Kinski. If there’s a clearer case of unrepentant pedophilia, I’m not aware of it.

Nor is Polanski’s pedophilia in anyway mitigated by the fact that he seems to think that everyone wants to have sex with young girls. Rather, it’s a sign of the decrepit company he must have kept. And, perhaps, of the decrepit leniency with which sexual assault used to be treated.

For this reason, it irks but does not surprise me that people like Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Terry Gilliam signed that petition. But why did Tilda Swinton, Darren Aronofsky, and Alexander Payne sign it? Are they aware of the actual crimes they’re so anxious to pardon? And if so, what exactly would Polanski have had to do to this eighth grader to disqualify himself from their forgiveness?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hanna Rosin, guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan, attempts to dismiss opposition to yesterday's news about the CDC potentially recommending infant male circumcision.

But the procedure is only "controversial" because people have emotional, psychological and religious reactions to it. Scientifically speaking, it's not remotely controversial. ...

Ms. Rosin's statement is nonsense because she ignores the ethics of implementing the findings. Her statement is nonsense because it ignores the evidence-based reality for infant males. The child's genitals are healthy at the moment of surgery. This is not "emotional," it is fact. Potential benefits do not make the surgical intervention on healthy infant males any more defensible.

Ms. Rosin continues:

... The anti-circumcision sites always refer to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1999 policy statement on circumcision, which declined to recommend the procedure. But that statement was issued before the most compelling studies emerged about the role circumcision plays in reducing the risk for transmission of HIV and other STD's. ...

The "most compelling studies" from Africa were performed on adult volunteers, which is the key point before we get to an assessment of the significant differences in the HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa and the United States. The ethical issue can't be resolved simply by noting that American culture already values the circumcision of males. American culture gets it wrong on what should be permitted on healthy children who do not need medical intervention and can't consent to cosmetic surgery. Proxy consent must require medical need first, and medical ethics should demand only the least-invasive effective treatment for sick children. Prophylactic infant male circumcision fails both standards.

Ms. Rosin later acknowledges the differences between Africa and the United States, but she seeks to pretend that "the evidence is still pretty strong, and even stronger for STD's" qualifies as a rebuttal. It doesn't. The only supported suggestion is that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission. Even if that accurately described the American situation, which it doesn't, wasting finite medical resources on infant males who will not be engaging in any sexual activity, protected or not, for many years is asinine. And unethical, since we must loop back to the evidence-based reality that healthy infant males do not need circumcision.

At the end of her post, Ms. Rosin raises a separate issue, apparently as a "gotcha".

Over on DoubleX, KJ Dell'Antonia makes the good feminist point. With the HPV vaccines, conservatives raise a fuss that removing the risk of STD's will make girls more sexually promiscuous. In the circumcision debate, silence on the promiscuity front.

There's a double standard. What does that prove with respect to justifying infant male circumcision? Because a group of people make a stupid, sexist assertion about one point, their silence on another human sexuality topic confers credibility to the intervention? Focusing on this gives the unserious nutters too much credit.

Anyway, it's far more logical to highlight the double standard inherent in having anti-FGM laws in America that prohibit parents and doctors from altering the genitals of female minors for any reason other than medical need, including the cultural and religious claims of the parents, while leaving open the option for parents to circumcise healthy male minors for any reason. There are important caveats to raise in the differences in male and female genital cutting, but the ethical question involves basic human rights. When considering that less invasive cutting is prohibited on female minors compared to what is permitted (and potentially encouraged) on male minors, the difference is in degree, not in kind, and can't be swept away with the same tired deference to potential benefits. But that would involve addressing the issues rather than side-stepping them to score cheap rhetorical points and declaring victory.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (17)

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)

I haven't blogged nearly enough recently, or in the last year. Blah, blah, blah. The only reason I'm raising that point is because today's the 6th anniversary of Rolling Doughnut. I'll only remark in jest that I should wipe one of those years off, given the breaks I've taken recently. But that's not fair to myself since I've still managed nearly 200 entries in the last year. I just need to be more consistent.

That's a meta way to advance to today's story, which is strangely related to my post marking last year's anniversary. Last August 16th, you'll remember, I had an adventure with TSA and an experimental, voluntary search that I refused because I could. They didn't like that, not that it surprised me. But it made the point that we're becoming a more complacent society, that we've agreed to stop valuing liberty when it comes to being searched. The appearance of safety is enough for most.

Today, I purchased Madden 10 at Best Buy. This should be a simple process. Instead, it involved asking for it at the register, the cashier charging me for it, me paying, the cashier giving the game to the security person at the door, and me showing my receipt to the security person. This is two¹ steps too many.

I stated my displeasure to the security person. I've done this before, so I knew I'd get the same explanation. Best Buy (or any store) can explain that it's to guarantee the customer gets what he paid for, which is nonsense. Even if that's true, my perception is that the store doesn't trust its customers. At best it suggests they don't trust their cashiers. If that's the case, they should spend the time they're wasting with me on training or different oversight.

When I told the security person all of this, he tried to deflect by saying that many stores are doing this. True, and I don't have to shop at them or Best Buy. To this he responded: "It's just like you have to stand in line for security at the airport."

Buying Madden for the Xbox 360 is not like boarding an airplane. Entertaining the notion that it is demonstrates the extent to which we've accepted every intrusion, no matter how stupid, inefficient, and unproductive. When a business says "Line up," we can so "no" by requesting a refund. I didn't today, but I have in the past. I'm sure I will in the future. But that's a low cost process. I can always go to Game Stop or Target to buy Madden. If we won't challenge those without guns, we should expect no better treatment from those with guns.

So, yeah, I'm still here.

¹ Three, really, but I'll skip the idiocy of the first step.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I compared infant male circumcision to tattooing a child based on a recent example from California. My original analysis translates to this story:

A Floyd County man has been charged with child cruelty after authorities say he tattooed his 3-year-old son.

Floyd County Police Sgt. Teri Davis said Eugene Ashley, 24, tattooed the back of his son’s right shoulder with “DB,” which stands for “Daddy’s Boy,” sometime this spring. The man told police he was intoxicated at the time, Davis said.
...

The children remain with their mother; Eugene Ashley was arrested May 21 and faces charges of child cruelty and tattooing a person younger than 18 years old, the latter being a misdemeanor, Davis said.

Like father, like son. Right? Or is there some limit to parental consent and imposition? Again, both a tattoo and a circumcision are a permanent mark on the child's body without the child's consent. There is justifiably a law against tattooing, but there are more dangerous risks - bleeding, infection, amputation, death - involved in circumcision, an unnecessary surgical procedure. This is a double standard with no justifiable defense.

As I wrote in my initial entry:

None of these possible exemptions satisfies the primary ethical flaw in either violation. The act is forced upon the child without his consent. Necessity requires an acceptance of limited proxy parental consent for infant male circumcision that does not exist for tattooing because the probability of a medical need for circumcision is not equal to zero. But when the surgery is unnecessary to the child's health, circumcision is the same violation, a permanent change to the child's body without his consent. The disparity in protecting the rights of children is obvious and inexcusable.

For a few opinions on this story, read through the mind-numbing comments at Momania, Theresa Walsh Giarrusso's blog hosted at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Is it informed to have an opinion no deeper than "what we do is good, what we don't do is bad"?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Boing Boing here's a video of police officers dealing with a naked man at the Coachella music festival. (Link only because the video contains nudity.) The man seems under the influence of something. There is also a large crowd surrounding them defending the naked man. The situation could descend into chaos. These are important caveats suggesting a quick, definitive resolution will be best. They begin with the most reasonable, least problematic solution by giving the man clothing. Only when it's clear he will not cooperate, they escalate. They're doing their job.

Once it becomes clear that some level of exertion will be necessary, however, the video shows that the cops opt instead for the Taser. The video demonstrates they chose the lazy route, and they use it - and other harsh techniques - before fully attempting to subdue the individual. At approximately the 2:30 mark, the police wrestle the man to the ground. He continues resisting. Some level of force is necessary and what they're doing isn't enough. Their actions become unacceptable at this point. Two officers struggle with him while another officer stands around holding the garment the man refused to wear. There is no obvious reason this officer should stand idly by. It's clear the man will not voluntarily cover himself, and he's involved in an active struggle. One of the two officers struggling with the man gets up and prepares his Taser. The previously idle officer now joins the struggle by pouncing on the man, driving his knee into him. Then, the previous officer tasers the man multiple times. They subdue and cover him.

I'm willing to assume they avoided wrestling with him as long as they did because the man was naked and not because they had an urge to ultimately rough him up. Neither is flattering to the police because dealing with this is their job, even if he's naked. But it's understandable. Yet, to avoid the physical effort required by their job once they'd committed to arresting the man, they used unnecessary force (repeatedly). And, although they did not trigger crowd involvement beyond words, they pushed the situation closer to what they tried to avoid in the beginning than they should have. This is an example where police used the Taser as an alternative to effort rather than as an alternative to deadly force. They wouldn't shoot the man for not cooperating. They shouldn't have tasered him.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Any point in the long line of events leading to the Supreme Court hearing a case on the strip search of students by school officials demonstrates that we've collectively lost our minds. It's easy enough to shout "Will no one think of the children," and I will. Will no one think of the children? Not as an emotional plea, although that is valid. This is a demand for recognition that children are individuals, as well, with the same complement of rights protected by the Constitution. We can debate the degree to which they are fully vested versus held in "trust" (e.g. free speech), and that's a useful debate. This is not that.

None of the lawyers had a particularly easy time of it. Matthew W. Wright, representing the school district, said that intimate searches should be allowed even for the most common over-the-counter drugs.

“At some point it gets silly,” Justice David H. Souter said. “Having an aspirin tablet does not present a health and safety risk.”

Mr. Wright did draw the line at searches of students’ body cavities, but only on the practical ground that school officials are not trained to conduct such searches. Mr. Wright said there was no legal obstacle to such a search.

Mr. Wright, and the government, may have a legal point on this topic using strict semantics. But the moral question is clear. These children own their bodies. They are due the same respect and dignity we offer to adults. (We violate the rights of adults. The point is that we violate the rights of children more.) Anyone who would propose that school officials could legitimately perform a body cavity search on a student if properly trained has lost his way.

I know enough to understand that the questions asked by Justices are not necessarily indicative of the eventual outcome. With that caveat:

Without intimating a view on the ickiness of what Mr. Wolf had described, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the law might treat different undergarments differently. “The issue here covers the brassiere as well,” he said, “which doesn’t seem as outlandish as the underpants.”

Not as outlandish, perhaps, but according to whom? The student, or does her (or his) opinion not matter? I know, DRUGS!@#$!@!!!. But, is there any room for the consideration that the person searched might find exploring her brassiere outlandish? If we extend this to even younger students, as a ruling in the school's favor surely would over a short period of time, would a female student who develops breasts earlier than her classmates be self-conscious of this fact? Could it be mortifying to have her brassiere searched? Is there a "breast-no breasts" exception to the Fourth Amendment, or just a general view that children have no rights?

"My thought process,” Justice Souter said, “is I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can’t find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry.”

Notice that Justice Souter states what he would rather have when comparing the strip search of a minor and an event that has no verifiable examples. This is the same idiocy that states that pre-emptive, legalized torture is acceptable because there might be a ticking time bomb. What is done is subservient to why the actor does it because DRUGS!@#$!@!!!.

Radley Balko sums it up best:

It’s a little troubling to see how comfortable these old men (Ginsburg isn’t quoted in the article) seem to be with allowing school administrators access to the genitalia of school children based on nothing more than a hunch that they might be “crotching” some ibuprofen.

At this point, the drug war really can’t be parodied, can it?

This is madness.

John Cole offers a good summary of this case, titled "I’m Not a Lawyer or a Constitutional Scholar":

And as such, will probably not understand the legal intricacies of this case that was debated in the Supreme Court yesterday. However, I can state that as someone with an IQ over room temperature, the fact that we are debating whether it is appropriate for school authorities to strip search kids is a sure sign that something has gone horribly, horribly wrong with this country and our sense of perspective, and I blame the war on drugs.

That's succinct to the point of perfection.

I got the Balloon Juice link from Doug Mataconis at Below The Beltway. I no longer read Balloon Juice, even though Mr. Cole provides excellent commentary like the quote above. His update to the post reminds me why I no longer read. After an excerpt from a linked summary he introduces with "Government by old men afraid of advil is disgusting", Mr. Cole writes:

Where is the outrage? Oh, yeah. They are too busy protesting the fact that Bill Gate’s taxes are going to go up 3%! Tyranny!

Link to examples, if they exist. I'm sure they do. But it is shrill and unfair to mock - out-of-context - someone's opposition to another issue and imply that agitating for one issue makes having a coherent position on another topic is impossible. This is common, as I've experienced, but it's a pathetic tactic in any context. If someone has made up his mind on a topic, that's okay. I have, for example. But that person should be prepared to defend himself if he brings up the topic. If not, don't bring up the topic. Doing so is the sign of an incurious, closed mind.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week when the government finally released the torture memos, Ta-Nehisi Coates discussed this:

Mr. Obama condemned what he called a "dark and painful chapter in our history" and said that the interrogation techniques would never be used again. But he also repeated his opposition to a lengthy inquiry into the program, saying that "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Obama's stance is the standard cowardice of politics. Holding criminals accountable for their behavior is an ongoing campaign tactic, applied only to those who are not one's peers. But it is nonsense if we are to avoid a repeat of this in the future.

Mr. Coates stated why:

I think this is wrong. More than that I think it's dismissive, silly and bordering on insult to any literate human being. In point of fact "spending our time and energy laying blame for the past" is exactly what the justice system does. By Obama's logic murderers would go free in the streets. The real question is not whether you're going to lay blame for the past, but who your [sic] going to lay it on, and for which past. What Obama is really saying in this statement is he won't hold this particular group accountable, for this particular past.

This is a dangerous course because it doesn't simply not "lay blame for the past," it shrugs off arguably the solemn responsibility of safeguarding the future. The price of doing nothing, of not enforcing laws, is the implicit statement that it really is OK to torture, that the most you'll face is a wag of the finger. The concern isn't mere vengeance.

This is exactly right. It is obvious that the United States tortured prisoners during the Bush administration. Yes it will be uncomfortable to prosecute high-ranking officials, including a former president. But justice is important if we are to walk back from the insanity of the Bush years. The difficulty in effort and emotion is not a sufficient reason to avoid the necessary task.

Mr. Coates contemplates this difficulty:

All of that said, what really disturbs me about all of this, is that most Americans still don't think torture is a big deal. I think in the case of Bush, particularly after 2004, we--the American people--got the government we deserved. I think Bush said a lot about who we were post-9/11. I'd like to see some exploration into how to make this torture argument directly to the people. Maybe we can't. Maybe people really don't care that much. But if we're wondering why Obama isn't willing to press forward, I think it's fair to also wonder why the people aren't pressing him to press forward.

I'm not wondering why Obama isn't willing to press forward. However, the readiness of so many to look away or actively encourage this behavior is disgusting. I suspect I won't like the answer if we press forward with prosecution. But I'd rather know that people think this than pretend they don't.

The title of this post is a reference from here about this:

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks,” he told [CIA] employees. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be president of the United States and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the C.I.A.”

This way is not moving forward. It is moving sideways until the next time this happens.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

The madness continues [emphasis added]:

About 150 patients in the U.K. have already received injections of Vavelta, a foreskin-derived skin treatment aimed at rejuvenating and smoothing skin withered with age or damaged by scarring from acne, burns and surgical incisions, according to a spokesperson for Intercytex, PLC, the Cambridge, England-based company that makes the product. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Vavelta, nor have any other federal agencies outside the U.K., where it was introduced in June 2007.
...

The fibroblasts in Vavelta are isolated from the foreskins taken from baby boys [ed. note: healthy baby boys], given several months to grow and multiply in the lab, and then packaged into treatment vials that are shipped to a select group of U.K. physicians. Each vial costs approximately 750 pounds, or $1,000], according to the company spokesperson.

I discussed Vavelta in November.

Last week I saw news links similar to this article.

It sounds like just another uber-meltable cheese product, but Vavelta is actually miles away from anything you'd want to put in your mouth. It's a radical new treatment for facial pitting, scarring, and wrinkles made out of—what else?—newborns' foreskins.

I didn't write about it because it's just a new example of something I've discussed before. And, while I'm happy an ethical issue appeared in the article...

There are also ethical issues to consider, especially if the folks behind Vavelta start paying parents for their sons' severed sheaths.

... it hints at the wrong ethical issue. Parents do not own their sons' foreskins. That's why they don't have the right to cut them off, much less demand payment for them. If a similar value worked for freshly circumcised adult foreskins, adult males should be free to sell for the highest price. They're not, because the state thinks selling parts of your body is "wrong". But taking healthy, functioning body parts from a child for no objective reason without his consent? That's somehow a valid parental choice. It's madness.

There was more in the original post, but it's not necessary to repeat for this. I'll add that discarded foreskins from adult males do not work well for this procedure. That changes nothing surrounding the ethical argument that demands stopping this practice.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although I largely ignore Michael Gerson's columns because I know it's going to be feel-good, big government social conservatism, I will defend him on one point from his column today defending ousted PEPFAR coordinator Dr. Mark Dybul and condemning the method of his ouster. Primarily, Gerson states:

A few radical "reproductive rights" groups -- the fringe of a fringe -- accused Dybul of advocating "abstinence only" programs in AIDS prevention. It was always a lie. Dybul consistently supported comprehensive prevention efforts that include abstinence, faithfulness and condom use -- the approach that African governments themselves developed. ...

I conducted a quick search to find proof on what I know about PEPFAR and found this quote from the New York Times, from December 14, 2006:

[Dr. Dybul] also warned that it was only one new weapon in the fight, adding, ''Prevention efforts must reinforce the A.B.C. approach -- abstain, be faithful, and correct and consistent use of condoms.''

So Gerson's point that Dr Dybul is being unfairly attacked on these grounds is accurate.

However, the "it" Dr. Dybul refers derives from the previous paragraph in the New York Times story, an angle I knew I'd find in my research.

Dr. Mark Dybul, executive director of President Bush's $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, said in a statement that his agency ''will support implementation of safe medical male circumcision for H.I.V./AIDS prevention'' if world health agencies recommend it.

From PEPFAR's male circumcision brief, updated January 2009, here is a sample of PEPFAR's work:

In Zambia, PEPFAR continues to support a broad approach to prevention which includes male circumcision. Safe and effective medical male circumcision services are now provided at various sites to reduce new HIV infections and other sexually transmitted diseases. Working with the Ministry of Health, male circumcision is offered at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka and the General Hospital in Livingstone, as well as through satellite facilities. PEPFAR is also supporting training, public health evaluation on neonatal circumcision, and the development of comprehensive prevention messages to accompany medical male circumcision services. [emphasis added]

This is an action overseen by an individual Gerson describes as "a great humanitarian physician -- a man of faith and conscience". I have no reason to question the second claim, but one and three are demonstrably false.

I do not expect anything better from the Obama administration's eventual pick to replace Dr. Dybul. Always remember that when public health officials talk about voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary, adult. Never.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

For those who can't wait to have government take over health care and make it super fantastical and free, maybe another example will demonstrate the fallacy of this idea. The ongoing stupid party surrounding the subsidization of television as a right inherent in Congressional action protecting consumers from the forced national conversion to digital television continues with a new twist: Consumers have already demanded more $40 coupons than Congress authorized.

As of this past Sunday, consumers who request a $40 coupon to help offset the cost of a converter box are being placed on a waiting list. They may not receive the coupons before Feb. 17, when full-power television stations will shut off traditional analog broadcasts and transmit only digital signals.

Members of Congress are now scrambling to find ways to allocate more money to the program.

"We saw a massive spike in coupons in the past six weeks," said Meredith Atwell Baker, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department that runs the coupon program. She said a record 7.2 million coupons were ordered in December, while the agency was expecting roughly 4 million requests. She urged consumers to make sure at least one television set is ready for the transition, with or without a coupon.

The government guessed incorrectly in its attempt to centrally plan the American television viewing method and failed to fund nearly half the unsurprising demand. When something is "free" (i.e. offered below market value), consumers will demand the service or good more than they would at the market price. Who knew? Yet, Congress is competent to predict exactly how many doctors we need? It can accurately predict how many maternity beds we need?

"[NTA has] left us precious little time to respond," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. "They've created a mess by not admitting that there was not sufficient funding until the very last minute. So now we're looking for creative ways of solving the problem."

Perhaps if the market could respond to a signal as clear as rising demand, the price could rise to compensate for a finite supply. Nope. Just get in line and pray enough coupons expire. Or find more money for every critical demand, since every demand is critical. Somewhere.

It's clear that Congress doesn't understand the inevitable, arbitrary rationing that results when artificial demand intersects with finite supply. But health care will be different. Somehow.

Want to know why I'm not a big fan of consumer advocacy groups?

"NTIA is going to stop processing coupons precisely at the time when people need them the most," said Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union. "Whatever Congress decides to do, it needs to be done as soon as possible to help people through this complicated transition," he said.

When people need them most. Congress is throwing money around recklessly, with a potential $1,000,000,000,000 deficit for the fiscal year, and we're discussing television as a need worthy of public subsidy. There is no way to advocate for that, unless the system is broken.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have about $15 free to spend on other things now that I wouldn't have had in August. I should be punished because I now have money that Shell should have. Wouldn't Shell be justified in demanding a tax on that windfall gain, if we're to believe politicians (i.e. economic illiterates)?

I assume Shell would demand the proceeds of that tax rather than the more generous gesture consistently implied by The People's representatives, which is that the Treasury can keep the punishment for the brazen theft from consumers perpetuated by the greedy capitalist oil companies. They are greedy capitalists, after all.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I don't know the intricacies of Finnish law. I don't need to know them to know that this is obscene.

A circumcision performed on a Muslim boy in Finland was not a penal offence, Finland's Supreme Court (KKO) decided Friday in a precedent setting case.
...

However, according to the Supreme Court a circumcision done for religious reasons helped the son in the development of his identity. The operation also helped him to become attached to his religious and social community.

How does the court know it helped him in his identity? What they mean is that they assume it will help him develop his identity as a Muslim because Muslim's circumcise. That is an appeal to subjugating the individual to the group. It is anti-liberty. At some point, preferably sooner, tradition must be analyzed for what it is, not how long it has been around, or which non-legally-binding books demand it.

It gets much, much worse:

The court decided that the child's parent was allowed to decide on the operation as it was not against the interests of the child. The boy's bodily integrity was violated only a little and as the operation was conducted under local anaesthetic, it did not cause the child unnecessary suffering.

Why not say it's okay to rape women, as long as the rapist wears a condom? I mean, it's not like he'll get her pregnant or give her a disease. It only violates her bodily integrity a little. Some counseling, a bit of time, and voila, the problem disappears.

Just like circumcision only removes a few thousand nerve endings and some tissue. So what if he's healthy and surgery imposes objective risks. He¹ will be thankful, as long as his parents' subjective opinion demands it. It's minor, really. It's not for the individual to complain. It's merely his body, and what is that, really?

The only valid precedent set by the Finnish Supreme Court is that its judges are insane anti-liberty cretins. Demonstrated by Finland's existing prohibition on female genital mutilation, they're also disgusting hypocrites.

¹ Or she? Her opinion is also irrelevant, subject to whatever whim her parents hold, right?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

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)

I sent a letter to my Congressman today.

Congressman Davis:

I write to you with a heart and mind burdened by disillusionment with capitalism. I've plodded along for years, just being a good American. I pay my bills on time. I go to work every day. I own a home. I vote. I do my part.

Recently, I decided to improve my life just a little bit, adding a simple pleasure to my leisure time. I purchased a new computer (stimulating the economy!) with a Blu-ray drive. I now have better picture quality when watching movies. God bless America and her bounty.

But, and this is a surprise to me because I expected everyone else who shares this country to have the same understanding that each person's actions affect the common good, but they don't. The evil CEO at Netflix is being so very greedy, it's disgusting. As I'm sure you know, Netflix raised its monthly membership fee by $1 for users who want Blu-ray rentals. They are picking my pocket. I want Blu-ray on my membership, but it should be free. I know you agree.

I have not budgeted for an extra dollar in my membership fee. When I signed up, I said to myself, "Self, $14.99 is the limit. And you will have Blu-ray access." Now imagine my displeasure to learn that I can't have what I want for the price I deserve. I know you share my displeasure. How much deprivation do they think is appropriate? I say none! I need to be rescued so that I don't have to cancel my membership. So, I ask: what will you do for me?

Direct deposit would be nice, but I'll accept a check each month. Just think, it'll help the post office, so I can see the logic. I'm willing to accept that little extra inconvenience for myself if it'll benefit the greater good. The obscene $1 hike doesn't happen until November, so there is just enough time to pass legislation in the Congress so that my $1 arrives in a timely manner.

Also, I know there are millions of other people affected by this price-gouging. Just think, if there are 1 million people who must now pay an extra dollar each month, that is $1,000,000 of windfall profits for a service that should be free. Each month. That's $12,000,000 per year. And I bet the number is higher. That can't stand. We need a tax on windfall DVD rental profits!

Thank you for your serious consideration. Please do not let the DVD rental market seize up. I await your reply.

Tony

I urge you to do the same on this matter of national urgency.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

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)

Standing in the express aisle at the supermarket buying my lunch today, the gentleman two customers in front of me purchased a bottle of wine. The cashier confused him when she asked for identification. Understandably, since he appeared to be pushing fifty. To help him the customer between us helped him by telling him "it's a new state law" that everyone must be asked to verify his or her age when buying alcohol. His response? "Oh, that's a good thing. That way kids can't buy alcohol."

Ehhhhhhhh. A small child could figure out that this gentleman was old enough to buy alcohol. It is objectively stupid to require the cashier to verify the obvious. It wasted the customer's time. It wasted the cashier's time. The customer between us? Wasted time. Me? Wasted time. All of this theater for no improvement in alcohol safety, even if we grant that as a legitimate government function. We have the appearance of responsibility to remind us that we're good and nothing else.

The worst part of this is that this requirement is not state law (yet), at least as far as I'm aware. I believe it is only a policy of the grocery store. This says only that "No person shall ... sell any alcoholic beverages to any person when at the time of such sale he knows or has reason to believe that the person to whom the sale is made is (i) less than twenty-one years of age...". Anyone staffed in a position to operate a cash register is probably intelligent enough to understand that she has no reason to believe that a man who looks fifty is not less than twenty-one years of age. No matter. We're now trained to assume that everything the government does is correct and good. Think of the children, except don't actually think. You might figure out that you can function without a firm hand forcing you.

In case parents are too stupid to understand how to teach their children alcohol responsibility, the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control offers an insulting guide to Virginia Alcohol Laws and Parental Responsibility. It includes 10 tips for hosting an alcohol-free party because there's no way you could responsibly include alcohol in a setting with children because they are incapable of learning responsibility through modeling responsible behavior. You must treat your 10-year-old son and your 20-year-old daughter the same.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm still catching up on some of the circumcision-related news items form the last few weeks. Sometimes, I step away from the topic for short periods to recharge my tolerance for the inevitable frustration that arises when considering the various ways the rights of the circumcised are ignored, and the manner in which every breathless proclamation seems to instill even more determination that every male will just love being surgically altered shortly after birth. Stepping away eliminates reduces the number of verbal tirades I feel compelled to unleash. I always come back, though.

This story, forwarded to me by a loyal reader who forwards me useful material that I too often fail to translate into entries, is worth mentioning. Now that I'm looking, I can find a few references to it, but most media seems to have ignored it. Probably because it directly challenges the cheerleading for infant circumcision in the recent past. Anyway, the gist:

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

This is the appropriate point to remind everyone - the unethical scientists at WHO specifically - that the recent research we've been bombarded with repeatedly for the last two years suggests that voluntary, adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from female-to-male through heterosexual intercourse. Those infants who've been circumcised in the mad rush to embrace fear unsupported by at least the anecdotal evidence any mildly observant individual in a Western society could pick up? Ooops. But, hey, women will dig it, so there's that.

In case you think this might cause the media to apply any critical thinking to the way they've reported on circumcision, fret not, they're fully prepared to let you down if you get optimistic. In the same article, this:

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

Interventions known to work. Process that for a moment. It's known to work¹ at reducing the risk of HIV transmission from female-to-male through heterosexual intercourse! Isn't the point of this story to report on the possible exaggeration of an epidemic among heterosexuals? I can imagine the editorial review of this article. "Everyone, shake your pom poms with me. Give me a "C"! Give me an "I"! Give me an "R"! Give me a "C"!

I won't put it in print, but I'm swearing right now.

¹ There is room to debate this, primarily on methodology. Another time, perhaps.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

How many times do we have to go through foodborne illnesses, with vegetables blamed as the cause rather than carrier, before someone with a national forum finally speaks the truth and tells people to stop being stupid? Once again a vegetable is tainted with harmful bacteria - this time, tomatoes and salmonella, respectively - and the reaction is to blame the vegetable and act stupid. For example:

Restaurants are removing tomato slices from sandwiches and grocery stores are plucking red plum tomatoes from their produce aisles following a nationwide alert that raw tomatoes may have infected scores of people with a rare form of salmonella.

Of course that's a reasonable response because tomato slices are served raw, which allows the bacteria to survive. But how does that then lead to this?

Salmonella is more frequently associated with poultry, which carry the bacteria. But produce is increasingly a vehicle for salmonella infection as well. Scientists and public-health experts don't completely understand how pathogens contaminate produce. ...

Don't completely understand? Fine, but are they aware of the link? Let's see how the paragraph continues:

... The bacteria can be found in animal feces, which can spread through contaminated water, manure or improper handling. It can enter tomatoes through the roots or flowers, or through cracks in the skin of the fruit or the stem scar. Once inside, the microbe is hard to kill without cooking. Tomatoes have been linked to 13 outbreaks of salmonella since 1990, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington advocacy group.

Holy smokes! Who would've guessed that? Too bad we don't have any prior evidence to suggest that animal agriculture is the cause. Blame the vegetables! Except, that's irrational. We have prior evidence of salmonella contamination, as well as evidence involving E. coli that suggests this exact link:

The likely source of an E. coli outbreak in spinach that killed three people and sickened more than 200 was a small cattle ranch about 50 kilometres from California's central coastline, state and federal officials said Friday as they concluded their investigation.
...

They found E. coli "indistinguishable from the outbreak strain" in river water, cattle feces, and wild pig feces on the ranch about a kilometre from the spinach fields, the California Department of Health Services and U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a joint report.

Let's continue burying that in the story, though. Meat is fine because it should be cooked. I, dirty hippie that I am, with my "natural" foods, I need to be careful because that will kill me. And, anyway, I'm not getting enough protein, so who am I to tell anyone else what is and is not the cause of anything to do with food?

Thankfully, with our main course of ignorance, we'll get a heaping side dish consisting of rent-seeking regulation:

Consumer advocates and produce trade groups say fresh produce needs mandatory safety standards. Currently, growers follow voluntary guidelines issued by the FDA.

Lovely. Our existing animal agriculture safety regulations are followed so closely that vegetables regularly become contaminated. But, if we just regulate the vegetables enough, we'll all be safe. That's a brilliant line of thinking.

Or I could just mutter "barriers to entry" and end this entry.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Still catching up from the last two weeks, this was in the first draft of my last entry. It got a bit too long, so it became a stand-alone entry.

Via Andrew Sullivan, this quote from UNAIDS on travel restrictions placed on HIV-positive individuals by the United States (pdf):

UNAIDS recognizes that States impose immigration and visa restrictions as a valid exercise of their national sovereignty. However, in imposing any restrictions on entry and stay relating to HIV or health, UNAIDS calls upon States to adopt non-discriminatory laws and regulations which rationally achieve valid objectives through the least restrictive means possible.

UNAIDS would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that HIV-related travel restrictions have no public health justification. It is also our view that, where such restrictions are based on HIV status alone, they are discriminatory. There is no need to single out HIV for specific consideration as an exclusion criterion. ...

Etc, etc. Exactly how much hypocrisy is allowed before principled becomes merely a mish-mash of preferred outcomes? How long ago did UNAIDS pass that point? A non-discriminatory recognition of human rights would be an excellent start, as opposed to something like this (pdf):

7.3 Since neonatal circumcision is a less complicated and risky procedure than circumcision performed in young boys, adolescents or adults, such countries should consider how to promote neonatal circumcision in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner.

Now compare with this, from the same link:

The message that male circumcision is very different from female genital mutilation also needs to be emphasized.

Or this:

Female genital mutilation, also called female genital cutting and female genital mutilation/cutting, violates the rights of women and girls to health, protection and even life as the procedure sometimes results in death.

Which can be said about male genital cutting. Still, UNAIDS doesn't discriminate because it puts this in its report on "Safe, Voluntary, Informed Male Circumcision and Comprehensive HIV Prevention Programming" pdf:

Governments that introduce or expand services for male circumcision will have a responsibility to
launch public health campaigns that:
...

(iii) emphasize the voluntariness of male circumcision;

(iv) clearly distinguish male circumcision from female genital mutilation, which is a violation of the human rights of women and girls, is illegal in most countries where it still takes place, has no health benefits and carries considerable physical and psychosocial risks for girls and women;
...

The male genital cutting UNAIDS pushes is hardly voluntary, which makes it a violation of the human rights of men and boys. But we can't say that because then we'd have to question what's been done to so many. Instead, UNAIDS needs to silence criticism by drawing odd, strained attention to only the outcomes that fit its narrative. (It is hardly alone in this, of course.) For example:

How is male circumcision different from female genital mutilation?

While both male circumcision and female genital mutilation are steeped in culture and tradition, the health consequences of each are drastically different. Female genital cutting or mutilation comprises all surgical procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia (type I) or other injuries to the female genital organs. ...

And on it goes, willfully missing the obvious truth that the more than one million cases of "voluntary" male genital cutting or mutilation performed each year on infant males in the United States comprise surgical procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injuries to the male genital organs. The inherent human right to be free from that without consent does not disappear simply because cutting a boy's genitals might reduce his risk of HIV in the future if he has unprotected sex with an HIV-positive female.

Infant male circumcision: ethical, legal and human rights considerations

Studies have shown that the circumcision of infants is simpler and carries fewer medical risks than circumcision of older people. Parents considering circumcision of an infant boy should be provided with all the facts so they can determine the best interest of the child. In these cases, determining the best interests of the child should include diverse factors—the positive and negative health, religious, cultural and social benefits. Because the HIV-related benefits of circumcision only arise in the context of sexual activity, and because male circumcision is an irreversible procedure, parents may consider that the child should be given the option to decide for himself when he has the capacity to do so.

And given the irreversible nature of circumcision, what happens when a male decides that having his normal, healthy foreskin would be in his best interests? Setting aside the topic of (potential) health benefits for the moment, parents may argue for positive religious, cultural, and social benefits for female genital cutting. UNAIDS recognizes that none of those are legitimate, so it rightly dismisses them. Yet, because it's a penis, those same religious, cultural, and social benefits, as determined dictated by the parents suddenly matter? No.

So, yeah, UNAIDS is right on the U.S. denial of entry to HIV-positive individuals. But UNAIDS does not practice what it preaches.

Post Script: See the section of the report titled "Protecting Women in the Context of Male Circumcision" for an understanding of this entry's title.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't know which is more frustrating, stupid "science" articles or the reporting on those articles. Last week, my news world was filled with various regurgitations of this nonsense:

According to a new policy analysis led by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of California, Berkeley, the most common HIV prevention strategies-condom promotion, HIV testing, treatment of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), vaccine and microbicide research, and abstinence-are having a limited impact on the predominantly heterosexual epidemics found in Africa. Furthermore, some of the assumptions underlying such strategies-such as poverty or war being major causes of AIDS in Africa-are unsupported by rigorous scientific evidence. The researchers argue that two interventions currently getting less attention and resources-male circumcision and reducing multiple sexual partnerships-would have a greater impact on the AIDS pandemic and should become the cornerstone of HIV prevention efforts in the high-HIV-prevalence parts of Africa.

Hold off on assessing the validity of such claims. Wouldn't it be appropriate if they put the two key words - voluntary, adult - in front of male circumcision? That's all that the studies being cited as gospel looked at. The press release does later invoke voluntary, so I wonder if the omission of adult implies that children consent. Perhaps a look back at past writings from one of the studies authors, Daniel Halperin, might reveal anything:

As Holbrooke noted, circumcision has indisputably been proven to prevent HIV. It reduces the risk of male infection during intercourse by at least 60 percent and, unlike a condom, cannot be forgotten during a moment of passion. Nearly all of 15 studies conducted throughout Africa found that most uncircumcised men would want the service if it were affordable and safe, and even more women prefer it for their partners and children.

Excerpted from Halperin's essay referenced in my original entry.

How convenient. Even more women prefer it for their partners and children. Regarding the former, I don't care what influences or reasons adult males use if the decision to undergo circumcision is voluntary. But with the latter, that simply isn't the case. And how is it sexually relevant to (male) children what their mothers prefer regarding their genitals? (Also notice how nearly all of the studies revealed that most intact males would want circumcision. Contradictory evidence is still evidence.) Obviously I don't come to this report with any pre-established respect for circumcision promoter Daniel Halperin. But continuing from the new article.

The AIDS pandemic continues to devastate some populations worldwide. In most countries, HIV transmission remains concentrated among sex workers, men who have sex with men and/or injecting drug users and their sexual partners. In some parts of Africa, HIV has jumped outside these high-risk groups, creating "generalized" epidemics spread mainly among people who are having multiple and typically "concurrent" (overlapping, longer-term) sexual relationships. In nine countries in southern Africa, more than 12% of adults are infected with HIV.
...

For example, condom use is widely promoted as an HIV prevention measure and is effective in countries such as Thailand, where the epidemic is spread primarily through sex work. However, studies have found no evidence that condom use has played a primary role in HIV decline in generalized, primarily heterosexual epidemics, such as those in southern Africa, the authors note. This is mainly because most HIV transmission there occurs in more regular sexual relationships, in which achieving consistent condom use has proved extremely difficult.

I want to pound my head on my desk until I can't think any more. Where HIV transmission occurs, it occurs because the couple is engaging in unprotected sex where one partner is HIV-positive. If a condom is not used, that is not an indictment on condoms as a prevention technique. It's not even about condom use in a relationship. It's obviously about unsafe promiscuity. It does not take a genius to figure out that, if behavior remains consistently immune to logic, circumcision will not matter. HIV will spread. The only potential difference under discussion is the rate at which the disease spreads. Have unsafe sex with HIV-positive partners and you will become infected. It may take an extra encounter, but it will occur.

Circumcision also has the potential to encourage "just this once" disregard for safe sex practices. "I'm circumcised, so just this once, I'll ignore the condom." How many times will be "just this once"?

Under this focus on the rate, though, the true implication becomes clear. This is best shown in the poor reporting regurgitation of articles like this. For example:

In western Africa, were male circumcision is high for cultural and religious reasons, the prevalence of HIV is low and controlled trials have shown that the operation can stem the rate of infection, said Professor Malcolm Potts, of the University of California, Berkeley. "It is tragic that we did not act on male circumcision in 2000, when the evidence was already very compelling," he said. "Large numbers of people will die as a result of this error."

Because we didn't implement mass circumcision of males in Africa, large numbers of people will die. As opposed to saying that, because many individuals¹ aren't engaging in safe sex practices, large numbers of people will die? Which is more accurate at portraying a direct cause? Which advocates speculation that can't be verified? Which is scientific?

Individual actions matter. If We™ are going to intervene, we must provide nothing more than the tools for individuals to choose for themselves. Where individuals ignore known risks and engage in dangerous behavior, there will be consequences. Suggesting that we shift from truly voluntary prevention techniques such as ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) and voluntary, adult male circumcision to involuntary male child circumcision is little more than an indication that We will save Them. Because They do not partake of the known methods to protect themselves as individuals, we must do it for them.

Of course, there's the giant elephant in the room. "Reducing multiple sexual partnerships" sounds a lot like Be Faithful. So we're left with only one different approach the authors believe should receive more funding. New articles and studies like this always have the goal² of pushing mass male circumcision, voluntary and involuntary, adult and child. Always.³

¹ I know that the issues of consent in sexual relations are more complicated than assuming every sexual encounter is voluntary and free from any pressure. Conceded. But that does not change the point that involuntary circumcision is not an answer to this problem. Correcting a wrong with a wrong is not valid. Individuals have rights, not collective groups.

² If you look at what the article is saying, you'll also note that the validity of ABC instead of a collectivist, utilitarian perspective on male circumcision applies to the United States. Our HIV problem is not caused by what circumcision is supposed to protect against. That hasn't stopped circumcision advocates from promoting (infant) male circumcision in the United States as a way to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission.

³ It would require its own blog entry, but I don't think any of this is some mass conspiracy by any group or profession. A mindset closed to a full set of facts, maybe, but not groups. Still, the point remains: it's always about circumcision first, even if the stated justification is "public" health or some other goal perceived to be noble.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

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 | 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 | 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)

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 | 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 | 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 | 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)

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Following on my entry on forced circumcisions in Kenya, I remember that I don't read Wonkette any more for a reason. Wit requires intelligence. Instead, Wonkette's writers have decided that mockery without thought makes for better copy. No thanks.

In the comments to that entry, this damning attack:

Let's see what our homegrown anti-circumcision fanatics do with this item.

In a context where criminals are forcibly circumcising men and boys to leave a preferred ethnic tribal mark, those who oppose such violence are fanatics. Because we see rationally understand that there is no difference in outcome whether it's imposed (without need) as an attack or it's imposed without need as a well-intentioned gesture by parents, we're fanatics. Because we believe in applying individual rights to every person that can't be violated by a stranger or a relative, we're fanatics. Because we believe each male (and female) should decide for himself (herself) what should or should not be done to his (her) genitals, even if it means he (she) ultimately chooses genital cutting, we're fanatics.

In response to multiple comments in the same thread, there is not a focus on every female genital mutilation or rape that occurs every day because every one in the civilized world understands that they're both obscenely wrong. Those of us who are fanatics simply refuse to accept the discriminatory lack of thought that views gender as a valid dividing line for determining if an act is a violation of the individual. Few people will argue that the rape of a male is acceptable, but a majority mistakenly pretend that it's acceptable to cut the genitals of males, whether or not he needs or wants his genitals cut. Somehow, age and relationship are deemed criteria for applying basic human rights to the individual male.

I'm not the fanatic.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Kirchick's article revealing the many instances of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic commentary in Ron Paul's newsletters over the last two decades is damning. I'm willing to consider the possibility that these were ghostwritten without his input, although the best conclusion is that he has very poor skills in exercising judgment and oversight. Those are not winning attributes for a president. Regardless, since I haven't supported Rep. Paul's candidacy, I feel no need to justify or defend him further. I'm more interested in the larger issue.

From Radley Balko, at Hit & Run:

Of course, Paul was never going to win. So the real concern here is what happens to the momentum for the ideas his campaign has revived. The danger is that the ignorance in those newsletters becomes inextricably tethered to the ideas that have drawn people to Paul's campaign, and soils those ideas for years to come.
...

I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.
...

Paul's success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I'm not so sure. If this new audience's first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul's campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.

From an Andrew Sullivan reader:

The backlash from all of this will be harsh, no doubt. It might even leave a long-lasting mark on libertarian conservatism. I think we deserve it.

Sensible libertarians do not deserve any such backlash. I have not run wild promoting Rep. Paul just because I wanted to see what I value reflected in his campaign when it was never there. Maybe it's a cynicism I've developed from looking at how government works and how people with illiberal, anti-liberty positions manipulate the government that made me skeptical of Paul. I'd say it's probably more a wonkish desire to know details. I can't claim perfection there because I do have a filter. But when a candidate like Paul espouses ideas that are flawed so close to the surface, I'm not willing to set aside critical thinking in favor of enthusiasm and hope.

I don't think the problem has been libertarians supporting Rep. Paul. We all make compromises at some point. But we must be honest about them. We should talk about ideas, and when something makes them more possible to discuss in public forums, we should seek to use that opportunity. Still, labels matter. With even a cursory look at his positions, it was always clear that Rep. Paul is not a libertarian.

So now the careless have hitched our principles to an unstable vehicle of political expediency. Why? We knew that we weren't getting a libertarian president in November, even if Rep. Paul was a libertarian. We're often accused of being too rigid in adhering to how little government should do. There is no justification for abandoning that rigidity at the first whiff of minor success in the public consciousness. First impressions.

Now I'm angry at being forced into guilt-by-association. Thanks.

P.S. Title reference here.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

While not automatically opposed to a presidential candidate giving sermons, Mike Huckabee scares me. Giving a guest sermon at a church in New Hampshire yesterday, he said:

"When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ," Huckabee told the enthusiastic audience.

That mindset will reverse the push to Christianize the United States Military. I'm not interested. I don't have a problem with religious soldiers, but our military must remain secular. We're already too close to destroying that. Huckabee is not a step away from the brink.

"When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go," he said. "It's no longer your life; you've signed it over."

Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said "there is suffering in the conditioning for battle" and "you obey the orders."

Huckabee's economic populism reflects this. Citizens sign their lives over to the state so that the state may save them, including those who don't vote for Huckabee. Even if it doesn't reach into religion, the state knows better what you should and shouldn't do.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I stumbled upon an interesting list today at a site claiming to offer "News and Information on all aspects involving
Male Circumcision". I was already aware of the site and its irrational support for infant male circumcision, so I'm not particularly surprised by this new-to-me list. I will not link it directly, but feel free to peruse the stupidity (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_record.html#anchor13r) encompassed within the full list. It's tilted "DEBUNKING THE MYTHS AND LIES MADE BY THE ANTI-CIRCUMCISION CULT". Judge for yourself how well this pro-infant circumcision site debunks anything other than the pretense that its author is a credible sources of fact.

Allegation 13: Infant circumcision violates the (human) rights of the the [sic] child since it is done without his consent.

From the day that a child is born until it is old enough to make its own decisions, it is the responsibility of the parents to look after the welfare of their child. This means making decisions that they believe will be in their child´s best interest. If parents are convinced that circumcision will benefit their child, they have the legal and moral right to make this decision for him. ... [emphasis in original]

Why refer to the child as "it"? "It" is clearly a "he" in this discussion. Do not disassociate the truth that the child is a person from the discussion of what will be done to him by others. Treating him like an independent person with his own opinions may lead to a different outcome. This is why many pro-circumcision advocates seek to circumcise infants. They know most males will opt against circumcision if they're left with their choice. If advocates have to force an action onto someone for it to persist, the action is most likely illegitimate.

Of course his parents are responsible for his welfare. They can't refrain from feeding him, or sheltering him, or any other standard of humane treatment. However, intervention outside of daily necessity requires that he have an underlying medical need. When circumcised, his foreskin is healthy. There is no medical need. Circumcision is beyond the realm of reasonable decisions parents may make for a healthy infant.

The troubling part of this attempted debunking is the final sentence I've excerpted. Look at the standard. There is nothing beyond parental intent. The parents merely need to be "convinced" about circumcision's potential benefit to the child at some point in his unknowable future. This is a pathetic attempt at logic. This same unexamined trust in the wisdom of parents would permit female genital cutting, as well. Again, the parents only need to be convinced that it will succeed at achieving some nebulous outcome at some point in the future. Evidence - the standard for science - is absent.

This argument fails to surprise, of course. Parents determined to ignore the evidence of their child’s son's healthy genitals will happily nod at an excuse that claims to validate their (illegitimate) legal and (alleged) moral rights. There is no regard for the boy's natural human right to remain free from unnecessary harm. As long as he is healthy, circumcision is a violation. If his foreskin becomes a problem, circumcision is only valid if no less invasive solutions will work. Outside of that rare scenario, any surgical intervention on a child's genitals is an unethical, immoral perversion of the parent-child hierarchy.

Parents are guardians, not owners. The child retains his rights.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Via multiple sources, but with public commentary from Rogier van Bakel, here's a maddening story with at least one comparison I will make.

DEAF parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).

Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.

Ballard’s stance is likely to be welcomed by other deaf organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which is campaigning to amend government legislation to allow the creation of babies with disabilities.

A clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist.

To fit in better with the family lifestyle. The similarity to permitting parents to surgically alter the healthy genitals of their male children for any or no reason is exact. Harming the child - and cutting off healthy bits of his genitals or deliberately selecting an embryo because she will be deaf is harm - so that he or she meets the parents' expectations of valid physical characteristics is immoral. It should not be allowed.

As Mr. van Bakel wrote¹:

For about two seconds, I tried to apply some libertarian gloss to the situation — parents making up their own minds about their offspring, how bad can that be? — but it just wouldn't stick. Um, what about the right of the child to be normal (no, that's not a pejorative word) and healthy?

Indeed. In a world of individual rights, the child matters first and only.

He continues:

These people are truly a bunch of, hell I'll say it, immoral imbeciles. They want a child with a deliberately-bred disability because junior would "fit in better with the family lifestyle"? Great. It follows ... that we should defer to legless parents who decide to have their obstetrician snip a couple of limbs off the foetus.

As one commenter at Nobody's Business noted, we already (irrationally) defer to parents who decide to have their doctor² snip the healthy foreskin off their newborn son. There is an obscene, ongoing precedent for such abomination.

More from the article:

Ballard, ..., said in an interview with The Sunday Times: “Most parents would choose to have a hearing embryo, but for those few parents who do not, we think they should be allowed to exercise that choice and we would support them in that decision.

Manipulating a child's healthy body to meet parental whims, before or after birth, is not a valid choice. Just as a child's natural difference is not a repudiation of the parents' validity, similarities do not confirm that all is perfect. This is especially true when the similarities are imposed.

¹ I particularly like his explanation that normal is not a pejorative. To extend that idea to my topic, in America the intact penis is normal but uncommon. The circumcised penis is common, but it is not normal.

² The willingness of doctors to engage in such clearly unethical behavior must not be ignored.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Consider this another reason I neither live in the District of Columbia nor have my business registered there.

The District could become the second U.S. city to require employers to provide paid sick leave to all workers, a move advocates say could protect employees from having to choose between keeping themselves healthy and keeping their job. Opponents say such a law could prompt businesses to reduce benefits and lay off workers.

The D.C. Council is scheduled to vote on the measure Jan. 8 after several months of negotiations.

Under the bill, large businesses, defined as having 51 employees or more, would have to provide up to seven days of paid leave. Small businesses -- those with 10 or fewer workers -- would have to offer up to three days. Two other categories of employers would fall in between, and part-time workers would get half the number of days.

What makes the D.C. city council so confident that it knows better how to run the businesses in its borders than the owners of those businesses? More importantly, what makes it believe that it has the right to dictate its opinions on proper compensation packages?

Employers would pay an average of $10.35 more a week per employee to be in compliance, said Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, which studies the District's finances. "It's not nothing, but it's not huge," he said. "It's not as big and scary as they think."

Does the business owner think $10.35 more per week per employee, with no increase in productivity or revenue, is not huge? She bears the cost. Her opinion should matter exclusively, in anticipation and response to what her employees demand.

To put this in perspective, we must consider what that $10.35 means in practice, not in subjectively judged theory. Assume the minimum business required for full compliance, 51 employees. The cost is expressed as $10.35 because it appears insignificant. But the first thing the business owner will do is multiply $10.35 times 51 employees times 52 weeks. The result is a $27,448.20 increase in expenses for the employer. What could $27,448.20 buy instead? I'll guess employee number 51 in my scenario, although the logic holds whether we're talking about employee number 51 or employee number 63.

The first city to engage in this:

The D.C. measure falls short of a law on sick leave in San Francisco, which became a pioneer when 61 percent of voters approved a 2006 ballot initiative to require that employers of 10 or fewer workers provide five days of paid leave and that larger employers give nine days. The law went into effect in February.

How many of those 61 percent of voters malcontents run a business? Mob rule (allegedly) seeks to raise everyone up to a higher standard, but serves little purpose other than to bring everyone down to a base level. Aside from its illegitimacy, it is cruel. I doubt seriously that the employee who might've earned $27,448.20, or the customers who will now be asked to pay the expense, would prefer the sympathy over the money.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Who said this?

"If players believe they are wrongfully accused in the report," [he] told the paper, "they are welcome to volunteer and we'll take it under consideration. But as I understand it, all these players had a chance to cooperate [with Mitchell], and everyone declined to cooperate.

"So, to an extent, that's what they get."

That would be Congressman Tom Davis, who I believe was sworn to uphold the Constitution when he entered office. Allow me to unpack his assumption of what is acceptable:

• Absence of a trial by jury.
• Absence of a trial.
• Absence of an indictment.
• Absence of criminal charges.
• Absence of Fifth Amendment rights.

I'm reminded today of all the reasons I despise being represented by a moronic, meddling malcontent.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Kevin, M.D., a doctor snapped a picture of his patient's penis during surgery:

A Mayo Clinic Hospital surgeon in training used a cellphone to photograph a patient's genitals during surgery and now may face disciplinary action and a patient's attorney.

The doctor took the picture while installing a catheter in preparation of gallbladder surgery on the patient because the patient has "Hot Rod" tattooed on his penis. Obviously this is unprofessional conduct by the doctor and, in my opinion, deserves termination. But that's just more "people are stupid" fodder. I'm more annoyed by a lack of maturity in the "journalism" surrounding the story:

After Hansen showed the photo to other members of the surgical staff, one phoned a Republic reporter on Monday and left an anonymous message about the incident.

Compare that to this sentence, also from the article:

Hansen told Dubowik that when he attached a catheter to the patient's member, he had shot a picture.

Is it so complicated to use the accurate anatomical name for the body part? Is that low standard of maturity really too much to expect from a journalist and/or editor? Yes, member is a common euphemism for penis, but journalism should be above stupidity better suited to making a schoolboy snicker. Otherwise, I might believe that "members of the surgical staff" is meant to be hilarious.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm searching the Internets for a price on Season 1 of Heroes on DVD. This should be simple. At Amazon, one word - "Heroes", obviously - typed into the search field and a quick press of the enter key and the results list Heroes as the number 1 result. Imagine that.

I tried the same approach at Circuit City, assuming it would result in something equally simple. Circuit City suggested 787 options. Heroes was not on the first page, although every version of Guitar Hero for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 2 appeared. "Go Pro Digital HERO 3 Digital Camera" was result number 1.

"Heroes dvd" gave me 14 items, none of which involved Heroes the television show. I was unhelpfully offered Heroes of Earth by Wang Leehom on CD as the first suggestion. The results decreased in relevancy from there, until reaching the end and a pitch for a Microsoft Xbox 360 Elite Console Bundle. Huh?

"Heroes" in Movies & Music faired no better. It's mostly cartoons and John Wayne movies. "Heroes tv" returns "The Life and Works of Anton Dvorßk, Narration with Musical Excerpts" on CD, "In Search of Ancient Ireland" on DVD, and "Dynasty Warriors: GUNDAM" for PS3. A search for a few of the actors (Milo Ventimiglio, Adrian Pasdar, Ali Larter) suggests several B-movies and items available only for pre-order, but no Season 1 on DVD.

The only method I've discovered for finding the obscure little television show Heroes on the Circuit City website requires the following steps:

1. Click the "Movies and Music" category.
2. Click Movies.
3. Click TV Shows from the specialty items.
4. Scan the best sellers list down to the 15th item, which is Season 1 of Heroes on DVD.

Circuit City's search functionality appears to have been designed by the hamsters deemed too incompetent to run on the wheel generating the power necessary to run its servers.

For what it's worth, Amazon asks $41.99. Circuit City wants $49.99. Surprise. It costs real money to feed hamsters.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Speaking of "evolving standards of decency", we're not always moving in the correct direction:

The House approved legislation yesterday that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, drawing an immediate veto threat from the White House and setting up another political showdown over what constitutes torture.

The measure, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding. It also would require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The rules, required by Congress for all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, "mock" executions and the use of attack dogs, and prohibit the withholding of food and medical care.
...

The White House vowed to veto the measure. Limiting the CIA to interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual "would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

The passage of this bill in the House is correct, although it's years overdue. The Senate should do the same.

The Bush administration's immediate rejection of adhering to our existing laws and treaty commitments is shameful. It wants only vague restrictions on itself, with the option to define the interpretation of those vague rules. That is contrary to everything our republic is supposed to represent. Few are still shocked by this, but that does not validate its approach.

Other provisions of the intelligence bill also drew criticism from the White House, including a measure that would require regular reports to Congress on the CIA's detention and interrogation methods, and on any Justice Department legal justifications for those methods.

This provision, the OMB said, would require from the president "information that may be constitutionally protected from disclosure," which, if made public, "could impair foreign relations [and] national security."

If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to be afraid of. Right? Isn't that what we're told when the administration wants the option to spy at will? Of course the truth is more complicated, but the Bush administration needs to be accountable to the American people, not the other way around. This is not a dictatorship, despite its apparent aspirations.

John Cole is right when he states:

Bush is a petulant child surrounded by a coterie of scared men who seem to think the world is so dangerous they need not act in accordance to established law, and they really don’t give a shit what anyone else thinks. They want all the benefits of pretending to be the world’s moral authority, all the while behaving like despots. January 2009 can not come fast enough.

I'll echo the last sentence, but only because Congress is guilty of dereliction carrying out its duties. There is no valid reason that President Bush should still be in office.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't have much to say about the newly-released Mitchell Report. It's an illegitimate waste of government time in pursuit of a political quest for ever-expanding power. Not interested. As I wrote when Rep. Tom Davis first brought this nonsense into the federal sphere:

When Rep. Davis called the inquiry into steroids in Major League Baseball, how was that not a conspiracy to seize power? It may have involved one sport industry, but Rep. Davis seemed to enjoy threatening MLB with greater congressional control if it didn't implement a policy banning a drug that's already illegal. I don't think any major sport in America explicitly bans its players from money laundering, drunk driving, murder or income tax evasion, yet we never have hearings about those, even though players have been involved in all of those offenses.

My stance is unchanged. And my basic understanding of liberty requires that steroids be decriminalized.

As for the situation at hand, Major League Baseball would ban steroids in my ideal world. As a group of consenting individuals, it would be free to do so. It would level the playing field to talent alone, which is what I want to see as a fan.

Of course, it would be free to ignore my preference, too, which it clearly did throughout the latter part of the '90s. John Cole expresses my sentiments on the shock at the report's finding:

Imagine if, in ten years, the GOP and the media decide to get outraged about intelligence being finessed before the Iraq war, they launch an investigation, and then get shocked when they see what they find. That is the level of stupid this baseball steroid report is right now.

Naturally that doesn't preclude politicians from going to the for the children defense of our collective outrage:

Recalling that he had raised the steroids issue in a State of the Union speech a couple of years ago, Bush said he did so "because I understand the impact that professional athletes can have on our nation's youth." He urged athletes "to understand that when they violate their bodies, they're sending a terrible signal to America's young."

When we force our subjective opinions onto the actions of others, it sends a terrible signal to America's young that it's okay to be meddlesome moralists opposed to the liberty of the individual. For the mental development of our youth, I'd say what we're teaching is far worse than what a handful of athletes are (allegedly) teaching.

Post Script: Russ Roberts sums up the best way to read the names on the list and how detrimental these allegations are (not) to my opinion of the players.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bernadine Healy M.D. writes an ethics-free, logic-free essay in the latest U.S. News & World Report on male circumcision. She mostly offers the recycled nonsense promoted by people uninterested in thinking the issue through. However, Dr. Healy searches for a new bottom in the discussion. She comes as close to stating it as anyone I've read:

I caution parents, however, against delaying the decision until the child is old enough to decide for himself. Get real. Not many teenage boys would relish the discussion, let alone the act. Nor do I think they would have the perspective to weigh the medical pros and cons.

So, because he would not relish the discussion or the act, it's better to force it on him as an infant? As if his presumed refusal as a teenager is not a timeless opinion, as true when he's 13 hours old as it is when he's 13 years old. And how unfairly low does your opinion of teens have to be to guess that he wouldn't have the perspective to understand that his foreskin is healthy and doesn't require surgical removal? How unfairly high is your opinion of parents if you trust that they're worried more about his (absurdly low) risk of HIV than the risk that daddy junior will freak when he sees that junior daddy looks different?

In a time when it is appropriate to question the use or overuse of certain medical procedures, however minor they might seem, having these discussions in medical journals and in public circles is healthy.

Just don't have them with your kid when it's his genitals at stake. He might not understand. He might even say "no". Otherwise, yeah, let's discuss this.

What is not healthy in this free flow of ideas is to diminish the real abuse of female genital mutilation with a trumped-up portrayal of the "abuse" that infant circumcision allegedly exacts on our helpless baby boys.

This is the obtuse thinking of a dullard. For (not) the last time, comparing male and female genital cutting does not diminish what is done to girls. That is evil. It is unnecessary. It should not occur. It is a basic violation of the right to remain free from harm.

But the exact same thing is perpetrated upon boys. That is evil. It is unnecessary. It should not occur. It is a basic violation of the right to remain free from harm.

There is nothing complicated about understanding this. The mutilation of boys rises to the level of unacceptability of what is done to girls. No one is saying that the comparison now justifies cutting girls. Stop hearing what you want to hear and listen to what is being said. Medically unnecessary genital cutting on non-consenting individuals is wrong, ethically and morally. Gender is not a factor in the violation.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Rejecting our earlier sanity wasn't enough. Now the United States government wants to perpetuate our cognitive dissonance regarding circumcision through bribery:

The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) has requested beneficiary governments to draft policies that encourage male circumcision to reduce on the risks of spreading of HIV/Aids.

The Principal Deputy Coordinator of PEPFAR, Dr Thomas Kenyon, said via a video link from the U.S., that PEPFAR was prepared to provide funds to any country that is willing to undertake mass male circumcision, Dr Kenyon said.

The only way to undertake "mass" male circumcision involves the systematic violation of infant males' rights. This, of course, requires a willingness to ignore both the voluntary and adult aspects of the recent circumcision/HIV studies.

I'm supposed to be mollified by this:

"We can only release the funds for circumcision to a country which has come up with a clear policy on how it is going to carry out the exercise.

I'm not mollified. The presence of a policy does not guarantee effective (or ethical) outcomes. In this approach, boys will be injured beyond the 100% guarantee of "acceptable" injury. Boys will be disfigured beyond the 100% guarantee of "acceptable" disfigurement. Boys will die. And men will still get HIV through unsafe sex.

But we're America. We care. Our money proves it. Isn't that enough?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

This story should make me angry. I suppose it does, but I'm so numbed to the incredible pile of garbage people distribute in defense of their agenda that I have a harder time bringing forth an outburst than I'd like.

The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.

AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic.

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million.

Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

Good intentions are enough, remember. There is no need to worry about effectiveness, even in the reality of limited resources. There's certainly no need to worry about uncomfortable details. If the method promotes what is good, it is worthwhile. Or so goes the logic of UNAIDS and the United Nations.

Of course HIV is terrible. Yes, we should work to promote effective strategies. But the desire to do good does not justify misrepresentation. We have to have this conversation? This doesn't discredit, or at least render questionable, everything else the organization claims?

Remember this the next time someone from UNAIDS or the United Nations advocates male circumcision. It can't even get the ethics of properly representing the problem correct. Who should trust them to get the ethics of genital cutting correct?

Just as frustrating, despite the clear indication that some renewed questioning is justified, the media is comfortable repeating the preferred story line:

Rates are lower in East Africa and much lower in West Africa. Researchers say that the prevalence of circumcision, which slows the spread of HIV, and regional variations in sexual behavior are the biggest factors determining the severity of the AIDS epidemic in different countries and even within countries.

The studies looked at voluntary, adult circumcision. That's more accurate than a blanket statement about male circumcision. Isn't the point of this report that details matter? Why ignore the most important scientific and ethical aspect of the recent studies in reporting them? (Unfortunately that's rhetorical because I know the answer is about cognitive dissonance.)

To the point, researchers said that nearly 40 million people are infected with HIV. That's not true. But we should believe them about circumcision without clarification on correlation and causation? Why? Statistics from the countries involved in the reporter's claim are messier than advertised. (See here.) Also, it's reasonable to assert that education had a far more effective benefit for all study participants than voluntary, adult circumcision had. (See here.)

Still, it's supposed to be okay to take everything - lumped together without questioning - and trust that something will work if we try them all. I don't particularly care about anyone pursuing that intellectually lazy path. People should have the right to make stupid decisions about their lives. But I demand that we follow all parameters involved when we make decisions for another. Particularly, voluntary and adult must never be forgotten.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I forget where I first saw this story (Balloon Juice, I think), but the case of a Utah State Trooper tasering a motorist deserves sufficient attention for the way it demonstrates excessive police use of tasers. The video, in case you've missed it:

Before going any further, my take: Mr. Massey was resisting arrest. The officer, John Gardner, needlessly escalated this incident into a pissing match, given that he could've simply written that Mr. Massey refused to sign the ticket. He did not choose that route, instead preferring a display of authority for the sake of authority. His actions leading to the Mr. Massey getting out of the car were unnecessary and demonstrate a lack of fitness for police work. However, the point stands that, in an escalated scenario, Mr. Massey resisted arrest. That is incidental to what transpired as a result.

Courtesy of Michael D. at Balloon Juice, this editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune:

... If you watched closely, and heard Gardner order Massey to put his hands behind his back, there's no doubt that by walking away, Massey was resisting arrest. There's no doubt that the use of the Taser was justified; that an attempt to physically subdue Massey may have forced both men into oncoming traffic.

The use of the taser was not justified. First, Trooper Gardner made no other attempt at lesser force to subdue Mr. Massey. Second, he tasered Mr. Massey in the back. Third, he tasered him as he approach the traffic lanes. Fourth, after he tasered Mr. Massey, Mr. Massey fell back, clearly either in or dangerously close to the traffic lane.

In this entry Kip states the reasonable:

A big part of the problem with tasers is that they were originally marketed as a substitute for guns, but have become a substitute for exertion. Tasers are, increasingly, not used to save lives but to merely make cops' lives easier.

If the rule were: "Never use your taser unless you would also be willing to shoot your firearm..." then I can't imagine too many incidents of "taser brutality." ... But instead the rule seems too often to be: "Use your taser whenever you perceive a risk to yourself." Or, worse: "Use you taser whenever you deem it convenient."

That simply cannot be right — not to the tune of 50,000 volts.

Exactly. The four violations - five if you count the initial, unnecessary escalation - demonstrate that Trooper Gardner's use of the taser was indefensible.

For what it's worth, this kind of nonsense occurs on almost every new episode of Cops. I love Cops, but it's getting increasingly unbearable to watch because of the police state inclination it highlights. It's basically an orgy of tasering and moral superiority over drug users. When I watch, I'm more often rooting for the "bad" guys. It's uncomfortable, like watching someone try to humiliate me while he has food stuck to his face.

¹ Headline reference here.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Kevin, M.D. I read a recap from a doctor who had to amputate a patient's finger. It's an interesting enough story, but something caught my eye in the middle of the story.

... there’s a deeply ingrained taboo that prohibits me from causing permanent damage.

If you read Rolling Doughnut, you won't be surprised at what immediately popped into my mind. I wonder what this doctor thinks about unnecessary infant circumcision? Based on experience, I guess the answer. I find it, precisely as guessed, here, from three years ago (about a topic I discussed last year):

Note to anti-circumcision trolls: I will ruthlessly delete or negatively alter your screeds about how awful regluar circumcision is, etc. I fully support circumcision done under normal hygenic circumstances. If you desire to grind your axe, do so elsewhere.

I wouldn't have posted on the entry if I'd seen it in 2004, but I've been called an anti-circumcision troll a few times. It's always a misguided smear offered at the end of a debate by the advocate of routine infant circumcision when his or her only fair response would be to admit defeat in defending the indefensible. The desire to excuse the unnecessary cutting of children is too deep for that, of course.

Wishful thinking about all the possible horrors the child will presumably no longer face - which he most likely wouldn't have faced anyway, without circumcision, and almost never to an extent requiring surgery - are irrelevant, as are claims about the religious validity of this unnecessary surgery. If anyone should get this, it should be a doctor. Unfortunately, that too often flops in practice. From the 2004 entry, GruntDoc stated this about infant circumcision:

... I believe it is painful to the infant. So is falling down, hitting the coffee table, slamming a finger in a car door. Since I have never read about an infant describing his circumcision, it’s one of those things I think is best done as soon as possible (ask any adult who’s had a circ: it’s like chickenpox, the younger you have it the better off you are).

One painful incident is not like the others in his example.

It's anti-intellectual to claim that not remembering pain is relevant to the discussion. The surgery is medically unnecessary; no further excuse-seeking is justified. If we factor in the child's ability to not remember the pain as valid, we may excuse any number of surgical interventions with a potential to prevent future disease. Just look at the prevalence of breast cancer in males. Should we think of the good that can be done for those few men if we remove the breast tissue from the majority of newborn males? They won't remember it! The thought is absurd, of course. Circumcision is the same. But circumcision advocacy isn't about facts in context.

As to his last point, I can direct anyone interested to men circumcised as adults who don't think it's better. They think they've made a tragically stupid mistake. I can also point anyone interested to men circumcised as adults who state that the pain was less than it's made out to be by the fear-mongers. Are those examples subjective? Of course. But so is the nonsense that all men are happy with being circumcised as infants or that the subjective preference of parents for potential benefits is superior to the subjective preference of the male when there is no medical indication for intervention.

Also, forgive me if I don't cheer the logic of defending the 100% guarantee of pain imposition on an infant who hasn't consented, no matter how well forgotten, over the low-single-digit risk that the male would need circumcision later in life, with pain that would be better managed through more effective pain relief techniques. I sympathize with the pain men who need adult circumcision will feel, but life has risks. That's part of the deal. And the men who merely choose it will get no sympathy because they clearly value whatever benefit they perceive more than avoiding the pain. Yet, I'm supposed to value both equally - to the detriment of infants - through crude analysis implying that delayed pain, however unlikely or unnecessary, is worse than pain now. I will not because I am not irrational. Those few who need or choose adult circumcision should not dictate what happens to healthy infants.

For example:

My main argument for it is hygeine. Yes, many many men take good care of themselves, but you only need to see a couple of men with severe balanitis or penile CA, and the argument gets better. I was once told by a urologist that after a slew of penile cancers / amps following WWI (hard to keep clean in a trench), circ became mainstream more as a preventive med thing than an act of religious faith.

Typically, we (allegedly) must also factor in that a few men will face some consequence from being intact as an excuse to circumcise. Those many many men who take good care of themselves are not to be rewarded for their common sense and ability with an intact body. They are to sacrifice for the good of the few who will be delinquent or incompetent in their hygiene. After all, parents can't know in advance if their son will practice good hygiene, and they can't teach him good hygiene. Why assume that he will figure it out? There's only so much a parent can do. Obviously. Being the good parents they are, they should opt to have his genitals cut, even though it exposes him to the risk of surgery. They're responsible in a way he could never be.

From GruntDoc's entry about amputating a finger:

Only after telling myself several times that this was actually no longer a finger was I able to take the sharp implement and cut off most of a finger.

How similar is the descent from reason that permits a doctor to remove the healthy, functioning foreskin from his patient at the request of his patient's parents?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (6)

I received a questionnaire in the mail yesterday informing me that I've been randomly selected for juror qualification, and that I may be placed in the pool of potential jurors for the 01/08 - 12/09 term. Exciting, except I can think of few less productive ways for me to spend my time. But it's required by law. It's also "one of the cornerstones of our democracy and is an opportunity to help administer justice." I know, because the letter placed behind the questionnaire told me.

I enjoy question 10:

Should I ask why there's a part a) and part b) to a multiple-choice question?

I want to know how to inform the government that my ethnicity is my business, so I read the note on the reverse side:

Apart from the missing comma, how is checking ethnicity a greater guarantee of non-discrimination than not looking at it because there is no indication at all? If I'm truly randomly selected for jury duty, the "proper" racial mix among the entire pool will occur if the sample size is large enough. I don't remember as much from my Statistics class as I'd like, but I remember that. It'd be nice if a Congressman or two could, as well, when they're busy mandating such foolishness.

P.S. Thanks for sending me a form that requires a No. 2 pencil. I'm 34 and childless. I have dozens of those on my desk just waiting for happy occasions such as this.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's a fairly effective standard by now that I'm against whatever the Wall Street Journal's editorial board agitates in favor of. I'd never surrender critical thinking and dismiss its essays without reading the arguments. But if I did, I'd be wrong less often than I'd be right.

For example:

As the Bush Administration winds down, one of its main tasks is preserving Presidential war-fighting powers against poaching by a hostile Congress and expansive judiciary. On this score, last week's Senate "compromise" on warrantless wiretaps is at best a mixed achievement. In return for Congress's blessing to continue this surveillance, the White House is ceding some of its Constitutional authority to unelected, unaccountable judges.

Presidential war-fighting powers apparently include the ability to ignore the Fourth Amendment. I missed that in the text of the Constitution, but I'm sure it's there. Maybe it's in the Ninth Amendment. Oh, wait...

I do love the mention of unelected, unaccountable judges. Anyone who supports President Bush in his quest for a dictatorial reading of the Constitution has no business challenging anyone as unaccountable, but set that point aside. Judges are certainly accountable to the Congress. And should they really be elected? Opening the rule of law to politics isn't a particularly conservative position. Of course, the Journal's editors aren't really conservatives, in the limited government sense, so the talking point in place of an argument is unsurprising.

On the topic of telecom companies complying with warrantless government requests for information:

The larger principle is whether private individuals or companies should be punished for doing their patriotic duty when requested to do so by the government.

And we've reached the point where I stop taking them seriously. We all have a patriotic duty to serve our government. I can't imagine a more un-American concept.

In the wake of 9/11, President Bush and the Attorney General asked the telecom companies to cooperate in what they told the companies was a legal program.

September 11th? Check. Blind faith in the benevolence of President Bush? Check. Government is always right? Check.

For centuries, the common law presumption has been that private parties should have legal immunity if they comply with such requests.

This sounds suspect, but I'm not an attorney. Wouldn't companies have attorneys smart enough to request warrants? If they don't know or ask, they should be immune simply because the government asks? This doesn't sound correct.

In the absence of evidence that the government's request is illegal, private actors should be given the benefit of the doubt for cooperating.

Again, obedience should be the default. It's interesting that the government should always be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Don't we have our republic specifically because we figured out that such an assumption was foolish?

Of course, if we're using the preposterously low "in the absence of evidence" as our guide, shouldn't the telecoms have asked the government to produce a warrant? Wouldn't the absence of a warrant ("Don't you worry about that") be the absence of "the absence of evidence" that the government was engaging in shenanigans?

Imagine a society in which everyone refused such requests for fear of being sued: No airplane passenger would dare point out suspicious behavior by another passenger, and no subway rider would speak up about a suspicious package.

I wonder what they've named their straw man. They have to have named him by now, because I'm sure he'll be around for a long time. It would be tedious to constantly say "hey, you, straw man".

The airline passenger should and would point out suspicious behavior, but how did that get involved here? The issue is whether the government may instigate - without a warrant - an investigative search of data for alleged suspicious behavior. Set the scenario honestly. The government is going to the individual/company, not the other way around.

[The bill] includes a six-year sunset provision, which makes no sense against a terror threat that is likely to continue for decades.

A decades-long war. Hmm, why would anyone be concerned about setting aside a key Constitutional amendment to give the president broad powers? Gosh, I'm confused.

The great irony here is that, in the name of checking "secret" Presidential power, Congress is giving enormous authority to judges who will also make decisions in secret and never have to answer to the voters.

Unchecked, the president (in general, but President Bush, definitely) would make this decision in secret. When would he answer to voters for his secret exercise of this alleged power? I'm supposed to feel better with less oversight, as long as the kept-in-the-dark voting public can vote with information it doesn't have? The Constitution is up for a vote?

Yet if the President won't protect the Presidency, who will?

If the president won't protect civil liberties, who will? If the Congress won't protect civil liberties, who will? If the courts won't protect civil liberties, who will?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm extra-ashamed today that I ever voted for someone who would give Robert Reich any job involving economic policy. From his blog today (emphasis mine):

No candidate for president has suggested that the nation should raise the marginal tax rate on the richest beyond the 38 percent rate it was under Clinton (it’s now 35 percent, but the richest of the rich, as I’ll explain in a moment, are paying only 15 percent). Yet new data from the IRS show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are earning more than 21 percent of all income (the data are from 2005, the latest the IRS has examined). That’s a postwar record. The bottom fifty percent of all Americans, when all their incomes are combined together, is earning just 12.8 percent of the nation’s income.

This is an incomplete picture, and I'm sure Reich knows it. Look at the full picture using the same tax data Reich uses, but fails to link:

On their 21.2 percent of all income, the top 1 percent pay 39.38 percent of all taxes. On their 12.8 percent of all income, the bottom fifty percent pay 3.07 percent of all taxes. Those number are in the above table. Strangely, they're in the column immediately to the right of the column Reich uses to select his data. Reich is intellectually dishonest.

Looking further at the tax tables, consider:

Click to enlarge

Aside from the brief blip of President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, the tax burden for the top 1 percent of income earners has steadily increased since 1980, more than doubling in 25 years. The tax burden for the bottom 50 percent of income earners has steadily decreased since 1980, more than halving in 25 years. Still, Reich has the gall to write this:

If the rich and super-rich don’t pay their fair share of this tab, the middle class will get socked with the bill.How are the top income earners not paying their fair share? They do not receive handouts benefits in anywhere near the proportion that middle- and low-income earners receive from their tax dollars, yet they're still cheating the rest of America? Reich is a liar.

There is much more to analyze from Reich's entry, but it's the usual nonsense. Head over to Greg Mankiw, from whence the link came, for a brief synopsis of Reich's idiotic redistributionist tax proposal.

Wow.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is there a better way to jump back into blogging than to return with a rant?

Like most everyone these days, I pay my bills online. It's convenient, it saves postage, and I don't have to deal with humans. It's the trifecta of incentives. I haven't purchased new checks in nearly six years, as a result. I love the Internets. But apparently there are operating hours for the Internets. Encountered tonight while attempting to pay my health insurance:

The online self-service feature you have requested is unavailable at this time. Our regular system operating hours are Monday through Friday from 4:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Saturday from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

I'm familiar enough with IT to base my livelihood on knowing it. I'm fairly certain that no computer system, regardless of the business' size, needs 53 hours of maintenance per week. I suppose the gerbils behind the scenes are unionized, so anything more than a a 68.5% up-time would be abusive.

If it wasn't such a hassle (and irrational), I'd change my insurance company. It's not too much to ask to be able to submit a few bits representing money at 7:30 on a Sunday night.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Who needs to act responsibly when that can be pushed off to another generation day?

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1.

He urged quick action to increase the limit, saying it was essential to protect the "full faith and credit" of the country, especially at a time of financial market turmoil.

Wouldn't the "full faith and credit" of the country be better protected by not spending more money than we have?

This request isn't unusual, since it happens every year or so when the Treasury has to follow the law at the same time our elected representatives are spending recklessly the fruits of redistribution. Remember this from March 2006:

"I know that you share the president's and my commitment to maintaining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government," [then-Treasury Secretary John] Snow said in his letter to leaders in the House and Senate.

Our script is stuck on stupid, apparently.

To put this in perspective, the debt ceiling was $5.95 trillion when President Bush took office. The Senate Finance Committee recently approved a new debt ceiling of $9.82 trillion. Just shy of $6 trillion in debt in more than 200 years. Just over $3 trillion more in under 7 years, with a new request for the ability to accrue another $900 billion. Heckuva job.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I agree with Andrew Sullivan in describing President Bush as "a fucking disgrace", based on this recap of the president meeting with a group of sycophants conservative journalists at the White House:

President Bush may have been most emphatic though when it came to the topic of “those left wing ads” attacking General Petraeus. The president brought the infamous New York Times MoveOn ad up without prompting, saying of his reaction to it: “I was incredulous at first and then became mad.”

“It is one thing to attack me — which is fine,” the president said. But the president's view the attack on Petraeus as “an attack on men and women in uniform.” [sic somewhere in there]

As usual, our president sees the world only in black or white, and his view is concerned with the petty rather than the important. I don't feel safer knowing this, even though I think Kathryn Jean Lopez expects us all to applaud the president's irrational mind.

For bonus points, the blog entry at The Corner has an ad in the sidebar that asks "Why is MoveOn attacking Rudy Guiliani?" The answer: "Because he's their worst nightmare." Schoolyard egotism is not mature statecraft.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

For anyone who still thinks the anti-same-sex marriage amendments and proposals of the last several years were motivated by anything other than bigotry, consider today's news from Maryland's highest court:

A divided Court of Appeals ruled that Maryland's 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, and that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.

I'm sure the reasoning to get to "legitimate interest" for denying equality is faulty, but I'll leave that analysis to other bloggers. Instead, I want to focus on this:

"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the four-judge majority, which also included Judges Dale R. Cathell, Clayton Greene Jr. and Alan M. Wilner.

It's a cop-out because our rights are not decreed by legislatures, as the Court seems to be implying. However, the Court is definitely saying that the legislature may offer rights beyond the (incorrect) boundary for marriage it has set. That quote is easy enough to interpret.

"I think it was the legitimate response," [Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel] said. "They did as other states have done and ordered the legislature to act."

Dwyer, one of the General Assembly's most conservative members, said he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, as he has three times in the past, "to make sure we have the insurance to make sure this will not come up again in the future."

The Court ruled in agreement with Dwyer's¹ position. It's temporary in my opinion, but his side has won. He can't accept that as vindication. He has to make certain that gays and lesbians in Maryland never get full access to their rights. That's what bigotry looks like.

¹ Del. Dwyer's made appearances here in the past on this issue. In January 2006, he sought to impeach Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock for ruling that same-sex marriage restrictions violate the Maryland Constitution. Once an activist legislator, always an activist legislator, apparently.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

The editors at Opinion Journal put forth their case for the success of "the surge" in Iraq:

What's more important is to note the changes that have taken place in Iraq, all of which indicate that the "surge" is working and that we are at last on our way toward a positive military outcome. As General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker prepare their testimony to Congress later this month, it's worth pointing to a few indicators:

I'll get to the indicators in a moment. I just want to demonstrate how clearly the editors have stated their interpretation of the included data points.

• There were 30 "multiple fatality" (usually suicide) bombings in August 2007. In August 2006 there were 52.
• There were 120 daily attacks by insurgents and militias last month, down from 160 in August 2006.
• 60,000 prisoners were being held by the U.S. and Iraq as of last month, up from 27,000 a year earlier.
• Iraqi security forces currently number 360,000, up from 298,000 a year ago.

Regarding the first two points, is it a relevant comparison to use statistics from last August, when the surge was merely a glimmer in the Bush administration's eye? Wouldn't monthly statistics from just before the surge began be more informative? Or at least important for context? Regardless of the outcome, using statistics from 6 months before the surge began looks like cherry-picking.

The last statistic is rather empty, outside any other context (wages, employment opportunities, actual merit-based achievements of the security forces, to name a few), so I'm discarding it.

I find the third indicator most interesting. Merely having twice as many prisoners is a measure of success. There is no mention of findings of guilt in a court of law. They're prisoners, which means we have 33,000 more terrorists in captivity. Allow me to be kind and say that's incomplete. Due process, burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty? Sound familiar?

We can't be sure that the prisoners are receiving any sort of judicial oversight, so the increased prisoner statistic is just a worthless number, although the Journal's endorsement says much. It's just as easy to conclude that our military is rounding people up and imprisoning them without cause. I assume the only reason we're supposed to accept that the prisoners are justly held is because we're America and we're just. It's a worthwhile assumption rooted in our history, although the Bush administration regularly demonstrates its lack of interest in continuing its practice. But even if that assumption is correct, this statistic's current form is nothing more than propaganda.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Quin Hillyer has the dumbest argument in defense of Senator Larry Craig:

Compare the reaction to his alleged crime and the one that it appears Sen. David Vitter (allegedly) participated in. Why does prostitution (especially involving a married man) earn more of a pass than gross-but consensual sex? And the hypocrisy is far greater in Mr. Vitter's case: He based a large part of his career on moral preening. Contra the left, though, I fail to see how it is hypocritical for Mr. Craig, though, to have voted against "gay marriage" and special "gay rights." One can participate in homosexual acts and yet still think, quite consistently, that it is bad public policy to create special rights and protections for homosexuals or to put the positive imprimatur of the state on the "union" of two homosexuals.

I have no problem with Mr. Hillyer's larger point that Sen. Craig should be shown compassion. I happen to hold that as a virtue, so I can agree. Unfortunately, contrary to Mr. Hillyer's assertion, Sen. Craig's votes against same-sex marriage (no quotations needed) were and are hypocritical. At the time he had a chance to show compassion - and equality - he chose politics. Forgive me if I have trouble generating much sympathy for his self-imposed predicament.

Sen. Craig swore to uphold the Constitution. As such, he should be familiar with the various amendments to that Constitution that enshrine the protection of rights, equal for all. Those are not collective group rights. They are individual rights inherent at birth. The good opinion of society's delicate sensibilities remain as irrelevant today as they were at our founding. That means our government must treat each person equally. It does not do that when it says a person may only receive the benefits of marriage by entering into the civil contract with a specific group of adults.

The notion of "special 'gay rights'" is a hollow talking point that conveys no reality-based truth about the push for equality. "Special" rights would be akin to pushing for a $1,500 wedding cake voucher for same-sex marriage licenses. There is no such push. Instead, we have "moral" crusaders pushing to retain special rights for one subset of Americans. Granted, heterosexuals are the overwhelming majority of America. That doesn't make their right any less "special", in Mr. Hillyer's context. Individual rights are not subject to the whims of the majority.

Forget that Sen. Craig is a no-longer-closeted, self-loathing gay man determined to stay in denial. That's his choice to make, regardless of anyone's belief that he should accept who he is. But he's chosen a life that demands denial in exchange for power. He traded the rights of the American people in exchange for continued access to that power. I can't think of a clearer definition of hypocrisy.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I, like you, am going to be at least indirectly hit by the current "liquidity crisis" mortgage bubble, even though I had enough sense to contract for a fixed-rate mortgage when I bought my house. (The wisdom of buying when I did, on the other hand...) That's just the cumulative reality of living in a capitalist system. Some people will make stupid, avoidable mistakes, but the overall economy can absorb it and survive. Scott Adams talked about this wonderful reality of capitalism today:

This story made me think about one of the great wonders of capitalism: It is driven by morons who are circling the drain, and yet. . . it works!

Exactly.

I'd planned to write up this short-sighted essay that calls for a bail-out of homeowners.

The ultimate solution must not emanate from the Fed but from the White House. Fiscal, not monetary, policy should be the preferred remedy. In the early 1990s the government absorbed the bad debts of the failing savings and loan industry. Why is it possible to rescue corrupt S&L buccaneers yet 2 million homeowners must be thrown to the wolves today? If we can bail out Chrysler, why can't we support American homeowners?

That's nonsense, of course. Kip beat me to it and said everything necessary. Particularly, this:

...(Again, and this is important: The spike in foreclosures is not Mr. & Mrs. Bluecollar being kicked out of their single-family home; it's Mrs. & Mr. Infomercial failing to flip their 20 "no money down" speculative properties. That's one investor, twenty foreclosures, zero homelessness.)

If there are anecdotal cases of institutions engaging in false advertising, deceptive accounting, manipulating the legally incompetent, then fine — pursue them with the full force of the law. But the mere fact that many otherwise competent people, including financial professionals, happened to make very bad decisions is no claim check on the Fed, Congress, or taxpayers' wallets.

Issuing that claim check would indeed induce an eventual moral hazard, even though "there's never been a problem in terms of national housing price [sic] bubbles until recently". If we assume that this price mortgage bubble is a one-off and won't happen again, the pattern still exists for bailing individuals out of their mistakes. In the essay, we're supposed to understand that such rescues work, thanks to the examples of Chrysler and the S&L mess. (The author doesn't mention deposit insurance. Quite disappointing.) Yet, the presence of that pattern doesn't constitute an incentive to behave badly? Really?

The government should not bail out people who made bad choices just because they made bad choices. Leave individuals and businesses to experience the consequences (and successes) of their actions when the consequences are merit-based. (Luck, in this context, is merit-based.) That's the only way to build discipline in financial transactions. Intervention only negates the need to develop those skills.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via Hit & Run comes the news of a proposal from Sen. Max Baucus, a classic example of government's perpetual ability to ignore incentives and consequences:

Montana Senator Max Baucus says he wants free college tuition to be offered for students majoring in math and science.

The Democrat says he plans to introduce legislation in the coming months that would give full scholarships to high school graduates majoring in math, engineering, sciences or technology.

Naturally, Sen. Baucus proposes this because the U.S. needs to be more competitive with students around the world. No doubt he has an idea of the perfect mix of math and science to non-math and science college degrees in the U.S. Central planners always do, since who could be silly enough to rely on something as outdated and obscure as salary to be an indicator of what's in demand and what's not. No, it's much better to trust Congress. That way, everyone can be a rich scientist.

Sen. Baucus does have one hitch in his plan to prevent gaming the system for a free education. Students would have to "to work or teach in a related field for at least four years after graduation." That should suffice to weed out the undesirables who want to use the system for personal gain. They'll clearly just give of themselves for the greater good instead of getting a degree in math or science, working four years at a job they may or may not like, and then retreating to graduate school to retool with four years of salary and no debt. But the incentive to do that once they have a government-funded love of technology instilled in them is too low to contemplate.

And I bet no one would think to get a dual degree in science and . The extra classes would still be on the taxpayer dime since most schools don't charge for extra classes beyond a certain threshold per term. But that would be absurd. No, we can expect the best and brightest to finally shake off their aversion to intellectually stimulating fields and choose to go into the already highest-paying fields because the benevolent government would now deem them worthy.

What's next, federal athletic scholarships for American high school athletes to enable us to better compete against foreigners? It's not right that our professional leagues are being taken over by kids from the Dominican Republic and David Beckham.

The "do anything, as long as it's something" mentality of politicians never ceases to make my brain hurt.

P.S. There is a stipulation in the funding based on merit, right? One not already met by merit scholarships provided by universities and private charities?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Remember back to October when I wrote about this story:

In its statement, USAID said the funding "should not have occurred, and there will be no further circumcisions performed with U.S. Government funds until the PEPFAR Scientific Steering Committee reviews data from ongoing clinical trials and considers any recommendations on male circumcision from the normative international Agencies." PEPFAR is the Bush anti-AIDS program.

I guess the "results" are in. Were they even in doubt?

President Bush's $15 billion anti-AIDS program will begin investing [SIC!] significant money in making circumcision available to African men seeking to protect themselves from HIV, top U.S. health officials said Sunday.

Recent research showing that circumcision dramatically cuts the rate of HIV infection is highly convincing [ed. note: <sarcasm>I'm shocked.</sarcasm>], a delegation of U.S. officials, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, told reporters in Johannesburg.

Countries taking part in the President's Emergency Program For AIDS Relief have been invited to seek money to expand access to the procedure.

If you want to know how carefully our $15,000,000,000 will be spent, guess:

Circumcision funding would be small at first, with budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for individual countries. But it is likely to grow to be "an important part" of the program in coming months and years, said Kent R. Hill, an assistant administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Small at first, but likely to grow in the coming months. Surely we'll have a definitive answer by then.

The cells in the foreskin of a penis are especially vulnerable [ed. note: Are we sure?] to HIV, and removing the foreskin makes a man about 60 percent less likely to contract the virus, studies in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda have shown. The research reinforces studies showing that regions with high circumcision rates generally have lower rates of HIV.

About those regions... "Generally" isn't enough, unless you're world health experts or the United States government. Then definitive proof isn't necessary, nor is the obvious point that $15,000,000,000 buys a lot of condoms, which have a definitive, significantly higher success rate at preventing HIV, pregnancy, and other STDs than male circumcision's "about 60%". I'm sure the Bush administration is waiting for "broad international consensus" on the issue of condoms and their effectiveness.

As I said in October:

I'm not sure where funding AIDS prevention in Africa falls within the Constitutional responsibilities granted to the United States government, but that's not my issue.

Today, it's my issue. Where is funding AIDS prevention circumcision in Africa noted within the Constitution? Which article grants that power? All of the immoral actions of our government weren't enough, so we had to have this? Really?

Of course, what could possibly go wrong with government handling HIV/AIDS policy? I'm sure our $15,000,000,000 will be spent wisely. It sure will buy a lot of garlic, beetroot, lemons and African potatoes.

Unfortunately, this is also support for another belief of mine. There is a push within the anti-circumcision movement to promote a single-payer health care system in the United States because it would presumably require the bureaucrats to stop funding unnecessary surgeries to fund necessary medical care. This will not work because our politicians are short-sighted. They make decisions for political gain. As long as there is a desire by parents to hack away parts of their sons and an ignorant denial of science and ethics acceptance that this is okay, infant circumcision will continue in America. It doesn't matter if it's funded by insurance, government, or parents. It will continue. Just because rationing decisions must be made does not mean that rational decisions will be made.

The worst part of this is easy to predict. This money will be used to fund infant circumcisions, regardless of what the parties involved are now claiming. That's just the inevitable line of (non-)thinking from public health officials. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have seen the push for infant circumcision six days after the latest findings on voluntary, adult circumcision were released in December. Voluntary and adult always get lost. Always.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

As everyone knows by now, a grand jury indicted Michael Vick on various charges stemming from an alleged dogfighting operation. This story is old news, although it will be hanging around for awhile. I've avoided it for several reasons, but not the obvious ones.

I make it abundantly clear that I'm a Hokie. I can't imagine loving any other school the way I love Virginia Tech, or being so invested in the larger sense of community. Of course, in the last eight years, Michael Vick has been a huge part of that. His arrival on the football field in 1999 propelled us to our first national championship game. We lost that game, but our place in the national discussion of college football jumped infinitely as a result. The money poured in, the recruits got better, and the winning feels like tradition now. Where athletic success was a pleasant surprise when I arrived at Tech in 1991, there are now expectations. Thank you, Michael Vick.

That does not mean I'm willing to support and defend Michael Vick without reservation. Anyone who could commit the acts he is charged with is vile scum. If Vick is indeed guilty of the allegations against him, I hope he rots in a fiery pit filled with the rotting carcasses of every dog he and/or his friends executed. That would be too good, but it's a start.

However, he is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not naive in understanding the allegations. I suspect he is guilty. But I believe in our justice system more. I will withhold judgment until such faith is no longer warranted. I refuse to embrace hysteria.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I guess I'm not surprised that the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that partisan attacks are a one-directional mess aimed at the Bush Administration, but to somehow turn the commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence into a profile in non-courage by President Bush is really beyond all intellectual credibility. Reading through the short essay, I shook my head wondering how the editors can consider themselves "conservatives", as a conservative surely wouldn't sully the rule of law with excuses, blame-shifting, and a fair dose of language abuse. For instance:

As Mr. Fitzgerald's obsessive exercise ground forward, Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net that we continue to believe trapped an innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.

An truthful man needn't worry about losing track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom. The truth is the truth. If you tell it exclusively, the story never changes. If your story changes, you've lied. It's possible to argue that Mr. Libby did not lie to the grand jury, I suppose. The jury disagreed. The judge disagreed. I'm convinced. He lied.

And President Bush is a small-minded partisan at a time when he claims we need leadership.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Have a look at what a flawed assumption looks like?

Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

I haven't read or seen anything else about Mr. Buffet's comments, so I'm going on the assumption that this version of events is fairly reported. Whatever the cause of the error, it would be just as easy to lament that the poor don't pay taxes at the lower rate paid by rich people. Note, of course, that Mr. Buffet's 17.7% tax rate and his secretary's 30% rate are anecdotal. Is he incorrectly assuming that his tax situation fairly represents all "rich" Americans and that his secretary's tax situation fairly represents all "poor" Americans? The tax code is far too complex for me to assume that is the case.

Buffett said that he and other privileged Americans must do more to help the less fortunate.
...

Clinton finished by asking Buffett, "Why are you a Democrat?"

Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.

Spare me the populist babble, please. "Privileged"? Being smarter and/or more productive does not make a person "privileged". Yes, there is luck in life, but assuming that it is a key factor is hopelessly naive and dangerous. Such benevolence from on high is condescending.

Get the government out of people's way and set up minimal safety nets where necessary. That will be more effective than simply spouting the incorrect notion the "privileged" aren't doing enough, generally in the form of paying taxes. I thought Mr. Buffet was smarter than that.

Greg Mankiw has detailed analysis of Mr. Buffet's likely tax scenario. Kip adds his thoughts.

From a mini-editorial within the article:

The event comes as public frustration has grown over executive compensation and disparity in pay. It also comes as Congress debates changes to the tax code that would decrease take-home pay for managers of private-equity firms and hedge funds, pools of money for wealthy families and institutional investors. The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent.

To put it bluntly, "the public" can go take a flying leap. Populist complaints that some people earn "too much money" deserve no consideration other than the time it takes to tell "the public" to mind its own business. If it wants to do something about this, boycott the companies that pay "excessive" compensation. Purchase stock in the company and propose resolutions to the board. Both are better than begging Congress to "fix" inequality by limiting the most successful. Even if the most successful don't earn it, according to the self-serving criteria of an outside party.

Notice, too, how the reporter uses the unspoken assumption that income from a private-equity and hedge pool is not an investment and should be taxed ordinary income. Maybe I need to revisit my analysis of the article's opening paragraph.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Following up on my previous post, some typical and not-so-typical arguments appeared at the Third South African AIDS Conference earlier this week. First, the typical in describing the apparent risk-reduction from the recent HIV studies:

“The effect was long-lasting, there wasn’t disinhibition [increased sexual risk-taking], they didn’t screw around more, they didn’t use condoms less,” said Neil Martinson¹.

Remember that both circumcised and intact groups in the studies saw a more significant drop in their rate of HIV infection over their national HIV infection rate than the effect presumably provided by circumcision. But it's easier to keep focusing on circumcision, because that (allegedly) removes the human factor from HIV prevention. Sure.

Next:

“There’s no question that we need a male circumcision programme, but a mass programme is more debateable. Operationalising it is going to be complicated,” said Professor Alan Whiteside of the University of KwaZulu Natal.

He advocated routine opt-out male circumcision at birth. “Thirty years from now we’ll be so glad we did it.” He believes that “if we’d started 25 years ago we wouldn’t be in this godawful mess.”
...

An audience member suggested that op-out circumcision should also become standard practice for adult males who attend sexually transmitted infection clinics.

...routine opt-out male circumcision at birth. When talking about saving for retirement, opt-out programs make sense. It involves only the person whose money will be siphoned off into a separate, presently untouchable account. There is a (mostly) objective rationale behind the requirement. It's a form of "we know better what you should do". But he can easily reject this. He can also reverse his decision later.

Routine opt-out male circumcision at birth requires a specific action from one group (parents) to avoid violating another's (their male child) right to not have part of his genitals cut off without medical need. There is an entirely subjective reasoning behind the requirement. Parents could reject this, although they'd likely receive information with overblown, fear-based hysteria. The experts are counting on the well-intentioned parental desire to protect children, with a bit of residual goodwill toward the procedure if the father's chosen it for himself. But the male child can never reverse this decision. This is little more than social engineering with children and their genitals as pawns for the public health nannys.

If African nations had started routine infant male circumcision 25 years ago, they might not be in this "godawful mess, but they'd also have a generation of cut males to demonstrate that HIV infection is still possible and that more effective, less invasive methods of prevention already exist. But don't bother to learn from the United States the lessons that are inconvenient to learning what you want to learn from the United States.

Now, for a moment of respite from insanity, something non-typical:

However Professor Timothy Quinlan of the Health Economics and HIV/AIDS Research Division at the University of KwaZulu Natal was sceptical about the need for a mass programme, arguing that the evidence doesn’t justify it.
...

... he said, prevention needs to focus on the two factors known to have the biggest effect on HIV transmission rates: concurrent partnerships and high viral load during primary infection.

There’s a need for clearer messages to communicate these facts,” he said. “We need to promote serial monogamy.”

I know, that's unworkable because it assumes some sense of personal responsibility and ability to learn among African men.

And now a return to the typical:

Audience members raised some of the practical issues that are likely to arise in the implementation of any sort of circumcision programme. Traditional healers in particular will need to be brought on board, said numerous speakers.

“Don’t talk about circumcision in isolation from the initiation processes going on in all the different cultures in South Africa,” said one male audience member.

But there was general agreement that traditional healers who carried out circumcision during the initiation of young males into adulthood had a captive audience for passing on important prevention messages, and that this potential wasn’t being exploited.

Yes, what about those traditional healers? Ahem:

A 22-year-old unregistered traditional surgeon was arrested for illegally circumcising two boys in Libode, the Eastern Cape health department said on Saturday.
...

Meanwhile, police were searching for another unregistered traditional surgeon who allegedly circumcised 24 under age boys in Mthombe.
...

Kupelo said three of the boys were taken to hospital with serious complications.

And:

2006 Eastern Cape summer-season circumcision deaths have declined markedly compared to 2005, Eastern Cape provincial health department spokesperson Sizwe Kupelo said, adding that only four would-be initiates had died so far this season, compared with 24 in 2005.

Of those four, only two were the result of complications of the circumcision operation. ...

And. And. And.

This reliance on traditional healers is an acceptance that, among several challenges, the public health community doesn't have the resources to provide full, clinical circumcision in Africa. Yet it pushes the notion that it must be done both "mass" and "soon". Why is it so difficult to see how this will end? How many deaths are acceptable? Are we really ready to rely solely on the utilitarian argument that more lives will (probably) be saved with mass circumcision than will be taken through mass circumcision? I'm not, since I'm capable of understanding individual rights.

¹ To another point by Dr. Neil Martinson:

“It’s all about cold steel – it’s more akin to sterilisation, it’s not like giving people clean water, it’s not like breastfeeding that we can all get warm and fuzzy about.”

Promoting mass circumcision is primarily about giving advocates warm and fuzzy feelings that they're doing something monumental. Otherwise, why the rush to circumcise infants based on three studies of voluntarily circumcised adult males? It also reassures parents with a warm and fuzzy feeling that they've "protected" their sons from HIV rather than violated his rights.

Also:

There was confusion about who would be targeted with messages about circumcision. Would it be young men, or would it be their parents? Or must their future sexual partners be targeted, “so that they say `I won’t sleep with you unless you’re cut’,” asked Neil Martinson?

"I won't sleep with you unless you're cut." Let's promote such non-thinking. Maybe, if we work at it enough, we can convince African women that they prefer, and should prefer, the aesthetic look of the circumcised penis. It's okay if that implies that men should change themselves to meet a woman's expectation. The reverse is sexist and unacceptable, of course, but we all know that's okay.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm watching today's proceedings by the House Committee on Financial Services. The subject is "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?". I've already learned that Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus is a moron. I'm paraphrasing until I can find a transcript, but he had the nerve to suggest that Congress should not repeal last year's anti-gambling bill because the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NCAA have all come out against online gambling. I'm fairly certain that the Constitution matters more than what David Stern and Bud Selig believe is best for America. I don't recall electing them to any public office.

Also worth noting, there are several witnesses for the Committee. I'm only familiar with Radley Balko. While I'm sure he'll overwhelm the Committee with something most politicians aren't comfortable with (logic), I'm pessimistic simply because several members of the committee have already gone out of their way to praise a minister who will testify that his son ended up in jail as a result of his addiction to internet gambling. Good grief.

Also, Rep. Barney Frank is slaying the nonsense of the conservative members when they claim that no one should have the liberty because a few people can abuse that liberty in a way that harms themselves. Bravo. Now, maybe he'll apply that to his other, less liberty-minded economic ideas.

Update 1: Rep. Frank smacked down Rep. Bachus by referring to our professional sports leagues as "arbiters of absolute moral superiority." He drew a large chuckle from the tiny crowd.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to his bio at the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Gerson's areas of expertise are:

Democracy promotion; human rights issues; health and disease; religion and politics.

Not so much, based on his recent essay in the Washington Post, "A Surgical Strike Against AIDS". After a silly attempt at humor, warning about use of the word penis, he opens:

Circumcision is an, ahem, uncomfortable topic. The traditional Jewish bris calls this medical procedure a sign of blessing on the newcomer. Ten out of 10 male infants seem to disagree.

Right, ten out of ten male infants disagree. I think we should be able to agree on that. So far, so good, but let's keep that in mind as we look out for Mr. Gerson's alleged human rights expertise. (You already know what will be missing, don't you?)

Continuing:

During World War II, American soldiers were often circumcised to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) -- another hidden sacrifice of the Greatest Generation. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, the circumcision of American newborn boys became increasingly common.

And we're off to the obvious conclusion. I'll make an assumption and temporarily accept that this version of history is correct, that American soldiers chose circumcision for themselves to prevent STDs, let me ask a reasonable question: how is it a "sacrifice" to society for soldiers to choose genital cutting to make unsafe sex "safer"? That sounds fairly selfish to me. And how does this logically morph into circumcising infants, which constitutes the next sentence in Gerson's essay? There should be an analysis of human rights offered between those two statements. There isn't. I wonder why.

Next:

But suddenly Uncle Irving seems pretty wise. Studies in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa indicate circumcision halves the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. An author of one of those studies, Robert Bailey of the University of Illinois at Chicago, told me, "There is nothing else currently out there in public health or HIV prevention with protection results this compelling." Studies are ongoing to see if male circumcision protects women from transmission -- researchers suspect it might but are waiting for the evidence. The benefit for men, however, is increasingly undeniable.

Quaint, worthless reference to Uncle Irving aside, I'm calling bullshit. Condoms offer far more protection from HIV than circumcision could ever hope to achieve. I don't need to deny anything about circumcision to know this. Any scientist who claims otherwise is an idiot and unworthy of conducting genital cutting studies on human beings.

After a quick bit in which Mr. Gerson presents scientific speculation as fact¹, without naming Langerhans cells or paying lip service to contradictory evidence, Mr. Gerson continues:

... Massive infection rates seem to be associated with uncircumcised males, ulcerative STDs and having many concurrent sexual partners. Researchers hope that broader circumcision will remove a contributor to this deadly cycle.

Don't get distracted by the wrong parts of those sentences. Mr. Gerson expects you to focus primarily on one part, "uncircumcised males". But that's not useful to the eventual decision on whether circumcision is "good", or, more importantly, if it should be imposed on infant males. The two key parts here are "massive infection rates" and "concurrent sexual partners", which seems to me a clumsy way of saying unprotected sex (with HIV-infected partners). While it's clear that public health officials are looking for the cumulative effect of mass circumcision, I challenge anyone to argue that the decision to undergo genital cutting shouldn't be on an individual² basis. If we dismiss the notion of the individual, we eventually end at mandatory circumcision. That is simply unacceptable.

It should be clear to everyone that the real issue with (female-to-male) HIV transmission is the inevitable consequence of unprotected sex with HIV-positive partners. Circumcision will not prevent that. It may delay it, but infection will occur eventually. We already know that condoms and other safe sex practices are far more effective than circumcision, but it's worth emphasizing something useful from the studies in Africa. I hadn't thought to analyze the data this way, but Justin Jackson at This Week in Science offers a critical clarification of the data (discussion starts at 13 min. 30 sec mark). Basically, he highlights that the difference in HIV rates among the circumcised and intact males in the study was small, and even for the intact men, the overall HIV infection rate for the group was only 3.4%. The infection rate in the general population of Kenya is greater than 6%. The undiscussed reality of this study is that education generated a far greater reduction in the infection rate in both groups than circumcision created. When are we going to discuss that? (As he points out in the show, we must also consider the difference in education the two groups may have received, whether intentional or unintentional.)

Back to Mr. Gerson. After discussing cultural concerns about circumcision, he writes:

There are also practical obstacles. Like any operation, circumcision presents a risk of infection. Much of Africa lacks the equipment and personnel to perform the procedure on a large scale. But similar arguments were made against the possibility of AIDS treatment. A concerted American and international commitment proved that pessimism to be unjustified.

Like any operation, circumcision also presents a risk of complications. This gets ignored. Health expertise? If applied to non-consenting infants, human rights expertise?

Mr. Gerson is right that much of Africa lacks the equipment and personnel to perform mass circumcisions safely and effectively. Still, the recommendation is now out, with the accompanying hysteria. Circumcision has begun, whether countries are ready or not. That's quite irresponsible. But don't worry:

As circumcision scales up, the reductions in overall infection rates will be gradual. But the implications for the individual man in Africa are dramatic. A $40 or $50 procedure can cut his risk of HIV infection in half. Giving him that option is a matter of moral urgency.

How many condoms and educational materials would those $40 or $50 outlays fund? Also, note how Mr. Gerson mixes the mass action needed to generate a noticeable reduction with the individual action of a male. Stating that individuals have "that option" seems to indicate an appreciation for liberty with his utilitarianism, but don't accept such an assumption.

That begins with African governments. Both routine infant circumcision and adult circumcision must be considered, especially in the areas of highest infection.

Do those infants have "that option"? Remember, Mr. Gerson already admitted that ten out of ten infants disagree that circumcision is a sign of blessing. But Mr. Gerson advocates it anyway, going so far as to offer his nod to a cheap, dull cliché, calling circumcision "the kindest cut" . Human rights expert? In this area, his advocacy is makes him nothing more than an expert in violating human rights. That's the ultimate flaw in thinking that the terrible reality of HIV justifies radical action. I don't pretend that Mr. Gerson sees infant circumcision as radical, a viewpoint he shares with far too many Americans. But in calling for more European effort, he demonstrates his lack of concern for the ethical human rights aspect.

On that point, the crux of Mr. Gerson's error, I like this review of his article at Male Circumcision and HIV. This is at least as good as what I would've written, so I'll quote it here:

This swift acceptance of circumcision despite the obvious logical contradictions can only come from people accustomed to the practice of circumcision in their own culture. The reason why European nations are resistant to the implementation of this measure may just be that they have different moral values. Perhaps they can see more in an infant's objection to this surgery then [sic] simply an aversion to pain. Since European cultures have no interest in proving that circumcision has health benefits, they may still be sensitive to the rights of an infant to keep his genitals unaltered. Perhaps, since most European males have experienced life with a foreskin, they may find it delusional for a man to choose to have it cut off rather than put on a condom to prevent infection.

No interest in proving that circumcision has health benefits, they may still be sensitive to the rights of an infant to keep his genitals unaltered. Anyone reading these recent studies who doesn't at least question the application of those findings by anyone other than the male losing his foreskin should read that paragraph as many times as it takes to understand the ethical implications. Mr. Gerson included.

¹ Mr. Gerson also includes this poorly written argument:

A circumcised male is exposed to less HIV virus during sexual relations, and has less chance of being infected.

He should've said something like this:

A circumcised male has less (erogenous) mucous membrane, so he has fewer cells to become infected with HIV.

I don't pretend that he'd ever include erogenous, even though it's fact. But to state that a male is "exposed to less HIV virus" is silly. The same amount of HIV virus presumably remains in his partner, regardless of his surgical reduction. I don't think this was anything more than lazy writing. That doesn't excuse it.

² That individual basis should be left to the male who will lose his foreskin. Others argue that "individual" can include the male's parents. They are mistaken. But that is separate from the point I'm making here.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here the most petulant little article you'll read today.

Until recently, Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world, while his archrival, Steve Jobs, enjoys an almost saintly reputation.
...

But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed. It's Gates who's making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who's taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society.

The evidence? Bill Gates gives away his money with his named attached and is actively involved in some of those charities. He's even spoken out against cutting the inheritance tax! OMG, if Bill Gates sees the wisdom of it, why shouldn't we all? He's such a saint? Seriously, is that the implication I'm supposed to infer? I hope not because it's ignorant.

And the case against Mr. Jobs? He either doesn't give donations larger than $5 million, or he doesn't do so with his name attached. And because most billionaires give away their money with their name attached, a statement the author makes in a tone that clearly indicates that billionaires donating their money are self-congratulatory publicity leeches. Except Bill Gates, because he talks about "solving global health problems". Otherwise the author's alleged point falls apart.

That leaves only one perceived sin by Mr. Jobs.

..., he uses social issues to support his own selfish business goals. ...

Jobs can't even get behind causes that would seem to carry deep personal meaning, let alone lasting social importance. Like Lance Armstrong, he is a cancer survivor. But unlike Armstrong, Jobs has so far done little publicly to raise money or awareness for the disease.

Get that? He doesn't (openly) raise money for cancer research. Because, once you have cancer, you have an obligation to speak out against it to whomever will listen. And you'd better do so, or else you'll get tagged thusly:

On the evidence, he's nothing more than a greedy capitalist who's amassed an obscene fortune. It's shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs' rock star exaltation.

In the same way, I admire Bono over Mick Jagger, and John Lennon over Elvis, because they spoke up about things bigger than their own celebrity.

It's time for Jobs to do the same.

Mr. Jobs is supposed to be upset because he's not admired by the author. And he should definitely be embarrassed about his fortune and being a "greedy" capitalist, because that's capital-B Bad. But the Bono comparison is useful. Where Bono's activism is quite public, it's also stunningly short-sighted and wrong¹. Time will tell that perhaps Bill Gates is throwing much of his money into worthless efforts that do nothing to solve global health problems.

With great wealth does not come great obligation. Despite the clear indication that most people with wealth donate money (and noteriety) to charity, which Mr. Jobs may be doing, individuals should be free to do with their money as they see fit. That includes not doing.

Should we now talk about all of the Apple and Pixar employees and shareholders who've made significant sums of money over the years thanks to the ideas and innovations facilitated by Mr. Jobs? How much money have those employees and shareholders donated to charity? How many Apple products have individuals used to create compelling marketing material for charity marketing campaigns?

Jobs is already contributing.

¹ Debt relief is not a policy for long-term economic success.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

And so the irrational attacks on vegansim continue, this time in the New York Times, courtesy of
Nina Planck, author of Real Food: What to Eat and Why. Consider:

When Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.

This particular calamity — at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.

As I wrote when this story first appeared earlier this month, was that story about veganism or ignorance? It wouldn't have mattered if the parents fed their son cow's milk and chicken broth, such a limited diet still would've been inappropriate and insufficient for anyone, much less a six-week-old child. That's where the story ends. Or should end, if there isn't an agenda to push. So we get this:

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.

And what support does Ms. Planck offer?

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

I'm being simple because I don't realize that people have always done it. That means it's good. Or I can reiterate something I wrote earlier today and apply it to the last sentence: it sounds correct so it must be correct. It's a little too simple to say a vegan diet isn't adequate, so that's why no vegan societies exist. For example, what about this?

... Cornell University study finds that it is primarily people whose ancestors came from places where dairy herds could be raised safely and economically, such as in Europe, who have developed the ability to digest milk.

Do people from areas where that evolutionary development didn't occur still need milk?

Ms. Planck provides more incomplete analysis throughout. She often hits upon the correct problem - improper nutrition - while trying to maintain a cohesive narrative against vegansim, even though veganism can provide proper nutrition. When she states that vegans tend to use soy too much in feeding their children because it reduces protein absorption, she blames veganism rather than poor nutritional sources of protein. I could use the same logic she does and end with is fact: cow's milk can leech calcium and minerals from bones, which is quite different than the desired, advertised result. But I won't, because relying on such simplicity leads to conclusions like this:

An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.

Cholesterol is a fascinating subject. Vegans never develop high cholesterol because they don't consume cholesterol in their diet. That would be nice if it were true. It's not. But it's equally untrue that vegans have no source of cholesterol. As long as they have a functioning liver and decent nutrition, cholesterol isn't a problem.

The fish oil nonsense is the winner, though. Pretending that it's fish oil and not the nutrients in fish oil demonstrates how Ms. Planck whiffed in her argument. Sufficient nutritional intake is the issue. It always has been and always will be, regardless of whether or not we're discussing veganism. If critics of veganism can demonstrate that proper nutrition isn't possible, they should do so. Trotting out the stories of a few children who died from ignorant parenting isn't proof.

Original link via Glenn Reynolds, where he offers this damning indictment against veganism:

I had a girlfriend who was on a vegan diet. She came down with Kwashiorkor. Luckily, the folks at Cornell Student Health diagnosed it quickly, even though it's a protein-deficiency disease normally found in starving third-world children, because they had seen it so often among women on vegan diets.

Everyone always knows someone. So, let's see, college-aged adults, surely the most rational, informed people around, eat a diet with insufficient protein, despite all the sources of protein found in nature, and veganism is to blame. Gotcha. Potato chips and lettuce would be a vegan diet, but it's not a rational vegan diet. Can we please focus on rational and not vegan? Would an omnivore who subsists on chicken tenders and mozzarella face nutritional deficiencies? No, which identifies the true problem here.

Ms. Planck provides sufficient fodder for link goodness. Read her original essay on the irresponsible parents who fed their son soy milk and apple juice. Or read the background information on her New York Times article, offered at her home page, which includes this from a family practitioner she interviewed:

'... Most breast-fed vegan children will do okay until solids are introduced, as long as the vegan mother is well nourished. Most commonly you see Vitamin B12 and iron deficiencies in vegan children. Vegan families must place close attention to protein sources, calcium, Vitamins D and B12, and iron. Often this can be achieved via fortified foods, but I've seen that not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods. ...'

The doctor explicitly states that veganism isn't dangerous, but poor nutrition is. This is not news. And anecdotal evidence that "not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods" is different than the claim that veganism is to blame. Do all omnivorous parents choose the types of foods with sufficient nutrition for their children? Maybe I'll theorize instead that omnivorous parents are lazy because they don't want to put any thought into nutritional planning for their families, so they just throw a few slabs of meat on the table since the animal most likely got all of its nutrients from plants. I could argue that, and I'd be on roughly the same illogical level as the article Ms. Planck wrote, but I won't. I have a functioning brain.

Finally, perhaps you'd like to read the description of her book, which portrays the book as more of a polemic against the industrialization of food. I haven't read the book, but I probably agree with her argument if she's saying the processed nature of the modern diet is harmful. Again, that's more about proper nutrition than veganism.

Update (1:47pm): Sherry Colb has an excellent take-down of Ms. Planck's article, including a legal flaw in Ms. Planck's use of Crown Shakur's death to further her anti-vegan message. Thanks to Kip for the link.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know Rolling Doughnut could use a better layout and a few technological bells and whistles. Still, this site gets the basics right.

For example, a problem among websites that I'm starting to see more is a major annoyance with Search functionality. I appreciate the extra help provided by placing the word Search in the text box. It helps me locate it among the mess. Thank you.

But when I highlight the field, the word should disappear. Some sites get this correct and it disappears. Too many, though, don't. Often I don't discover this until I've already typed a word or two of my search. I then have to edit the text or empty the field and start over. Why? Do the majority of searches include the word search? I doubt it.

If your site is so crammed that you need to include Search to make it obvious, you should probably simplify the design. That's work, which I don't bother with myself. Fine. But make the word disappear.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

My homeowners association is hosting a community yard sale today, and we're participating. It's not going to be the most profitable yard sale possible. We're learning Frédéric Bastiat's broken window fallacy in the most literal way possible, which blows because I already understand this and don't need the experience.

One item (previously) for sale was a bookshelf. It had a pleasant $30 price tag on it, ready to go to a good home. That was until the moment the wind gusted and carried it into one of the side windows of my neighbor's car. To fix the broken window and the dent will cost us approximately $500.

The economically illiterate will suggest that this is good, because now the glass installer will make a sale he would not have received. Good for him, but I am most certainly not better off, and am unhappy to be participating in this unnecessary charade. I'm still unemployed without a contract. Money is going out without coming in to replace expenditures. The money now going to pay for this window is money that might be needed for items I might need more than new glass for my neighbor's car. Like food.

It won't come to that, of course, so Whole Foods has nothing to worry about. But what about the new company I might invest in but now must live without that last $500? What if I might've used that $500 to buy sport suspension on a new MINI (when I land a new contract)? Would MINI USA like to have that $500 instead of the local glass installer?

So, yeah, money is circulating in the economy. That's wonderful. But there's more than what is seen. I might start doing this.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Add Montgomery County, Maryland to the list of governments that doesn't trust its residents and business owners. Yesterday, it passed a ban on trans fats in "food service establishments". The story offers the standard fare discussion, which misses how anti-liberty such government intrusion is. For example:

The move comes as health officials across the country decry a rise in bad eating habits, growing waistlines and an increase in heart disease and other ailments. The anti-trans fat bill puts Montgomery in the vanguard of a growing national movement to make it easier to obtain healthy foods in restaurants and grocery stores.

I disagree that easier is the correct word to use in that paragraph. Such anti-trans fat bills seek to make it obligatory to obtain healthy foods. Why bypass that? To make this sound more reasonable? Don't bother; nothing can make this reasonable.

That doesn't mean I like trans fats. I avoid them. But I'm not egotistical enough to believe that what I choose for myself is the best, or at least desirable, choice for everyone. We're all unique human beings with different, subjective preferences and an individual risk aversion not readily apparent to government busybodies. Personal choice is better than institutionalized denial of choice.

Where governments go wrong with that is most apparent in this:

Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), the bill's chief sponsor, said she thinks the food industry will be able to adjust. Some Montgomery establishments, such as the Silver Diner and Marriott Corp., stopped using trans fats voluntarily.

I wonder what evidence Councilwoman Trachtenberg used to come to her conclusion that the food industry will be able to adjust. Wishing isn't evidence.

"The goal is to protect the public health," she said. "People want to know what they are eating."

And there's the deceit. Mandatory menu labeling would achieve her stated goal, for customers to know what they're eating. They'd have the information to make an informed choice. But that's not the bill Councilwoman Trachtenberg sponsored. What she's done speaks louder than what she said.

Will Councilwoman Trachtenberg achieve her stated goal?

Gene Wilkes, owner of Tastee Diners in Bethesda and Silver Spring, said the ban will force him to eliminate certain items, such as lemon meringue pie and chocolate cream pie, which he buys from a supplier. His popular biscuits, made in bulk at the diners from a General Mills mix that contains trans fats, will be a no-no. He said he'll begin making them from scratch, most likely.

I guess if people in Montgomery County want to know what's in their lemon meringue pie or chocolate cream pie, they'll know because they'll have to make it themselves. Mission accomplished. Right?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

There is no need to be specific in placing blame when it's possible to place guilt by association for those who are unacceptably different.

A Superior Court jury in Atlanta convicted a vegan (VEE-gun) couple of murder and cruelty to children today in the death of their six-week old, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.
...

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. ...

I can accept that veganism is relevant to this story as it pertains to the parents' approach to feeding their child since the child died of malnutrition. But this child did not die because his parents are vegans. Without a varied diet full of nutrients, a human will die on any diet. Feed a child nothing but shrimp and eggs and he will become malnourished. This is not complicated. These parents were stupid and incompetent. Their son died as a result.

To the reporting, it's helpful that the reporter included a simple definition¹ of veganism for readers, with a handy-dandy pronunciation guide to go along with it, but veganism expects more than soy milk and apple juice. Anyone capable of stringing two words together should be able to figure this out. Implying that vegans condone such nonsense is irrational.

This story is tragic, of course. A boy is dead who should and could be alive. But the reporting on this story amounts to little more than intellectually lazy voyeurism. "Hey, look at the freaks. This is what happens if you're a freak. Don't be a freak." Please. Try harder or don't bother.

¹ The word typically makes this definition wrong. Strike it from the sentence.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Phillies are finally winning. After a dismal start, we've started winning regularly, and sometimes even convincingly, in the last two weeks. Standing at 11 wins this month, we go into tonight's series opener against the Braves with a better April than the last two years. (Ten wins in each of the previous two Aprils.) Considering how close we've been at the finish line the last couple of years, maybe that will be the difference and there will be playoff baseball this October.

It couldn't have come at a better time, as the Redskins botched this year's draft. First-round pick¹ LaRon Landry will hopefully become a productive star. His demonstrated talent suggests he will. I hope so, as a fan, but he is not what we needed. I understand the desire to draft talent, but we have a gaping hole in our defense on the line. The Redskins brain trust should've addressed this early and often over the weekend. At least Landry will get to showcase his talents when the other teams have infinite time after every snap to find open receivers.

¹ We whiffed on the few remaining picks we had, as well.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't have any desire to delve into the political issues arising from the shootings at Virginia Tech beyond the issues I already discuss here. With that in mind, two issues are driving me nuts from the fallout.

Because the murderer at Virginia Tech wrote violent stories, violent stories must now become criminal, regardless of the First Amendment:

Told to express emotion for a creative-writing class, high school senior Allen Lee penned an essay so disturbing to his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct, officials said Wednesday.

Lee, 18, a straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with the misdemeanor for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.

Such a story might signal a problem that will lead to mass murder. Ban it. Are people really this stupid and oblivious to the evidence that violence in literature and movies and television and theater overwhelmingly does not lead to acting out that violence?