Month: October 2006

The ethics of vanity

Here’s an excerpt from a presentation (from 2001, I believe) entitled “Rejuvenation of Aging and Photodamaged Skin Utilizing Fibroblast Conditioned Media”:

A newborn baby’s skin produces an abundance of compounds important to healthy young skin, including growth factors antioxidants, soluble collagens, and matrix proteins that confer structure to skin. Over time, environmental stressors like ultra-violet radiation, cigarette smoke, wind and pollution deplete these compounds. Meanwhile, as we age, our bodies gradually lose the ability to effectively produce these elements. So our skin wrinkles, sags and roughens.

This natural mixture of newborn skin compounds is produced by Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. to from a pioneering process in the emerging field of tissue engineering that utilizes fibroblast cells from neonatal foreskins to produce human tissue replacements for the treatment of serious burns, wounds and other therapeutic indications. Fibroblasts are the cells responsible for growth and repair of the dermal layer of skin. The patented tissue engineering process stimulates normal human newborn skin fibroblast cells grown in the laboratory to deposit matrix proteins, including collagens, growth factors and antioxidants to form a human dermal tissue structure. In addition to assembly of these components into a tissue, the cells secrete soluble forms of these compounds into the solution (termed media) used to nourish the cells. The resultant fibroblast conditioned media is separated from the cells and tissue to serve as a natural, highly efficacious, ingredient for anti-aging cosmeceuticals. The fibroblast conditioned media contains the array of naturally produced factors which aging skin makes less efficiently and sometimes in smaller quantities.

Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. sold its assets in 2003 to SkinMedica in bankruptcy. SkinMedica now has an array of products that include human fibroblast conditioned media. Its site does not indicate specifically that this means “developed from neonatal foreskins,” so I am not making that claim with regard to its products. However, Dr. Patricia Wexler said as much when she appeared on Oprah.

Does anyone else see the ethical quandary this presents? The boy has not consented to unnecessary surgery, yet a healthy portion of his body is amputated. The discarded foreskin is then used by a third party to develop a commercial beauty product¹. Somebody is making money on this, and it’s not the now foreskin-free boy.

Providing compensation to the circumcised boy would not change my opinion, or ease the violation of routine infant circumcision. That should be obvious. But it does further illustrate how little the rights of infant males are considered in the routine practice of circumcision in America. There is a disconnect when reason does not tell us that using an infant’s foreskin so that adults can pretend that time does not exist is not acceptable.

Note: It makes no difference if the human fibroblast conditioned media is used to treat burn victims instead of those too vain to age. The boy does not lose his right to bodily integrity because someone else suffered burns. Individual rights can’t be trumped by any notion of who “needs” the skin more.

¹ Two human collagen products, CosmoDerm® and CosmoPlast®, contain cells replicated from discarded foreskins.

You can’t make this stuff up

I’m going to stand on a strong limb here and say that a better opening for this story exists somewhere in the reporter’s mind:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission plans to sponsor educational events and seminars aimed at reversing the steady decline in the number of federal employees with severe disabilities.

Will Tony Soprano being leading the educational events and seminars? A few clubs to the kneecap should take care of the problem. At least that’s the way I read the sentence. I actually laughed out loud. Why start from the beginning – why is federal employment of the disabled declining – when you can decide that the government simply doesn’t have enough disabled employees? It’s silly.

The story continues, talking about “targeted disabilities,” which I think is a strange way of promoting non-discriminatory hiring. Is the government actively excluding those with non-targeted disabilities? It’s worth asking. But more to my point:

Experts do not know what accounts for the decline, in part because of a lack of research and data. Some suggest that more disabled workers are retiring, as the baby-boom generation leaves the workforce. Some think that federal hiring practices work against the disabled, and some think the private sector has opened more doors to the disabled over the past decade.

The data show a problem decline, though, so like the Justice League on Saturday mornings, the government must act to bring about, um, justice. I’d like to think it’s because we have few Americans with disabilities, thanks to medical innovation that treats disease or trauma before it can become a disability. But I’d be merely wishing without evidence, sorta like the government. I’d start with research, though, sorta unlike the government.

I guess we can’t legislate vice out of existence

I haven’t written about the Mark Foley scandal because I haven’t had much to add. What could I really say that isn’t common sense? Bad Congressman. Duh. The interesting parts will develop between now and November 7th, at least. The blanket, unthinking conservative attack on gays as a scapegoat will continue, but better bloggers than me already have that covered. What I like is the blame being thrown at Democrats, as if it’s their fault for (allegedly) waiting until now to spring this news. Uh-huh.

The Democratic Party seems intent on replaying this mistake with the Foley affair. Let’s temporarily put aside the timing of the release of the Instant Messages and who-knew-what-when. Let’s just say for the moment that while the media currently hounds the Republican leadership, it’s a safe bet that it wasn’t the Republican leadership that plopped Foley’s IM’s into the lap of ABC News. If whoever was the errand boy delayed delivery to best achieve maximum political benefit, then the Democrats’ newfound status as the party of conventional morality will receive a decided blow.

But the real story here is the party’s eagerness to use victimized children as a campaign prop. The Patty Wettering campaign spot that I linked to earlier today tips the Democrats’ hand. Wettering is best known as a children’s advocate. Her own 11 year old son was kidnapped and never found. Thus, Wettering has the proverbial Cindy Sheehan cloak of putative “absolute moral authority” that the simple-minded so admire.

Yeah, okay, so the Democrats maybe held onto this information to use it an opportune time. Doubtful, but even if true, it’s clear to everyone but the most simple-minded partisan hack that the Republican leadership in Congress knew long ago. Any shame the Democrats may deserve in this, the Republicans have brought far more on themselves. But that’s not key here. What is key is that, if the parties were reversed in this story, we’d be calling this Karl Rove’s “October surprise”. What’s good for the goose…

Hat tip: John Cole

It’s still the warrantless causing the problem

I’m sure I’m stepping into intellectual muck with this, but why should that stop me? This ruling seems absurd:

The Bush administration can continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge’s ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday.

Obviously, the Bush administration’s claims of harm from terrorism should this surveillance program be scuttled (temporarily, at least) have some merit. However, is it too unreasonable to put a halt (permanently temporarily, at least) to the warrantless part of it? Unless the court intends to find that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t cover government action if the spooky people threaten us, I don’t understand why forcing the Bush administration to use existing FISA wiretapping provisions that allow for retroactive warrants would be unreasonable.

The Bush administration’s legal “reasoning” is what’s new here, not the Fourth Amendment. The administration should have to prove itself, not receive a temporary reprieve from obeying the Constitution.

I bet this isn’t in the Constitution

I’m happy to have contributed my share to this $20 million:

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.

Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

The original legislation empowered the president to designate “a day of celebration” to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

Like the gambling bill, I’m sure some legislator bundled this stupidity into a Must Pass Bill&#153. Well played, since no one can vote against it. But let’s pretend that declaring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan was as simple as enacting into law some lawmaker’s desire to hold a giant patriotic parade. Would this celebration make any sense? If those victories amount to a complete win in our war against terror, which is open-ended by definition, that would warrant a national party. Not at the expense of taxpayers, but a party no less. But is that what victory in Iraq and Afghanistan would represent? Of course not. Celebrating that with lavish ceremonies is no different than a linebacker celebrating every tackle.

Winning is what we’re supposed to do. Instead of expending the effort to win those wars, our current leadership would rather throw an “aren’t we swell” party. Patriotism isn’t real if it’s forced in some cheap imitation of 1984. If $20 million for what amounts to a national hug can be considered cheap.

Idiots, every one of them.

The Decider is the Divider

From the campaign trail:

President Bush ratcheted up his campaign offensive against Democrats on Tuesday with perhaps his bluntest rhetoric yet as he accused them of being “softer” on terrorists and willing to allow attacks on Americans rather than interrogate or spy on the nation’s enemies.
…

“Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways,” he told donors here. “They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.”

He added: “If you don’t think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican.”

It should be obvious that he’s lying about the debate on listening in on terrorists. People like me (not just Democrats) want our intelligence community listening in on the terrorists. We just want President Bush to follow the Constitution he swore to uphold. All of it, of course, but mostly the part about warrants. If it’s obvious they’re terrorists, what’s the difficulty in getting the (retroactive) warrant?

To President Bush’s specific accusation: what about when the hard choices are necessary to win a war? Whose soft side comes out then?

Is it January 2009 yet?

State lotteries are free to corrupt

We all know that Congress wants to protect us from ourselves, even when we’re not putting ourselves in danger, but shouldn’t someone in power call Rep. Jim Leach on his defense of the online gambling bill?

Proponents of the measure heralded its passage as a victory for family values and a blow against an addictive vice. Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who sponsored the bill, said it will prevent casinos from further extending their corruptive reach. “Religious leaders of all denominations and faiths are seeing gambling problems erode family values,” Leach said in a statement. “If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their BlackBerries as they wait in line at the movies.”

Two glaring holes in Rep. Leach’s reasoning jump out. First, aside from the silly, meaningless declaration that “gambling problems erode family values,” (“Sorry, son, we don’t have any family values left. Jimmy from down the street, his father has a gambling problem that eroded what we had left. The good news is I needn’t bear responsibility for your well-being. There’s a prostitute in your room, get going.”), he does not provide any data support for his claim that religious leaders are seeing gambling problems. Has he heard from one religious leader from each denomination? A hundred? A thousand? Or is it just a line of unsubstantiated crap that he can throw to his base to encourage them to give Republicans another term of control?

I suspect he has no data, but even if he does, so what? People should be free to spend their money as they see fit. If potential harm dismisses any claim to liberty, why isn’t Congress banning every other activity which could cause harm. Let’s go all the way, because we don’t want to erode family values. People drown in bath tubs. Let’s ban bath oils, which only encourage people to engage in the dangerous activity of taking baths. And showers are out, because people could slip and die. Sponge baths (no tubs or buckets – drowning risk – water faucet only) only.

Second, Rep. Leach’s examples of gambling addiction out of control are lacking. While driving? Seriously? Let localities ban cell phone use while driving if it’s a safety hazard. That’s not a federal issue. And gambling by BlackBerry while waiting in a movie line? Ummm, if the person is so addicted and out of control, how is he able to step away from the BlackBerry gambling long enough to watch a movie? Again, though, if that’s how someone wants to spend his time, so what? Clearly liberty now only extends to the minimum boundaries of what Rep. Leach likes.

Source: Wil Wheaton, blogging at Card Squad

Principles used to defeat “If it feels good”

More Best of the Web obtuseness from James Taranto, this time regarding a story about the torture of British soldiers in Iraq in 2003. First, from the news report:

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

That’s a heinous crime, which I can’t imagine any civilized person would deem as anything other than the worst sort of sub-human action. Essentially, this is proof that we’re the good guys. I didn’t need more evidence, but the world is cruel. But what’s Mr. Taranto’s take? Consider:

We keep hearing that if we don’t accord Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda detainees, our soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment. But here is how an enemy–one that, unlike al Qaeda, actually is a signatory to Geneva–treats Western soldiers. So what exactly do we gain by even meeting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, much less exceeding them?

We keep our dignity and the moral high ground. We retain the right to become indignant at such violations, and to act on them. We hold true to our ideals. Most importantly, we remain human. That’s worth something. Everything, in fact. It’s shameful that the Wall Street Journal’s editors can’t understand that.

I can hear the groans now

On a whizzical note from Norway, this story seems as if it’s been streamed directly from The Onion, but it appears legit:

The head of The Democrats Party, a splinter group of former Progress Party hardliners, Vidar Kleppe, is outraged that boys at Dvergsnes School in Kristiansand have to sit and pee.
…

“It is a human right not to have to sit down like a girl,” Kleppe said.

I’m amused at the piddling nature of this issue, but really, I’m fairly certain that it’s unwise to wrap a bogus “human right” claim around a dose of sexism. What audience is he aiming for?

(Via: Boing Boing)

He must complicate it to simplify it

I love tax reform ideas especially when they come from sitting members of Congress. Rep. Bob Goodlatte is thinking of ways for you and me to keep more of money from the IRS:

I believe that our country is in desperate need of tax reform. The current system has spiraled out of control. At a time when Americans devote 7.4 billion hours to comply with the tax code, we need simplification.

I have twice voted to abolish the current code, and recently introduced legislation that forces Congress to address reform. My bill, H.R. 4725, the Tax Code Termination Act, is quite simple. It abolishes the Tax Code, and then calls on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system.

I believe that only after the current code is scheduled for elimination, will Congress engage in serious discussions about alternative tax proposals. I am certain that if Congress is forced to address reform we can create a code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today.

I believe the key ingredient for tax reform should be: a low rate for taxpayers, tax relief for working people; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don’t have to be unfair and overcomplicated. I will continue to look for ways to simplify this needlessly complex tax process.

It’s amusing that Rep. Goodlatte believes the Congress will act on telling itself it needs to address the problem when it won’t address the problem it already acknowledges, but he’s probably smarter than I am. That must also be why I fail to see how installing extra special benefits for some people, as well as placing incentives in the tax code designed to get taxpayers to use their tax savings the right way, will somehow make the tax process simpler. I’m at a loss, although the save and invest part will probably work out after Rep. Goodlatte and his colleagues ban every form of recreational spending not related to saving and investing. Witness the shift of $6 billion to mutual funds now that the Congress double super banned gambling on The Internets. Well done, Congressman.