November 2006 – Page 4 – Rolling Doughnut

How many times do we have to go over this?

Here we go again:

Circumcising all baby boys could cut the rate of sexually transmitted diseases by about half, a study suggests today. The study adds to the growing scientific evidence that challenges a policy against routine circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I forget them all the time, so I’m glad to have the opportunity to remind myself of the assumptions that make this allegedly relevant to ethics of routine infant circumcision, rather than some other policy, say adult elective circumcision:

Infants are having sex, which will expose them to STDs.
Condoms are not available for adults.
Personal responsibility is not a viable safe sex concept.
Parents are unable to teach their children safe sex.
Fortunately, parents are all-knowing regarding their ~~children~~ sons’ future sexual risk.

There are other, typical claims in the article, including support for cutting children from the usual suspects. What’s interesting is what the article leaves out. And this article. And presumably the majority of the media who rush to point out something “miraculous” before investigating whether the miracle is really there.

Instead, consider the study:

METHODS. Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: (1) the circumcision status of males in the cohort before 15 years old, (2) measures of self-reported sexually transmitted infection from ages 18 to 25 years, and (3) childhood, family, and related covariate factors.

Can you spot the flaw? I don’t claim that self-reported is sufficient to overcome the study’s conclusion, only that it’s a glaring fact that’s being ignored in reports. Just as intact men can become infected, circumcised men can become infected. Personal responsibility matters. Also, if the men involved are competent enough to self-report their STDs, they’re competent enough to practice safe sex. If they do not practice safe sex, the intact males do not have their foreskin to blame.

Something Not About The Election

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps believes we’re not doing enough to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband access to The Internets. Consider:

America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It’s hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.

I’m fired up to Do Something&#153. So what’s Commissioner Copps’ solution? Take a guess:

The FCC needs to start working to lower prices and introduce competition. We must start meeting our legislative mandate to get advanced telecommunications out to all Americans at reasonable prices; make new licensed and unlicensed spectrum available; authorize “smart radios” that use spectrum more efficiently; and do a better job of encouraging “third pipe” technologies such as wireless and broadband over power lines. And we should recommend steps to Congress to ensure the FCC’s ability to implement long-term solutions.

We need a broadband strategy for America. Other industrialized countries have developed national broadband strategies. In the United States we have a campaign promise of universal broadband access by 2007, but no strategy for getting there. With less than two months to go, we aren’t even within shouting distance.

Government is the answer, apparently. To be fair, Commissioner Copps later suggests that universal broadband access will require a public-private partnership. Perhaps, but he offers no clear situation in which private comes into play, other than taking dictation from the FCC. We already have that, and we’re going to miss our goal. What am I missing?

Maybe the government just needs to get out of the way and let the market develop itself. If Americans don’t have access to broadband, it’s certainly possible that they don’t care to have access. Considering they can get satellite DSL anywhere, I’m hard-pressed to find a lack of access warranting massive intervention.

An argument against satellite is that it’s too expensive. But who decides what price is the reasonable limit that government should push? Because we want that price does not mean that we can sweep aside the cost of infrastructure to build that access. Price is a function of that cost. If customers want the service at the price necessary to make universal access possible, they’ll pay it. If not, they won’t pay it. Why should everyone else be forced to subsidize another’s decision to live in a sparsely-populated location where universal access isn’t economically feasible?

There are costs associated with the rush to get universal access. If it costs us $600 billion to achieve the $500 billion economic boost Commissioner Copps mentions elsewhere in his editorial, we will have fallen behind to avoid falling behind. With deference to Commissioner Copps, we already have a broadband strategy for America. It’s called Capitalism. It works. Maybe a little slower than the snap-of-a-finger speed desired, but better slow-and-correct than fast-and-wrong.

Limited Government, Not Rights

Before I get into this entry, I admit to being guilty of What’s the Matter With… in this entry. Do I get a free pass because I’m complaining about citizens voting away the rights of other citizens, rather than people aren’t behaving the way I want? Yes or no, so be it. Moving on.

I didn’t expect to be as angry as I was when the anti-marriage amendment passed yesterday in Virginia. As I mentioned this morning, I knew it would pass and I still wanted to rant and swear and threaten to leave Virginia. But I’m beyond that, for several reasons. Primarily, I own a home here, so it’s not as easy as just letting my lease run out and then moving away. But that’s only the structural roadblock. There is something more fundamental.

I grew up in Virginia. I went to college in Virginia. This is my home. And I’m not abandoning it to the bigots. Virginia’s role in the founding of America and the enshrinement of our principles in the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States is too proud and too strong to let it slip away just because a majority of adults motivated enough to vote fear gay Virginians. Those of us who know better must stay and fix this mess. As such, I’m not going anywhere. This victory will be Pyrrhic.

With that in mind, I want to bring attention to a few quotes on the anti-marriage amendment. After that, I’ll be done for awhile. Probably.

First:

Attorney General Bob McDonnell said, “Today Virginia said yes to traditional marriage. This amendment to add constitutional protection to traditional marriage gave Virginians the opportunity to directly affirm their longstanding belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This is a victory for Virginia families, and the democratic process. Virginia is stronger because of the passage of this amendment.”

Let’s see, this amendment attacks a portion of my family, but it’s a victory for them. It also proves that the democratic process includes the ability to vote away the rights of a group of citizens. How exactly does this make Virginia stronger?

“I’m not an ultraconservative when it comes to homosexuals. I have some wonderful friends who are homosexual, but I think marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Ann Potocnak, 37, of Prince William County.

Forty-five years ago, that would’ve said I’m have some wonderful friends who are black, but…, followed by a self-satisfied cleansing of any possibility she might be wrong. I’m sure her gay friends are content to know what she thinks of them, though. I hope my wonderful friends will stab me in the back when given the chance.

“I feel [same-sex couples] should have rights as far as benefits are concerned, but I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman,” said Chris Murray, 36, a mortgage broker from Fairfax County. He said he realized that there was a chance the amendment would lead to the loss of legal rights for same-sex couples, but “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” he said.

Of course, a logical person might say “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” to Mr. Murray’s unproven fear that a Virginia judge will rule that the state must recognize same-sex marriage. Apparently you can vote maybe or kind of, if the desired outcome fits your personal whim. Collateral damage be damned.

I’m going to end with a nod to someone who gets the obvious:

“It’s already there. Why go on and drag this out, just because some religious groups want to exclude certain things from certain people that have different lifestyles?” asked Frans Hagen, 72, a retired restaurant executive from Annandale who runs an education foundation.

Anti-marriage amendments are just a speed bump in the path of liberty. An ugly, shameful speed bump, but Frans Hagen is correct. History will not be kind to the defenders of these amendments.

Our Attorney General says we’re stronger

This is not helpful since the amendment passed, but it’s the only fact keeping me from going off on my fellow Virginians. Consider these together:

… Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions …

And…

Nearly half of the state’s 4.5 million registered voters cast ballots.

I actually believe that last point is inaccurate. By the last count I saw, more than 2.3 million people voted on Question 1. Regardless, I’ll think about that when the bigots proclaim a majority of Virginians want to “protect marriage.” I guess anything can pass if you just get a majority of a small enough pool. I wonder what rights will be put to a vote next.

I’m going to stop now. Otherwise, I’d write things I don’t want to write while my anger is still on the surface. I’ll just leave it here: I do not respect my state any longer.

All Election, All Day – Part VII

How I voted:

Congress

Senate: Jim Webb. I struggled over this because, despite Sen. Allen being a vile politician who deserves no public office, Mr. Webb’s economic views are wrong. But Sen. Allen is so contemptible and devoid of character that it’s impossible for me to avoid casting a vote against him.

House of Representatives: Andrew Hurst. I’m not eager about the Democrats, for every reason Michael Kinsley mentions today. Clearly Mr. Hurst’s stance on every issue is lifted from this document. Blech. But Tom Davis, of steroid investigations and Congressman Loose Cannon fame, represents me. Not if I can help it. I will vote against him whenever he is on the ballot, even if I have to hold my nose while I vote.

Local Politics

I don’t care, so I punted this and voted for myself.

Ballot Questions

Question 1: No on the bigot amendment. Obviously. I will not respect my state any longer if this passes.

Question 2: No. This one requires an explanation.

Shall Section 14 of Article IV of the Constitution of Virginia be amended by deleting the provision that prohibits the incorporation of churches, a provision that was ruled to be unconstitutional and therefore now is obsolete?

This particular question doesn’t bother me. It was ruled unconstitutional, I don’t care. However, it’ll be useful for future generations to see what we’ve done to the Constitution through history. This point doesn’t matter, but when the federal courts finally recognize that Question 1 is unconstitutional, I will vote to leave it in the Constitution, even though it will be obsolete. If Question 1 passes today, our Constitution will be sullied forever. History should forever mark the blunt tools of hatred. Thus, in principle for how I will vote in the future, I voted no.

Question 3: No on property tax exemptions for conservation, redevelopment, and rehabilitation.

Bond Issues

No across the board. See fiscal responsibility.

That’s how I voted. I waited almost 90 minutes to vote for the defeat of Sen. Allen and Question 1. Soon enough, I’ll find out if my fellow Virginians are reasonable.

All Election, All Day – Part VI

This is the “thought” process of the man who championed Virginia’s bigot amendment:

The debate was over, and the stately atrium at the University of Virginia School of Law was nearly empty. But Del. Robert G. Marshall, a Prince William County Republican who wryly refers to himself as Virginia’s “chief homophobe,” was just warming up to his next showdown over same-sex marriage.

“There is a natural order of things, a natural order where gay marriage is an impossibility,” he said, books tucked under his arm and waving a hand for emphasis, like the disheveled college professor he often resembles. “For example, a woman’s arm is constructed at a certain angle so that she can adequately cradle a baby. This is the way we’re created. There are just certain things that nature intended.”

At what point did intelligence and logic become offensive liabilities to public service?

All Election, All Day – Part V

This is the position of a self-proclaimed conservative:

All the European countries supporting homosexual marriage will be Muslim by 2100 (unless there is a great Christian revival). In either case, homosexual marriage will be a short-lived social experiment by Liberal/Socialist Human Secularists.

Support for same-sex marriage equals a willingness to capitulate to theocracy. That’s an interesting thesis, unsupported by any other evidence. Of course, I could suggest a thesis that support for same-sex marriage bans equals a willingness to capitulate to theocracy. Question 1 would be my supporting evidence.

For more straw man pummeling, read this comment by the same person. The original blog entry, though, is admirable.

All Election, All Day – Part IV

Adding on to what I said earlier about Iraq, it might help to repost this entry from a few years ago:

A Pacifist’s War Principles

I hate war.

War is rarely justified.

When justified, it must be undertaken.

When undertaken, it is a necessary evil.

Because it’s a necessary evil, only victory will suffice.

Victory is measured by permanently stopping the instigators.

Stopping the instigators must be viewed through the eyes of justice.

The eyes of justice do not seek vengeance.

Vengeance creates mistakes.

Mistakes transform victory into failure.

Failure is unacceptable.

It’s a bit cutesy, I admit, but I think it sums up what I believe about war. It should be a last resort, but once undertaken, it must be won. The current administration failed and continues to fail at so many items on this list – 2, 5, 6, maybe 7, 10, 11 – that it must be held accountable. It must be forced to adopt a strategy other than stay the course because we’re losing.

To share the blame, I clearly failed at my second criteria. Again, that was mostly my ignorance of politics and history. I hope I’ll be less likely to make that mistake in the future. I know I’ll doubt more often, which is key to better government.

As for strategy for winning in Iraq, I don’t have one. Neither does the Bush administration. It must develop one, if victory in Iraq is still possible. I’m skeptical that it is still winnable, despite believing for a long time that we couldn’t abandon Iraq, no matter how public sentiment viewed the war. We created it, we must fix it. But now I fear we must leave. That isn’t a “give me a timetable” requirement, just a sense that we must finally begin diplomacy.

Whatever path we take coming out of today’s election, Iraq and its people will suffer. That is our fault, and we will carry the shame. President Bush must bear responsibility for that, even if it’s only the judgment of history. As citizens we must resist the inevitable push for war that will arise in the future to eliminate the defeat of Iraq from our psyche. We must not create new mistakes to pretend past mistakes never happened. Vigilance is our duty.

All Election, All Day – Part III

In voting for Democrats, I do not endorse Democratic ideas as stated in the election. They’re idiots, but they’re just not as bad as the Republicans we now have in office. For example, a big Democratic talking point this year is PAYGO, as in pay as you go. I have a problem with this mentality, even though our federal budget is out of control.

The fundamental assumption of PAYGO, as I perceive it, is we can only spend what we can pay for. The problem is obvious. If we set tax rates high enough, we can afford a lot. But that’s flawed, because it will lead us to destruction. If the end is destruction, I don’t care if we pay for it or our grandchildren pay for it. Suicide is bad government policy.

Instead, our assumption should be based on what qualifies as legitimate government spending. Is it Constitutional and necessary? Then we should have it. As such, we should have federal revenue to pay for it now. That’s the point at which Congress should set tax policy. Budget, then fund.

If Democrats win Congress today, President Bush needs to remember where he chucked his veto pen.

All Election, All Day – Part II

In looking at today’s election, competence is the overwhelming issue. The Republicans clearly lack it for putting a lust for power over their duty to the Constitution. The Democrats clearly lack it for failing to fight the Republican lust for power with better solutions to what’s facing us. It’s enough to make me disillusioned. Yet, I remain optimistic that our form of government will prevail. Probably not today, and almost definitely not in Virginia, but in the long-term, it will prevail. That leaves hope. I’d rather have certainty through evidence, but hope will have to be enough.

Among the issues that build into the question of competence, Iraq and paternalistic majoritarianism remain the key indicators. I’ve written enough about the latter, but I haven’t written much about Iraq because I haven’t had much to say that isn’t elsewhere. But I should clarify my position. In the buildup to the war, I was deferential to the administration’s claims of WMD proof. I was foolish to trust so blindly. I was politically and historically ignorant, failing to heed the examples shown through history where this president’s grandiose vision was misguided and unlikely to succeed. As a voter, knowing better was my responsibility, and I failed.

Once the war started, though, the only logical choice was victory. We created the mess, so we had to finish it. President Bush and the Congress failed miserably at that important task. With its lack of accountability and avoidance of the truth, Republicans in power abandoned their duty. Three years in, with victory nowhere close, it’s apparent that President Bush is incapable or unwilling to win. Republicans in Congress have been complicit. This must change.

I do not believe Democrats will be better. But I know the path we’re on will not bring us victory and a safer world. The choice is between known and unknown. Maybe the unknown will be worse, but following the known will lead to defeat. How much more dangerous will that make the world? I do not want to find out. It’s time for the president’s current enablers to go.

I don’t expect majority status to change Democrats into a party of ideas. I believe they’ll cut and run. Where we’re at, that’s probably best. I’ll expect the best, with a return to leadership. I will not be surprised if it doesn’t. But the choice now is between finding confirmation in ideology and finding truth in facts. Republicans won’t accept reality. Democrats might. Today, that’s all I have.