Month: April 2007

You belong to the community, not yourself.

From Uganda:

I wish to respond to Joseph Lule’s article in The New Vision of February 19 titled, “Female circumcision hurts women’s dignity.” To many Africans, particularly Ugandans, our cultural practices have become outdated and dangerous. This is because we look at things through the lenses of foreigners who do not have cultures of significance. For example, the UN officials who claim that female circumcision is violence against women do not belong to communities which have that practice. And women who have undergone circumcision are not complaining.
…

Lule raised the issue of privacy and dignity. However, it is not true that circumcised women are exposed for public viewing.

People have the right or freedom to choose what to do with their bodies. There would be a problem if exercising that freedom would pose a danger to the health and well being of the people. In such case we would talk about ‘how’ and not ‘whether’ to undergo circumcision.

Notice where that parallels the American discussion of male infant circumcision, particularly the last paragraph. If those who’ve been circumcised aren’t complaining, we’ve done nothing wrong. As long as we address how, we can sweep rights aside.

No.

Useful Thought on Perspective

While last night’s 60 Minutes story on nuclear power raised good points, including the obvious point that there are only so many ways to continue our way of life without perpetuating carbon dioxide emissions, this quote on nuclear power in general struck me as most useful:

“When there’s a small probability of a catastrophe people think about the catastrophe and not the small probability,” [David Jhirad, the head of science and research for The World Resources Institute] says.

I’m not interested in the planet dying, if global warming is serious, but I’m not interested in living in a mud hut just to avoid interfering with nature. Mr. Jhriad’s statement is applicable to almost everything, and it’s something we should all remember. Everything in life involves risk. Our objective should be to minimize and contain that risk to the extent reasonably possible. When we understand that, we’ll realize that we can never completely avoid risk without avoiding benefits, as well.

I choose the small probability, not the catastrophe, as my starting point.

The apology machine is in gear.

Don Imus said something stupid and offensive¹. Normally I wouldn’t care because I don’t listen to him. There is no need to decide whether or not I will listen to him. I just don’t. I trust others to do the same, if they’re so compelled. But the fallout is absurd:

Imus said he hoped to meet the players and their parents and coaches, and he said he was grateful that he was scheduled to appear later Monday on a radio show hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has called for Imus to be fired over the remarks.

“It’s not going to be easy, but I’m not looking for it to be easy,” Imus said.

Sharpton has said he wants Imus fired and that he intends to complain to the Federal Communications Commission about the matter.

“Somewhere we must draw the line in what is tolerable in mainstream media,” Sharpton said Sunday. “We cannot keep going through offending us and then apologizing and then acting like it never happened. Somewhere we’ve got to stop this.”

I agree. Such nonsense as this has no place in our society. Yet, people have the right to believe and say such racist ideas. If someone wants to put this on the airwaves, don’t listen. It’ll stop eventually. Easy enough?

Going to the FCC, though, is ridiculous. What is the FCC supposed to do? Even in the context of the unconstitutional mission of the FCC in monitoring “indecency”, Imus’ words were merely objectionable. How strong are our ideas of modernity if the truth of equality can’t withstand one deejay? How strong will they become if “respect” for those ideas is imposed by the government? Sheer lunacy.

¹ The article includes what he said. Read it there, if you’re interested.

Mind-Numbing Quote of the Day

I don’t understand how some people think, nor do I care to, I think.

I did not give my sons a choice about the matter, but I feel all right about it because the boys have both had it done, and it doesn’t seem to have harmed either of them.

Notice how poor these two justifications are for denying a child his right to his whole body. There is no discussion of medical need – not benefits¹, but immediate need, the standard for every other surgery on children. It’s been done to both, so it’s okay. They don’t “seem” harmed, so it’s okay. Nonsense.

For a better essay, read the counter-point.

¹ The rationale offered in the rest of the essay and the first three comments is equally weak. I’m sure more madness will result in the comments yet-to-come.

Voting to Bolster Political Egos

Residents of one New Mexico county voted to impose a tax on themselves to fund a commercial spaceport. (Two other counties will vote soon.) The usual bromides about economic development seem abundant, but I like this one:

Rick Homans, chairman of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority and the state’s secretary of economic development, said the referendum is sufficiently far ahead in the counting of provisional ballots to declare victory, although an official count has not yet been announced.

“This positive vote ignites the final design, engineering and construction of Spaceport America,” Homans said. “New Mexico is prepared to launch a whole new era of discovery, exploration and commercial activity in space, on the moon and beyond. We have nothing but beautiful black sky ahead of us.”

Any guesses who will be taking credit for such visionary brilliance? Does it matter that a commercial spaceport is not even distantly related to a legitimate government task? I don’t for a second believe that the commercial spaceport will be used for discovery and exploration beyond what space tourists seek. But still. Discovery! Exploration! Besides, there’s (allegedly) a market, so build it!

The $200 million spaceport is to be built in scrubland near the White Sands Missile Base and is expected to be open for business by early 2010.

British entrepreneur Richard Branson and his company Virgin Galactic have signed a long-term lease with the state to make New Mexico its international headquarters and the hub of a space-tourism business.

Those lease terms are favorable to Virgin Galactic, costing it $27.5 million total over the 20 years of the lease. Clearly that doesn’t recoup the $200 million “investment” approved by a majority of voters. I can’t help thinking that the same standard that applies to every other “private” business should apply here, vote or no vote. If it’s a viable commercial business, the business itself will fund the spaceport. If it can’t fund the spaceport, it’s not a viable business. That should be the end of the analysis from the state’s viewpoint.

Mayor Bloomberg offers a hint of promise.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a refreshing surprise.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg raised questions yesterday about an approach under consideration at the Health Department to promote circumcision as a way to reduce the risk of contracting AIDS.
…

“I have not had a chance to talk to Tom Frieden and Alan Aviles about this,” Mr. Bloomberg said, referring to Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden and Alan D. Aviles, chairman of the Health and Hospitals Corporation.

Saying that the rate of H.I.V. infection and AIDS in the city was alarmingly high despite education campaigns, he added, “We have to do something about it and we should be looking at everything, and when reputable health organizations talk about ways to do it you certainly are going to give it some serious consideration.”

Still, the mayor said, “whether it’s something that the government should be involved in, or just giving advice and making sure that people get educated, education in the end is the real tool to stop the spread of AIDS in our society.”

I have little doubt that this will turn out with a recommendation intellectually short of where it should end up, but even a pause counts as progress when dealing with a public reaction to circumcision. More such reflection, please.

In a related link, I often wonder whether my anti-circumcision posts related to religion are perceived as anti-Semitic. I know that my view is strictly related to the practice of medically unnecessary circumcision imposed on infants rather than some hidden animosity to religious practices, so I’m not worried about it too much. I state my opinion. I don’t control how it’s interpreted. And occasionally, I encounter some statement that reassures me about my own approach. For example:

Mayor Bloomberg should recuse himself from this decision because he is Jewish. How can anyone who is a part of a 5000 year tradition which advocates male genital mutilation be expected to make an objective decision here?

I’ve heard this kind of foolish stereotype before, and it’s always wrong. It does nothing more than disparage everyone involved in fighting for the rights of infant boys. I assume elected officials (and doctors and …) will carry out their duties with more principle than blindly pursuing their own (assumed) personal agendas. I’m smart enough to know this is not always the case, but I will stick with “innocent until proven guilty”. I’m trying to convince people to apply it to the foreskin’s “dangerous” presence. I’m not about to abandon it elsewhere.

Mob rule is anti-American.

David Broder is right to raise questions about a new, foolish attempt to circumvent the Electoral College process for electing presidents. The heart of the proposed approach:

The National Popular Vote Plan, as it is known, has passed both houses of the Maryland legislature and is headed for signing by Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The scheme, invented by John R. Koza, a Stanford professor, relies on the provision of the Constitution giving legislatures the power to “appoint” their presidential electors. If legislatures in enough states to make up a majority of the electoral college — 270 electoral votes — pledge to commit those votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote, no constitutional amendment is needed. [Former Senator Birch] Bayh and other high-minded individuals, such as former Illinois Republican representative John B. Anderson, a one-time independent presidential candidate, support the plan, arguing that it is a perfect expression of 21st-century democracy, while the electoral college is a relic of 18th-century thought.

There are many issues arguing against going to a national popular vote, whether directly or indirectly as put forth here. I’m not going to address them, but I’ll point you in the smart direction. Read Kip’s analysis of the District Method. (Thread here.) He explains it perfectly.

To the plan under consideration, what state would be so stupid as to give its votes away like this? Aside from Maryland, of course. Is it so hard to believe that Maryland could vote for one candidate while the rest of the nation could vote for another? This may count as some perverted form of solidarity, but it’s not an American principle.

The founders devised the Electoral College to avoid such lunacy. We should not be running towards such lunacy.

Yes, I think about this more than most people.

This story is from last week, but I ignored missed it while I was away. I think it’s interesting and insightful, while not needing much commentary.

The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps’ spit-and-polish image.
…

“Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us,” he said. “I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values.”

Any time traditional values pops up, I’m likely to shake my head and dismiss the logic. However, when dealing with the military, there is some leeway since members of our military offer up some of their freedoms when they join. Such a policy could have implications in recruiting and retaining soldiers (and sailors and …), but that’s a different debate than whether that policy is reasonable. I’m not inclined to get worked up over the issue.

However, this quote fascinates me:

“This is something I love to do,” said Cpl. David Nadrchal, 20, of Pomona, who made an appointment to get an Iraqi flag and his deployment dates etched onto his lower leg. “The fact I can’t put something on my body that I want — it’s a big thing to tell me I can’t do that.”

Change a few words (while the overall meaning remains) and you arrive at a perfect summation of the argument against routine infant circumcision. It’s a big thing to tell me I can’t… To forbid a tattoo or keeping a foreskin, there must be an excellent justification. Perhaps there is a reason with tattoos, although I find that difficult to believe given the mission of the Marines. There is no reason with routine infant circumcision. The burden of proof rests with he who wishes to remove the body part from the male, not with the male to later protest that irreversible action.

Avoiding Capitalism Because Winners Aren’t Pre-determined

Is this the type of “research” our government listens to?

The influential research firm Carmel Group, whose analysis helped kill the 2003 merger of EchoStar Communications Corp. (ECHO) and DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV), will release a new report Tuesday that outlines arguments against merging satellite radio companies Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., The New York Post reported in its Tuesday editions.

Sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters, which has already come out against the deal, the 11-page independent white paper includes a point-by-point rebuttal to the six main arguments put forth by Sirius and XM in favor of a merger.

I like having research back up my opinions as much as anyone, but this is shameless. I shouldn’t worry, though, because I’m sure the National Association of Broadcasters is looking out for customers and only customers, whether those customers choose to purchase the free broadcasts of its members or the non-free broadcasts of its competitors non-members. The FCC will probably fall for it, which is why Sirius’ stock price is down so much.

Good Intentions and Taxpayer Money

As long as government is doing something, that action is “good”. Or not:

New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is planning a campaign to encourage men at high risk of AIDS to get circumcised in light of the World Health Organization’s endorsement of the procedure as an effective way to prevent the disease.

The taxpayers of New York should not pay for cosmetic surgery. Yes, it has some supposed health benefits regarding HIV, but condoms are more effective. In that context, the surgery is unnecessary because any benefits it might achieve can be achieved without surgery and the corresponding risks. (Malpractice insurance, anyone?) If the government pays for anything, condoms are the way to go.

However, this is government, so when it takes action, it must find extra-special creative ways to be stupid.

In the United States, “New York City remains the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic,” Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said in an interview. Referring to H.I.V., he said, “In some subpopulations, you have 10 to 20 percent prevalence rates, just as they do in parts of Africa.”

His department has started asking some community groups and gay rights organizations to discuss circumcision with their members, and has asked the Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs city hospitals and clinics, to perform the procedure at no charge for men without health insurance.

If you have no insurance, you still get to have sex with fewer consequences! Aren’t New York’s taxpayers city officials generous? But ignore that. The three released studies (which all ended early, remember, despite HIV’s 3-6 month latency period before detection) have not shown any link between circumcision and reduced HIV-infection among men having sex with other men. The research simply isn’t there. To theorize any such link is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Continue reading “Good Intentions and Taxpayer Money”