The linked article is amusing enough, although I have disagreements. But this FARK headline sent me into a minor fit of giggles, a not-fun predicament as I go through the coughing phase of a brief cold. It was worth it.
The US has 10 million vegetarians and 290 million normal people
In a bitter mood, I’d probably file this under Ranting and discuss the definition of “normal”. I’m not in a bitter mood. You’re welcome.
For a quick and funny summary of economics, read this at The One-Handed Economist.
Last week I wrote about baby tossing, making a comparison to infant male circumcision. Today, via Kevin, M.D., here’s a story that includes a debate among doctors.
“Of course there is risk of injury in this practice. Missing the stretched cloth might be fatal and even landing on it wrong might cause a limb fracture,” said Dr. Joseph R. Zanga, past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a professor at the Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, N.C.
Objectively identifiable risk for a subjective, perceived benefit. End of discussion. Yet:
“I would not suggest that we try it in the U.S., but if they have been doing it for 500 years without any injury I’d be wary of stopping them,” Zanga said.
When faced with a tradition of stupidity, it’s best to focus on the stupidity, not the tradition. Science over superstition.
Dr. Michael Wasserman, of the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans, felt the same pull toward cultural sensitivity. “It is hard for one to disagree with religious rituals, as they are private choices, at the same time, there is a real danger?” Wasserman said.
This is not about disagreeing with religious rituals. If people want to toss themselves over a building’s edge in a “controlled” manner, have at it. This is not that. This is people intentionally endangering another person – a child – for no objective gain to the person being tossed. Jumping and being tossed are quite distinct. The former is a ritual. The latter is madness.
However, some doctors thought the health risks trumped cultural sensitivity in this case.
“The idea that parents would participate in such a harmful practice and that no one would point out the dangers to them seems inconceivable,” said Dr. Astrid Heppenstall Heger, professor of clinical pediatrics and executive director of the Violence Intervention Program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
While this sentiment is based in logic, it’s not really inconceivable. American parents participate in a harmful practice that disregards risk in favor of cultural sensitivity more than one million times each year. The parents have “rights”, you know. As long as the tosser¹ finds value in the act, the tossed is merely the necessary pawn assumed to value the subjective gain more than the objective risk. He or she² isn’t completely worthy of individual protection because the group finds some benefit.
¹ No derogatory pun intended.
² Except for genital cutting, of course. There the comparison allegedly breaks down. Cutting healthy boys is valid tradition, but cutting healthy girls, that’s barbaric, even when it’s tradition. Half of that rationale is wrong. Would doctors suggest it’s okay to toss only male children from a building?
Consider this:
Now consider this:
I can’t believe smart people are implying that Republicans voting against Senator McCain in the ongoing primaries somehow spells specific, devastating trouble for McCain’s chances in November. Yet, with Senator Obama’s far lesser percentage support, the logic is somehow obvious that Democrats who voted for Senator Clinton will automatically back Obama in November. Of course they will, on both sides.
Being a partisan is generally the key point of someone’s political identity. Whatever policy disagreements exist matter, but rarely enough to fracture support for the party in the short-term. Witness George W. Bush in 2004. But it does not rule out a desire and willingness to cast a meaningless protest vote that indicates support for whatever distinction another candidates has from the inevitable nominee.
For consideration: Are we to believe that, even if Clinton’s supporters stay home, Obama will crush McCain because Obama’s vote total outstrips the entire Republican turnout by a margin of almost 2-to-1?
Via Boing Boing, speed cameras in England are clearly not automated or tied to any sort of radar. Rather, the only conclusion is that someone receives a paycheck to observe every moment the camera captures. How else would it capture – much less alert authorities – a passenger in a car traveling within the speed limit mooning the camera? (mildly NSFW link)
Police may take action against the man for public order offences and not wearing a seat belt.
The police lineup should be interesting.
Jeremy Forsberg, of the Northumbria Safer Roads Initiative, said: “This behaviour is simply ridiculous – it’s clear what he was thinking with what he had on show.
“Not only is it disrespectful, but distasteful and offensive, particularly to children who may have been exposed to this nonsense.
Of course the behavior is ridiculous. And as a driver, I’m sure it would’ve been distracting. But it takes a special kind of “liberty-minded” authoritarian mentality to express moral outrage at such an action by releasing a photo for broadcast all over the world – where our fragile children will see the offensive image – because children may have been exposed to the man’s bum. They’re certainly exposed now, genius. Although I suppose the government censor the BBC. For the children.
Post Script: Obvious title reference here.
I don’t generally listen to what parents claim when they circumcise their sons. By nature of the act, they treat their son’s body as their property. They would deny it if confronted with this logic, and most aren’t willing to listen to even that. It’s mostly fruitless fodder for philosophical discussions.
Sometimes, though, parents come out and make it nakedly obvious. From this thread on cloth diapering after a circumcision, which descended into defensiveness and ad hominem. (To be fair, the original question asked for an answer independent of whether to circumcise or not.) Select quotes:
# 10: first off, ignore any “hate responses” as you are the parent and it is YOUR choice. Don’t listen to scare tactics. …
YOUR choice. Also, only those opposed to circumcising non-consenting, healthy children can use scare tactics, of course. A focus on HIV, UTI, penile cancer, STDs, hygiene, and social rejection aren’t fear-based tactics?
# 19: … What ever choice you make mamma is the right one. It is your son and your choice [sic]
There can be no objective truth, as long parents wish hard enough with good intentions.
# 37: … Dont [sic] worry about the anticirc posts, he’s your baby, it’s your decision. …
She’s your baby, it’s your decision? Nope.
I expect every single mother quoted here would deny that their words mean they consider their sons their property. But the logic just doesn’t hold up. It’s always the self-absorbed obsession with how circumcising affects them, without consideration for the how it affects the boy negatively or what objections he might one day raise. It’s their (capitalized for emphasis) decision.
This is interesting to me since I’ve encountered the hysteria that arises the moment anyone hints at a comparison of performing genital surgery on female minors. No woman would want that done to her. Duh. But every boy will be perfectly content if it’s done to him. He’ll applaud his parents. Again, duh. Except I can’t figure out how to get from “medically unnecessary” to “duh”, intellectually or emotionally. It will never compute because it requires willful ignorance.
For fun, here are two comments in response to the links offering information against the circumcision of children:
# 15: … she [sic] asked for ADVICE on CARING for an INFANT, not if you thought the reason behind that special care was/is warranted. …
And:
# 27: And that pertains to cloth diapering after a circ how? …
The links pertain to cloth diapering because, at its core, if you don’t engage in a surgical violation of the healthy boy’s body, the debate over what to do to protect his sensitive penis is moot because nature’s already provided the protection. If you ask me what’s the best way to diaper a girl whose parents surgically altered her healthy genitals, I’m going to question the validity of the action that makes the question allegedly defensible. There is no difference because the cutting occurs on a penis rather than labia or a clitoris. None.
Do unto others, or something like that:
During spring break, [University of Florida quarterback Tim] Tebow added a new facet to his fame. In an impoverished village outside General Santos City in the Philippines, Tebow helped circumcise impoverished children.
…“The first time, it was nerve-racking,” he said. “Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I’m cutting somebody. You can’t do those kinds of things in the United States. But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them.”
…Others saw [Richard] Moleno, who after a crash course from the Filipino professionals, circumcised 10 boys and removed six cysts, some the size of tennis balls. Tebow helped with the last few circumcisions, growing more comfortable with each one.
“I got a kick watching him,” [Tim’s father] Bob Tebow said. “He did a great job, and he didn’t look really nervous. I wouldn’t let him cut on me, but he did well and helped where there was a need.”
Before I comment, circumcision in the Philippines is generally not like what we think of as circumcision. It is more an opening up of the foreskin through a dorsal slit than anything. It’s also a ritualistic transition from childhood to manhood, although it’s still forced on children. And the social pressure to circumcise is even more intense than it is in the United States.
Also, I have no idea if the boys in this story needed circumcision or not. I assume they didn’t, but the conditions they live in don’t exactly suggest that as an obvious assumption. The number of child circumcisions suggests, though, that there was more of a ritualistic “need” than a medical need. Obviously I oppose the former entirely, with condemnation for the latter only when less invasive treatments are ignored when treating a child.
To the story… This is something to joke about? “I wouldn’t let him cut on me…”, but it’s acceptable to cut on a child? One doesn’t have to grasp the ethical problem with the medically unnecessary circumcision of children to grasp that competence gained through extensive education should be a prerequisite for performing any surgery. There is a reason we won’t allow it in the United States. There are actual human – with rights – beings involved. Complications occur. What would someone have said if Tebow had made a mistake? Not that this story implies Tebow performed flawlessly on these people, but would an accidental amputation of the glans earned anything more than an “oops”?
I like to run with my intellectual curiosity, like most people. Yet, I’m capable of understanding that getting my jollies should still recognize the rights of others.
I’ve encountered no comments from former Congressman, current (potential) Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr in response to Exxon Mobil’s quarterly earnings statement last week, so I’ll find something to praise about a Barr policy.
I approach Mr. Barr with a sufficient level of distrust because of his actions while in Congress. I didn’t follow politics as closely during the mid-to-late ’90s, so I’m working from my barely-informed position from those days. Mark from Publius Endures sums up much of what I remember in much greater detail when discussing both his qualms and potential for supporting a Barr candidacy. I’m not sold. I am intrigued.
Being a Libertarian Party candidate is no guarantee that I, as a libertarian, will be remotely interested. I wasn’t interested for multiple reasons in 2004 when Michael Badnarik won the nomination. And I hadn’t been interested this year before Barr joined the fun. Barr’s insider knowledge and name-recognition might help. If it can help shake up Washington, we can certainly talk.
Obviously Barr will not win the presidency, if he runs. That’s not the point. But I would be ecstatic with a president who believes this (under “Individual Liberty” in the Issues link):
he United States was created for the purpose of securing the liberties of its people. The colonists fled oppressive old world governments. The nation’s founders drafted the Constitution to sharply limit the federal government’s powers. The horrors perpetrated by the many collectivist tyrannies of the 20th Century demonstrate that the danger of government, any government, violating individual liberty is greater today than when America was founded.
That he’s willing to say it is huge. We are citizens, not subjects. None of the other candidates remotely cares about this where it interferes with a favored constituent group’s rent-seeking behavior. That’s not to say Barr would implement this even if he could get Congressional cooperation. But I’d be satisfied with a government stalemate. No progress is better than further decline.
And this, titled “No Torture. No Exceptions.”:
This administration has gone beyond even the Bizarro World standard of declaring up to be down or left to be right. Not only is torture not torture, but there exists insufficient clarity even to know what is torture so we can determine whether an interrogation technique is torture or not. While the extreme sophistry and word gamesmanship practiced to a fine art by this administration might make a high school debating coach proud, it does great disservice to the notion that we exist in a society in which there are rules and norms of behavior with clarity and definitiveness and in which government agents as well as the citizenry are held to standards of behavior. This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud, and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this administration apparently either doesn’t realize or simply doesn’t care about.
Yes.
I found positions I (vehemently) don’t like among Barr’s positions. I’d also like details on what I like about his positions. I do not want to encounter another faux-libertarian who believes that liberty means accepting oppression locally as long as we remove the federal government from our lives. Another day.
I’ve encountered no comments from Senator McCain in response to Exxon Mobil’s quarterly earnings statement last week, so I’ll find something to praise about a McCain policy.
I haven’t thought too deeply on the Second Amendment and all the implications. It just isn’t an issue I’m inclined to obsess over as a personal interest. Emotionally, I’m inclined to take a hard anti-libertarian position but that would be based outside of the fact pattern, as well as a dismissal of common sense and personal responsibility. I also understand more now about how a citizenry defends itself against tyranny from government or fellow men. The property right to one’s life is enough. So, I generally respect McCain’s position on the Second Amendment.
For example:
Gun Manufacturer Liability
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.
I don’t know enough about the legal details to have a position on how he proposes to achieve this. Still, when a business sells a legal, constitutionally-protected product in accordance that works correctly, what the buyer does with that product is the sole point for discussion. Gun manufacturers don’t kill people any more than Volkswagen kills someone when a drunk Passat owner gets behind the wheel and drives on the sidewalk. The product works as intended. End of discussion.
Also, this:
DC Personal Protection
As part of John McCain’s defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.
Once again, the legal questions are beyond my scope. But unlike D.C. voting rights, I can find no distinction within the Constitution that denies the protection of Second Amendment rights to residents of D.C. Any such argument essentially says that D.C. residents lose all Constitutional protection of their natural rights. That can’t be right.
I’m calling a technicality on this one because it doesn’t specifically refer to the release of Exxon Mobil’s quarterly earnings. Still, Sen. Obama is currently airing this ad in Indiana in anticipation of the coming primary. It has all the hot button issues: windfall profits, energy independence, foreign oil, and high gas prices. And there’s a belief that more money “invested” by the government will bring about a solution. That’s enough for a disqualification.
