Author: Tony

Random Thoughts on Last Night’s Democratic Debate

I didn’t realize the ABC debate was last night. Knowing about them normally wouldn’t change my lack of desire to watch them, but I was in an angry stupor from watching the Redskins destroy the Seahawks themselves. I was in a mood to watch something that would make me angry, so I stuck around when I turned it on. I missed the Republican portion of the “1 Night, 2 Parties” scheme because of the game, but really, so what? There’s only one guy there I’d consider voting for, and I’ve already explained several reasons why I won’t vote for him. Even then, none of them stands a decent chance of winning, unless the Democrats stay as stupid and spineless as they’ve proven over the last few years. Based on last night’s debate, they could go either way.

I’m writing from memory, as I didn’t take notes and don’t feel like reading the transcript. With that, the candidates:

Sen. Barack Obama
He knows it will sell to claim that we can fix Social Security by eliminating the wage cap. I have no doubt he also knows this is disingenuous to any claim of fairness. Social Security is already progressive, aside from being obscenely ineffective. “The rich” do not receive the same return on their taxes. Their benefits are means-tested to shift some of their taxes to “the poor”. Eliminating the wage cap will only make the system more progressive. Any talk of “the rich” paying their fair share is a lie.

Sen. Obama was very effective at answering the likability question. He managed to disarm the crowd and moderator with talk of the Redskins and general chit-chat. In the talk of writing, he showed what Clinton said.

It proves nothing about his ability to be president, of course, but as Sen. Clinton said, people voted for Bush because they would like to have a beer with him. I don’t think Clinton misunderstands the value of this point; she’s just incapable of exuding likability.

Also, his honesty that a cap-and-trade system would cause harm was good. He’s wrong about cap-and-trade, but at least he’s only partially delusional.

Sen. Hillary Clinton
I didn’t like her before, and I don’t like her after. I didn’t learn anything new about her other than she really, really believes her own marketing and the silly idea that wanting something to happen in Washington means it’s a foregone conclusion. And, she’s scared. She spent the entire evening attacking Sen. Obama with rambling, non-linear attacks that left him with too many opportunities to pick and choose his rebuttal. He did. Even Edwards defended him. She’s toast, so I’m done worrying about her.

Gov. Bill Richardson
He has a decent notion of what a principle might be, which is a welcome change. But he’s mental on foreign policy. I’m not sure he has a great grasp on domestic policy, either. I found myself thinking, “I like him. Too bad he’s not doing better.” Then I remembered that the vote is for president. No.

Former Sen. John Edwards
He’s gotten slicker, in the most non-complimentary way. He’s a snake-oil salesmen to his core. It’s very personal for him, as he reminded us many, many times. Government can do anything if the president just cares hard enough.

He’s a complete economic populist. I don’t understand how people find his pitch reasonable. He wants to fight for all American people against the evil corporations and special interests. And “the rich”. Right, but aren’t they Americans, too? This is how he demonstrates that equality isn’t about equal. I’m not interested.

I also thought he had the stupidest mistake of the night. The other candidates should’ve jumped on him when he gave examples that he doesn’t hate all corporations. AT&T? The same AT&T that helped the Bush Administration circumvent the Constitution and spy on Americans without warrants? Surely helping its workers unionize (Really?) isn’t comparable. Caving to a calculated talking point rather than expressing an in-depth understanding of an issue is not a quality I want in a president.

Finally, Edwards used the case of Nataline Sarkisyan:

Doctors for 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan wanted to give her a liver transplant, but her insurer, Cigna HealthCare, initially denied their request on grounds that the transplant was too experimental. Nataline, a leukemia patient, was in intensive care at UCLA suffering from complications of a bone marrow transplant.
…

Stripped of backgrounds and reduced to sound-bite scale, Natalie’s story sounds like it could have been scripted by Michael Moore. But as the Los Angeles Times noted, Cigna had “tough calls” to make. It was far from clear that the requested liver transplant would do any good. Even Natalie’s doctors at UCLA judged that she would have had a 65% chance of living six more months — not a strong chance of long-term success.

Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who heads the liver transplant program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, says transplantation is not an option for leukemia patients because the immunosuppressant drugs used in such procedures tend to spur the growth of cancer cells (he was not commenting specifically on Nataline’s case).

Clearly Edwards is saying that universal/single-payer health care would’ve approved the transplant. Fine, make that argument. But now explain to me how that lowers the cost of health insurance. There will be other tough cases. The choice is rationing or extensive experimental care. We’ve currently opted more to experimental than rationing, which is why our costs are higher than other countries. But we get something for that. We can’t have both. So which is it?

I don’t walk away from the debate with a different opinion on how badly single-payer health care would go. Health care reform, as it’s currently discussed, is a populist effort. Politicians do not have it in them to say “no” to any requests. Everyone and everything is validated as worthwhile. Such thinking has consequences and they’re predictable.

One final point on Sen. Obama regarding health care. He touted his plan’s lack of a mandate for adults (he mandates for children), saying that adults can choose. Agreed, but why is that not transferable to every other policy proposal? Why do I not get a choice with Social Security, for example?

He might be flawed in foreign policy.

Radley Balko provides reason number one why I will not consider voting for John Edwards.

CNN had a clip of John Edwards earlier this afternoon. He was responding to a question about what we should do about oil closing at over $100 a barrel today.

First, Edwards said, we should launch an immediate investigation into whether the oil companies are price gouging. If they’re coming “right up to the line of the law” without violating it, he said, then we should change the law.

I’m more ashamed of my vote for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. I would still cast it, but only because we needed to get President Bush out of the White House.

Site Maintenance: Comments

I’ve noticed a tendency for comments to repeat recently. I’m guessing it’s because the site is taking a long time to process requests. Also, when posting a comment, the page refreshes without the comment. However, it is captured. Refreshing the page again after it posts will reveal the comment.

I do not know why this is happening. It should post immediately. I’m planning to have Rolling Doughnut redesigned soon, so that’s something that will hopefully go away. I’m also looking for a new host because the current speed isn’t acceptable. I appreciate comments and want to make it as easy as possible to post them. Bear with the inconvenience just a little longer.

Please, stop the rambling nonsense.

I’ve seen one too many blog entries this morning praising white Iowans for being courageous enough to vote for a black man in large enough numbers to earn him a Caucus victory. That we’re having these kinds of conversations demonstrates that too many people making the comments have not moved on. I’m not arguing they’re racists; they’re not. But they’ve clearly not moved beyond race consciousness as a storyline.

Sen. Obama is black. (And white.) Big. Fucking. Deal. Is he competent to be President of the United States? That’s the bottom line. Many Iowans are saying yes. Why can’t that be enough? Why do we have to imagine that white voters in Iowa thought, “Hmm, he’s black, but I think I can actually vote for him”?

Before I appear as a Pollyanna, I get the significance. It hasn’t happened before. I’m content to read those stories. I accept that some voters won’t vote for Sen. Obama because he’s black. And some white voters will praise themselves for voting for a black man. But I’m not willing to accept the “lily white Iowa voted for a black man” as a universal explanation. That’s a flawed angle. Is it really so hard to believe that maybe voters in the past didn’t pass on candidates like Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes because of skin color, but because they were crazy and unfit to be president?

I already said I think Sen. Obama is probably the least bad option among the candidates. But he’s still promoting a moronic slate of economic populism that will do more to further burden Americans with taxes, debt, and hampered economic growth than is remotely sane. That’s why I will not vote for him. The color of his skin has nothing to do with it. Why should it be any different for his supporters.

I’m reminded of a story I heard years ago. I can’t find a copy, but I remember it well enough to give the condensed moral. The enlightened man does not walk into a room full of differences and praise himself for overlooking them. The enlightened man does not notice the differences. Perhaps the voters in Iowa are enlightened, as opposed to the appearance of enlightenment we’re ascribing to them.

The reality that neither winning candidate’s politics satisfies the moral of my story is not lost on me. I’m a libertarian partly because I believe all men are created equally, not that a man can be more or less equal than others according to politically favored circumstances as Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee so clearly believe.

Is Kevin Bacon not Kevin Bacon?

On so many things, I’m always amazed at the ways people manage to rationalize away facts so that they’re not threatening. For example, in response to a request for clarification on how sugar can be considered not vegan, a reader writes to Jonathan Zasloff:

Some super-strict vegans will not use sugar if the activated charcoal used in the filtration process was or might have been made from bones. (To give some idea how far-removed it is from an actual animal, it’s kosher pareve.)

That’s a very interesting concept of far-removed. Kosher pareve only means the food contains no dairy or meat. Bone char is not meat. But it is not “far-removed” from an actual animal. It is a direct, immediate connection. If we were playing Six Degrees of Separation from an animal, bone char’s number is zero.

I choose veganism. You choose to be an omnivore, if you wish. Just don’t pretend that what you’re consuming isn’t directly from an animal. Be honest about your choice.

Link via Megan McArdle, as she contemplates going (temporarily) vegan.

Markets in Everything: Reproductive Edition

Guaranteeing that children are cared for is legitimate, but contracts matter.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.
…

“Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother’s reproductive prerogatives,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Like so many things, the ability to enter into a contract does not necessarily include the ability to competently enter into a contract. That does not mean the competent party must be held retroactively responsible for the poor decision by the incompetent party. Courts should not provide an “oops” clause not found in the original contract.

Also from the article:

A county judge said it was in the twins’ best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order.

If the law can ignore a valid contract, why not rule that it’s in the twins’ best interest that Brad Pitt be required to support them? I’m sure he has more money, and I bet the twins might enjoy hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities. That would be no less based in fact than the county judge’s actual order.

Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child’s right to support. “The children point and say, ‘That is our father. He should support us,'” Eakin wrote. “What are we to reply? ‘No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.’ I find this unreasonable at best.”

Children have a right to support from parties obliged to support them. In this case, that’s the mother. So, yes, we are to reply “No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.” I find this reasonable. The facts are what they are.

How should we define sexual violence?

I’m still organizing my thoughts on the political chaos in Kenya, so I don’t have much coherent to say on it right now. I’m not sure when or if I’ll write anything more specific to the topic of this entry, but there is a larger issue here that has been ignored for too long. The current situation makes it worth discussing, though. For now, this story will suffice:

Sexual violence has also been reported against men, with the Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi on 2 January saying several men had been admitted after they were assaulted during the violence.

“There are several men admitted in various wards after they were subjected to forced circumcision,” a source at the hospital said.

[Challenger Raila] Odinga’s core supporters come from the Luo ethnic group that does not practise circumcision, while [incumbent President Mwai] Kibaki draws most of his following from the Kikuyu group, one of several tribes in which male circumcision is an essential rite of passage from adolescence to manhood.

Like I said, I’m still working on a macro-level analysis of what the current unrest means. I don’t have enough information right now, so I won’t speculate. But the micro-level question is undeniable. How is the forced circumcision of infant males any different from the forced circumcision of these adult males?

The answer offered will surely rest on intent. This is a valid discussion point in many instances, but intent can’t be relevant in unnecessary, forced circumcision. These adult men clearly have not sought circumcision before, and they didn’t seek it now. They are now the victims of (sexual) violence.

In contrast, the parents of infant males do not seek to impose violence on their son when they have him circumcised. That does not negate the imposition of violence that occurs when they have him circumcised. If left alone, he would not likely choose (or need) circumcision in his lifetime. Any decision to the contrary fails to meet any standard of reasonable. The mere presence of good intentions is a subjective attempt to validate what is at its core a violent, unnecessary intervention on the body of a healthy individual.

The answer will probably also include an incorrectly-nuanced nod to a difference in rights between children and adults. That can’t withstand scrutiny, either. The reason the violence inflicted upon these Kenyan men is problematic is because it is a human rights violation. Too often advocates of circumcision ignore human. Children are humans, too. Their rights do not magically appear at the age of majority. They exist from the child’s birth. Each child possesses the very same basic right that was violated in these Kenyan adult males.

Given that I don’t think I’ll find anyone to defend what was done to these men¹, I’m left to conclude that there are four categories of sexual violence, with one subtle difference.

  • Sexual violence against women is bad.
  • Sexual violence against men is bad.
  • Sexual violence against girls is bad.
  • Sexual violence against boys is usually bad.

No potential benefit or belief in good intentions or deference to parental rights superseding a child’s human rights can validate the inclusion of usually in the last category. Sexual violence is sexual violence, regardless of gender or age.

¹ I’m sure I can find someone who will say these men will now be better off, a subjective speculation. Pro-circumcision advocacy knows some very strange boundaries. I’ve seen strange boundaries among those opposed to infant circumcision, although I do not believe I appproach them. Yes, I know I’m insulated from a completely unbiased, critical analysis of my own thinking.

Exercising judgment is family-friendly.

Continuing on my last entry, in his essay, David Cross also writes about children’s movies:

MITIGATING FACTOR #1
I have not seen the movie so I can’t really comment to whether it’s an “evil” or “dangerous” “piece of shit “or not. The reason I haven’t seen the movie is because I am not eight years old. I am an adult and don’t see children’s movies.

Exactly my sentiments. If you’re an adult and like movies aimed at children, fine. If you’re an adult who has children and like movies aimed at children that contain more universal themes and appeal, fine. See what you want to see, skip what you don’t want to see. But don’t pander to me that family-friendly is more than a euphemism for children’s movie.

As the presidential election gets going today, it’s clear that we’re going to hear a mind-numbing count of references to family-friendly culture. Blech. I don’t have kids now, but I expect to at some point in the near-ish future. I’m sure I would take my hypothetical kids to family-friendly movies. But I’m not going to stop seeing movies that are family-unfriendly. Or television shows or books or music or video games or whatever else interests me. Rather than dumbing down my life and denying myself what I’m interested in, I’ll exercise a little responsibility to know what is and isn’t appropriate for children to view.

If that means playing Call of Duty 4 after the kids are in bed, so be it. But politicians need to stop pretending that I should deny myself Call of Duty 4 because it isn’t suitable for an eight-year-old. I, like most adults, am not irresponsible. I do not need the guiding hand of government to intervene for me to understand the issue or to make intelligent decisions.

There is no shame in “for the money”.

There’s apparently some controversy and he said/he said confusion surrounding David Cross’ appearance in Alvin and the Chipmunks. I googled through a bit of it to understand the background. It bored me quickly. I’m not interested in what’s hip or what side I’m supposed to be on. Do what makes you happy, for whatever reason(s) it makes you happy.

Still, David Cross’ explanation for why he took the role is awesome. The entire essay is worth reading, but this part made me happy. He’s describing the cottage in Upstate new York he wanted to buy:

MITIGATING FACTOR #4a
… It was a little more than I had budgeted for but it was definitely worth it. I asked the owner if he’d take some of my credibility as payment. He looked at me as if I was an alien with A.I.D.S. speaking some intergalactic gobbledy-goo. I had to patiently explain to this country bumpkin about my indie hipster cred, and I would now like to cash it in. This rural rube was so backwards and ignorant that he couldn’t even conceive of how financial markets work and simple free market capitalism. I tried again to explain the concept of the value of “credibility” and “artistic integrity” but he refused to take it in exchange for the house. This guy was a fucking idiot! But what could I do? He wouldn’t take no for an answer. If I wanted that cottage I would have to pay him money. Sigh. So I used my “Alvin and the Chipmunks” money to pay for the down payment. Seriously, I totally did.

Say what you will about art and how credible or trashy it can be. There is no honor in poverty¹ for the sake of the good opinion of others. Of course buying a second home can’t be considered poverty. Consider poverty here to be a simple substitute for larger concepts, among them sacrifice and/or self-denial. Refraining from buying something you want solely to avoid keeping up with the Joneses is as ridiculous as buying something you don’t want to keep up with them. That holds whether it involves upgrading from your old 5-Series BMW to a new 7-Series or passing on Alvin and the Chipmunks to appear in indie film people will pretend to like because it’s indecipherable and/or coma-inducing.

Link via Pop Candy.