Author: Tony

About that surge…

In its determination to remake Iraq into whatever it’s actually trying to create in Iraq (rhetoric aside), the Bush administration has clearly diverted its attention abandoned the legitimate war it entered. From Afghanistan:

Taliban insurgents carried out 103 suicide bombings in Afghanistan in the first eight months of 2007, a 69 percent increase over the same period last year, according to a United Nations report that is expected to be issued publicly on Monday. The record number of attacks killed more than 200 people, 80 percent of them civilians.

We had a clear chance in Afghanistan. There was no guarantee that continued dedication to the war we accepted¹ would end in a stable democracy. The seeds were there, as our stabilization efforts have apparently provided some results. But the Bush administration abandoned that war to fight the perpetual war, with Iraq the next, illogical frontier.

When the Bush administration says we need to stay and fight in Iraq because we started it, they lie. They don’t care about that. If they did, we’d be in Afghanistan to win, not to pursue the appearance of winning. And based on these numbers – remember, the Wall Street Journal’s editors believe this statistic to be a valid measure of success – we’re losing ground in Afghanistan. Heckuva job.

¹ “Accepted” isn’t really the word I want here, but I can’t think of a concise way to say that we were attacked with the support and protection of the Taliban. We didn’t start that war. Afghanistan was merely the battleground of a legitimate national security threat. We had to accept the rude invitation, for want of a less crude explanation.

Fred Thompson – The New Divider

Remember back when Fred Thompson didn’t-but-really-did endorse an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage? Yes, well now that he’s in the race officially, he wants to win your socially-conservative vote.

“I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state, that recognizes the importance of marriage in that state, like Massachusetts, which is a good state, do not come to another state and have it recognized in that state,” Mr. Thompson said. “You’re not bound by what that other state does.”

“My concern is under the full faith and credit clause that some court — in the second state — is gonna say that you’re gonna have to recognize that marriage. That should not be the case,” Mr. Thompson said.
…

… “The second part of my amendment would also state that judges — judges could not impose this on the federal or state level, unless a state legislature signs off on it.”

So, parts of the federal Constitution pose the risk of giving him an outcome that won’t win him votes he doesn’t like. In the name of federalism, he proposes that we scrap that bit of language, but only in the context of marriage, because he wouldn’t think of toying with the Constitution in the future to meet some undetermined threat to our sensibilities. He holds the Constitution sacred. He’s a prudent federalist.

As to the second part, why don’t we just do away with courts? Obviously we’re uninterested in legal scholarship. The masses know how individual rights should be offered. You want to claim a right, put it to a vote. Until the populace agrees, through the legislature, you are merely requesting special rights. That’s un-American. How dare you?!

Fred Thompson clearly does not understand that our government is a three-pronged system of checks and balances. He can’t be trusted to respect the independence of the judiciary from the legislative, so I shall assume he can’t be trusted to respect the independence of either branch from the executive. Eight years of that is enough.

Any fool can compare irrelevant statistics.

The editors at Opinion Journal put forth their case for the success of “the surge” in Iraq:

What’s more important is to note the changes that have taken place in Iraq, all of which indicate that the “surge” is working and that we are at last on our way toward a positive military outcome. As General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker prepare their testimony to Congress later this month, it’s worth pointing to a few indicators:

I’ll get to the indicators in a moment. I just want to demonstrate how clearly the editors have stated their interpretation of the included data points.

  • There were 30 “multiple fatality” (usually suicide) bombings in August 2007. In August 2006 there were 52.
  • There were 120 daily attacks by insurgents and militias last month, down from 160 in August 2006.
  • 60,000 prisoners were being held by the U.S. and Iraq as of last month, up from 27,000 a year earlier.
  • Iraqi security forces currently number 360,000, up from 298,000 a year ago.

Regarding the first two points, is it a relevant comparison to use statistics from last August, when the surge was merely a glimmer in the Bush administration’s eye? Wouldn’t monthly statistics from just before the surge began be more informative? Or at least important for context? Regardless of the outcome, using statistics from 6 months before the surge began looks like cherry-picking.

The last statistic is rather empty, outside any other context (wages, employment opportunities, actual merit-based achievements of the security forces, to name a few), so I’m discarding it.

I find the third indicator most interesting. Merely having twice as many prisoners is a measure of success. There is no mention of findings of guilt in a court of law. They’re prisoners, which means we have 33,000 more terrorists in captivity. Allow me to be kind and say that’s incomplete. Due process, burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty? Sound familiar?

We can’t be sure that the prisoners are receiving any sort of judicial oversight, so the increased prisoner statistic is just a worthless number, although the Journal’s endorsement says much. It’s just as easy to conclude that our military is rounding people up and imprisoning them without cause. I assume the only reason we’re supposed to accept that the prisoners are justly held is because we’re America and we’re just. It’s a worthwhile assumption rooted in our history, although the Bush administration regularly demonstrates its lack of interest in continuing its practice. But even if that assumption is correct, this statistic’s current form is nothing more than propaganda.

California bans force. Mostly?

California is addressing the possibility of forced RFID implantation:

California’s senate passed a bill last week that would protect people from having RFID tags forcibly implanted beneath their skin. All that’s left is for Governor Schwarzenegger to sign it, and then the state will become the third to pass such legislation (after Wisconsin and North Dakota).

The motivations for the bill were to prevent people from being forcibly tracked and to protect them from identity theft should someone electronically sniff data stored on the tag.

Kip already debunked the flaw in this plan:

It’s quite simple really: Only the government (or an armed thug) can “force” anyone to do anything. No employer can ever “force” an employee to accept any rule, policy or prerequisite.

I have nothing to add to that, but in light of what I wrote last week, there is another component. First, a word from the bill’s sponsor, Senator Joe Simitian:

“At the very least, we should be able to agree that the forced implanting of under-the-skin technology into human beings is just plain wrong,” he says.

I’ve read through the bill (pdf), and it clearly addresses what to do in the event a minor (or dependent adult) suffers a forced RFID chip implantation, but I can only find this for the possibility that it’s the parent forcing the child rather than an outside party:

This section shall not in any way modify existing statutory or case law regarding the rights of parents or guardians, the rights of children or minors, or the rights of dependent adults.

I’m not an attorney, so it’s possible, probable even, that I’m missing something in my analysis. But I doubt it. I have a strong suspicion that no one in the California legislature is much interested in the ethical issues posed by parents implanting an RFID chip into their children. Obviously it’s better to address a nearly impossible scenario with a new law, while leaving the entirely plausible scenario unprotected in order to guarantee parental “rights”.

I won’t show “special” compassion for Sen. Craig.

Quin Hillyer has the dumbest argument in defense of Senator Larry Craig:

Compare the reaction to his alleged crime and the one that it appears Sen. David Vitter (allegedly) participated in. Why does prostitution (especially involving a married man) earn more of a pass than gross-but consensual sex? And the hypocrisy is far greater in Mr. Vitter’s case: He based a large part of his career on moral preening. Contra the left, though, I fail to see how it is hypocritical for Mr. Craig, though, to have voted against “gay marriage” and special “gay rights.” One can participate in homosexual acts and yet still think, quite consistently, that it is bad public policy to create special rights and protections for homosexuals or to put the positive imprimatur of the state on the “union” of two homosexuals.

I have no problem with Mr. Hillyer’s larger point that Sen. Craig should be shown compassion. I happen to hold that as a virtue, so I can agree. Unfortunately, contrary to Mr. Hillyer’s assertion, Sen. Craig’s votes against same-sex marriage (no quotations needed) were and are hypocritical. At the time he had a chance to show compassion – and equality – he chose politics. Forgive me if I have trouble generating much sympathy for his self-imposed predicament.

Sen. Craig swore to uphold the Constitution. As such, he should be familiar with the various amendments to that Constitution that enshrine the protection of rights, equal for all. Those are not collective group rights. They are individual rights inherent at birth. The good opinion of society’s delicate sensibilities remain as irrelevant today as they were at our founding. That means our government must treat each person equally. It does not do that when it says a person may only receive the benefits of marriage by entering into the civil contract with a specific group of adults.

The notion of “special ‘gay rights'” is a hollow talking point that conveys no reality-based truth about the push for equality. “Special” rights would be akin to pushing for a $1,500 wedding cake voucher for same-sex marriage licenses. There is no such push. Instead, we have “moral” crusaders pushing to retain special rights for one subset of Americans. Granted, heterosexuals are the overwhelming majority of America. That doesn’t make their right any less “special”, in Mr. Hillyer’s context. Individual rights are not subject to the whims of the majority.

Forget that Sen. Craig is a no-longer-closeted, self-loathing gay man determined to stay in denial. That’s his choice to make, regardless of anyone’s belief that he should accept who he is. But he’s chosen a life that demands denial in exchange for power. He traded the rights of the American people in exchange for continued access to that power. I can’t think of a clearer definition of hypocrisy.

I’m worth mass redistribution. Or maybe it’s just my vote.

I’m a few days late on this, thanks to being wrapped up in fantasy football, but John Edwards cares about me.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”
…

“The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death,” he said.

If I’m going to be in the system… How quaint. Do I have a choice? If and when I choose not to be part of the system, do I get to keep that part of my taxes devoted to covering me, as well as the portion that is my charitable “gift” to everyone else in this scheme?

Obviously he wouldn’t emphasize the womb-to-tomb feature bug if the answer to any of my questions was yes. Also obvious is the basic fact that, being unable to understand that government is the problem in health care, his proposal relies on reducing everyone to a lower level rather than working on (effective) ways to enable the unintentionally uninsured minority to mitigate their financial risk. Note, of course, that Edwards – and every other health care nanny currently running for president – misses this true issue in his quest for womb-to-tomb government services. That won’t earn my vote.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste and Cato @ Liberty

**********

I wouldn’t expect anyone else to have mentioned it, but a side issue from Edwards’ proposal involves routine infant male circumcision. As I’ve written, a liberal, progressive argument for universal health care and/or coverage is that the government will cease paying for unnecessary male circumcision. This will not stop.

Governments already fund unnecessary circumcisions today, when resources are limited. There is no significant push among politicians to redirect those funds into medically necessary expenditures (or taxpayer pockets). They do not care about the necessity of any particular intervention, or even health care in general. Universal health care is simply a means to create a new, dependent constituent group. If that constituency wants infant male circumcision, politicians will cover it. (I’d make an argument that bureaucrats will make the decisions, but doctors make the same mistake in an effort to please their constituents constituents’ parents.)

Politicians believe there is always another group to demonize and tax to fund whatever gift needs to be made to voters for their votes. I am unwilling to hope that any government run by these fools will miraculously reverse its stupidity. Such short-sighted adherence to self-interest is inherent in government whenever it’s controlled by those interested in the exercise of power. Neither rights nor logic plays any part.

Now add the context of a politician like Edwards who wants to mandate that you and I will undergo preventive care. Is it really a long leap to assume that such a stupid person could read the splashy headlines about male circumcision and HIV and ignore the context of voluntary and adult, as well as the truth that condoms remain far more effective at reducing the risk of HIV? Almost everyone in our culture has ignored these last three points in the two years since the first preliminary results were announced, so the answer is a clear “no”.

Politicians will continue to make the erroneous, incomplete argument that the cost-benefit analysis of infant male circumcision is a one-sided consideration, with benefits the only deciding factor. They rarely even recognize potential before the word benefit. If there’s a potential benefit to chase, they will assume that means one less disease to pay for out of the collective in the future. That is incomplete and morally defective, since it ignores the risks, the complications, and the rights interest of the child in making this subjective, medically unnecessary decision. That politicians, parents, and doctors make this error every day proves the fallacy of trusting in the economics of universal health care to rectify an ethical failing.

Should government miraculously reverse itself and stop funding infant circumcision, I still argue that this is largely irrelevant. Many parents will just pay for it themselves. I’ve read too many blog entries of parents fretting over the hundreds of dollars it will cost, yet, considering genital cutting either an “investment” in their son or a “necessary” expenditure so that the boy will be normal common, they proceed anyway, out of their own pockets. To be fair, there will be a long-term reduction, as fence-sitters will decide unnecessary surgery isn’t worth the money, but there will still be many boys facing the knife who should be protected. I’m not okay with that.

Anyway, who will make the argument that politicians embrace the individual rights of their children and refrain from removing healthy body parts from their own sons? I’ll theorize that at least one candidate running for president with a universal health care platform has ignored the violation of his¹ son’s rights and circumcised the boy, to say nothing of the members of the theoretical decision-making apparatus should a universal health care scheme be implemented.

¹ This ignores Sen. Clinton because I assume she did not have her daughter’s genitals cut. However, she should be included in any consideration of politicians and bureaucrats willing to perpetuate the violation of the genitals of male children.

Forget nuance; speak against the accepted and you’re crazy.

I don’t know how clear I’ve made it in the past, but I don’t consider myself an animal “rights” advocate. I understand enough political philosophy to realize that the word rights has specific meaning, and in that context, it’s difficult to defend its use apart from humans. However, that shouldn’t imply an acceptance of animal cruelty, as too many are willing to accept. Basically, I try to approach any such discussion in a rational, intellectual manner. That makes reliance on stupid stereotypes more frustrating. From FARK:

World’s fattest pig sacrificed at religious ceremony in Taiwan. Naturally, animal rights groups are losing their minds (w/ pic of one fat pig)

The headline refers to this article:

The world’s heaviest pig has been sacrificed as part of a religious ceremony, sparking fury among animal welfare groups.

I hope it’s apparent why an animal sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony is ridiculous enough to warrant at least an eye-roll and a sigh. Defenders of such a practice will generally rely on an argument that the animal will be eaten after it is sacrificed killed. We could debate the merits of that, but contrary to what the FARK headline implies, that’s not at stake here. The next paragraph of the article:

The animal, which was force fed sand and metal to reach its record breaking weight of 908kg (143 stone), could not even stand as it had its throat slit at the ritual in Taiwan.

Right, look at those animal rights groups losing their minds. What could they possibly be thinking? They’re lunatics out of touch with reality.

In defense of the normally indifferent FARK commenters, many have said that they have no problem with killing animals, but force feeding an animal sand and metal is too much. Even a pig, which will eat almost anything.

Will medicine conspire with technology?

A writer at PC Magazine offers a circumcision analogy to discuss the possibility of implanting RFID chips into children.

I have two children, a boy and a girl. When my son was born 12 years ago, the obstetrician asked within hours of his birth if I wanted to have him circumcised. This is a common practice for boys, so I didn’t hesitate to say yes. Of course, it is a medical procedure, and in hindsight, I wish I’d thought about it for more than 35 seconds.

I wonder if his son will wish he’d thought about it more.

Now imagine a world where the doctor had, instead, asked me if I wanted my son “chipped.” Here’s how that conversation might have gone:

Doctor: “Mr. Ulanoff, it’s a simple and virtually painless procedure.”

Me: “You mean there’s no cutting? No blood?”

Doctor: “Well, no. There is cutting and blood, but it’s a small incision and there’s very little blood.”

Cutting and blood. Nothing major, per the usual nonsense. It could happen.

Have we reached the point where ethics might step in yet, regardless of the potential benefits the parent is trying to achieve for the boy? Does the boy’s desire – or lack of desire – not matter if the boy could have GPS, a unique identifier, and his credit information stored under his skin? Cool isn’t a compelling justification.

A hint of suspicion from the author starts sneaking through with mention of Department of Homeland [sic] Security near the end. Then this:

Me: “But, Doc, he can have it removed at any time, right?”

It’s a shame this can be so obvious in one situation but so ignored in another.

Doctor: “Yes, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s not easily removed, and the scar might be larger than you or he really want.”

About that scar and what he wants…

Doctor: “Uh, yes, Mr. Ulanoff, but let’s remember that this is about your son. I need your permission. Keep in mind that 35 percent of today’s children get the implant and most before the age of 2.”

Your decision about his body? Check. “Most” people are having it done? Check. Before the child can object While the child is young enough to forget the procedure? Check.

I can see the scenario where implanting RFID chips into children takes a similar path to acceptance as male circumcision. I’d obviously be against it, since children aren’t property and implanting an RFID chip can hardly be considered a medical necessity. There are also identifiable, easily imagined concerns about privacy and government, especially given our current national opinion that if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to hide.

**********

It was bound to happen. In the forums, this:

And, I can assure you that the circumcision at 0 years is better than one at 24 years due to yucky things.

That’s why the path to acceptance of such lunacy with RFID chips is easy to see. “I know better than you what you need” is an irrational flaw embraced present in too many.

The difference between “can’t” and “won’t”.

Like every vegan, I’ve encountered the “I couldn’t live like that” response, as in this story from Ryan at VegBlog. Explain veganism to someone and it’s always “I couldn’t”, usually followed by rambling about deprivation (and protein). Ryan has the right take on this:

… You say “I couldn’t live like that!” to someone who’s living in squalor with cat feces piled on top of decade-old newspapers. You don’t say it to someone who simply chooses not to consume animal products (including cat feces piled on top of decade-old newspapers).

Veganism isn’t about deprivation. It’s not about sacrifice. …

I choose to be a vegan because I’ve weighed the factors to the best of my intellect and determined that it’s right for me. I’ve chosen a specific path. I have not denied myself anything.

Contrary to popular disbelief, I do not crave meat. (Nope, not even steak hamburger beef.) I don’t secretly sneak off to McDonald’s for a Big Mac/fish sandwich/chicken nuggets combo, with a milkshake chaser. And I don’t feel like my life is lacking anything.

It’s hard to believe that I could have a different opinion and act on it, but I do.

P.S. You aren’t the first person to offer me “just one little bite” of your steak when we’re at a restaurant. It wasn’t funny the first time it happened. It gets less funny every time. But thanks.

Providing me something I want exploits me.

The FTC decided that no “price-gouging” occurred last year when the price of gasoline rose to $3-per-gallon. That’s the right answer, since “price-gouging” is a nonsensical concept rooted in politics rather than economics. But one member of the 5-member commission voted that “price-gouging” occurred.

The one dissenting commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, suggested that the commission had started with an answer and then found a way to justify it. He said the FTC had found “some plausible justifications for the unexpected and dramatic price spikes that bedeviled consumers in the Spring and Summer of 2006.”

“The question you ask, determines the answer you get: whatever theoretical justifications exist don’t exclude the real world threat that there was profiteering at the expense of consumers,” Leibowitz wrote.

Commissioner Leibowitz should be fired immediately for incompetence. Name one business that doesn’t profiteer at the expense of consumers and I’ll name a business that has or will soon fail.

Commissioner Leibowitz seems to believe that there is a correct level of profit that must not be exceeded. Why? If customers don’t like the price, with its assumed profit built in, they may refrain from buying the product. If a sufficient number of customers value their money more than the product (a gallon of gasoline), the price will fall to encourage more sales. Absent that quorum of uninterested customers, their subjective preferences were overruled by other subjective preferences.