Author: Tony

There is smoke without fire.

I haven’t commented on this recent item floating around the blogosphere. An excerpt, for facts:

“On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.”

“When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.”

“I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.”

That’s from Walter F. Murphy, professor emeritus of jurisprudence at Princeton. I didn’t give it much thought as anything more than another data point. To be frank, I believed it and filed it with all the other clear transgressions of our government under the Bush Administration. I shouldn’t have.

After reading today’s Best of the Web column in Opinion Journal, I’m convinced that this is the most plausible explanation:

According to [TSA Administrator Kip] Hawley, the only list a passenger might be on that would prevent him from boarding a plane is the “no fly” list. Since Murphy did ultimately get on the plane, he self-evidently was not on that list. Hawley says it is possible that someone with the same name was on the list; such an error befell Ted Kennedy in 2004.

More likely, though, Murphy was a “selectee”–chosen for heightened security by a process that is part random, part based on a variety of factors, most of which are not publicly disclosed, but which are known to include holding a one-way ticket and purchasing a ticket in cash.

On our recent flight to Tampa for Spring Training, Danielle couldn’t check-in online. When we got to the ticket counter, the representative informed us Danielle had been randomly selected for further screening, requiring her to check in with an airline rep. Annoying and worthy of its own post about its validity and effectiveness in fighting terrorism, but our experience conforms to what Mr. Hawley told the Wall Street Journal’s editors. Never forget Occam’s Razor, I guess.

Continue reading “There is smoke without fire.”

[Insert Witty, Accurate Title]

I’m not an attorney, but I’m fairly certain the relevant CNN editor botched attached to this story:

A judge violated a juvenile’s free-speech rights when he placed her on probation for posting an expletive-laden entry on MySpace criticizing a school principal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

The three-judge panel on Monday ordered the Putnam Circuit Court to set aside its penalty against the girl, referred to only as A.B. in court records.

“While we have little regard for A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote in the 10-page opinion.
…

The state filed a delinquency petition in March alleging that A.B.’s acts would have been harassment, identity deception and identity theft if committed by an adult. The juvenile court dropped most of the charges but in June found A.B. to be a delinquent child and placed her on nine months of probation. The judge ruled the comments were obscene.

The title of the article?

First Amendment extends to MySpace, court says

I doubt that was up for consideration. The meat of the story seems to be whether the school’s punishment of the girl’s speech was constitutional. It doesn’t seem to matter that she posted her rant on MySpace, any more than if she’d written it on her arm and walked sleeveless around her local mall.

I know how hard it is to come up with effective, catchy titles from blogging for 3½ years. If I can’t be witty, I aim for accurate. Anything else is just a punt. I’m not charging for my product and I adhere to that. CNN should, as well.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the judges had any business inserting the court’s opinion that it has little regard for her vulgar epithets. So what? If it has no bearing on how the case should be interpreted under the law, keep the subjective disdain out of the ruling. I might accept “While the court recognizes that A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets is unpopular, …” or some such pandering to community morals. I doubt it, but even then, speech is speech.

Individual bodily integrity trumps collectivist rhetoric.

For your consideration:

37- year old Mukasa is not circumcised but is considering it seriously. “I have heard that if you get circumcised, you cannot catch HIV/ Aids. I don’t have to use a condom or worry about all those other ways of keeping safe. I finally get a method that suits me…” he says. Mukasa is obviously oblivious of the almost negligible but very important fact surrounding the hyped circumcision as an option to HIV/Aids prevention.

I don’t want to give the impression that I think this is a common perception anywhere. I don’t think it is. But it highlights a key point in all the recent discussions of circumcision and HIV. When the United Nations or the World Health Organization or the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene touts these studies, it can only control the message it puts out. It can never control how that message spreads and the misunderstandings people will create.

These studies have only said this: voluntary adult circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmission by 50-60%.

It said nothing about male-to-female transmission. It said nothing about male-to-male¹ transmission. It said nothing about infant² circumcision. Researchers don’t even know for certain how circumcision appears to reduce HIV transmission. Given the gravity of HIV and circumcision, any recommendation has serious implications. That includes the understanding that people may make a leap not supported by evidence or marketing. I’ve seen enough examples to know that it will occur.

When we focus exclusively on the collective public health “benefit”, we ignore how this affects individuals. The male who gets HIV from dirty surgical instruments in Africa and the boy who loses his penis in the United States aren’t just unfortunate sacrifices for the public good.

¹ In the case of the New York Department of Health, Commissioner Frieden touted a conclusion not even studied in Africa, much less proven.

² Infant circumcision differs greatly from adult circumcision.

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.