Category: Government

All Government Is Force. Even Regulation.

Back to the Occupy movement…

I have some sympathy for Occupy Wall Street and its offspring around the country. There is enough broken in the way our economy works that only a fool would advise inaction. Where I quickly part ways is with the obvious implication that our government can fix crony capitalism (i.e. corporatism). Our government is complicit in this problem. It serves the needs of politicians. Where power exists to grab, it will be grabbed. If this involves buying access to or the use of that power, it will happen. The solution is to limit power, not to pretend that human nature can be changed.

This interesting post from writer Lauren McLaughlin addresses an approach for going forward. She’s right that the movement needs to stop protesting and Do Something. I don’t think she’s right on what should be done.

For example, she suggests:

Early complaints about the movement’s lack of specific demands is also falling away as an increasingly focused platform centering on economic justice comes into focus. Poll the former residents of Zuccotti Park or any of the other occupation sites and you’ll hear a variety of ideas, but the most common seem to be the following:

– Regulate banks in a way that disincentivizes the reckless gambling that puts all of us at risk.

– Tax investment returns at the same rate as income.

– Reform campaign finance laws so that we’re no longer being governed by Goldman Sachs.

On the first item, banks were regulated before the financial crisis hit. That we still had a financial crisis may indicate that crimes took place, although I’m doubtful the evidence is strong. But it also demonstrates how difficult it is to get the correct regulation. Unintended consequences will occur. If we radically alter and/or increase regulation, what happens?

It’s also worth noting that capitalists, rather than corporatists, advocate letting banks fail. The fear of failing, including bankruptcy, is a motivator. It’s unlikely to be the exclusive answer, but we haven’t tried it in conjunction with anything yet.

I’d flip the second to suggest taxing income at the same rate as investment returns. Power is the problem, not inadequate revenue. The point of reducing the government is not mere animosity to government (or worse insinuations). As long as power exists, it will be abused.

On the third, I’m not clear enough on the implication of the item to comment extensively. If it’s a response to Citizens United, then I disagree. Corporations are not people in the literal sense, but in the legal sense they are, and for good reason. Corporations (and other forms of organization) are made up of people. Those people do not lose rights because they’ve chosen to work together. If they do, it’s not a large leap to discredit democracy. But, again, reduce the scope and amount of power available within government and the incentive to buy it will reduce.

Ms. McLaughlin’s next paragraph is revealing from my perspective:

Of course, there are other ideas, like making banks finance their own future bailouts through a financial transaction tax, but I think it’s fairly easy to see the big idea at the heart of the movement: American capitalism and democracy are broken. The big difference between Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party is that the latter sees the government as the big evil, whereas the former fingers a reckless and under-regulated banking industry that has captured our government and bent it to its will.

I’m not a Tea Party guy, so I’m not so concerned about the difference. But the two have similarities and should recognize that the root causes are very similar. Why does the Tea Party see the government as evil? I think there’s some truth to the assertion, but I don’t know the answer. I also know many Tea Party members have taken the initial, singular focus on government spending and turned to other causes in which they want more government, not less. I’m not sure the analysis that it thinks government is evil is accurate.

Either way, if that’s true, the only way “a reckless and under-regulated” – both subjective terms, with the latter being much less defensible – banking industry could capture our government and bend it to its will is with the full participation of our government. Corporatism is a sinister cooperative effort, not a sinister takeover. Trusting the same government that’s been captured so readily and thoroughly to provide a solution is bizarre. As long as there is power to abuse, this will continue, even if it takes a different form. Any action that is to be a solution rather than a perpetuation of chasing new problems must account for this. I haven’t seen evidence that the Occupy movement understands this. It may yet win, but I fear the outcome if it does.

In related news, the government that will somehow help is the same government that sees no problem with pepper-spraying peaceful, if disruptive, protesters with a callous disregard for the necessity or safety of the force. This is the state in action. This is what Occupy requests when it calls for more government regulation. All government is force. Why is it wrong to use against you, but okay to use against me?

Congressman Brad Sherman Is Wrong On Circumcision

This is why I don’t like the political process for ending non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.

Congressman Brad Sherman announced today that he will be introducing the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, a bill to prevent San Francisco and other municipalities from banning the circumcision of males under the age of 18.

Sherman’s new bill is in reaction to a measure that has qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco that would make the performance of circumcisions on males under 18 a misdemeanor—with a possible $1,000 fine and one-year prison term.

He’s framing the problem incorrectly, which allows him to protect a “right” that doesn’t exist and ignore a right that does. The proposed bill in San Francisco would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcisions on males under 18. Healthy children do not need surgery, even if the parents’ god says so. California law already restricts the rights of parents to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters for any reason, including religious claims. Is that an infringement? Of course not. Likewise, there is no First Amendment right to inflict permanent harm on one’s children sons (only).

Sherman expressed concern over the motivation of the provision. “To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision.”

The provision, shown by its generally-applicable wording, would protect the right of all healthy males to keep their normal body intact and free from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery to which they do not consent. It’s the same right U.S. and California law protects for their sisters. That right is being violated. It must stop. This is a way to achieve that, even if it may not be the best way.

But if we incorrectly assume this infringes a legitimate religious right, San Francisco (and every other locality) has a compelling medical reason to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision: it’s non-therapeutic genital cutting imposed on a non-consenting individual. The healthy child does not need circumcision any more than he needs an appendectomy. If he has an appendectomy, he will never get appendicitis. That is a potential benefit. Should we therefore allow parents to have a surgeon cut their healthy children sons (only) to remove his potentially harm-producing appendix? In the name of parental rights? No, because that would be stupid. The ability to chase some possible benefit can’t be an ethical justification to perform an invasive, unnecessary surgical intervention on a healthy child.

Congressman Sherman added:

“Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents,” Sherman said. “And, nothing in my bill prohibits statewide law ensuring that male circumcision occurs in a hygienic manner.”

To the extent that Congress has a legitimate interest¹ here, it’s in protecting the individual rights of every citizen, including male children. It already protected female children with the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996. That prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting female minors for any reason, including religious claims by the parents. Does that infringe on parental religious rights? Are we illegitimately denying religious rights by not permitting other acts by parents sanctioned by various religious texts? Are the healthy genitals of male minors beneath the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment?

“Congress has historically legislated to protect the free exercise of religious rights from state and local intrusions,” Sherman said. “In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, designed to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome local zoning laws.”

The logic of the law Congressman Sherman cites favorably requires the conclusion that his proposed bill is flawed. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act establishes that the government may not impose a burden

…unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution–
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(A) Protecting children from unnecessary, objective harm is a compelling governmental interest. Circumcision, as surgery, inflicts objective harm in every instance. When there is no offsetting medical need, the harm is the only guaranteed result. Preventing that is the premise behind prohibiting all female genital cutting on healthy female minors, even genital cutting that is less severe, damaging, or permanent than a typical male circumcision. The government recognizes that girls are individuals with rights that deserve to be protected. Infringing on a non-existent parental right to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters children is a legitimate state action.

(B) The least restrictive means would be for parents to understand that non-therapeutic genital cutting on healthy children is ethically and medically wrong and, thus, refrain from imposing it on their sons. Yet, religious and non-religious parents alike cut the healthy genitals of their sons. How else is the state supposed to stop it without exercising its legitimate police power?

Congressman Sherman should withdraw the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 immediately. He should also introduce a bill to remove the gender bias from the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 to create the Anti-Genital Mutilation Act of 2011, if he’s serious about using the powers of Congress correctly to protect the rights of all American citizens.

Update: More from Congressman Sherman:

Sherman said he did not consult the text of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 in composing the bill he will put forth in Congress.

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking,” Sherman said.

Since he’s working with a closed mind, I’ll simplify: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong. The extent of the damage is irrelevant. The reason cited is irrelevant. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong.

¹ I want to be proved wrong on this, but Sherman’s statement is further evidence of my prediction that ceding power to the government on health care would lead to arguments that child circumcision provided fiscal benefits to the nation. It wouldn’t change the ethical violation involved, but Congressman Sherman doesn’t provide a cost-benefit analysis for his claim. Only in Congress can spending money always mean saving money.

Much Ado About Individual Rights

Timothy Sandefur links to essays by two secular humanists regarding the San Francisco proposal to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. The essay in favor of the proposal is by Tom Flynn of the Council for Secular Humanism. Mr. Flynn is correct. The essay against the ban is by Ronald Lindsay of the Center for Inquiry. Mr. Lindsay is wrong. I wish to address his essay.

Mr. Lindsay begins:

First, let’s cut through the misleading rhetoric. Some proponents of the ban refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation and equate it with female “circumcision,” the term sometimes used to describe a clitoridectomy, or complete removal of the clitoris. Clitoridectomies are carried out in some cultures, principally in rural Africa. (In some instances, not only is the clitoris excised, but the labia minora and parts of the labia majora are also removed.) Obviously, the removal of the clitoris results in loss of sexual pleasure.

To equate clitoridectomies with male circumcision is nonsense. The latter is a clip job, resulting in removal of the foreskin from the penis. …

It is not nonsense. They are different in degree, not kind. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. That principle is universal, not gender-specific or discounted if we can figure out some possible benefit. Anything becomes acceptable if we accept possible future benefit as a relevant standard for intervening on healthy children. Of course female circumcision genital cutting is mutilation. Western societies agree on that almost universally. We’ve demonstrated that understanding by enacting laws against any procedures involving the healthy genitals of female minors.

But Mr. Lindsay is incorrect in limiting his point to a comparison of male genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) and clitoridectomies. The latter is an example of FGM, not the definition of FGM. The scope of what qualifies as mutilation mirrors what is illegal in most locations in the United States, including California. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as follows (emphasis added): “Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” In other words, any surgical intervention less damaging than male circumcision, inflicted for the exact reasons we cite for male circumcision, would still qualify as genital mutilation. Every one of those procedures (i.e. Types I – IV) is already illegal to inflict on healthy female minors. Applying the principle and rights in that accurate definition equally, non-therapeutic male child circumcision is genital mutilation.

After mentioning various possible risk reductions from male circumcision, Mr. Lindsay writes:

The foregoing medical discussion is important because it undercuts the argument made by some secularists that there’s no valid medical reason for this procedure. Granted, the possibility that a newborn boy will experience some avoidable health issues unless he is circumcised is very small. Furthermore, depending on how one evaluates the risks, the potential benefits may be outweighed by the risks of harm. But isn’t this precisely the type of decision we usually leave to parents — and which we should leave to parents unless we want to become even more of a nanny state?

To avoid confusion, any reason for circumcising a healthy male is non-medical. Again, if we are to pretend that chasing potential benefits counts as a medical reason for non-therapeutic surgery, then parents may impose any intervention they wish, unrestrained by society. Protecting children from that is not a nanny state action. It’s the legitimate role of government to protect the rights of all its citizens, including male minors. We shouldn’t need new laws here. But parents shouldn’t mutilate their children.

Mr. Lindsay raises a legitimate question:

Speaking of the state, do we really want to give more power to the government to control what can only be described as a sensitive, highly personal matter? How exactly is this criminal ban supposed to be enforced? Are we going to have special police units to stamp out circumcision? Undercover cops posing as physicians willing to carry out back-alley quick cuts? Will there be search warrants issued based on confidential information that Johnny was seen at the urinal less than fully intact? I don’t know about you, but I don’t care if my junk is scanned or touched at the airport security line, but I do reject the notion that the government can tell us how it should look.

I agree that enforcement is a challenge. That assumes it would be enforced, which I don’t believe would happen in the unlikely event it passes. Still, the question is relevant. What I think it would most likely do is provide better support for circumcised males to sue for the obvious battery inflicted. That’s not everything, but it’s something.

The biggest flaw in Mr. Lindsay’s approach is the conclusion he draws. I care if my genitals are scanned or touched at the airport security line. Do my rights not matter because Mr. Lindsay thinks differently? Are individual tastes and preferences not unique to each individual?

While I also reject the notion that the government can tell us how our genitals should look, that isn’t what this law would do. It would prevent parents from dictating how their child’s son’s genitals must look for the rest of his life. It would leave the individual male himself to say “yes” or “no” to non-therapeutic circumcision. I’m no more mollified that my parents mutilated me than I would be if my government had ordered it. The result is the same.

Later, he inadvertently proves that he misunderstands the issue:

I’m tired of secularists fighting the wrong battles. We shouldn’t care whether Johnny, Joel, or Jamal keeps his hood on.

I don’t care whether Johnny, Joel, or Jamal “keeps his hood on.” I care that he gets to choose whether or not to keep his healthy foreskin. The emphasis is on his and healthy, not foreskin. That’s the debate, not this incorrect view that male circumcision is “a clip job” that may be imposed at the will or whim of parents.

Related post from 2008.

Teaching Compliance, One Traveler At A Time

On Thursday I experienced the new TSA screening procedures for the first time. The security line I went through had both a metal detector and a backscatter X-ray scanner. (Two lines fed to these machines.) A TSA employee “randomly” directed citizens to one of the machines. My informal count suggested that approximately two-thirds of the lines were directed to the backscatter X-ray scanner. The randomness seemed to be more about time. Observationally, as the line for the backscatter filled, overflow was directed to the metal detector.

I got the backscatter X-ray machine. I opted out. After confirming that I wished to opt out, the TSA employee directed me to the individual screening area. As I stood on the mat, I told him that I wanted to let him know upfront that I would cooperate with his search but did not consent to having my genitals touched, and that if he touched my genitals, I would file a complaint. He stared at me dumbly for a moment before going to get his supervisor.

I repeated to the supervisor what I’d told the first agent. I told him I’ve had skin cancer and do not wish to be exposed to more radiation than necessary. That’s true, though incomplete. I’d rant about the 4th Amendment, but that wouldn’t be any more productive than the implication of my statements already.

He seemed mildly surprised but remained focused. He asked me to clarify, telling me what they would be doing. After I repeated my position, he asked if I was refusing to be screened. I told him that, as I said before, I would cooperate but do not consent to having my genitals touched and would file a complaint if anyone did so. I also stated that I understood he did not set the policy.

The supervisor opted to perform the pat-down. He asked if I’d like to have the screening performed in private. I declined because I wanted everyone to see my objection. Once underway, he informed me of each step he was going to take before he proceeded. He ran his hands over my clothing but did not press into my body. When he finished the pat-down, he asked if I wished to file a complaint. I declined because, as I told him, he behaved reasonably within an unreasonable policy. He showed a level of professionalism that I have not encountered in any other encounter with TSA (c.f. August 2008).

I will engage future TSA experiences the same way, even in the inevitable likelihood that someone will be unreasonable and deny me access to my flight. I would have filed a complaint if he’d touched my genitals, regardless of his professionalism. He did not touch my genitals. I did not believe a complaint would be a useful means of protest in the context. I want more people to object, as I explained to the woman receiving a pat-down next to me. But dumping on the TSA employee wouldn’t convince him I’m right that he’s wrong to continue violating other’s rights by following unreasonable policy. Our representatives are the ones we should be blatantly and repeatedly antagonizing.

The kicker is what demonstrates the stupidity of this: to get to the individual screening area, I had to walk through the metal detector. It didn’t buzz.

Some Debates Don’t Have Two Sides

Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section, Cato policy analyst David Rittgers wrote about the renewed discussion of waterboarding and whether or not it’s torture.

The successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s safe house in Pakistan has reinvigorated debate over the role that “enhanced interrogation techniques” have played in fighting Al Qaeda. No one is switching sides, which has turned the argument into a theological one between two sets of true believers. Each views the other as heretics.

Get over it. The whole of the debate is pointless posturing. There is no way to prove or disprove the real worth of America’s experiment with waterboarding and coercive techniques. More important, enhanced interrogation isn’t coming back.

I agree that what is now happening is posturing. I disagree that it’s pointless. In the same way I wanted to know in the middle of the Bush Administration, I want to know now who supports the use of torture. Those people should be exposed as quickly and as completely as possible so that they’re removed or kept away from public office. If they wish to expose themselves, so much better.

Link via Cato @ Liberty.

Adam Wainwright Is Wrong

A fan ran onto the field during last night’s Phillies-Cardinals game, one night after a fan was tased for doing so. The volume of comments supporting the police officer’s use of the Taser on Monday night were appalling. The pre-emptive defense of deploying it again was inevitable. From Cardinals starting pitcher Adam Wainwright (emphasis added):

“That was tired, that was bad. You know what? The Phillies fans should be mad at that guy because he might’ve gotten in the way of Cole’s mojo he had going. That’s terrible timing. And if you don’t want to get Tased, don’t go on the field. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with getting Tased if you’re on the field.“

I’ll assume Wainwright isn’t aware that the Taser can be lethal, and that lethal force is never justified for trespassing. If I don’t assume that, I’ll think even less of him than I do after reading his obvious ignorance from that quote.

Fire Officer Beavis

This is why television broadcasts should show fans running on the field at sporting events:

… A Philadelphia police officer Tased a fan who ran onto the field before the eighth inning. The kid seemed to be running around and waving a towel, but police took no chances. In fact, neither did Jayson Werth. He readied himself for a possible altercation when the fan jumped onto the field near right field, but the fan quickly darted past him before being takent [sic] down in left.

The Phillies said in a statement: “This is the first time that a Taser gun has been used by Philadelphia police to apprehend a field jumper. The Police Department is investigating this matter and the Phillies are discussing with them whether in future situations this is an appropriate use of force under these circumstances. That decision will be made public.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported the fan has been charged as a juvenile with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and defiant trespass. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsay defended the officer’s decision to Taser the juvenile.

“It was inappropriate for him to be out there on the field,” Ramsay told KYW Radio (1060-AM). “Unless I read something to the contrary, that officer acted appropriately. I support him 100 percent.”

An individual is tased for trespassing. Officials with the Major League Baseball team involved understands that this deserves scrutiny, talking about an “appropriate use of force.” [Disclosure: As I’ve made clear throughout my blogging, I’m a Phillies fan.] The police commissioner believes that the officer was justified in tasing the individual because trespassing is “inappropriate”. This should scare everyone.

Of course trespassing is inappropriate, as the property owner controls his property and every sports team has a policy against fans entering the field of play. But tasers can be lethal. Would the cop shoot the kid in the back with his firearm for this? Was he just compensating for being out-of-shape and not wanting to engage in the physical confrontation necessary to subdue the individual? The taser, as it’s being used, isn’t a tool for police to do their job. It’s now a substitute. That is worthy of actions to rein in police, not chuckles.

**********

For reference, watch this video about a suspect who died after police tased him. There are many implications, but notice how the spokesman blamed the now-dead suspect for getting himself tased and subsequently choking on a bag of marijuana he’d previously, visibly shoved in his mouth. Is that the mentality we want to endorse for any police force?

Expect the Unexpected: Revisited

Our political obsession with identifying Others is potentially as dangerous as it is offensive. Safety is a legitimate role for the government, to the extent it can reasonably be achieved. But we need to uncover the psychopaths (or related variants) who would be murderers, regardless of skin color. Racial profiling is the appearance of safety for political cover. With this week’s news about Colleen Renee LaRose, the Philadelphia woman (Image) suspected of recruiting for terrorist organizations, I want to repost an entry I wrote almost five years ago.

**********

With a new terrorist threat to the New York subway system gripping the nation, the blogosphere is abuzz. I obviously share everyone’s concern and want our police and security forces to thwart any (potentially) forthcoming attacks. In an effort to accomplish this, the debate seems to descend to an argument simple profiling. When the constitutionality of profiling inevitably arises, the proponent either responds with some variation of “Constitution be damned” or “random” searches. New York implemented a random search policy for backpacks, which was incomplete, at best. (ed. note: Dead links omitted.) Yet, the proponents of profiling continue to advocate ineffective policies. Consider this from La Shawn Barber, who writes extensively and credibly about the threat of terrorism:

Will Islamofascists bomb the NYC subway? Is it all just a rumor? Your guess is as good as the government s. Flip a coin. Draw a straw. Throw it against a wall and see if it sticks.

Are they still searching little old ladies and skipping young men of Middle Eastern descent because it would be racist to search them? Probably.

It would be racist but I’m not against if for that reason. Immediate threats to safety must shake the debate from simple intellectual discourse. But within that intellectual discourse, reason can provide insight into how such a policy could fail, and fail miserably.

I don’t normally agree with Michelle Malkin on much, as evidenced by the posts here where I’ve referenced her blog. But with her reporting on last weekend’s suicide bomber in Oklahoma, she’s doing excellent work highlighting deeper facts in the case. There are indications that the bomber, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, was a Muslim. He attended a local mosque in Norman, OK. His Pakistani roommate hasn’t been heard from since the bombing. Mr. Hinrichs’ bomb included TATP, an explosive compound not commonly used in America, but popular with terrorists. He tried to purchase a large amount of ammonium nitrate. On Saturday, he apparently tried to enter the stadium during the Oklahoma football game before settling on the bench where he blew himself up (intentionally or unintentionally). Etc. I don’t know what story these and other facts will eventually tell, but it seems clear that there is more to the story than just some depressed guy commiting suicide. While I’m not ready to declare this an Islamofascist suicide bombing on American soil, the details of this case should be pursued.

This case also highlights the ineffectiveness of racial profiling in our attempt to prevent further terrorism. Click this picture of Mr. Hinrichs. (Image Source) Ignore the beard; a roommate of mine in college had a beard like that and he was no terrorist, unless you count accidentally killing fish when his hydroponic fish tank failed. So let me ask the obvious question. Say Mr. Hinrichs had tried to bomb the New York subway. Would racial profiling for “young men of Middle Eastern descent” have caught him? Is it reasonable to assume that if we rely on racial profiling, terrorists will switch tactics to include racial (and gender) profiles we’re not looking for?

Grace, go to bed. You obviously have had a very busy day of crazy.¹

Here’s actress Debra Messing testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health in her role as an ambassador for PSI, asking for more federal tax dollars to support “voluntary, adult” male circumcision in Africa (emphasis added):

… I would like to tell you today about two prevention tools that could make a difference if there is continued investment: male circumcision and HIV testing and counseling.

First, voluntary adult male circumcision. There is now strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by about 60 percent, yet only about one in ten Zimbabwean adult men are circumcised. PSI and its partners run circumcision clinics in Zimbabwe and other countries, with support from PEPFAR and other donors.

I was invited to observe the procedure, which is free to the client, completely voluntary and according to the young man I spoke with who underwent the procedure, painless. The cost of the procedure at that clinic—including follow-up care and counseling—is about $40 U.S. dollars.

UNAIDS and the World Health Organization have issued guidance stating that male circumcision should be recognized as an important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.

Even with no demand creation, the clinic I visited serves upwards of 35 clients per day. It is estimated that if male circumcision is scaled up to reach 80 percent of adult and newborn males in Zimbabwe by 2015, it could avert almost 750,000 adult HIV infections—that equals 40 percent of all new HIV infections that would have occurred otherwise without the intervention—and it could yield total net savings of $3.8 billion U.S. dollars between 2009 and 2025. Male circumcision programs get robust support from the U.S. government in Zimbabwe and other countries, but greater resources would yield greater results.

Always remember that when public health officials – or actresses – talk about voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary or adult.

¹ Title quote reference here.

Corporatism ≠ Capitalism

I’m always fascinated by critiques of capitalism that rely on untrue assumptions. From a Boing Boing review of John Lanchester’s Whoops!: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay earlier this week:

Lanchester explains the econopocalypse thus: a climate (the fall of the Soviet Union and the triumphal do-no-wrong belief in unfettered capitalism that ensued), a problem (using derivatives to expand risk, rather than limit it, which led to reckless lending in the housing market), a mistake (bankers assuming that they had laid off the risk using complex derivatives) and a failure (regulators refusing to look the financial gift-horse in the mouth). This provides an excellent framework for explaining the ways in which history, greed, and hubris conspired to create the worst financial crisis in memory.

There may be a “triumphal do-no-wrong belief in unfettered capitalism,” but the presence of regulators proves that what we have is neither unfettered nor capitalism. Since, according to the review of his book, Mr. Lanchester concludes that the economy will remain sluggish due to regulatory capture, the current climate is corporatism.

I’m not sure if the mistaken word choice originates with Mr. Lanchester or the book’s reviewer, Cory Doctorow. Regardless, those of us who support capitalism (as a synonym for a free market) do not support corporatism.