Category: News

Is this a parental right?

Via Boing Boing, I thought baby dropping had to be a hoax.

Muslims in western India have been observing a bizarre ritual – they’ve been throwing their young children off a tall building to improve their health.

The faithful have been observing the ritual at a shrine in Solapur, in western India’s Maharastra, for more than five hundred years.

They believe it will make their children strong and say no accidents have ever happened.

The video accompanying the article suggests it is not a hoax, although I remain skeptical. But it does raise an obvious question. Is this a parental right similar to the claimed right to circumcise male – and only – male children? The child doesn’t need to be tossed from a building. There is an objectively identifiable, if hard to quantify, risk of injury, both minor and severe. There are benefits stated by parents that are subjectively identifiable, objectively unprovable for the child being tossed, and hardly guaranteed to be preferred by the child as an adult. Would he or she choose, as an adult, to be dropped from a building into a sheet below? (Note: The one child whose face we see closely in the video appears to be rather not enjoying the process.)

Compared to infant (male) circumcision, should baby dropping be treated ethically and legally different?

How far do parental “rights” extend? What is the basis for limitation?

Passed to me by a friend, let’s draw the natural comparison on this story:

Thailand’s Health Ministry ordered hospitals and medical clinics to temporarily stop performing castrations for non-medical reasons, saying Wednesday that the procedure performed on transsexuals needs stricter monitoring.
…

“As of today, doctors can perform the surgery if there is a medical reason to do so — not for any other reason,” ministry spokesman Suphan Srithamma said.

The move came after a leading gay activist, Natee Teerarojjanapongs, called on the Medical Council to take action against clinics that perform castrations on underage boys.

I don’t have any knowledge of this topic beyond what this story offers. I assume it’s true that some number of males undergo castration to achieve “feminine qualities”. Like medically unnecessary circumcision, neither parental proxy nor choice by a legally incompetent individual should factor. Unlike medically unnecessary circumcision, this appears to be at the male’s request. But this is important to remember:

“It’s a totally wrong perception that castration will make boys more feminine,” Natee told The Bangkok Post last week. “These youngsters should wait until they are mature enough to thoroughly consider the pros and cons of such an operation.”

Unfortunately the real problem appears to be doctors overlooking the existing rule requiring parental consent for boys until they reach age 18. I don’t think there’s contention that enforcing this is reasonable.

So, instead, a thought experiment. I would like to assume that parents are rational enough not to sign off on this type of stupidity. I don’t assume that, of course, because the evidence proving otherwise is too strong. But apart from the distinction¹ on future reproductive capability from the two procedures, how is it any more reasonable to permit parents to impose circumcision than to permit them to impose castration? We can discuss degrees of violation, but that’s a distraction from the truth that they’re the same kind of violation. We don’t debate the depth to which it’s acceptable to stick a knife into someone, even though differences exist in probable outcome from the depth of the assault.

When considering surgery on minors, any intellectual journey towards acceptance after establishing medically unnecessary is unethical and illegitimate. There is no objective justification, so any legal permission granted to parents by society is subjective reasoning devoid of reason. It doesn’t matter if the topic is castration, genital cutting, breast augmentation or any other unnecessary intervention a second-party prefers. The individual isn’t just supreme, he is all that matters.

¹ Reproduction is not necessary for the individual to live, so its foundation is subjective, exactly like medically unnecessary circumcision.

Poorly¹ chosen words assist big government.

Congress is always looking out for us:

The Senate yesterday approved the most far-reaching changes to the nation’s product safety system in a generation, responding to recalls of millions of lead-laced toys that rattled consumers last year.

Lawmakers still have to resolve key differences between the Senate bill and a similar measure that passed the House in December. While the Senate version is considered by consumer advocates to be tougher, both contain provisions that would require retailers and manufacturers to be more vigilant about product safety.

The biggest change is likely to be a better-staffed Consumer Product Safety Commission, with more enforcement power. Both bills would boost funding for the agency, which had a budget of $63 million in fiscal 2007 and just less than 400 employees, fewer than half the number it had in 1980. The Senate bill, which passed by a vote of 79 to 13, would increase the budget to $106 million by 2011. The House’s version would increase it to $100 million.

This strikes me as more of the same in Washington. Government sets the rules. The rules fail. The government blames the failure on the market and insufficient government size. It’s self-fulfilling and people fall for it. Beyond that, I don’t have much to say on the specifics.

Rather, I want to focus on how we get to these situations. Consider the Washington Post’s headline of the article discussing this legislation:

Senate Votes For Safer Products

I know headlines need a hook in a small space. That doesn’t matter. This is pathetic. This is how government programs begin and perpetuate and grow. Who could possibly argue against this bill to those who will make up their mind on this superficial information? I might as well argue for the routine kicking of puppies.

When discussing policy solutions, we need to identify the narrow problem(s) we wish to address because the law of unintended consequences loves broad solutions. Instead of the title offered, the Post should’ve used something like this:

Senate Votes for Further Product Safety Regulation

That’s still unacceptably imperfect. I’m not a professional. But at least it’s closer to the truth than the simpleton’s solution the Post offered.

¹ I’m assuming the words are chosen poorly. That’s an assumption. I leave wide-open the possibility that such words are chosen deliberately for their propensity to encourage bigger government. Hence the propaganda tag on this entry.

The investigation is just underway, but let’s speculate politically.

This is obviously news worth investigating to the clearest conclusion possible:

An explosive device caused minor damage to an empty military recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday, shaking guests in hotel rooms high above “the crossroads of the world.”

Police blocked off the area to investigate the explosion, which occurred at about 3:45 a.m., shattering the station’s glass entryway. No one was injured.

“If it is something that’s directed toward American troops than [sic] it’s something that’s taken very seriously and is pretty unfortunate,” said Army Capt. Charlie Jaquillard, who is the commander of Army recruiting in Manhattan.

If it’s not something that’s directed toward American troops, then it’s something that’s not taken very seriously and is not pretty unfortunate?

We can all read the obvious intent into this bombing. Most of us are smart enough to reserve judgment until we know more from the investigation. The truth might turn out to be random or not obvious. (What if the device was set by a spurned lover who mistimed the explosion? Unlikely, but can we rule it out immediately?) But it’s idiotic to jump straight to questions of patriotism. At least leave that idiocy to the post-conclusion press conference.

We can’t question because it’s for the children.

Speaking about the need for critical thinking in media, here’s another scare story [emphasis mine]:

At least 82 children have died in recent years as a result of playing the “choking” game, a bizarre but increasingly common practice, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The game, which involves intentionally trying to choke oneself to create a brief high, has been around for years, but it appears to be spreading. …

The deaths identified by the C.D.C. are based on media reports of the game over the past decade, but more than 60 of the deaths have occurred since 2005. The agency says the number of deaths is probably understated, and other experts agree, noting that choking game deaths, which involve accidental strangulation with a rope or belt, often look like suicides.

Anecdotes do not necessarily equal statistics. Did this data comes from a C.D.C. press release? And it’s also plausible that deaths ruled a choking game accident are actually suicides.

I’m not suggesting that kids engaging in this type of activity isn’t serious or that there isn’t a cause for concern. I never heard of this as a kid, but I know others who did. I’m also smart enough to realize that kids are incredibly short-sighted and possess under-developed skills at considering consequences. But going into speculative hysteria will not protect kids.

From the C.D.C. press release the journalist clearly used as the source, two teen deaths linked to the choking game:

Case 1. In February 2006, an adolescent boy aged 13 years came home from school in a good mood and had dinner with his family. He then went to his bedroom to do his homework. Approximately 1 hour later, his mother went to check on him and discovered him slumped in a corner with a belt around his neck. His face was blue. The mother began cardiopulmonary resuscitation while one of the other children called an ambulance. The boy died at a local hospital 1 hour later. No suicide note was found. The county medical examiner ruled that the death resulted from accidental asphyxiation by hanging. In the weeks following his death, multiple teens told the director of a local counseling agency that the choking game had been played at local parties.

Case 2. In April 2005, an adolescent girl aged 13 years was found dead, hanging from a belt and shoelace made into a noose on the door of her bedroom closet, after her brother went to her room to see why she had not come down for breakfast. No suicide note was found. The medical examiner determined that the teen had died at 9:30 p.m. the previous night. After the teen’s death, the family learned that the girl had confided in a cousin that she recently had played the choking game in the locker room at school and that a group of girls at her school had been suspended for playing the choking game.

Both deaths involve speculation. I’m comfortable that the conclusion from case 2 is an educated guess with a high probability of accuracy. I’m not so sure about case 1. It has signals that may be reasonably interpreted as the choking game, but are those signals enough to merit inclusion as a statistic? Even the more solid case 2 raises that question.

Reporting with journalistic caution seems the most appropriate choice here. Reading through the press release and the article suggests only that the latter is a regurgitation of the former. The ability to organize an argument into a concise package is not journalism.

Mirrors create pornographic images. Ban mirrors!

Police in Virginia Beach, after pursuing obscenity charges against the manager of an Abercrombie & Fitch store for two in-store displays, have reacted to public ridicule come to their senses:

Deputy City Attorney Mark Stiles said that, while the images might be technically in breach of the nudity section of the city’s local code, they were in line with the other standards upheld by the law. For prosecution the images would have to appeal to “prurient interests”, lack any redeeming artistic merit and be offensive to “prevailing community standards”.

First, allow me to remind you that the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. (There are limited exceptions that do not apply here, as Kip explains in his analysis of the case before today’s announcement.) But within Stiles’ convoluted excuse for the city’s nudity clause, consider the actual images:

And:

Like, OMG! The bottom of a female breast! The top of a male butt! My eyes, my eyes! And OMG! The Children!

Rather than admit that the officer(s) screwed up, Stiles crouched:

“So Abercrombie and Fitch, part of their marketing plans is to get as close to the line as they can get and then make it a judgement call for the officer on the street. I think that’s what’s happened here,” he said.

IF Abercrombie & Fitch planned this, it still requires an idiot with a badge and a gun to ignore the law. It’s probably safe to assume that one would arrive on the scene somewhere, but the officer’s central role as the deciding factor in the success of this (allegedly) orchestrated marketing campaign is key. Without that public servant’s lack of judgment, the whole idea is a waste of money. Thanks to the officer’s incompetence, this campaign is money well spent.

Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t need any more discretion, because it’s nowhere close to the limited exceptions to the First Amendment that require conflicting rights. There is no conflicting right to press charges because you’re offended.

What’s the 411 976?

Something doesn’t add up here:

Takahiro Fujinuma – who is 37, single and unemployed – reportedly would whisper “darling” as he tried to start a conversation and then pleaded with female operators not to hang up.

He was arrested yesterday in Tokyo on charges of obstructing the business of service operator NTT Solco, part of telecom giant Nippon Telegraph and Telephone.

He placed 2,600 calls to directory help – reached in Japan by dialling 104 – between early June and mid-November, a police spokesman said.

Single and unemployed, I get. I could’ve guessed that without the added confirmation. But how does an unemployed man afford that many calls to directory assistance? Is the Japanese system unlike directory assistance offered by American telecom companies?

Assuming the price charged by American companies earns a profit, it would make sense to answer his calls and inform him when he made any inappropriate advance that the call would terminate. The company gets his money, which should discourage excessive calling. If he verged from annoying the company by purchasing its services into lecherous harassment, charge him with that. But I can’t see how calling 200 times per night could disrupt a national business unless the service is free.

Again, I’m not condoning his apparently pervish advances. This just seems an odd conclusion to an odd situation.

Via Boing Boing.

Insert your own cheap Romney joke.

Via Jason Pye at The Liberty Papers, Mike Huckabee has a frightening understanding of how a secular, liberty-minded nation should use its government:

Using his selective reading and logic skills, I’ll suggest the 29th Amendment:

The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Polygamy. Yeah, those’ll look good on us when viewed in hindsight by more heathen enlightened generations in the future. But, no worries. God’s law. Who are we to challenge that?

Mr. Pye makes the same argument I’ve made, that the United States people “are electing a President, not a pastor.” There is no place for this in our political landscape. He has the right to say it, of course, but the only valid response to him should be dismissive shunning of his earthly ambitions by every voter.

Analysis reveals more than snark reveals.

From the Los Angeles Times article referenced by Wonkette, this:

Kenya’s violence is on one level political, reflecting the rivalry for control between President Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, and opposition candidate Raila Odinga, a Luo. In the election campaign, the fact that Odinga was uncircumcised became an issue: He was seen by some Kikuyus as a “child” unfit to rule because he had not passed through circumcision and initiation.
…

“They say that those who are circumcised are wiser than the uncircumcised ones,” said John Lallo, 62, of Kibera. “They do it [forcibly circumcise] to teach us to be circumcised so that we can be wise like them.”

The extreme difference in how this discussion is carried out in the United States versus how it’s being carried out by some in Kenya is undeniable.

It is also undeniable that many Americans perpetuate the same type of myth that circumcised males are better than intact males by virtue of nothing more than a stolen foreskin. Circumcised males, parents, doctors, medical organizations, and political organizations all believe this nonsense because it conforms to their subjective preference. They peddle their nonsense in visible contradiction to both evidence and reason, through force, to males who will probably never need or want circumcision.

“Women won’t sleep with him.” “He’ll get HIV.” “He’ll have to deal with smegma¹.” “He’ll be less wise.” The anti-intellectual nature of using such subjective claims to force genital cutting onto a healthy individual should be obvious to a society that views itself as an advanced world leader. Instead, we embrace superstitions. We violate our most basic principles in the process.

We are mistaken in our thinking and actions, despite our high opinion of our collective intelligence. No amount of wishful dreaming can make intention significant in the presence of outcome.

¹ Female genitals produce smegma, too. We don’t cut them as a solution.

Two News Items

First:

The number of such assaults so far appears small. The hospital here in Limuru, 30 miles west of Nairobi, confirmed that two cases of forced circumcision were admitted after Sunday’s violence that saw members of the larger Kikuyu tribe evict hundreds of Luos from their homes. One case involved an adult, the other a 4-month-old.
…

The attack on the 4-month-old baby in Limuru occurred as his 14-year-old cousin was carrying him on her back through the forest, according to a hospital spokeswoman. The teen was raped and the child circumcised. His wound later became infected.

One attack involved sexual violence, and the other involved sexual violence.

Second:

WILLY Mafabi, a paraffin vendor in Malaba town, ran out of luck on January 3, when his tribesmen forcefully circumcised him.

According to his kinsmen, Mafabi, who hails from Bubulo county in Manafwa district, had been fleeing to Malaba whenever the circumcision season approached.

On the fateful day, his tribesmen rounded him up at Malaba Taxi Park, tied him and quickly sprinkled cassava flour allover his body. They forced him to carry two heavy stones as they marched him on the streets of Malaba, singing traditional Kigisu circumcision songs.

He was later circumcised at Akolodongo ward in the outskirts of Malaba town.

Does cultural expectation excuse the forced violation of the individual’s inherent rights? Should his age or blood relationship to his circumcisers affect the answer?