Category: News

Is a balanced diet unnecessary if you eat meat?

There is no need to be specific in placing blame when it’s possible to place guilt by association for those who are unacceptably different.

A Superior Court jury in Atlanta convicted a vegan (VEE-gun) couple of murder and cruelty to children today in the death of their six-week old, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.
…

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. …

I can accept that veganism is relevant to this story as it pertains to the parents’ approach to feeding their child since the child died of malnutrition. But this child did not die because his parents are vegans. Without a varied diet full of nutrients, a human will die on any diet. Feed a child nothing but shrimp and eggs and he will become malnourished. This is not complicated. These parents were stupid and incompetent. Their son died as a result.

To the reporting, it’s helpful that the reporter included a simple definition¹ of veganism for readers, with a handy-dandy pronunciation guide to go along with it, but veganism expects more than soy milk and apple juice. Anyone capable of stringing two words together should be able to figure this out. Implying that vegans condone such nonsense is irrational.

This story is tragic, of course. A boy is dead who should and could be alive. But the reporting on this story amounts to little more than intellectually lazy voyeurism. “Hey, look at the freaks. This is what happens if you’re a freak. Don’t be a freak.” Please. Try harder or don’t bother.

¹ The word typically makes this definition wrong. Strike it from the sentence.

Fearing to Leave the Past Behind

From Malaysia:

Malaysian doctors have declared neckties a health hazard and called on the heath ministry to stop insisting that physicians wear them.

Amen. I hate ties. They serve no reasonable purpose other than to serve as an upside-down noose. I can’t wait for the day when they’re relegated to the past.

That said, this is fascinating:

But the Star quoted a ministry official as saying it needed more proof that neckties were a danger before it relaxed the dress code for doctors in hospitals.

I find it bizarre that anyone would submit to such authoritarianism that allows the government to impose a dress code for professionals. I wonder if we can expect something like that with nationalized health care in America. I doubt it, but we should never underestimate the power of bureaucrats to embrace stupidity and abuse of power.

Via Fark.

It’s sad and something I don’t cheer.

Now that the title cleared away any notion that I’m happy when someone gets hurt, Scott Adams nailed the analysis of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine’s car accident from the perspective of who is to blame. (The accident occurred while he was en route to the Governor’s Mansion to host a meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team.)

Post Removed

I removed today’s post so that my governor would not have a car accident.

I wish I’d written that. I rarely laugh out loud at the written word, but that brought on a full sixty seconds of out loud laughter.

Post Script: Just to be extra clear, I wish Gov. Corzine a complete recovery. That recovery will be difficult, apparently. Now that I’ve ruined the humor…

Bigotry can be defensible?

From Andrew Sullivan, a comparison of bigotry:

As for Sharpton, surely Imus hs a minor, but valid point. Sharpton deploys the vilest form of racist assumptions against whites in general, and gets away with it. He got away with it while accusing specific people of rape – people who turned out to be innocent. Again, since whites still enjoy vastly more cultural power than blacks, Sharpton’s bigotry is more defensible than Imus’s. But it’s still bigotry. (And, to give Sharpton his due, he has spoken out against the rhetorical depravity of much hip-hop.)

Surely Mr. Sullivan left something out of that paragraph? Bigotry is not defensible. When we start laying out levels of defensibility, we start laying out levels of acceptable responses to the same type of statements. A standard with degrees based on victimization will never end well, as we should be able to see from the current Don Imus mess.

[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.

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.

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.

Thoughts on Internet Debate

When I came across this quote a few days ago, I liked it. As a blogger, it’s worth remembering when the battle of ideas gets heated.

“If I were to demand that everyone live up to my moral standards, I would be a lonely, cranky and judgmental person. And I’d be less effective. People respond better when you invite them to take a stand on behalf of what they love, than when you insist they conform to your beliefs.” – John Robbins¹

The importance of that sentiment makes more sense to me, based on an entry I never wrote precisely because I didn’t think I could be polite. The subject of that never written entry would’ve been this quote from Cathy Seipp:

“If you know a circumcised man who would like to experience some of the sensitivity nature intended for him, I would be happy to send you some Your-Skin Cones,” writes a guy who apparently sells these things, and for some reason assumes I would be eager to help him spread the pro-foreskin oh-what-a-feeling agenda. Less amusing, though, is when these nutcases add, as they often do, that male circumcision is the equivalent of female genital mutilation, an idiotic and misogynist argument if there ever was one.

This comment made me angrier than almost every other comment I’ve read or heard regarding circumcision, for reasons I’ve indirectly explained many times. Arguments that distinguish male and female genital cutting into “good” and “bad” categories, respectively, are flawed to begin with. But labeling any attempt to compare the two as misogynistic ignores the issue as if it’s already settled, with two ad hominem attacks for kicks. We’re talking about genital modification, not whether you should give your kid Crest or Tom’s of Maine.

Time has cooled my anger. Still, I never posted that, even when the opportunity arose. I didn’t think I could be dispassionate enough. And I only post it today in the context of the quote from John Robbins. My non-response to Ms. Seipp’s claim was a time when I exercised good judgment. I don’t say that to congratulate myself because I’ve failed at this more times than not. But my rare success struck me as important now because Cathy Seipp died Wednesday after a long battle with lung cancer.

I’m not going to get sentimental about her death. I didn’t know her. To my fallible memory, I don’t recall posting any comments on her blog. I’m certain we never had an exchange of ideas on any topic through her blog. Her death is sad, but it doesn’t hit me personally. Nor do I think it’s uncouth to challenge the opinions of those who have died, although the timing would be rude, if that’s what I was after here.

However, reading the news of her death made an impression on me. No matter how offensive or frustrating I found her views, there was still a human being there. That’s vital. I want to be treated with respect, even when someone disagrees with my views. That’s how I want to interact with others, regardless of whether it’s extended to me. Behaving with a touch of humanity is crucial because my opinion is in the minority. I want to end infant circumcision. Countering the all-too-common opinion that it’s “really nothing”, as Ms. Seipp also once said, is part of that process. But treating people who believe that with respect is the right thing to do. I don’t succeed as often as I’d like, of course, so news like this reminds me that kindness matters.

¹ “Reader Letters – 2006 Veggie Awards”, VegNews, April 2007: 21.

The law must protect the outliers.

I missed this last week, but the Virginia General Assembly passed what should be a thought-provoking bill:

Virginia lawmakers passed a bill called “Abraham’s Law” yesterday after agreeing that 14 is the appropriate age for a teenager with a life-threatening condition to have a hand in making medical decisions.

The bill is named after Starchild Abraham Cherrix, 16, who won a court battle last summer to forgo chemotherapy and instead treat his lymphatic cancer with alternative medicine.

A judge had threatened to force Abraham to take conventional treatments and to take him away from his parents, who faced jail for allowing him to end chemotherapy and use alternative treatments. A compromise allowed Abraham to give up chemotherapy as long as he was treated by an oncologist who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatment.

A 14-year-old is legally allowed to reject conventional medical treatment for a life-threatening illness. This is wholly appropriate, in my opinion, when viewed with the reality that minors are not automatically incompetent and the perspective of Mr. Cherrix’s battle last year. I’m glad to see the General Assembly acknowledging such rights.

Looking forward, if a 14-year-old can reject treatment in a life-threatening situation, how can we continue to assume that infants not facing a life threatening illness, or any illness at all to be more specific, should not be protected by default from circumcision? Essentially, the General Assembly seems to be saying that neither parents nor the state own the body of a minor. So what gives? Clearly parental “rights” have limits. Why is there a limit when there is a life-threatening illness but not when there is no illness?

Supporters of routine infant circumcision, or rather supporters of permitting parents to make their son’s decision for him, believe this issue rests on the child’s willingness and ability to consent. If the child is unable to consent, as would apparently be the case for a 13-year-old under this new legislation, the parents may make his decision they believe is in his best interest. But the standard focus should be on what a reasonable person would choose, if he could choose for himself. If nothing else, the existence of someone like Mr. Cherrix proves that common opinion does not mean universal. We could assume what he wants, but we’d be wrong. If individual liberty is to mean anything where the body is involved, it must be protected in all permanent medical decisions. This is particularly essential when the intervention is in no way medically indicated.

We can assume what an infant male would choose based on society, but there’s a significant chance we’d be wrong. The low incidence of adults choosing circumcision if they were spared as children should demonstrate that. Society was 100% wrong in my case. The law was wrong to allow it then. It is wrong to allow it today. It will be wrong to allow it tomorrow.

Source: Below the Beltway, via Kip

“The effects were temporary and the students recovered…”

The negative symptoms of those affected aren’t enough incentive, so those who aren’t affected must be denied:

A high school banned a caffeine-packed energy drink after students complained that it made them sick and shaky and caused their hearts to race.
…

About a half-dozen students reported symptoms including shortness of breath, heart palpitations and nausea, school officials said.

The energy drink is SPIKE Shooter. Based on my personal preference, I’d never drink the stuff, but I don’t drink coffee or soda, either. My reason? Caffeine makes me sick and shaky and causes my heart to race. Beets do the same thing to me. Should we ban beets? Perhaps some other standard makes sense.

In the CNN article, this:

The drink Web site says an 8.4-ounce can has 300 milligrams of caffeine. By comparison, the average 5-ounce cup of coffee has 80 to 115 milligrams of caffeine, according to the London-based International Coffee Organization.

Ounce for ounce would be a better comparison. In that scenario, the average cup of coffee contains 134.4 to 193.2 milligrams of caffeine. That’s a slightly different story. To its credit, the drink’s maker, Biotest Laboratories, puts a warning on the can to “begin use with one-half can to determine tolerance.” If that warning is insufficient, then what’s the point of mandatory labels?

For what it’s worth, it would take 31.85 cans of SPIKE Shooter to kill me.