Category: Ranting

Time management skills might work better

The notion of widespread academic doping worthy of a major media news story sets off my crap detector:

A 15-year-old girl and her parents recently came in for a chat with Dr. James Perrin, a Boston pediatrician, because they were concerned about the girl’s grades. Previously an A student, she was slipping to B’s, and the family was convinced attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was at fault — and that a prescription for Ritalin would boost her brainpower.

After examining the girl, Perrin determined she didn’t have ADHD. The parents, who had come in demanding a prescription, left empty-handed.

Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other physicians say this is an increasingly common scenario in doctors’ offices around the country, though there are no hard statistics on it.

Reading that sends chills through my libertarian spine. I don’t doubt the story, but the preferred triumvirate of politicians everywhere – drugs, children, and fear of an “epidemic” – stands out, waiting for some imbecile in Congress to decide that this is a federal issue rather than a local case of parental and medical ethics gone nuts. The thought of the press conferences alone makes me want to vomit.

“I spoke with [some] colleagues the other day and they mentioned three cases recently where parents blatantly asked for the medication so that their children would perform better in school, yet there were no other indications that the child had ADHD,” says Dr. Nick Yates, a pediatrician and director of medical ethics for Mercy Hospital in Buffalo, N.Y.
…

Yates isn’t entirely surprised that parents ask for it. He believes that most families simply have a heartfelt — if shockingly misdirected — desire for their children to do their best.

Aside from this likely being overblown, this is where medical doctors must exercise their professional expertise and experience. No doubt some doctors will fall back to a misguided interpretation of “parental choice” and prescribe drugs they know the child does not need and should not have. Most will not, and that should be our assumption. We should not impose draconian policy designed with any notion of doctors being guilty until proven innocence, as much of the drug war is designed. This is disgusting behavior from parents, but it is not a national crisis warranting government intervention.

We hold these truths to be subject to warrantless wiretapping

Ahem:

President Bush urged Congress today to give him “additional authority” to carry out a controversial warrantless eavesdropping program directed against international terrorists and to approve “broader reforms” in the 1978 law that regulates domestic surveillance of foreign agents’ communications.

I’m not a legal scholar, but I’m fairly certain that Congress does not have the authority to override that feature of the Constitution without an amendment to the Bill of Rights. Of course, the Bush Administration has pliable courts at its disposal, so I suspect this push is only for show. The administration didn’t let the Constitution trouble it during implementation. Our do-everything-but-what-is-federal-and-important Congress isn’t likely to fight back.

Congress should stamp Return to Sender upon receipt

Couldn’t the Bush administration achieve this through a presidential signing statement? Why go through the established process if executive power is plenary?

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as “outrages upon [the] personal dignity” of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts — such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women’s underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — that fall short of torture.

I’d like to believe that this is a cowardly admission that some of our government’s policies are dishonorable (and illegal), but that’s too optimistic. Instead, I suspect the spin will involve thwarting a plot by activist judges, prosecutors, and politicians (traitorous Democrats, no doubt) to eliminate useful interrogation techniques because those nefarious individuals want our enemies to win. Or something. The president, he knows best. The only consolation is that the administration didn’t let this slide and then offer pardons for anyone convicted before January 2009. (I’m assuming the next president could pardon future patriots convicted of outrages upon personal dignity, since we’re at a permanent conservative majority.) Either way, this is shameful and should be rejected by the Congress.

Just because I like this quote:

Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy’s top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is “don’t trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.”

This administration has obfuscated enough.

Brain rot leaves me ill-equipped

From its assumptions I shouldn’t be able to respond to this with proper analysis, mostly due to the copious amounts of blow I snort off the backsides of my prostitutes (when I don’t get distracted by the room full of monkeys I keep to torment mentally-challenged children for my own amusement), but I’ll give it the old (state) college try:

MTV’s own reticence aside, we can think of another reason not to celebrate the past 25 years. Almost every behavior and image the station’s name conjures up is a reminder of cultural decline.

Think about it. The phrase “MTV generation” is routinely used to connote young people with the attention span of fleas and an insatiable appetite for the next thrill.

Stereotypes and directing blame at the purveyor of “pornography” instead of at the parents of the small minority actually impacted (impacted, not impaired) by the current incarnation of MTV who don’t bother to parent is so much easier. These editors should stop writing, sit on their front porch, and scream “Get off the lawn!” at the neighborhood toughs. Then we’ll finally realize our full cultural decline, leaving every one of us incapable of anything beyond anti-social attacks on the integrity of our upstanding past.

I guess they haven’t over-reacted enough

I’ve witnessed the disturbing manner in which many Phillies phans have rushed to convict pitcher Brett Myers. I haven’t changed my mind about how to process his situation as a phan. His reputation is in shambles, most likely due to his own actions, but he does not deserve the rush to judgment. There will be time to condemn Mr. Myers later, should a conviction or guilty plea come. I think that’s still the reasonable view, which is why this story about his scheduled start tomorrow is bizarre to me:

Local groups dedicated to ending domestic violence have no plans to protest tomorrow’s Phillies game. Brett Myers is scheduled to make his first appearance at Citizens Bank Park since being charged with domestic assault and battery on his wife in Boston during the early morning of June 23.

“We are not planning a protest and I’m not aware of anyone who is,” Heather Keafer of Women Against Abuse said yesterday. “I think the fans have had great response in the past, and I’m hopeful they’ll continue their pressure to make sure that he’s held accountable for his actions.”

If they were planning to protest a man who is innocent until proven guilty, I’d be among those (maybe a party of one) protesting the protest. But to the point raised in this initial excerpt, that last sentence doesn’t bode well. I shouldn’t have to stop momentarily to point out that Mr. Myers’s actions are still alleged. Ms. Keafer’s call for the continued abandonment of American legal principles by the public is disturbing. Is she so unsure of the public’s acceptance that she’s on the correct side that she must encourage the mob’s mentality?

Continuing:

Keafer said the Phillies met last week with the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence in an effort to develop a domestic violence policy. Women Against Abuse and three other domestic violence agencies in the city are members of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

“They’ve had one meeting so far, and part of that proposal is also to help support the Philadelphia domestic violence hotline, which is run by Women Against Abuse and three other domestic violence providers in Philadelphia,” Keafer said. “What we’re trying to do now is work with our state coalition to help the Phillies come up with a domestic violence policy and possible inclusion in their code of conduct.

It’s not a stretch to say that domestic violence is unacceptable. I doubt the Phillies disagreed before the alleged incident involving Brett Myers and his wife. Given their actions since his arrest, however belated (and over-reactionary) they may have been, it’s reasonable to assume the team understands the seriousness of this issue. They get the message, like everyone else. No surprise there. So why is this (alleged) incident by a player sufficient to encourage what appears to be nothing more than a shakedown of the Phillies?

Protecting America from the Constitution

The House legislation to bar federal courts from hearing constitutional challenges to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is a bad idea. Whether its goal is to solidify federal recognition of the Christian God as ruler of America or to allow state and local courts to better reflect the supposed will of the people to force everyone to worship the same, nothing good can happen if the Senate passes its version. I suspect the Senate will choose to be the chamber where bad bills go to die, so I’m not particularly worried.

Instead, it’s worth highlighting two quotes from the debate. First:

“We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage,” said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. “It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.”

Actually, our history cries out for religious tolerance and governmental indifference. Many of the first settlers of the New World fled religious oppression. That some of them wished to impose their own oppression here is worth noting, specifically because it failed. As evidence see the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is our true spiritual heritage. But, if this debate is about not rewriting history, how to explain this:

  • 1892 to 1923: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
  • 1923 to 1954: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
  • 1954 to Present: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

It seems history can be rewritten. All Rep. Wamp wants is for us not to rewrite the historical rewrite. Wouldn’t honesty be a part of the Family Values Tour 2006, or whatever Republicans are calling this wrecking ball publicity stunt?

Second:

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. “We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights.”

I believe that there is a Constitution which gives basic rights to each person and it is the job of the government to protect those rights. The facts support my position. The current state of civil liberties protections in America, as exhibited by the House and Senate, indicates that many of our leaders in Congress share Rep. Akin’s misconceptions. Instead, Rep. Akin holds a view of our government which allows him to enforce laws not supported by the Constitution, and to deny rights that conflict with what he believes people should do. Denying a child the ability to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with its recent addition of “under God”, may be censorship, but I wonder what he would call forcing a child to say something he doesn’t believe? Perhaps the honorable gentleman from Missouri thinks every child can’t wait to recite “under God,” but it’s also possible that some children notice the inherent flaw in American spiritual strength that forced religious patriotism represents.

He’s a political promise keeper

Two quick points on President Bush’s veto explanation, now that he’s actually used that power. (I know, I’m as shocked as you that it took him this long to discover a real power. With all the imagined powers he now has, you’d think he would’ve already burned through all of his real powers. Anyway…)

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said at the White House, following through on his promise to veto the bill. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.”

First, if I was mistaken in my post yesterday, so is President Bush. Hopefully every Congressman who voted for the bill should call him out if he’s wrong. Otherwise, this is just politics as usual. Ahem…

Second, of all the reckless misadventures of the last 5½ years by the Congress and the Administration, this is the first to “cross a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”? Right. Perhaps the President needs a better moral compass, one that involves civil liberties and fiscal responsibility.

No society looks good in this debate

Huh?

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Ronan Conroy, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, says the growing acceptance in Britain and elsewhere of so-called “designer vaginas” was exposing Western double standards.

“The practice of female genital mutilation is on the increase nowhere in the world except in our so-called developed societies,” he writes. “Designer laser vaginoplasty” and “laser vaginal rejuvenation” are growth areas in plastic surgery, representing the latest chapter in the surgical victimisation of women in our culture.”

I think women choosing to have their genitalia surgically altered is strange, at best, but defining this as female genital mutilation is absurd. As I’ve mentioned before with male circumcision, which is worth expanding to include women, I don’t care what adults choose to do to their bodies. If women want to succumb to bizarre societal norms that may or may not be real, they should be able to choose that for themselves. Research it or not, have a good time. I hope it works out for them. But in that context, it’s cosmetic surgery. This is not that:

Mr Conroy writes: “It is Western medicine which, by a process of disease mongering, is driving the advance of female genital mutilation by promoting the fear in women that what is natural biological variation is a defect.”

There was an assumption by Western critics that in the developing world the practice was forced on young girls. In fact, it was often welcomed as the mark of entry into adulthood and they were proud of it, he said. “The high moral tone with which those in richer countries criticise female genital mutilation would be more credible if we in the North had not practised and did not continue to practise it,” he added.

We in the West are barbarians for allowing adult cosmetic surgery, and that’s somehow analogous to girls having genital surgery forced on them? No. Where is Mr. Conroy’s attack on adult male circumcision as male genital mutilation, since society perpetuates the myth that men are defective without surgery? Would he then defend infant male circumcision because most men in the West grow to think that their circumcision is wonderful? The whole idea is preposterous.

Men and women should be allowed to choose any body-modifying surgery they wish for themselves. But only for themselves. Genital mutilation¹ of children is wrong, whether it’s done on girls or boys. Adults can consent. Children can’t. That is the travesty, not the way some adults choose to disfigure themselves.

¹ Some will challenge the use of mutilation to describe male circumcision. Consider the World Health Organization’s definition of female circumcision, which is most often called female genital mutilation:

“All procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.”

What makes female genitalia more worthy of protection than male genitalia? Male circumcision involves partial removal and injury to the genital organs, so the conclusion is the same. Circumcision for non-therapuetic reasons is mutilation.

Save our souls (and state monopolies)

Congress: Boo yourself!:

The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions — for state-run lotteries and horse racing — and passage isn’t a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.

The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Work with is a euphemism for force. Anyone still want to claim that Republicans and Democrats are for economic freedom, and liberty in general? I don’t. Paternalism marches on.

I don’t have any more to say on this bill specifically, but I want to savor the stupidity of this quote:

“Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age,” [Jim Leach, R-Iowa] said.

When will Congress act to outlaw citizens from using credit cards to finance a new business? As a business owner, I could lose everything I own. Won’t you protect me?

Ass.

Cover the First Amendment in Whipped-Cream and Pasties

Now that it’s been called on its bullshit, the FCC wants a do-over.

“Today the Commission, supported by the ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates, filed a motion for voluntary remand and stay of briefing schedule in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,” the commission said in a statement. “It did so at the request of broadcasters who complained they did not have the opportunity to be heard by the Commission before it issued its decision in its “Omnibus” order in March. Additionally, the remand would allow the Commission to hear all of the licensees’ arguments which is necessary for the broadcasters to make these same arguments before the Court.”

I’ll ask the obvious: does no one understand that “Congress shall make no law” is an absolute? And is it any surprise that an arm of the government granted unconstitutional power by that Congress will somehow abuse that power beyond its own rules? The key lost in this story is that Fox is not one of the networks asking for this “voluntary” remand in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. Good. If it sticks this out through to trial, I promise to watch every So You Think You Can [Insert Unwatchable Activity Here]? show its producers can imagine. Just include lots of T&A and swearing when if the court realizes that the bulk of the FCC’s Congressionally-sanctioned nanny-mongering is unconstitutional.

Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis