Stupidity – Page 12 – Rolling Doughnut

The new looks like the old.

I have a lingering internal question over whether my mistrust of government is still a healthy skepticism or is now in mired in the depths of cynicism. I don’t think the difference matters significantly because I still reach the same conclusions. But the latter might make the rare exceptions harder to accept when they appear. And yet, as I wonder, a story like this on Senator McCain’s proposed “gas-tax holiday” comes along (link via John Cole):

Earlier Monday at a community college in the Philadelphia suburbs, Obama rejected a tax holiday as bad economic policy. “I’ve said I think John McCain’s proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea,” Obama said, warning consumers that any price cut would be short lived before costs spike back.

“We’re talking about 5 percent of your total cost of gas that you suspend for three months, which might save you a few hundred bucks that then will spike right up,” Obama said. “Now keep in mind that it will save you that if Exxon Mobil doesn’t decide, ‘We’ll just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost.’”

I’m calling my mental approach skepticism because Senator Obama demonstrates here what cynicism really is. Where he could talk exclusively about the stupidity of a tax holiday bribe, he had to jump into talking points. Let’s assume Exxon Mobil, since they’re the working man’s evil oppressor du jour right now, would “just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost”. Then what? I, as a price-conscious consumer in need of gasoline, drive to the Shell station where the 5 percent isn’t “just tacked on”. Although it could be, because in a competitive market, companies are able – and certainly willing, the evil bastards – to “just tack on” whatever little windfall profits they want.

I’ve heard Senator Obama is a new kind of politician. I’m not buying it. A new kind of politics would rely on something a little more honest than pandering to voters with a scapegoat and misrepresentation of economics. This is one more reason I will not be voting for Senator Obama in November.

Housing cents in Congress is not housing sense.

Any punditry on government tinkering on the path to a mortgagee bailout that includes this sentence in the opening paragraph probably shouldn’t be taken seriously:

First Congress produced a timely and well-crafted stimulus.

Sebastian Mallaby wrote that in today’s Washington Post. It’s wrong, even if it miraculously results in actual spending on the part of recipients who understand that it’s a loan against future tax increases. Welfare is hardly a stimulus. However, that’s not the most egregious statement. Instead, this:

Of course, some fall in house prices is necessary. But absent federal action, market failure will cause real estate to fall further than the basics of supply and demand would justify. …

Naturally the market failed, because if supply and demand don’t match, the market clearly failed. Buyers aren’t able to prefer a lower price than sellers will accept. Sellers aren’t able to prefer a higher price than buyers will pay. The value each places on her preferred price can’t possibly rule out a short-term willingness to agree. Can’t we all just get along?

It doesn’t get better.

… In a healthy market, foreclosure would be rare, because it pays for a lender to forgive, say, 20 percent of a loan rather than booting the homeowner out and seeing 30 percent of the property value evaporate in the process of eviction. But because mortgages have been sliced up and distributed among far-flung investors, it’s difficult to get their consent for partial forgiveness. Homeowners get dumped on the street, and more value than necessary is destroyed.

Perhaps this is true. I’d like to read a source for this. But how does Mallaby know what specific resolution would be appropriate? Is a 20 percent forgiveness wise for the lender? Do they get the chance to work out these details with the borrower? Would the borrower be able to pay the remaining 80% of the loan? And how much financial gain resulted from the slicing and distribution of mortgages? Does that gain offset the value destroyed by the current crisis? These questions matter. We should have answers before we jump to a federal bailout of anyone.

So, although Congress would be wrong to launch a broad attempt to prop up home prices, it would be right to address the market failure that produces excessive foreclosures. The Senate is working on a smart reform that would begin to do this: It would give service companies that collect mortgage payments on behalf of creditors a legal safe harbor, allowing them to forgive part of a loan without having to fear that a few opportunistic creditors will sue them for being soft. Lenders as a whole would benefit, because the measure would reduce wasteful foreclosures. The flow of capital to future home buyers would not be compromised.

Again with the “market failure”, but more useful is Mallaby’s endorsement of Congress rewriting contracts it no longer deems acceptable under its subjective, uninformed economic analysis. How might that affect the loan market – housing and beyond – in the future if borrowers and lenders know that the key to limiting their own risk is to fail big? The last sentence demands proof more compelling than Mallaby’s wishful thinking.

Failure is not a sin to be prevented at everyone’s expense.

I’m slowly beginning to figure out that politics is a test of wills. Whoever has the most endurance will win. My resolve is based on strength of ideas. Unfortunately, politicians are supported by power to be used as freely and stupidly as possible. Eventually, they’ll win because everyone with sense will go insane.

I’m not quite at insane, so today, this:

The Senate on Thursday passed a bipartisan package of tax breaks and other steps designed to help businesses and homeowners weather the housing crisis.

The measure passed by an impressive 84-12 vote, but even supporters of it acknowledge it’s tilted too much in favor of businesses like home builders and does little to help borrowers at risk of losing their homes.

The plan combines large tax breaks for homebuilders and a $7,000 tax credit for people who buy foreclosed properties, as well as $4 billion in grants for communities to buy and fix up abandoned homes.

And what about those of us who, while stupid enough to buy in the bubble, were smart enough to finance at a fixed-rate on a loan properly proportioned to our income? We get nothing? Mind you, I don’t want anything because I’m not interested in sending money to the Treasury so that it can then be returned to me masked as a constituent service. I’m already paying indirectly for the mistakes of others, as everyone is and must in a free market. I’m content with that because I know it works. This is just part of the process. But why should I also pay directly for the mistakes of others?

Specifically, the last thing homebuilders need right now are tax breaks that will inevitably encourage more speculation. There is an existing inventory of homes that may be purchased. Perhaps those aren’t the homes people want. I don’t claim to know, nor do I need to know. But expecting willing buyers to find a willing builder to produce the correct new home in the correct location without incentive from the government is the only reasonable position. A tax break just covers up the risk of speculation and the reality of failure. Dumb.

That’s not to say the proposed $7,000 tax break for buying a foreclosed home is any better. That incentivizes buyers into a foreclosed home over a non-foreclosed home. If they prefer the foreclosed home over a non-foreclosed home, they’ll be willing to negotiate a price without the incentive. If they prefer the non-foreclosed home over a foreclosed home, the incentive may skew their decision away. Sure, the owner(s) of the non-foreclosed home could lower their price by $7,000, but that just demonstrates the perversion Congress is imposing on them to benefit another party. It’s the same game of picking winners and losers outside of the marketplace.

Remember, though, that the actual marketplace is not a zero-sum game. Both parties gain from their transaction, or they wouldn’t enter into it. If they would agree without an external incentive, the incentive is unnecessary. If they would not agree without an incentive, the incentive skews the market away from its optimal point. Buyers have a required range of acceptable terms and sellers have a required range of acceptable terms. If the two do not overlap, that is not a failure of the market. The market is working as expected.

The housing market needs to stabilize. Unfortunately for me it will stabilize below what I owe. However, I want that to happen sooner rather than later because that is better for me, as it would be for any homeowner, whatever their equity status. More information is better than less information. But the market will not stabilize correctly, or as quickly, as long as Congress forgets that its job description does not include “Do something”.

I wouldn’t use the word “debate”.

Following on today’s earlier entry, how many pro-circumcision myths does this short essay, “The Debate Over Circumcision,” inadvertently expose as flawed?

My first son had what can only be described as a bad circumcision. While he was still in diapers, the skin at the tip of his penis started to get sticky and when we changed him, we were unable to pull the skin back to do an adequate cleaning. “It’s a problem,” the pediatric urologist explained. I am sure there is some medical term for the condition, but all I can remember is that it required a trip to Boston’s Children’s Hospital where, in the office, my little boy had to get “re-snipped.”

This was very, very difficult to for me watch. Despite receiving a local anesthetic, my son cried a lot. So did I. When I found out I was expecting another boy, I did more research on circumcision and stumbled across countless websites arguing both for and against the procedure. Given that my husband and I are not of the Jewish or Islamic faith, where circumcision is customary, there was no real reason to choose circumcision other than family tradition. The medical arguments don’t really hold all that much weight, in my opinion.

The complications the author’s son experienced are easily explained. At birth, the foreskin adheres to the glans thanks to synechia. The inner foreskin is mucosal tissue, just like the nose, mouth, and female genitals. It doesn’t magically stop being mucosal tissue after circumcision. It only stops acting like mucosal tissue through years of keratinization. Until that occurs, any loose foreskin will tend to re-adhere because it is moist mucosal tissue. As the author discovered, this can require further surgical intervention. It can also lead to complications (NSFW – graphic images).

This is objective harm. Even when parents understand some of the risks – through the experience of their previously healthy sons – from medically unnecessary infant circumcision, they’re willing to proceed again. The risk of it becoming reality for the boy is inherent in every infant circumcision. No one has the right to impose this risk on him without medical need. No one should have the legal option to impose this risk on him, either.

Service to the President: What McCain wanted to say.

John McCain offered useful insights into his (dangerous) political mind at the Naval Academy on Wednesday. For example:

I’m a conservative, and I believe it is a very healthy thing for Americans to be skeptical about the purposes and practices of public officials. We shouldn’t expect too much from government — nor should it expect too much from us. Self-reliance — not foisting our responsibilities off on others — is the ethic that made America great.

But when healthy skepticism sours into corrosive cynicism our expectations of our government become reduced to the delivery of services. And to some people the expectations of liberty are reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee.

Actually, my healthy skepticism is still healthy. I expect government to ineffectively deliver services it shouldn’t be attempting, even though it tries and tries and tries. And when it fails, my healthy skepticism knows that it will try harder, but with more money.

My definition of corrosive cynicism looks something like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold. This is the belief that individuals can’t be trusted, so someone smarter must look after their interests for them. That brand of corrosive cynicism believes expectations of liberty should be reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee. My healthy skepticism understands that competing brands of political speech are a form of liberty thankfully enshrined in the First Amendment. The corroded cynic speaks of quote First Amendment rights.

Continuing:

Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

Senator McCain and I have different opinions on how our rights are protected. As noted above, we don’t share the same opinion on our rights. But the problem here is his idea of a “cause greater than yourself”. Who decides what cause is greater than me? Who decides whether or not my actions constitute sacrifice? And I’m not thrilled by the idea that “success, wealth, and celebrity gained and kept for private interest” is allegedly a “small thing”.

I’ve long believed that we are a citizenry who behave as though we are rightfully subjects of the government. Among his many faults, Senator McCain is too friendly to perpetuating that mistaken belief. We are electing the president of a government (previously?) limited by a constitution, not a king limited only by his mandate by his higher calling.

Link via Hit & Run.

Delicate Decision: Post 4 of 4

On Monday the Los Angeles Times offered a typical analysis of infant male circumcision. There are many points to address from this story, so I’ve broken them up into multiple posts. (Posts 1, 2, and 3.)

Point four:

FOR nearly all of Nada Mouallem’s pregnancy, she and her husband, Tony, had a running argument. She wanted to have their son circumcised. He didn’t. “Many days, I’d go off and research all the pros. He’d go and research all the cons. Then we’d get together at night and fight,” she says.
…

For the Mouallems, family tradition and religion were not factors. “We kept those separate and focused only on the scientific reasons,” says Tony Mouallem, who was against circumcising his son because he didn’t think it was necessary. Plus, he’s not circumcised. “You have to work a little harder to keep it clean, but that’s not a big deal.”

His wife, Nada, however, worried about the responsibility of keeping her newborn’s penis clean. She thought circumcision would help reduce the risk of infection and disease. “I wasn’t keen on my baby having a surgical procedure, but then I thought, why not if we can offer him more protection?”

In the end, Tony sided with his wife. Their son was born Feb. 10, and was circumcised the next day. Tony held him during the procedure. “There was no bleeding and he didn’t even cry,” he says. “I’m still not convinced it was medically necessary, but I didn’t want to burden my wife with the worry of cleaning it. And maybe it will be easier for him in the locker room.”

Choosing surgery over responsibility is the abdication of an obligation when having children. No one states that an intact penis can’t be kept clean. Even ignoring the absurdity that it’s more difficult to clean in his early years when his foreskin adheres to his glans and shouldn’t be retracted, keeping your children clean and eventually teaching them to care for themselves is parenting. Anything else is the selfish subjugation of the child’s needs to the parents’ whims. In this case, that whim is further discredited because the father presumably understands how to keep an intact penis clean.

Post Script: This most fits the “typical” analysis. These “balanced” articles always contain a couple who can’t decide. And the couple always chooses “yes”.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Delicate Decision: Post 3 of 4

Point three:

Robert and Cara Moffat of Los Angeles, who are expecting their first child, a boy, in May, had no trouble deciding, and plan to have their son circumcised. Robert, who is 30 and circumcised, said, “I grew up with it, and my wife has a preference for it, so that’s what we’ll do. We’re doing what the family is comfortable doing.”

His father is happy being circumcised, so the boy will be happy with it. This is an unverifiable assumption at birth. His mother prefers having sex with circumcised partners. This is irrelevant because I presume she does not intend to have sex with her son. So it leaves the conclusion that his future sex partner(s), who they apparently know will be female, will prefer that he be circumcised. This is an unverifiable assumption at birth. Finally, “what the family is comfortable doing” is hardly a principle of ethics, liberty, or science.

Also note that the parents have said nothing about (potential) medical benefits in forcing this on their son. Yet, they’re allegedly qualified to decide that their son will want this. And legally we’re all supposed to think this is reasonable.

As parents and task forces sort through the variables surrounding this intimate decision, [Dr. Andrew] Freedman offers parents in turmoil this comforting advice: “Rest assured. No matter what decision parents make for their son, most men think whatever they have is just fine.”

There are four potential realities for an adult male when he is finally legally protected to make his own genital decisions the way females are protected from birth. He can be intact and happy. He can be circumcised and happy. He can be intact and unhappy. He can be circumcised and unhappy. In the first scenario, he could do something but he wouldn’t. In the second, he can’t do anything but he doesn’t care. In the third, he can do something and he will choose either the perceived benefits of circumcision he seeks or not facing the drawbacks from adult circumcision. In the fourth, he can do nothing and society rejects his opinion as an individual.

In the first two scenarios, we conclude that the child validates the parents’ decision. We mistake an unrelated outcome for causation. In the third scenario, whatever we conclude, we’ve achieved the minimum standard of liberty that the male retains his right to choose (or reject) medically unnecessary procedures. In the fourth scenario, we either deny its validity or babble on about the rights of the parents. This generally involves some hand-wringing about parents making lots of tough choices while actively missing that none of the other choices involve removing parts of his anatomy. (You didn’t forget that parental rights are greater when speaking of sons, did you?)

Dr. Freedman’s opinion tells every man in scenario four his parents’ opinions about his penis matter more than his own. Anyone who argues this refuses to reconcile the complete lack of medical need with any notion of ethics and individual rights. Just because science can (allegedly and potentially) achieve an outcome does not mean it should try to achieve that outcome. That is a slippery slope unbounded by any consistent rule or principle.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Delicate Decision: Post 2 of 4

Point two:

In the first year of life, 1 in 100 uncircumcised [sic] boys will develop a urinary tract infection. Only 1 in 1,000 circumcised boys will. “While that’s a tenfold reduction, you have to keep in mind that the risk was only 1% to begin with,” says Dr. Andrew Freedman, pediatric urologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Proper hygiene can prevent most infections.

When considering potential benefits, context matters more than an isolated statistic. For example:

The downside of letting the child make the decision later is that adult circumcision is more expensive, painful and extensive. During an infant circumcision, practitioners numb the site with local anesthesia, then attach a bell-shaped clamp to the foreskin and excise the skin over the clamp. The clamp helps prevent bleeding. In adults, the procedure involves two incisions, above and below the glans (tip of the penis), stitches and a longer recovery. The cost is about 10 times that of a newborn procedure.

Let’s ignore the rights of the individual for the moment. I don’t, but the hypothetical does, so I’ll stick with it. The cost is about 10 times that of a newborn procedure. So what? As a fact on its own, it means nothing. How likely is it that an intact male will need circumcision in his lifetime? If it’s less than 10%, and it is, then a basic cost-benefit analysis shows that we will spend less overall by circumcising only those males who medically require circumcision. The “ten times more expensive” meme is worthless upon minimal inspection.

Dr. Freedman seems to understand this:

“The HIV data is the most compelling to date that circumcision can help prevent the transmission of the virus in male-female sex,” Freedman says. “While this is important to sub-Saharan Africa, the question is how many infant boys need to be circumcised in the United States to prevent one case of HIV transmission 25 years from now? Factoring in even the rare complication that can occur with circumcision may render this study insignificant.”

No kidding. Aside from not being able to predict who (or if) circumcision will help prevent HIV, we can also not predict who will suffer a complication. I seriously doubt the few children who suffer a significant mutilation of the penis care that most circumcisions are “successful”. Nor do I suspect the few boys who die from circumcision care about the general outcome. Of course, this should matter now, even before reducing a child to his (unknown) place in the statistical herd.

But he might not get it:

If parents do opt for the procedure, Freedman advises that they do it when the baby is a newborn, have someone trained and experienced perform the procedure, and use pain control. “The older a child gets, the less benefit there is, and the greater the risk,” he says. “I would ask parents of an older child to strongly reconsider if the only reason they’re doing this is cosmetic.”

The parents of a newborn who choose circumcision for cosmetic reasons? Those are somehow okay? Again, the individual – the patient – matters. When he is healthy, every other outside opinion is meaningless to the consideration of his body.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Delicate Decision: Post 1 of 4

Point one:

Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology in the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, says the CDC is looking at how the findings apply here. “The early opinion from the consultants — and not the position of the CDC, which involves a peer review process and public comment — is that, given all the previous data on circumcision plus the recent HIV African studies, the medical benefits of male infant circumcision outweigh the risks and that any financial burden barring parents from making this decision should be lifted,” he said.

Nationalizing health care will no more end routine infant male circumcision in America than the elimination of Medicaid funding has ended it in the states where Medicaid no longer pays for the unnecessary procedure. There is a political constituency that strongly supports imposing this on children. Until the universal principle that each individual owns his or her body is codified into law for males the way the Female Genital Mutilation Act now protects female minors, medically unnecessary circumcision will continue. And the state will pay for it when parents can’t (or won’t). Any protection of the individual based on entrenching an existing, or establishing a new, collective will fail.

Here’s a half-point in which I doubt Kilmarx understands the missing half:

“The procedure is so ancient, and steeped in cultures, I’m not surprised that the rate of adult circumcision in civilized countries doesn’t track with medical evidence,” Kilmarx says. “But as scientists, we don’t solely rely on what other countries do as a guideline.”

But as Americans, we don’t (mustn’t) solely rely on what science tells us as a guideline. Ethics matters. The rights of the individual matter, particularly the healthy individual. There is a hierarchy for decision-making concerning surgery on children. Kilmarx, among many, does not start at the beginning (i.e. medical need). That leads to mistakes, as clearly shown by the million-plus unnecessary infant circumcisions performed every year in America.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Circumcision and HIV.

Biographical suggests reliance on history.

Warning: Although it’s semantically incorrect that revealing facts presented in a television show based on a biography of a historical figure as large as John Adams counts as a spoiler, this entry discusses how those facts are presented. If you wish to watch HBO’s John Adams and judge its merits for yourself before reading my impressions of the show, stop reading now. End warning.

I eagerly anticipated John Adams when I first saw an ad for the miniseries. It’s good, except it’s not. It’s compelling entertainment, as much of what HBO produces seems to be. But as history, it’s becoming quite clear that it’s at best a CliffsNotes version of John Adams’ life, and then only if sections of the CliffsNotes version were lost or cropped. Why?

The series leads the viewer to believe all sorts of strange interpretations of events that happen to be at best inaccurate. Events have been smushed together, with little things like periodic visits home being omitted. This may give dramatic tension to the filmed version of John Adams’ reunion with, separately, his wife and his children, but it has the inconvenience of being false. While I understand that turning a book into a film requires edits, alteration is not editing. The miniseries is poorer for it. As a result, my enthusiasm for the remaining three episodes is waning.

Worse, the end of episode four, “Reunion”, angered me. I can’t find my copy of David McCullough’s John Adams because we’ve temporarily piled our books into a closet as we remodel, so I can’t verify whether or not this appears in the source text for the miniseries. However, Mr. McCullough consulted on the script, so I doubt he wasn’t given a chance to comment on episode four’s conclusion, which involved the inauguration of George Washington. To be more precise, it involves John Adams’ reaction to George Washington’s inauguration, but it presents Washington’s oath of office to demonstrate the point.

The episode depicts George Washington reciting the oath in a quiet reserved tone to suggest the humble nature of a great man. After “…defend the Constitution of the United States,” Washington bellows “so help me God.” Are we really to believe that George Washington said this? What does Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution say about this?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Is it realistic to believe that any of the founders, having spent more than a decade to realize the fruition of a new republic based on limiting the power of government over the people, would deviate from a rule so basic as the oath of office as proscribed in the Constitution? I know our politicians violate the Constitution every day, but is anyone so morally defective that they’d blatantly do so in 1789, in this specific manner? (Yes, I’m aware that the First Amendment was not yet ratified in 1789.) If he was as smart as he must’ve been, would he overlook the absurdity of ignoring the Constitution while swearing to uphold it? And if Washington did add “so help me God,” would he essentially mumble the oath, only to loudly proclaim faith in God at the new nation’s birth? That’s inconsistent on multiple interpretations.

Personally, I lean to Kip’s view that the original appearance of this “fact” precludes any conclusion other than willful deceit. For a more cautious view, read Jonathan Rowe’s analysis.

Unfortunately, America’s founding fathers are misrepresented to push the Christian nation myth. They all believed in a single god, so clearly they wanted us to include God in everything the United States government does. We’re to ignore the controversy from not including a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution presented to the States, as well as the rather quick ratification of the First Amendment after the birth of the new Constitution. It’s ridiculous, but people want to believe it. And nonsense like this episode of John Adams encourages it. For example:

I hope this show can let some people remember that this country was founded by a bunch of men who were extremely religious [sic]

Even if that were true in the way that the writer believes, so what? Some of our founding fathers owned slaves. Are we to conclude that we should own slaves as a result? Or are we to conclude that imperfect men created a system of government capable of filtering human deficiencies from the exercise of power better than any other structure yet created? The text of the Constitution is sufficiently clear on this topic to know that the specific religious views of the founders are interesting but rather irrelevant to how we should operate today.