Video games are not reality.

I don’t talk too much about my personal life on Rolling Doughnut. Part of that is to preserve some anonymity, and part of it is because, despite being a blogger, I understand that my life is only interesting to me and those close to me. You probably don’t care to hear that I’ll punish a few members of the Locust Horde in Gears of War tonight. Sometimes, though, reality interferes to push my life into something more universal and relevant.

On Monday, my brother joined the Marines. He should be finishing his first semester at college, but for reasons I don’t care to share here, he’s now in boot camp. He wants to fight in Iraq, for all the wrong reasons. He’s 18 and thinks he has the world figured out, as most people do at that age. Nothing will stop him. Where he is fearless in thinking that battlefield death is noble, I’m scared to death thinking that the next time I see him will be at his funeral. He seems strangely content, even anticipatory, of the idea. I am not.

I turned against the war in Iraq a long time ago. As I said, I was very naive in believing that we could build a nation. For that I carry my share of the blame. But I do not believe I was out of line to trust the Bush administration to run the war competently once it decided to engage. It has failed to do so at every step. This is unforgivable, yet, President Bush appears prepared to send more men and women to fight a war that he is not serious about winning. He is a shameful, little man.

I’ve accepted that my brother will be sent to Iraq. Despite his high entrance exam score, he chose to join the infantry. He does not understand that he is a number to the military, a troop level increase. A body. To me, he is a human being, with flaws, strengths, misconceptions, and honor. I respect his right to make this decision, but I also want to meet his children one day. I wonder if President Bush cares more about that or his political legacy.

I don’t like the conclusion I’ve reached.

You’d Shake Your Canteen and Walk Away

I’m not going to hammer away at the details of New Jersey’s new civil unions for same-sex couples. From what I understand, the basics seem to satisfy the absurd separate exception allowed by the original ruling, while failing to meet the fundamental equal requirement. All in all, a proud day for politicians everywhere.

Instead, this gets to the problem that we’re facing as a civil society: our politicians are allowed to ignore the Constitution(s) they’re expected to uphold.

But Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, a Republican from Ocean County, said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that “this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”

I’m not familiar with New Jersey’s practices, but I’m willing to guess that Assemblyman Dancer is not sworn to uphold the Bible or his personal beliefs and faiths. Unfortunately, another state legislator understands the true end-game here, so those of us who support equality are busted:

“I believe the foundation of our state is families, marriage, one man, one woman,” said Senator Robert W. Singer, the Republican from Jackson who sponsored the amendment proposal. “Why do you want to crumble that? We’re not taking away anyone’s rights, just sanctifying what marriage is.”

I can’t wait until the day that the foundation of New Jersey and the United States as a whole crumbles because gay Americans enjoy equal rights. I long for it with my very being. I also want the terrorists to win on that day. And I hate children. And puppies. Definitely puppies.

Politicians are stupid.

Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights?

Umm, okay:

The most positive trend of 2006 (surely there had to be one) was described in The Wall Street Journal earlier this month by Jeff Zaslow in a piece titled, “Comedy Comes Clean.” Notwithstanding the fact that the movie “Borat” was a “scatological sensation,” Mr. Zaslow described stand-up comedy’s new turn toward humor passed through a sieve of normal decency. My favorite, from comedian Michael Jr.: “Someone asked me if I’m pro-gay. I’m not pro-gay or amateur gay. I didn’t even know they had a league.”

Wow, isn’t that wonderful? I’m skeptical about the claim that comedy has suddenly turned to normal decency, whatever that is. But if it has, fine. What I’m fascinated by is the apparent push for this through the self-correcting nature of the (comedy) market. If this can happen, and it does as economics explains with all sub-markets of the overall market, what justification exists for allowing the Congress to continue violating the Constitution through the FCC?

The author, an editor at the Wall Street Journal, goes on to place the blame, or at least causation, for the new trend at the feet of Eddie Murphy. The argument makes little sense, but it’s mostly irrelevant to the topic. Some comedians use the f-word. Some don’t. This is not news. Instead, the essay seems to serve little purpose other than to allow the author to close with this:

Can we blame this verbal morass on the Supreme Court? Maybe. Back in 1973, in Papish, the court ruled on a college that tried to ban a student newspaper showing a cop raping the Statue of Liberty. The college had a rule that students should observe “generally accepted standards of conduct.” It lost, 6-3.

Chief Justice Warren Burger’s long-forgotten dissent is relevant to a society today that vulgarizes simple conversation while euphemizing or banning its darker thoughts. Justice Burger defended the right of students to criticize their school or government “in vigorous, or even harsh, terms.” But he called the student publication “obscene and infantile.” A university, he suggested, is ” an institution where individuals learn to express themselves in acceptable, civil terms. We provide that environment to the end that students may learn the self-restraint necessary to the functioning of a civilized society and understand the need for those external restraints to which we must all submit if group existence is to be tolerable.”

“Tolerable.” That’s an interesting, old-fashioned word. It’s not quite the same as “tolerant,” is it? As t-words go, I think I prefer “tolerable” to the current alternatives.

I can think of a word to describe Chief Justice Burger’s dissent, but it isn’t tolerable. External restraints? When coming from the government, for no other reason than to make group existence “tolerable”, whatever that means, external restraint should be seen as a clear violation of the First Amendment. You’re not wise enough to be trusted with freedom. We must restrain you, lest you wreak havoc on society. Silly gobbledygook. And execrable.

Consume your clean comedy if it makes you happy, but you do not have a legitimate right to prevent me from enjoying “unclean” comedy.

Better Than Other Proposals – Still Obviously Wrong

I’ve written about Sen. Ron Wyden in the past, in less than favorable terms. Today, I’m feeling antagonistic. I’ll try to contain myself.

Several business and labor leaders on Wednesday hailed a proposal to provide health care coverage to all Americans through a pool of private insurance plans.

A dozen years after Congress rejected a Clinton administration plan for universal health care, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden offered a plan he said would provide affordable, private health care coverage for all Americans, except those covered through Medicare or the military.

“Employer-based coverage is melting away like a Popsicle on the sidewalk in August,” Wyden said.

Wyden, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Finance health care subcommittee, said his plan would “guarantee health coverage for every American that is at least as good as members of Congress receive and can never be taken away.”

Wishing something true and having it come true are not the same. The pool will, of course, not stay private. If the plan is affordable, it will be crap. Employer-based coverage should melt away because it’s a horrible scheme for keeping people insured and for maintaining economic efficiency. And “can never be taken away” is as empty a promise as you’ll hear today, at least since no one is talking about Social Security. Basically, before presenting the facts, it’s clear this will be a steaming pile.

Before getting to the plan, let’s consider what the business and labor leaders said:

Continue reading “Better Than Other Proposals – Still Obviously Wrong”

Free market economics, not surgery

I’ve held off posting this because I try to pace myself on the circumcision posts. But today is the perfect day to comment. For a rational take on the problem of HIV/AIDS in Africa, consider Emily Oster’s recent article from Esquire:

When I began studying the HIV epidemic in Africa a few years ago, there were few other economists working on the topic and almost none on the specific issues that interested me. It’s not that the questions I wanted to answer weren’t being asked. They were. But they were being asked by anthropologists, sociologists, and public-health officials.

That’s an important distinction. These disciplines believe that cultural differences—differences in how entire groups of people think and act—account for broader social and regional trends. AIDS became a disaster in Africa, the thinking goes, because Africans didn’t know how to deal with it.

Economists like me don’t trust that argument. We assume everyone is fundamentally alike; we believe circumstances, not culture, drive people’s decisions, including decisions about sex and disease.

I’ve studied the epidemic from that perspective. I’m one of the few people who have done so. And I’ve learned that a lot of what we’ve been told about it is wrong. Below are three things the world needs to know about AIDS in Africa.

I can’t recommend the article enough, as Ms. Oster explains the HIV crisis in Africa in terms at least as plausible as any prevailing theory. It just might be possible that believing the future will be worth living encourages people to make better choices. If that’s correct, circumcision won’t make the difference in Africa that its proponents hope. Again, we must ask ourselves whether solving the problem is more important than addressing it with a preferred solution. Accurate assumptions are vital.

Sticking with today’s theme

If the topic wasn’t so serious and offensive, I’d be laughing at this ridiculous assertion:

In order to support countries or institutions that decide to scale up male circumcision services, WHO, the UNAIDS Secretariat and their partners are developing:

  • technical guidance on ethical, rights-based, clinical and programmatic approaches to male circumcision;

Neither the WHO nor UNAIDS recognizes any ethical or rights-based argument against male circumcision. It would take a gullible person to believe either organization will suddenly find truth from this announcement by the NIH.

Key Word Omission Watch – Blogs

Continuing with the series, here’s a look at what bloggers are saying. I will excerpt some relevant passages, since blogs allow for commentary instead of the “reporting” offered by news media.

First, from Queerty:

The studies have yet to delve into the dark world of anal sex. Reseachers [sic] from John Hopkins University are currently looking into a relationship between the controversial female circumcision and viral exposure.

Want to guess how well that study will go over if the data supports a preventative effect for female circumcision? If the effect is the same and no one supports changing the Female Genital Mutilation Act to let parents circumcise their daughters, everyone now promoting circumcision of male infants as an HIV preventative is at best a hypocrite. Of course, they’re already hypocrites if they believe male circumcision should be legal and female circumcision should be illegal. HIV makes no difference.

Continue reading “Key Word Omission Watch – Blogs”

Key Word Omission Watch – News

I predicted this a few hours ago, but I claim no credit for something so obvious. I want to highlight some of the ignorance and irresponsibility in reporting the NIH’s announcement on circumcision, which includes Adult Male Circumcision … in the title. I’m going to report the headlines from news media (including press releases and derivations), since that’s the extent of what I suspect most people willing to circumcise will read. It’s the key word, so it should be in every headline. Without further ado:

Continue reading “Key Word Omission Watch – News”

Key Word Omission Watch

Uh-oh:

Circumcising adult men is an effective way to limit transmission of the virus that causes AIDS. The National Institutes of Health announced today that two clinical trials in Africa have been stopped because an independent monitoring board determined the treatment was so effective that it would be unethical to continue the experiment.

“We now have confirmation — from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials —showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. “While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse.”

The key word here should be obvious: adult. Ultimately, I don’t care if adult men want to make less-than-optimal choices for themselves regarding circumcision. Personal responsibility (condoms, monogamy, etc.) are much more effective at preventing HIV infection. Adult circumcision is consistent with my position (body, his rights), regardless of the wisdom involved in the adult male’s choice. People should retain the right to be stupid with their own body.

The predictable outcome, though, is that the word adult will inevitably drop out of the article as it’s picked up by other news outlets and blogs. Parents will think that it’s good enough for adults, so better to save their children now. In a worse development, by promoting an idea outside of its legitimate scope, the government will continue its complicity in the unnecessary and unethical surgical alteration of children. The legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals, not encourage parents to violate the rights of their children.

The often-overlooked details, as evidenced by this paragraph, shows how selective information can derail the best of intentions:

This finding appears to apply only to heterosexual transmission which is the main mode of spread in Africa. Officials estimate that at least 25 million people in Africa are currently infected with the AIDS virus.

Both studies undertaken so far apply only to heterosexual transmission. What’s missing here is the key component, that the study investigated female-to-male transmission. Female-to-male is the least common involving men. When someone says circumcision offers a 48% or a 53% reduction in infection, keep in mind that the benefit only applies to a small percentage of the risk. Absolute numbers matter. Women will still become infected. Gay men will still become infected. Straight men will still become infected. There is no immunity. Personal responsibility still matters more.

The findings are useful for scientific progress, given that everyone involved volunteered. But consent is still the primary ingredient. It is absent in America in the overwhelming majority of circumcisions. Those who use this announcement to perpetuate circumcision against non-consenting, sexually inactive infants participate in violating every circumcised child’s rights. That is wrong, no matter the potential protection against HIV.

Merit is not fixed at birth.

There is nothing that government can’t achieve, if we funnel more money and social equality into addressing so-called problems:

One of the most important things that government could do to reduce drug use, fight the obesity epidemic and deal with a host of other youth problems is quite simple: Include more kids in organized after-school sports.

But to do that, we must first make some major changes in interscholastic sports programs in the nation’s public middle and high schools. The goal should be full inclusion: Nobody gets cut from the team.

The essay is bad, with little that is practical or desirable. But there are two points that get lost in this recommendation. First, kids in organized sports use drugs. I recall this from my one year of high school baseball, but it’s not a leap to realize that kids in sports are still kids. Kids make bad choices. Maybe lack of participation in sports plays a role in increasing drug use, but I want evidence before accepting it as truth. It’s dumb to throw more money at something with hope that it’ll fix what we’ve only assumed.

To the second point, there are other outlets for organized sports, but the school team carries greater weight. I agree. Yet, merit is vital as a measuring stick for kids. I wanted to be on the baseball team in high school, but I wasn’t good enough to play beyond one season. That was tough, but I dealt with it by working hard to improve. If I’d known I would make the team, I would’ve had no incentive to practice. Toss in this suggested implementation strategy and there is little reason to care:

To ensure that schools would field the most competitive teams, the most skilled players would still get the bulk of the playing time at the varsity level. But no one would be cut.

Pardon me for disagreeing, but I never wanted to sit when I played organized sports. As a kid, I’d rather play for a losing team than watch from the bench as a good team wins. I even skipped a season of Little League as a kid because I knew I wouldn’t get to play much. The effort involved to practice with the team only to watch other kids play would not have been worth the minor payoff of being included. I played catch and practiced with my brother to play the game.

I coached Little League one season. I made a rule in the beginning of the season that playing was more important than winning. Every kid would play an equal amount of time, regardless of skill or the score of the game. I communicated this at the first practice. When the season was over, every kid had played the same number of innings. We didn’t win much, but the kids played together as a team as the season progressed. They helped each other and the team played better every week.

I wouldn’t implement such a policy in business, but extracurricular activities is not business. Kids are smart enough to understand who has more (and less) talent. What that team found out was that every kid could develop the talent he or she had, no matter how limited or expansive. Isn’t that more important for kids than being included on the periphery?

Instead of spending more money so that everyone (allegedly) feels good about themselves, communities should address the problem with an approach open to the best solution. It should not flow from a preferred political outcome. If involvement is so important with sports, and I believe it is, kids need an environment where they know their efforts will be rewarded. Merit is a vital measuring stick, regardless of how abundant that talent is, but it’s measured individually as much as it is collectively.