The Ethics of Vanity, Part II

This should raise ethical questions, but instead, it raises questions of market valuation:

Sadly, my hairline is receding, so my interest was easily piqued when I came across Intercytex (LSE: ICX), a small UK biotech which is developing a promising treatment for hair loss.
…

At 88p, Intercytex is valued at £49m, and I don’t think you can justify that valuation on hair loss alone. However, the company is also developing three skin treatments. All of them are based on cells taken from a baby’s foreskin. Intercytex uses about one foreskin a year and replicates cells from that original piece of skin.

The most advanced skin product is ICX-PRO which is for the treatment of chronic “hard to heal” wounds. PRO is a matrix containing cells which promote wound healing. It’s easier to use than current treatments as well as being cheaper and faster to manufacture.

The story isn’t about the treatment itself, or the science behind it, so there’s little information to allow for proper judgment. Similar to my earlier statement, the now foreskin-free boy is unlikely to receive compensation for his contribution lost foreskin. Yet, there is a potential commercial product built around its removal. Even if he did receive compensation, or at least his foreskin needed to be removed (unlikely), that does not sweep aside the ethical reality. Only the boy can make the decision of foreskin versus contributing to science and industry, even if profit is involved for himself.

The utilitarian argument surrounding how many people he might help is irrelevant, but Western culture doesn’t care about irrelevancy. But what does the company squeeze into its utilitarian worldview? Of the two products the article does not mention, ICX-SKN and ICX-RHY, ICX-RHY is for facial rejuvenation. Consider:

ICX-RHY is a novel facial rejuvenation product designed to enhance the skin’s collagen support matrix, thus enabling the appearance of facial wrinkles and folds to be improved. It aims to provide a more youthful appearance, helping to combat the cosmetic effects of aging.

ICX-RHY comprises allogeneic, collagen-secreting human dermal fibroblasts (HDFs) presented in a sterile suspension. It is injected intradermally into the affected area using local anaesthesia. A straightforward and minimally invasive procedure – each injection will deliver a minute volume of ICX-RHY. The benefit is expected to become apparent once injected HDFs have begun to lay down new collagen within the dermis. This effect is expected to be sustained, providing long-term enhancement of the facial appearance. It is anticipated that repeat administrations will be given as required.

I’m well-read in the offensive reasons people circumcise their children, but I’m perpetually stunned by the offensive reasons people will use the suffering of another to help themselves. It’s okay for a child to lose his foreskin so that older, vain people can look a little younger? It’s okay to inject a product derived from the healthy-but-amputated anatomy of an infant? And the selling point is that the facial injection is minimally invasive? I hope to always be stunned by such asinine disregard for logic.

Not surprising is this: If you search for the word foreskin on the Intercytex website, your result will tell you that there are no results. I wonder why.

I lost my job today

Not really, but if I had, I wouldn’t want these people looking out for me:

At Wal-Mart these days, snowy weather is no longer an excuse for lateness. It had better be a natural disaster like a hurricane or blizzard. And being 10 minutes or more tardy for work three times will earn you a demerit. Too many of those could get you fired.
…

“After a year of adopting antifamily policy after antifamily policy, Wal-Mart adds further insult to injury by adopting a new restrictive attendance policy that treats hard-working associates like children while penalizing them if, God forbid, they face a child or friend with a medical emergency,” said Chris Kofinis, a spokesman at WakeUpWalmart.com.

The group is set to hold its first-ever national conference call with Wal-Mart employees and civil rights leaders Thursday to discuss the latest move as well as other recent labor changes.

Civil rights leaders? What am I missing? But is Wal-Mart treating employees like children any more than labor unions treat employees like children? Under labor union thinking, employees are not capable of negotiating their own wages. Employees are not capable of resisting so-called oppressive rules. Employees are not capable of providing for their own healthcare needs. Employees are not capable of providing for their own retirement. Just like government, labor unions are no more interested in the rights (used loosely here) of workers than the lack of care they allege Wal-Mart fosters. This is little more than a ploy to be the employment central planner they believe Wal-Mart is.

But is Wal-Mart in complete control?

Mike Turner, who resigned three weeks ago as assistant manager of a Wal-Mart store in Crosby, Tex., said he was briefed about the changes by his bosses earlier this fall. He said that under the old policy, managers would approve excuses on a case-by-case basis, but the 800 number eliminates such “human interaction.”

“I believe in being fair,” he said, noting he personally approved plenty of situations that made a worker late like flooding or a car breaking down. “What can you tell a good associate that you are going to discipline because of a system that goes against human interaction?” he asked.

It’s easy enough to focus on “a system that goes against human interaction.” Instead, focus on “resigned three weeks ago.” That’s the true right of the worker. If something is unfair – whether wages, benefits, or leave policy – employment is not slavery. But it is up to the employee to demand and earn what she wants as it is for the employer to provide what’s fair demanded by the market. It only takes one party to institute a bad policy, but it takes two to perpetuate it.

Focus on the Family Misdirection

James Dobson has an impenetrable defense against recent criticisms by former Representative Dick Armey. I haven’t followed the battle closely, other than to read a few statements by Mr. Armey, so I’m not informed enough to challenge any of the direct criticisms. I suspect I could probably flesh out a rough response and be close. Happily, though, Dobson’s response doesn’t require any such knowledge. Who isn’t persuaded by this?

Armey has also implied that I am among those who favor “big government,” which is equally absurd. Anyone who knows anything about me or the organization I head, Focus on the Family, is aware that we support limited federal government consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers.
…

The onus is on Armey to find a single spoken or written word that will document his claim that I am among the tax-and-spend liberals, but none exists. He can search, but he will find none. To the contrary, I served in 1986 as co-chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Committee for Tax Reform, calling for serious reductions in federal taxation.

I hope no one falls for this, although I know many will. Dobson is clearly bending the definition of “big government” to fit his needs. Perhaps he is against tax-and-spend policies. It doesn’t matter. Anyone with a pulse understands that Mr. Armey used “big government” to imply anyone who supports unnecessary, and often times unconstitutional, intrusion into the daily lives of Americans. Sometimes that involves economic policies, but it is a lie to pretend that a push for government intrusion into social life is somehow support for limited federal government consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers.

More fun with language:

Armey has also claimed that I opposed a trade bill that would have granted Most Favored Nation status for China, stating that I was motivated, “not by a moral compass but by the desire to increase my ‘membership and revenue.'”

What an insult! I have never taken a dime of salary from Focus on the Family in 29 years, and the organization itself has never compromised its values to enhance contributions. As for my opposition to this bill, China is a totalitarian country which was (and still is) restricting religious freedom and imprisoning many of its people who are simply practicing their faith. I had seen actual videos of prisoners being executed and then gruesomely dismembered.

Surely Dobson understands that the revenue of his organization and his own personal income are distinct items, and the Mr. Armey specifically referred to the former. This is important, as Dobson no doubt understands, because he could use increased revenue to throw his organization behind his definitely-limited-and-not-big government ideals to lobby for political action. This is a simple concept that Dobson surely understands. How conservatives respond to such ridiculous statements will be instructive.

Why not give them the company?

More signs of dinosaurs protecting their territory using the power of government.

A music industry group is asking XM Satellite Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. to pay at least 10 percent of their revenues for the right to play songs over their networks.

Unlike land-based radio stations, which pay royalties only to songwriters and music publishers, federal law requires satellite radio, digital cable and Internet companies that broadcast music to pay the artists and record companies.

The two subscription satellite radio companies have been paying about 6.5 to 7 percent, analysts estimate, although the figures are not publicly disclosed. That agreement expires at the end of this year, and the Copyright Royalty Board, an arm of the Library of Congress, will determine the rates the companies pay for the next six years.

Why is there a federal law for satellite radio, digital cable, and Internet companies? Maybe there’s a valid reason for such a difference, but I can’t think of one that appeals to common sense. And why are rates decided by the government, rather than negotiated in the marketplace? It would make more sense to find the true market value of those rights than to have the government decide what they should be. Letting the market decide would allow companies to create new distribution and pricing models that might prove more beneficial to the music industry.

Besides could the market work faster than this?

The Copyright Royalty Board will hold hearings before it decides on new rates, a process that many say could take 18 months. Until then, XM and Sirius will continue to pay the current rates. If an increase is approved, they will be required to pay the difference retroactively.

Without regulation forcing capitalism out of the equation, no such structure would survive the pressures of competition.

Some things are worth paying for

I rarely post items Instapundit-style, with a link and a Heh. Such aggregation of links can be useful, but my interest drifts quickly because the information is out there for me to find almost as quickly. Instead, I want insight or commentary. I like for people to offer me a perspective to ponder, which is another reason I like reading things I disagree with. But this post at Cato @ Liberty is worth mentioning, even though I can only add my own Read the whole thing.

The Fraser Institute of Vancouver, B.C., has released its 16th annual “Waiting Your Turn” report on waiting times for health care in Canada’s state-run Medicare system. The average wait for surgical and therapeutic services increased slightly over the 2005 average to less than one day shy of their all-time high of 17.9 weeks in 2004. Throwing more money at the system doesn’t seem to make a difference; the Frazer Institute has documented that waiting times often increase with increased spending on Canada’s Medicare program.

National healthcare or insurance is not the answer, no matter how many pleas we hear about the expense of our system or how many people don’t have adequate health insurance. The Cato post doesn’t offer a solution, but it demonstrates why our problem is a better problem than countries now dealing with the drawbacks of socialized medicine.

Bigot-Bigot Bigot Amendment

Delegate Robert Marshall co-sponsored the proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that voters will likely pass next Tuesday. In his determination to show that he really isn’t a bigot, he included a nice bit in his latest newsletter. I’ve scanned the original for proof, but a few thoughts are warranted, so I’ve transcribed the text.

Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment

This November citizens will be able to vote for Del. Marshall’s proposed Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage as the union of one-man and one-woman. In four states (MD, MA, VT, and HI) courts have, on their own and without legislative input or sanction, granted same sex couples the legal authority to “marry” or enter into “Marriage lite,” i.e., a civil union.

One-man and One-woman. [sic] and [sic]. Del. Marshall can’t grasp the English language, yet he’s qualified to propose a wordy amendment that goes beyond his stated goal of banning what’s already been banned twice by Virginia. This will go well. Of course, I’m sure he wishes he could have this newsletter back to amend New Jersey into his parenthetical proof that Virginia’s courts will catch The Gay. Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland. It’s spreading south, can’t we see?

But the ability to register to vote, enter a contract, have a joint bank account, write a will, buy a house with a friend, start a business, receive job benefits from an employer, designate a friend to carry out advance medical directives, or the right to be free from assault belong to any competent adult. These rights do not derive from marriage or a legal relationship approximating marriage, and are not altered by the Marriage Amendment.

So, if these rights – excuse me, “abilities” – are still in effect, in spite of the wording of the proposed amendment, why do we need this amendment? Again, two laws against same-sex marriage already exist in Virginia, as well as the indefensible-yet-still-accepted federal DOMA. Same-sex marriage isn’t coming to Virginia any time soon, amendment or not. That leaves one explanation, which is quite unbecoming of an elected official. But maybe Del. Marshall can save himself with an example.

When Massachusetts parents objected to a public school requiring their second graders to read a story with pictures about two princes who “marry,” the school said, “We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them … decides their child should be removed. [This community] is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.”

Bonus libertarian points if you’ve already figured out what I’m going to say about this paragraph. Ready? Is this paragraph support for a bigoted marriage amendment, or would it be better support for eliminating the public provision of education? Without public provisioning, parents could send their children to whichever school sells their preferred bigotry, if that pleases them. Instead, Del. Marshall believes we should all be sold bigotry, in the Virginia Bill of Reduced-at-the-Whim-of-the-Majority Rights, no less. Del. Marshall seems to be on the wrong side of (at least) two issues. Let’s bump that to three, just for fun, since it’s clear he favors mob rule over republicanism.

The Amendment reads:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Remember, Del. Marshall says no rights will be eliminated because they do not derive from marriage. So why do we need the second paragraph in the amendment, in as much as we (don’t) need any of it? I’m trying to draw a conclusion other than bigotry, but I can’t.

I like alien radio. Here’s why.

Witness the actions of a dinosaur:

The radio wars are escalating. In a one-two punch aimed at enlisting regulators to their cause, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and National Public Radio want the Federal Communications Commission to investigate alleged misdeeds by satellite radio companies XM (XMSR) and Sirius (SIRI).
…

In its second claim, the NAB contends that XM and Sirius shouldn’t be allowed to give away their products for free to new car buyers or online. Last week, Sirius streamed Howard Stern’s program for free on its Web site.

The NAB argues that such freebies ought to subject satellite radio to the same FCC regulations as those governing terrestrial radio. That likely would trigger restrictions, for example, on language and other racy content.

If you can’t beat them, force them to join you? I don’t recall learning that maxim in business school. Yet, that’s exactly the perversity unleashed by regulation. The NAB’s members roll over and play dead every time the FCC yells Bang!, so it expects satellite broadcasters to do the same. They’re imbeciles. People don’t have to consume satellite radio, even when it’s free. They don’t have to consume terrestrial radio, either, which is what the NAB seems to miss in bowing before legislators instead of customers.

I won’t be surprised if the FCC takes action, though XM and Sirius will clearly fight back if it does since they’re businesses are on the line. But the NAB’s complaint leads to an obvious, and chilling, conclusion. If we’re going to take its claim as valid, that would open every podcaster to FCC regulation if he allows his customers to download his podcast for free. I’ll take my liberty in maximum strength tablets, not children’s chewables. Liberty for all, including customers.

News flash: Politicians abuse the Constitution when left alone

I’ll believe this when I see it:

If Democrats gain the 15 seats they need to win control of the House — and most analysts think they will — one of the first things the new House will do is restrict or end outright a slew of lobbying practices.

In a little-publicized statement, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader, has promised to change the chamber’s rules to reflect the provisions of her not-so-modestly-named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. The months-old measure would, among other things, prohibit House members from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists or from organizations that employ lobbyists.

Such a reform will be admirable, and an obvious path, given the propensity our current representatives have to whore out the American people for a few extra dollars. But politicians are still politicians, whether they’re riding the bigot wave of the last few years or the reform wave many now believe will occur next Tuesday. I’m still not sold, because too many voters don’t think. Even limited success by Sen. George Allen on the absurd accusation he’s directed at Jim Webb provide enough proof that voters simply look for excuses to vote in a pre-determined manner.

However, this explanation is the meat of this story:

Congress has come close to reining in lobbyists before, and it wound up doing nothing of the kind. Several of the proposals in Pelosi’s bill (H.R. 4682, for you wonks out there) were wending their way through the system but died after lawmakers concluded — incorrectly, it turned out — that voters didn’t care much about congressional “corruption.” Pelosi’s bill, with small modifications, was tested in the House and lost by just three votes.

The problem here is that Congress seems to think that corruption is okay as long as the voters don’t care about it. That’s the same logic that allows legislators to target gays, stirring up animosity and fear to win votes. All around in politics, we’re willing to only inhabit a ridiculous low. We shouldn’t need a scandal to do what’s right. That we wait until there is such a scandal further demonstrates why limited government is the best strategy.

Guilty until proven innocent, unless married

She doesn’t mention same-sex marriage, but the timing of this editorial by Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, is interesting enough to make it a reasonable consideration here. I won’t address it directly, because she doesn’t, but assume when I mention marriage I intend that to include same-sex marriage. I hope the reason will be clear.

For the first time in history, less than half of U.S. households are headed by married couples. And on Sept. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that almost 36 percent of all births are the result of unmarried childbearing, the highest percentage ever recorded.

In family law, as in the rest of American society, there is an intensifying debate about how we should respond to this kind of news. Should law and society actively seek new ways to support marriage? Or should family law strive to be marriage-neutral by providing more rights and benefits to its alternatives, such as cohabitation and single parenthood?

We know where this is going, right? Marriage is good, for the children. Right, I’m not disagreeing, as a general assumption. But given that “the children” is the basis of the rest of this editorial, it would make more sense to ask if the goal of family law should be to best protect children. That doesn’t require the derision the Chief Justice seems to assign to her open-ended interpretation of what family law should address.

I am not a law professor. But from where I sit as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, a family law that fails to encourage marriage ignores the fact that marriage has long been associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike. Experts who contend that we need to move “beyond marriage” say they are only responding to the facts. But here is one major fact: High rates of family fragmentation hurt children.

That needs some support, right? Okay.

For example, studies have consistently shown that children raised outside marriage suffer disproportionately from physical and mental illness; are more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs or alcohol, and engage in violence or suffer it in their homes; and are less likely to attend college. Child Trends, a nonpartisan research organization summed up the evidence in 2002: “Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step-families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.”

Does that have anything to do with marriage, specifically, or is it a function of the maturity and character of the parents? If it’s the latter, marriage won’t fix that. And it’s especially useful to note the part about step-families. The Chief Justice does indicate that family law should “find ways to reduce unnecessary divorce and unmarried childbearing.” Who gets to decide what qualifies as “unnecessary divorce”? Are we really ready to equate unmarried and married to a non-biological parent? Strengthening marriage sure is strict.

I changed my mind, I will address the question of same-sex marriage directly. Her step-family analogy implies that children raised by a parent married to a same-gender spouse will face higher risks of poor outcomes. I want proof.

The Chief Justice acknowledges that single parents can and do raise children well. Great. But that is not proof that we need to “build a healthy marriage culture,” as she next states. If we get back to the assumption that family law should be designed to protect children, we’ll likely arrive at a better solution. Such an assumption would also treat parents, married or unmarried, as competent until they prove otherwise. Personal biases exist, but the law should not be designed to impose them without sufficient factual support.

In the end the Chief Justice makes a mistake that doctors often make:

As a judge I am often frustrated that I must work within a system designed only to pick up the pieces after families have already fallen apart or failed to come together. We must work to prevent family fragmentation, because the consequences for children and society are severe.

Choose to be a doctor and you’ll see mostly sick people. That doesn’t mean everyone is sick. Similarly, many children show up in the court system due to unfortunate circumstances. That doesn’t mean every child with unmarried parents will end up in court. Working to reduce that case load is reasonable, but the approach should aim for what will improve their lives, not how a predetermined solution can best fix the problem. Perhaps the conclusion from the two will be the same. But there is a chance they might not be the same. The law must recognize that possibility.