The first of many needed victories

I’m anxious to read the judge’s reasoning, but this is unexpected and amazing:

In a case that has been closely watched by anti-circumcision groups nationwide, a Cook County judge today ruled that a 9-year-old Northbrook boy should not be circumcised against his will.
…

In a written opinion handed down today, Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan found that “the evidence was conflicting and inconclusive as to any past infections or irritations that may have been suffered by the child.”

“Moreover,” he continued, “this court also finds that medical evidence as provided by the testimony of the expert witnesses for each of the parties is inconclusive as to the medical benefits or non-benefits of circumcision as it relates to the 9-year-old child.”

The case was a clear victory for the growing number of so-called “intactivist¹ groups” across the country that have argued that circumcision is harmful and violates the rights of children who are not old enough to consent to the irreversible medical procedure.

Kaplan, who also cited the irreversible nature of the operation, said his order would remain in effect until the boy turns 18, when he can decide for himself whether or not he wants to be circumcised.

Finally, a dose of sanity from our court system regarding the limits of parental rights existence of a child’s rights. Granted, I suspect Judge Kaplan’s ruling is much more limited than I’d like, since the boy’s parents are divorced. If they’d agreed, this case wouldn’t happen and the boy’s rights would’ve been ignored. That societal oversight isn’t going away just because Judge Kaplan ruled correctly in this case. However, this is still great news.

Worth noting in this is something I’ve heard from pro-infant circumcision individuals. They’ll ask why I care so much about their son’s penis. The short answer is that I don’t care about his penis. I care about his rights, which I know are clearly being violated. He can’t consent and enough evidence exists to indicate that he wouldn’t consent if given the choice later in life. I’m not against circumcision, but it should be medically necessary or left to adult males to decide for themselves. As such, I don’t believe the question should be why I care so much about a boy’s penis. Instead parents should ask themselves why they care so little. He is born with a healthy, intact penis. Amputating part of it is the radical position.

¹ I’m familiar with the term intactivist. It’s cute and descriptive, but because it’s cute, I do not like it. As the article shows, it does little more than give reporters an excuse to fill in the story with details at which typical readers will roll their eyes. That’s not helpful.

Should we prosecute those who say “Boo!”?

I didn’t comment on last week’s story about the Wisconsin man who posted bogus warnings about terrorist attacks on NFL stadiums because I didn’t care enough to ramble about the obvious. But this quote in conjunction with the story amused frustrated me:

“These types of hoaxes scare innocent people, cost business resources and waste valuable homeland security resources. We cannot tolerate this Internet version of yelling fire in a crowded theater in the post-9/11 era,” said U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie in Newark, N.J., where Brahm was charged in a sealed complaint filed Thursday. One of the stadiums mentioned was Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J.

Kudos to Mr. Christie for working in a bogus use of September 11th to explain law enforcement action. (And for reciting the time-worntested example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But this recitation of the “post-9/11” talking point is only useful if we can reasonably assume that, pre-9/11, we would’ve ignored what we’re now prosecuting. Maybe we should just regulate The Internets, since we’re in the post-9/11 era. For the innocent people. The children, especially.

I might vote for myself for Senate

Skimming my hometown newspaper today, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, I found this Q&A with Sen. George Allen and James Webb, dealing with domestic issues such as Social Security, federal deficits, making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, No Child Left Behind, illegal immigration, manned space flights to the moon (huh?), and various federal and state constitutional amendments. I won’t bore anyone, most of all myself, with a recap of each position. Neither candidate is one I’d happily support. I know I won’t support Sen. Allen, but I can’t believe the Virginia’s Democratic Party can’t do better than Webb. I can’t believe I have to vote for this if I want to cast a lesser-of-two-evils protest vote. On immigration, courtesy of James Webb:

I do not support guest-worker programs. I do not believe the myth of the tech-worker shortage. Our priority as a society should be to invest in and improve domestic technical and scientific education programs so that there are enough qualified job applicants available from the pool of domestic labor. Until our borders are secure, and the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in America is resolved, guest-worker programs are counterproductive.

If the tech-worker shortage is a myth, then why does society (i.e., the federal government) need to “invest” in domestic technical and scientific education programs? There are either enough qualified domestic applicants or there aren’t. You can’t deny the latter and propose a solution to correct it. This is what Republicans mean when they complain abouot Speaker Pelosi. It’s crap, because a vote for Democrats this year is a vote to have the hacks bicker with each other rather than continuing to increase spending and reduce civil liberties. But, good lord, this is why I am not a Democrat.

Of course, Sen. Allen’s answers were no better, as a whole. That didn’t stop the Times-Dispatch from announcing its predictable support for Sen. Allen. But, really, shouldn’t they at least use facts as support?

On taxes, Allen supports making the temporary federal tax cuts permanent, including repeal of the federal estate tax. He says: “I trust free people with free enterprise.” His opponent says we cannot have permanent tax cuts in time of war (meaning he would let the temporary tax cuts expire, thus raising taxes). And he is on record as favoring higher state taxes for transportation.

That’s his famous self-proclaimed “libertarian” streak, I presume. So, that explains his support for an increase in the federal minimum wage? And why he voted for the port security bill without trying to strip out the anti-free enterprise internet gambling ban? And what about this?

The most important institution in our society is the family. For the raising of children, the ideal is to have a mother and a father. I strongly believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. In our representative democracy, the will and values of the people should be determined by the people or their elected legislatures, not activist judges who superimpose their elitist point of view legislating from the bench. I support passage of the Virginia definition of marriage to uphold the views of Virginians against activist judges. I’m a sponsor of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

And the rights of individuals should be protected by the Constitution. We can’t always get what we want, I guess. But wouldn’t civil marriage, which is a pre-defined contract blessed by the Commonwealth, be a form of free enterprise? Virginia’s proposed marriage amendment would adversely impact me, if interpreted as some believe it should be since we’re going for the whole “no judicial interpretation of something not mentioned by the words” thing?

Contrary to Sen. Allen’s belief, not all Virginians believe we’re in a cultural war with our judges. Okay, that’s not true, we are. But Sen. Allen’s side fired the first shots. That’s not the mark of a man who cares about free people, let alone free enterprise. I can do better than that with my vote, even if it’s James Webb.

This isn’t a video game

Charles Krauthammer gets it right on the issue of Japan and nuclear weapons:

Japan is a true anomaly. All the other Great Powers went nuclear decades ago — even the once-and-no-longer great, such as France; the wannabe great, such as India; and the never-will-be great, such as North Korea. There are nukes in the hands of Pakistan, which overnight could turn into an al-Qaeda state, and North Korea, a country so cosmically deranged that it reports that the “Dear Leader” shot five holes-in-one in his first time playing golf and also wrote six operas. Yet we are plagued by doubts about Japan’s joining this club.
…

The immediate effect of Japan’s considering going nuclear would be to concentrate China’s mind on denuclearizing North Korea. China calculates that North Korea is a convenient buffer between it and a dynamic, capitalist South Korea bolstered by American troops. China is quite content with a client regime that is a thorn in our side, keeping us tied down while it pursues its ambitions in the rest of Asia. Pyongyang’s nukes, after all, are pointed not west but east.

Japan’s threatening to go nuclear would alter that calculation. It might even persuade China to squeeze Kim Jong Il as a way to prevent Japan from going nuclear. The Japan card remains the only one that carries even the remote possibility of reversing North Korea’s nuclear program.

For whatever reason nuclear weapons are proliferating in East Asia (Pakistan, India, and apparently North Korea), the problem is here to stay. We must work to solutions based in present reality. Considering the only sway we have is with our allies, of whom Japan is the clear winner in Asia, we must use their power to promote stability. Rather, we mustn’t stand in the way of Japan using its power.

It would be nice if we could just make this go away, but deterrent is all we have left. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, we’re delusional if we think China is going to act in our best interest as a matter of policy. The only nations with which we hold any power to negotiate towards success are allies. We wish to persuade the Japanese from joining us as a superpower at the precise time we most need them to match us in ability.

The administration’s policy is understandable, but stuck in a worldview where we haven’t squandered our flexibility, if not our capacity for leadership. As such, it is wrong.

Ice Cream Man!!!!

I wonder if administration officials camped out at the U.S. District court to deliver this message, the way college kids camp out for tickets to the biggest game of the year?

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.

That would cause whiplash if it wasn’t so unsurprising. That sort of reminds me of this routine by Eddie Murphy:

Any guesses as to which character President Bush is? And let’s not forget what happens to his ice cream in the end.

I don’t trust either, which is why I want divided

From yesterday, two editorial essays describing what Democrats would do if elected. First, from Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post, explaining why returning the Democrats to the majority would be good:

Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they’re confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation? How large will the lame duck president loom in their calculations?

If they’re so popular, and the public is clamoring for them, how can Mr. Meyerson believe that Republicans wouldn’t try to raise at least one of those flags? Does he believe that the current GOP isn’t so shallow as to support an issue for its supposed popular appeal, regardless of its policy impact? That assumes that President Bush would even sign the legislation. I suspect he’d find his Stem Cell Research-only veto pen.

Of course, it’s worth stepping back from that and asking the more fundamental question of whether or not public policy should be set by popular demand. I hope that popular demand correlates to good policy, but it doesn’t. That makes majoritarian arguments unacceptable.

Next, from Mallory Factor of the Free Enterprise Fund, explaining why returning the Democrats to the majority would be bad:

Next, let’s look at spending. One has to admit that the Republicans have given into the spending temptation, too, in the last few years. But the answer is structural reform to fight Congressional earmarks, not a change in party control. Rep. Pelosi suggests that most new spending would be “pay as you go.” At first, this sounds good, with its hint of not adding new government programs until we can afford them. But “pay as you go” really means “pay before passing go”—and certainly don’t collect any $300 tax refund checks as with the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Rep. Pelosi would be much more convincing on spending if her party had not already proposed $90 billion in new government spending, even before it takes control of the House. The only way to “pay as you go” and fund these programs is for “you” (the taxpayer) to “pay” more. That’s why Rep. Rangel has to say that middle class tax increases have to be considered, too—just raising taxes on the rich won’t pay for everything.

Who will enact this structural reform? The current GOP? Please. And Rep. Pelosi’s spending increases still must pass the president’s desk before we need to worry about her “pay as you go” theory. And does Mr. Factor really believe that the $300 refund check was fiscally responsible, as opposed to political opportunism?

For fun, consider this one extra bit of wishful thinking:

With $90 billion in spending proposals, and 12 years out of power, can we really believe that Democrats will turn on a dime to become the party of spending restraint? Instead, let’s hope that this year’s near-death experience for the Republicans will help keep them focused on cutting government spending and keeping taxes low.

Let’s assume the Republicans might discover fiscal restraint, just for giggles. The word keep in Mr. Factor’s prayer is an interesting choice. For this year’s near-death experience to keep them focused on cutting government spending, they would have to already be focused on it. Who believes that, other than partisans more interested in keeping power than fiscal restraint.

Both sides are wrong, regardless of how they got there. Giving us popular spending won’t help our mess, and arguing that we’re bad, but they’re worse is dumb. Neither party should have complete control. Ever.

I forget that private property is public property

I’ve experienced this before:

Rose Rock, the mother of comedian Chris Rock, claims she was racially discriminated against when she was seated but ignored for a half hour at a Cracker Barrel restaurant along the South Carolina coast.

Of course, I considered it bad service, not discrimination. I find it better to leave than linger. Or to sue.

Rock said Tuesday she planned to sue the Lebanon, Tenn.-based company. A Cracker Barrel spokeswoman said the restaurant chain was investigating and taking the complaint “very seriously.”

If the company did discriminate against her because she’s black, that’s despicable. She should publicize it, given that she has the press access of being Chris Rock’s mother. But sue? Why? Cracker Barrel is a private business, and should be free to refuse service, even if it plays the game of seating a customer.

From Richard Bach’s The Bridge Across Forever, describing his reaction to diner displaying a “We reserve the right to refuse service” sign:

You reserve the right to do absolutely anything you want to do, I thought. Why put up signs to say so? Makes you look frightened. Why are you frightened?

Ms. Rock reserves the right to sue. And I reserve the right to laugh when she fails. If she fails. If not, I reserve the right to sigh at our legal system.

Traditional marriage would decrease marriage

La Shawn Barber has an entry today about outing closeted public officials. It’s a topic worth considering, but a passage in the middle caught my attention.

… When I say I don’t care who people sleep with, I mean it…as long as it’s not in my face. Keep your business to yourself, and don’t define yourself by or try to turn your bedroom activities into a political cause. But that is what the homosexual agenda is about. Two to three percent of the population, people whose sexual orientation got mixed up somehow — genetically, environmentally, or how ever — want to flip the culture upside, demand special rights, and tell the rest of us how to think. It won’t work with me.

I read Ms. Barber’s blog because she’s intelligent and I agree with almost nothing she writes. Reading opposing views helps me flesh out my ideas and beliefs. I don’t see this issue as gay Americans fighting for special rights based on their sexual orientation. They are asking for the equal recognition of their rights by our government. It’s that simple. If they’re right, and I think they are, it doesn’t matter if that flips the culture upside, causes a few minor blips, or results in a collective yawn. Rights are inherent, not granted by the majority (telling the minority how to think).

More to the point, turn your bedroom activities into a political cause is not exclusive to gays within the realm of marriage. With accusations that gays have done that by asking for their right to marry, supporters of “traditional” marriage have turned their (heterosexual) bedroom activities into a political cause. Just yesterday, I posted a quote from a gentleman who claimed that marriage is about procreation. If that’s truly the case as it surely must be with a push for “traditional” marriage, then the freedom that heterosexuals maintain to marry anyone they please is unjustifiably broad. If this is the legitimate standard, we must begin reducing the right to marry to those who may create children. No one else would hold the right to state-sanctioned civil marriage. Or to procreation outside of marriage, if we want to be consistent in our defining our rights by some standard of values.

For example, my grandmother became engaged recently. She’ll be married with the full sanction of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet, I reasonably assume that she is beyond her child-bearing years. Some other criteria must be at work. Love? Happiness? What is it? Are those enough, since she will have no more children? Whatever it is, surely gay Americans possess the same capacity and desire to exercise this fundamental right.

Any color you want, as long as we like it

Our government certainly creates issues with the way it inserts itself into commerce, but the European Commission’s involvement with Microsoft puts our central planners to shame:

The European Commission has said it will “closely monitor” the impact of Microsoft’s soon-to-be-launched Vista operating system on the market.
…

But in a statement the EC said that while it has been “informed” of Microsoft’s plans it has not given a “green light” to Vista’s delivery because “Microsoft must shoulder its own responsibilities to ensure that Vista is fully compliant with EC Treaty competition rules and in particular with the principles laid down in the March 2004 Commission antitrust decision concerning Microsoft”.

I’m sure Microsoft will be presumed innocent of any anti-socialist behavior until the EC proves that Microsoft is breaking the rules. I’m not serious about that belief because the phrase I highlighted says everything. (The rest is instructive, as well.) In a free market, which Europe clearly isn’t, customers get to decide if they like a company’s product. Instead, the EC stands in the way telling Europeans whether or not they’re allowed to like it. The European Commission is stupid.