The post where I praise the Bush Administration

This is wonderful news:

The Bush administration has decided to end its funding of a groundbreaking program that has sought to curb the spread of HIV by offering subsidized circumcisions to men in Swaziland.

A statement issued Thursday night by the U.S. Agency for International Development said that it had only recently learned of the program and that it violated government policy supporting study of circumcision but not services offering the procedure.
…

In its statement, USAID said the funding “should not have occurred, and there will be no further circumcisions performed with U.S. Government funds until the PEPFAR Scientific Steering Committee reviews data from ongoing clinical trials and considers any recommendations on male circumcision from the normative international Agencies.” PEPFAR is the Bush anti-AIDS program.

According to the article taxpayer money only paid for adult circumcisions. That makes me happier less angry, but barely. I’m not sure where funding AIDS prevention in Africa falls within the Constitutional responsibilities granted to the United States government, but that’s not my issue. I’m not going to approach the scientific implications, either. I’m still not denying them; I just don’t believe they’re enough for the reasons I’ve explained in the past.

I applaud this primarily because I don’t believe circumcision is the most effective HIV prevention for the Third World. Economic development would have a far greater impact. Clean water would have a far greater impact. If we’re going to be involved, we need to set the foundation for allowing these men (and women) to help themselves. They need some hope that engaging in safer sex will result in a better life, a life with opportunity.

This means no longer propping up corrupt dictators who squander our foreign aid. That’s easily said, and I accept that. The details, which I haven’t provided beyond the most basic form, are important. But it seems obvious that we need to remove diseased regimes. Removing healthy foreskins only hides the symptoms.

This fails my ethics test

Related to Saturday’s post on the use of discarded foreskins, consider:

… Dr Indira Hinduja once again became the first Indian scientist to use human feeder layer as medium to develop three human embryonic stem cell lines.
…

“We conduct our research strictly adhering to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines and the embryos are taken for research with the full consent of both the husband and wife and are documented legally,” she said.

“We also take the necessary consent of the parents as well as the surgeons concerned for the human feeder as they are taken from foreskin when the circumcision is done in children between new born and up to five years”, Hinduja said.

I can think of considerations that would make this less troublesome, but they’re unlikely, so I will ignore them here. Guidelines are good, though, and acknowledging the use of the discarded foreskin through a consent form is commendable. However, whose consent is missing from this equation?

Consumers make different, rational choices

Thanks for studying the obvious:

One of the lures of the outer suburbs is more house — maybe even one with a big yard — for less money. But a new study shows that the savings are illusory: The costs of longer commutes are so high that they can outweigh the cheaper mortgage payments.

When Danielle and I bought our house last summer, we specifically considered the impact of living in an outer suburb because we’re intelligent. First, the difference in price was significantly more than the $40,000 to $50,000 listed in the article. Second, the economic impact does not have to include getting in my automobile. Public transportation is still an option for me, and I considered in our decision. Of course, I could also change jobs to live closer to home if they commute becomes burdensome. That’s three factors. How many more could I name if I tried?

The Washington Post story includes this:

Moving closer to their jobs is out, Hannah said, because “there is no way we could move into an equivalent three-bedroom house for the same amount,” she said. “We don’t want to downsize and give up a yard, for instance.”

That suggests a willingness to pay the associated cost of having a large house and yard on a specific budget, namely, higher commuting costs (economic and lifestyle). Bottom line: Buyers aren’t stupid. Don’t bombard us with studies implying that we might be.

The initial assumption was reasonable. The explanation was not.

Note: This is the entry I originally wrote about yesterday’s plane crash in New York. The quotes are no longer in the linked article, but I’ve excerpted them as they appeared yesterday afternoon.

———-

It makes sense to consider all possibilities when an aircraft strikes a building, but it can also reveal the absurdity of our thought process and reactions to terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke with Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.) to assure him there is “no credible” threat “to the homeland,” a statement from the department said.

Has any statement in recent memory better attached the dangerous implication of the term homeland to the word? Referring to America as America is reasonable and accurate. Homeland remains absurd and dangerously militaristic.

Also in the story:

“We’ve been in contact with all of our intelligence partners, coalition partners around the world . . . and there are no — repeat, no — indications that there is anything underfoot beyond this one” aircraft, [NORAD commander, Adm. Timothy J.] Keating said. He added: “We reserve the right to exercise our capabilities, which is what we have done here.“

Why state this? Who believes that we don’t have the right to respond if terrorism strikes? Saying as much makes you us look pompous and insecure. Stop it.

This should be an episode of House, M.D.

I went vegetarian in early ’94 (vegan in ’02) for its potential health benefits. The animal rights/ethics implication mattered little, as I was mostly unaware. Health reasons still dominate, but the disturbing callousness with which we disregard animals as sentient beings is enough to keep me vegan on the unlikely chance I falter in my dedication. Consider Exhibit A, the E-Z Catch Chicken Harvester:

I don’t expect any mass abandonment of meat as a food item in my lifetime, but who can watch that and consider it the mark of a civilized society?

Following that line of thought, how does this story read in the animal rights context?:

[Dr. Jennifer] Eddy is one of many doctors to recently rediscover honey as medicine. Abandoned with the advent of antibiotics in the 1940s and subsequently disregarded as folk quackery, a growing set of clinical literature and dozens of glowing anecdotes now recommend it.

Most tantalizingly, honey seems capable of combating the growing scourge of drug-resistant wound infections, especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, the infamous flesh-eating strain. These have become alarmingly more common in recent years, with MRSA alone responsible for half of all skin infections treated in U.S. emergency rooms. So-called superbugs cause thousands of deaths and disfigurements every year, and public health officials are alarmed.

Though the practice is uncommon in the United States, honey is successfully used elsewhere on wounds and burns that are unresponsive to other treatments. Some of the most promising results come from Germany’s Bonn University Children’s Hospital, where doctors have used honey to treat wounds in 50 children whose normal healing processes were weakened by chemotherapy.

I’m sure there are vegans who could argue against such a use as animal exploitation; I am not one of them. I don’t think I’m prone to relying on any sort of relativism to justify some things while denouncing others (example), but this is fine with me, if it works. Although there is a price, preventing disability and death is a clear benefit.

For more on honey from a vegan perspective, read this, including its fuzzy (and stringent) indications of how honey might be ethically harvested. For more on MRSA, read this again.

Video link found at Boing Boing

Remembering Cory Lidle

I had another entry written about the plane crash into an apartment building in New York today, but I’m not going to post it now. Critiquing a few government terrorism quotes can wait.

Cory Lidle, the plane’s pilot, played for the Phillies until July 30th. As a phan I watched him pitch during the last couple of years, and grew to appreciate his game. He was never flashy or overwhelming on the mound, but every time he pitched, everyone knew the outcome before the game. He’d inevitably make a quality start, which is six innings or more with three or fewer earned runs. Generally that meant exactly six innings and three runs. He’d win some and lose some that way, as it’s not dominant, but he almost always kept his team in the game. He was a solid pitcher.

I last saw him pitch against the Blue Jays in Toronto on July 1st. I joked ahead of time that he’d give up three runs in six innings. Through five, he’d pitched a shutout, and I was “worried” that I wouldn’t be prophetic. Lidle didn’t disappoint. With one out, he gave up two quick home runs to plate three runs. He took care of the final two batters with ease. Six innings, three runs. He was automatic. It might seem like I’m putting him down, but I intend that as a compliment. Baseball is a game of uncertainty. That little extra certainty lets his teammates know what they need to accomplish.

He didn’t leave Philadelphia on the best terms, but I never cared about the politics of his team dynamic with the Phillies. That was for those directly involved to worry about. As a phan, I could only value what happened on the field. I liked him enough given his performance that I’d hoped the Phillies could keep him. (He would’ve been a free agent after the World Series.) Brian Cashman, General Manager of the Yankees, demanded Lidle to complete the trade for Bobby Abreu with the Phillies. Needing to trade Abreu for salary reasons, the Phillies agreed. That, I think, speaks most about his abilities.

More thoughts at Beer Leaguer and Balls, Sticks, & Stuff

Who knew that leveraging personal assets can be bad?

From Robert Samuelson’s column in today’s Washington Post:

We are at the endgame for housing. Until recently our national motto has been “In real estate we trust.” Just last week the Census Bureau reported that median home prices after inflation rose 32 percent from 2000 to 2005. In some places, the gains were huge: 127 percent in San Diego, 110 percent in Los Angeles and 79 percent in New York. But real estate — which has acted as a national piggy bank, with homeowners borrowing and spending against rising house prices — no longer looks so trustworthy. On this, more than on falling oil prices or a record Dow, hangs the economy’s immediate fate.

Americans used real estate as a national credit card, not a national piggy bank. I don’t like it because it hurts the value of my home through the cumulative effect, but anyone stupid enough to borrow and spend against rising house prices will see no sympathy from me now that the market is finished with this boom. Some expenditures are necessary and probably unforeseen, but many are not. Until sold, though, no home provides any guaranteed value. Homeowners have one house, not $500,000.

As an example, I want an Xbox 360. Standing in my way, my current employment contract expires at the end of the year. I fully expect to have a new contract in place in time to avoid a revenue disruption, but until then, I’ll settle for a frustrating case of adolescent pining. Even when Call of Duty 3 arrives in stores next month, I’ll have to settle for standard definition instead of high definition. That’s if I purchase the game before securing a new contract.

The rest of Mr. Samuelson’s column is reasonable.

Defending the intrusive with the obvious

From the Department of Duh comes this study:

A Scottish study looking at the changes in bar workers’ health before and after a smoking ban finds that the reduction in second-hand smoke improved the workers’ lung function, reduced the amount of nicotine in their systems, and reduced their inflammation levels. According to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, both asthmatic and non-asthmatic workers benefited from the smoke-free working environment, and improvements in health measured occurred in as little as one month’s time.

Who is surprised by this? Less exposure to smoke reduces nicotine and improves lung function. Shocking. And useless. All this does is suggest that, if people value healthier lung function over activities where second-hand smoke exists, they won’t expose themselves to second-hand smoke environments. But we knew that. And by “we,” I mean people who have a fair understanding of property rights and free will. The public policy implication should be zippy.

Will the Decider be a Vetoer?

Hey, guess what? Republicans are economic geniuses. The deficit is down! Of course, it still exists, so there isn’t really much to be happy about. But I’ll let the president bask in his fantasy world:

During his news conference, Bush predicted that the Republicans would maintain control of both the House and the Senate in part because of Democrats’ stand on taxes.

“There’s a difference of opinion in the campaign about taxes,” Bush said. “I would like to … make the tax cuts permanent. And the Democrats will raise taxes.”

President Bush is lying, or at least delusional, if he thinks his actions as president will lead to permanent tax cuts. Trillions in unfunded liabilities means there will be a tax increase coming. Just because it doesn’t happen while he occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not mean he did not raise taxes. That doesn’t mean I think Democrats are correct to want to raise taxes (“only” on the “rich”). They’re not, even though they’ll try, because slashing spending is much more immediate, with more predictable results. But with two sides of the budget problem, spending and revenue, focusing on one, however misguided, is better than focusing on neither.

My recommendation? The president should say I told you so when tax increases land on his desk in 2007 as he stamps a veto on the legislation. Rinse and repeat every time the Congress sends the same tax hike his way. Mmmmm, gridlock.

Predisposed to agreement does not dismiss reason

I haven’t read John Grisham’s new book, The Innocent Man, so I make no claims about its accuracy or value. As an opponent of capital punishment, though, I’m definitely biased to support Mr. Grisham’s goal. That sparked my interest for this review of the book. It’s not positive, mostly discussing how the book is a polemic. The review seems fair, so I’m willing to assume it’s accurate. Still, the conclusion reaches too far in its assumption:

The one-sidedness of “The Innocent Man” is a shame, for two reasons. First, because it feeds the popular perception–nurtured by Hollywood and the news media–that death rows are teeming with wrongfully convicted men who just await DNA testing to set them free. Second, by skewing his tale, Mr. Grisham missed an opportunity to tell a well-rounded and perhaps more interesting story than the one he delivers. The author is not a journalist, and it shows: He doesn’t maintain even a pretense of detached reporting. He didn’t attempt to get Mr. Peterson’s side of the story, though hearing from the supposedly irresponsible prosecutor might have been illuminating. Indeed, Mr. Grisham seems to have given a wide berth not only to prosecutors but also to the police and even to the judge in Mr. Williamson’s trial.

Opponents of capital punishment will point to “The Innocent Man” as vindication of their views, but it’s not clear that their cause, in the end, is well served by Mr. Grisham’s heavy-handed proselytizing. The freeing of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz was the result of the legal system’s checks and balances; it is characterized by Mr. Grisham as a lucky fluke in the never-ending battle between plucky defense attorneys and bloodthirsty prosecutors. While that outlook might make for fiction that readers just can’t put down, it misses the fact that in the real world of complicated heroes and villains, life does not imitate art.

I have faith in the justice system, as it’s designed. If I didn’t, the battle against capital punishment wouldn’t be worth fighting. It’s important to secure the foundation before decorating the penthouse. Nor do I believe that the death row is teeming with wrongfully convicted men. I do believe, however, that the possibility of one innocent man is enough to justify sparing everyone from the harshest punishment.

The reviewer is correct to scold anyone who reads too many generalizations into the story as told by Mr. Grisham. However, someone should make that generalization before being scolded. To imagine that capital punishment opponents will leap to that conclusion is to make the same generalization.