Month: April 2007

Ethics is the buffer between “can” and “should”.

Here’s an interesting study:

Could smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee protect you from Parkinson’s disease?

That’s the startling suggestion of a new U.S. study of families that also found NSAID use has no impact on the disease risk.
…

The people with Parkinson’s disease were 44 percent less likely to report ever smoking and 70 percent less likely to report current smoking compared with unaffected relatives, the study authors found.

“Increasing intensity of coffee drinking was inversely associated with Parkinson’s disease,” they added. “Increasing dosage and intensity of total caffeine consumption were also inversely associated, with high dosage presenting a significant inverse association with Parkinson’s disease.”
…

It’s not known how smoking or caffeine consumption may help reduce the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

I enjoy science. Basing decisions on evidence is common sense. But I also believe there is more than just evidence. In applying scientific discoveries, I stand by evidence and ethics, devoid any speculation. The more common approach appears to be evidence and speculation, devoid any ethics. How else to describe the push to circumcise more infant males based on the recent findings regarding HIV transmission and voluntary adult circumcision?

The preliminary facts in this study mirror the fact pattern in the HIV studies, down to it’s not known how the action achieves the benefit. So should we start encouraging adults with a family history of Parkinson’s to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes? Should we speculate and encourage parents in those families to give their children coffee and cigarettes?

Those suggestions are laughable. We know that this is one study. We also know that drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes carry an amount of risk. We’re going to be conservative in applying these findings.

Yet, infant circumcision is so accepted as “good” that we don’t question extending any findings, however preliminary or speculative, to conform to our accepted, untested ideas. Unlike coffee and cigarettes with Parkinson’s, we don’t stop to assess whether unnecessary genital surgery on a child to reduce an already small risk is logical. (We definitely don’t ask if it’s ethical.)

This is catering to intellectual bias, not the application of science.

Choose: Bankruptcy in Solidarity or Survival in Reality

In today’s Washington Post, Harold Meyerson attempts to suck us into his view of the world. Imagine how he gets to this line:

It was, in short, just a normal day in contemporary American capitalism.

Any number of scenarios could build to that. When you have an aversion to economic liberty because it means some people will “lose,” you arrive via this route:

On March 28, Circuit City announced that it was laying off 3,400 of its salesclerks. Not because they had poor performance records, mind you: Their performance was utterly beside the point. They were shown the door, said the chain, simply because they were the highest-salaried salesclerks that Circuit City employed.

Their positions were not eliminated. Rather, the store announced that it would hire their replacements at the normal starting salary.

One can only imagine the effect of Circuit City’s announcement on the morale of the workers who didn’t get fired. The remaining salesclerks can only conclude: Do a good job, get promoted, and you’re outta here.

I’m in a somewhat useful position to critique this. As of next Friday, I will not have an active client. The funding for the project I’ve been working on disappeared. I’m a bit concerned, but I’ve planned for this possibility. That’s mere responsibility. But as much as capitalism can be blamed for losing my current contract, it will also be responsible when I land my next contract. Change may mean death for some opportunities, but it’s only the natural re-ordering in response to reality. This is inherently good.

In the case of Circuit City¹, what function do salesclerks serve? When I visit an electronics retailer, I either know what I’m looking for or am browsing to discover what’s out that I’ve missed. I rely on the Internets for my pre-education, if you will. I rarely make an impulse buy. (Danielle is saying “no kidding” right now.) The one time in recent memory where I did make an impulse buy, I called my brother from the store and asked him to pull up reviews of the product. I gave my usual “just browsing” response to any salesclerks who accosted me offered to help. I didn’t need anyone other than a cashier, and if a store offers self-checkout, I always do that. From my anecdotal observations, most shoppers behave this way. Expert knowledge is no longer valuable in store the way it used to be.

That doesn’t stop Mr. Meyerson:

Over at Wal-Mart, the employer that increasingly sets the labor standards for millions of our compatriots, wage caps have been set for certain jobs, and many longtime employees are now required to work weekends and nights in the hope that they’ll quit. A memo prepared by a Wal-Mart executive in 2005 for the company’s board noted that, “the cost of an associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity.”

(That, of course, is because Wal-Mart does nothing to raise its employees’ skills lest it have to raise their wages.) Coincidentally, in the same week that Circuit City axed its clerks, an analysis of Internal Revenue Service data from 2005 that became available showed that the bottom 90 percent of Americans made less money that year than they had in 2004. According to a study by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, total reported income in the United States increased by 9 percent in 2005 over its level in 2004. All of that increase, however, came from the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and the wealthiest 1 percent experienced an increase of 14 percent. Among the remaining 90 percent, income actually decreased by 0.6 percent.

Capitalism, as cruel as it is, generally demands that one provide more value to earn more return. If Mr. Meyerson prefers the world of government, his skewed view is understandable, for the government is far more lax in requiring measurable return for its increased expenditures. But the government has guns to enforce its demands. The private sector must use persuasion.

When Mr. Meyerson quotes the IRS data showing a decrease in income for the “bottom 90 percent”, the only context he provides involves the change in income for the top 10 percent. Big deal. There is more than just income to determine how well a person is doing. Mr. Meyerson offers no analysis of how this affects Poor American other than the outrage we’re supposed to feel because his absolute dollar income decreased. This is the fallacy of a mind unconcerned with the basics of economics.

There’s a bunch of progressive gobbledygook in the rest of his essay, but given his poor economic foundation, Mr. Meyerson offers little beyond the usual chants. Unions! Health care! Equality! Blech, all socialist crap. When American workers who buy into this start treating themselves as mini-capitalists offering a product rather than pawns in a game for business elites, this drivel will die away from all but the tiniest group of “intellectuals”. Until then, we’ll suffer through more harmful policies masquerading as help for the working man.

¹ I shop at Best Buy because I like it better and I’ve only had bad experiences the last few times I’ve given Circuit City a chance. But the buying process is the same.

Convenience isn’t worth forsaking innovation (and liberty).

I normally enjoy John Dvorak’s curmudgeonly writing, but I’m afraid he might be serious with this article.

In this week’s complaint session, I’d like to complain about the little things. And I mean that literally. Little bitty things like proprietary PC connectors. I honestly believe that Congress should pass a law on PC connectors, keeping the number of designs to an absolute minimum. By law, product makers should have to choose between, say, two types of connectors, ensuring that devices work only with those two designs. I’m not kidding.

I agree with the complaint. I know Danielle would agree, given that she’s going through a re-organization of our junk, and we have boxes of orphan cables and connectors. But a law? No, thanks, even though here his call for legislation appears in the same type of context where people incorrectly use literally.

But he continues:

Why, for example, do we have so many variations of USB cables? One side is always the same—the side that attaches to the PC. It’s always a standard rectangular USB connector, and it plugs into any computer you like. But on the other end, the connector is always different. There are large, square connectors. Small, rectangular connectors. Trapezoidal connectors. I-have-no-idea-what-that-is connectors. And God knows how many others. Needless to say, you can never find the right cable when you need it. You end up accumulating so many of them, they’re inevitably scattered around the house. And when that Apple iPod connector goes missing, you can’t update your iPod.

What is the point of all this? I’ve complained about it before, pointing out that camera companies don’t even use the same connectors from camera to camera. Why not? Are they saving 2 cents per connector? Or what? It doesn’t have to be this way. This is USB we’re talking about, a ubiquitous 4-pin standard—not the wiring harness on a 1958 Studebaker. Seriously, we need legislation. This is costing us money for no good reason.

Again, I agree with the complaint, but now I think he might be serious. He gives Toshiba and Nokia as examples of companies that approach this well by putting the company name on the connector/power cord. Dell also does this, although it’s harder to confuse a laptop power supply than it is a router power supply. Still, not every company is dumb. We should applaud and encourage that.

But he continues:

Look, if there’s a law that forces a company to tell you what’s in a can of peaches (“Contains: Peaches, sugar, water”), then there can be a law that forces companies to label their power supplies. Can’t there? The construction industry abides by a book full of rules and regulations when they build out of wood. Can’t we consider mandating some aspects of technology design? Can’t we make a connector that everyone is required by law to adopt and use? Folks, the USB connector has only four pins! How many variations do we really need? Four pins! Now don’t get me started on the subject of batteries.

We do not need legislation. The next time someone needs to use an electronic device and the necessary cord or connector has gone missing, contact the maker of that electronic device and tell them you will no longer buy their products until they start labeling their cords and use standard connectors. Then follow through. It’ll change.

We don’t want to get into a situation where Congress legislates the use of Firewire cables, thus negating the development of the better USB 2.0 standard.

Unpopular is not synonymous with bad.

Yesterday, I wrote this in response to a judge’s moralizing about an American’s speech while upholding its constitutional protection:

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the judges had any business inserting the court’s opinion that it has little regard for her vulgar epithets. So what? If it has no bearing on how the case should be interpreted under the law, keep the subjective disdain out of the ruling. I might accept “While the court recognizes that A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets is unpopular, …” or some such pandering to community morals. I doubt it, but even then, speech is speech.

It turns out I only had to wait one day for an example of how it should be done. Via Hit & Run, a federal judge in Orlando demonstrated how to approach this correctly. Consider:

Should strippers be allowed to touch themselves on stage? Orange County thinks not. County law specifically prohibits “fondling, stroking or rubbing of human genitals or anus.”

On March 30, however, a federal judge in Orlando struck down that and other portions of the county’s adult entertainment code as unconstitutional impediments to free speech. “Some self-touching, even of the genitals or anus — no matter how crude or distasteful — may be ‘central to the expressive nature of the dance itself,’” ruled Judge John Antoon II, quoting from a 2005 ruling from a case in Georgia.
…

“The First Amendment cannot both protect the expressive element of erotic dancing and also restrict and contort it by prohibiting the very movements that contribute to its erotic message,” Antoon wrote. “While the public en masse may not approve of such explicit performances, the First Amendment does not turn on generally accepted views of propriety.”

Bingo. Objective interpretation of the Constitution without the subjective opinion about the content being protected. Exactly as it should be. Bravo to Judge Antoon.

The Logical Conclusion of Majoritarianism

Normally, I’d present the facts and comment on them. Thanks to YouTube, I don’t have to do that. See for yourself what democracy mob rule really is.

That’s why, in the wisdom of America’s Founders, we are a republic, not a democracy. It’s why nonsense like the National Popular Vote Plan are ill-conceived. The will of the people is instructive, but it should not be exclusive. We have principles enshrined in our Constitution to protect the minority viewpoint from unjust harassment and an outright ban on their liberty.

Original story here, via Fark.

Update: New York City Department of Health on Circumcision

Found via RealityBias’ diary at Daily Kos, this follow-up on last week’s news from Thomas Frieden and the New York Department of Health.

Recent media reports misrepresent the Health Department’s response to recent studies showing that circumcision significantly reduces HIV transmission in some contexts. We do not yet know what impact circumcision could have on HIV transmission in New York City, and we have not suggested or planned any initiative or campaign. Quite to the contrary, I indicated in an interview with the New York Times (the source of the misrepresentation) that I very much doubted that even 1% of men at high risk in NYC would undergo the procedure.

Commissioner Frieden claims he was misrepresented. Maybe, and if so, I retract my statements implying as much. But that’s a conditional retraction, for I think he’s trying to save face while forging ahead with his push for circumcision. Saying that he doubts “even 1% of men at high risk in NYC would undergo” circumcision is different than saying “we are not pushing circumcision. Regardless of how he gets to office, Commissioner Frieden is acting like a politician. I don’t trust him.

Continue reading “Update: New York City Department of Health on Circumcision”

There is smoke without fire.

I haven’t commented on this recent item floating around the blogosphere. An excerpt, for facts:

“On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.”

“When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.”

“I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.”

That’s from Walter F. Murphy, professor emeritus of jurisprudence at Princeton. I didn’t give it much thought as anything more than another data point. To be frank, I believed it and filed it with all the other clear transgressions of our government under the Bush Administration. I shouldn’t have.

After reading today’s Best of the Web column in Opinion Journal, I’m convinced that this is the most plausible explanation:

According to [TSA Administrator Kip] Hawley, the only list a passenger might be on that would prevent him from boarding a plane is the “no fly” list. Since Murphy did ultimately get on the plane, he self-evidently was not on that list. Hawley says it is possible that someone with the same name was on the list; such an error befell Ted Kennedy in 2004.

More likely, though, Murphy was a “selectee”–chosen for heightened security by a process that is part random, part based on a variety of factors, most of which are not publicly disclosed, but which are known to include holding a one-way ticket and purchasing a ticket in cash.

On our recent flight to Tampa for Spring Training, Danielle couldn’t check-in online. When we got to the ticket counter, the representative informed us Danielle had been randomly selected for further screening, requiring her to check in with an airline rep. Annoying and worthy of its own post about its validity and effectiveness in fighting terrorism, but our experience conforms to what Mr. Hawley told the Wall Street Journal’s editors. Never forget Occam’s Razor, I guess.

Continue reading “There is smoke without fire.”

[Insert Witty, Accurate Title]

I’m not an attorney, but I’m fairly certain the relevant CNN editor botched attached to this story:

A judge violated a juvenile’s free-speech rights when he placed her on probation for posting an expletive-laden entry on MySpace criticizing a school principal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

The three-judge panel on Monday ordered the Putnam Circuit Court to set aside its penalty against the girl, referred to only as A.B. in court records.

“While we have little regard for A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote in the 10-page opinion.
…

The state filed a delinquency petition in March alleging that A.B.’s acts would have been harassment, identity deception and identity theft if committed by an adult. The juvenile court dropped most of the charges but in June found A.B. to be a delinquent child and placed her on nine months of probation. The judge ruled the comments were obscene.

The title of the article?

First Amendment extends to MySpace, court says

I doubt that was up for consideration. The meat of the story seems to be whether the school’s punishment of the girl’s speech was constitutional. It doesn’t seem to matter that she posted her rant on MySpace, any more than if she’d written it on her arm and walked sleeveless around her local mall.

I know how hard it is to come up with effective, catchy titles from blogging for 3½ years. If I can’t be witty, I aim for accurate. Anything else is just a punt. I’m not charging for my product and I adhere to that. CNN should, as well.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the judges had any business inserting the court’s opinion that it has little regard for her vulgar epithets. So what? If it has no bearing on how the case should be interpreted under the law, keep the subjective disdain out of the ruling. I might accept “While the court recognizes that A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets is unpopular, …” or some such pandering to community morals. I doubt it, but even then, speech is speech.

Individual bodily integrity trumps collectivist rhetoric.

For your consideration:

37- year old Mukasa is not circumcised but is considering it seriously. “I have heard that if you get circumcised, you cannot catch HIV/ Aids. I don’t have to use a condom or worry about all those other ways of keeping safe. I finally get a method that suits me…” he says. Mukasa is obviously oblivious of the almost negligible but very important fact surrounding the hyped circumcision as an option to HIV/Aids prevention.

I don’t want to give the impression that I think this is a common perception anywhere. I don’t think it is. But it highlights a key point in all the recent discussions of circumcision and HIV. When the United Nations or the World Health Organization or the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene touts these studies, it can only control the message it puts out. It can never control how that message spreads and the misunderstandings people will create.

These studies have only said this: voluntary adult circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmission by 50-60%.

It said nothing about male-to-female transmission. It said nothing about male-to-male¹ transmission. It said nothing about infant² circumcision. Researchers don’t even know for certain how circumcision appears to reduce HIV transmission. Given the gravity of HIV and circumcision, any recommendation has serious implications. That includes the understanding that people may make a leap not supported by evidence or marketing. I’ve seen enough examples to know that it will occur.

When we focus exclusively on the collective public health “benefit”, we ignore how this affects individuals. The male who gets HIV from dirty surgical instruments in Africa and the boy who loses his penis in the United States aren’t just unfortunate sacrifices for the public good.

¹ In the case of the New York Department of Health, Commissioner Frieden touted a conclusion not even studied in Africa, much less proven.

² Infant circumcision differs greatly from adult circumcision.