Over at Hit & Run, Matt Welch writes of John Edwards and his ranting against “evil” corporations. He sums up last night’s results:
With the one-day Hucka-BOO-yah on the GOP side, the big winner in Iowa tonight seems to be illiberal economic populism.
Agreed. It may be an historic night for the United States, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good night for us.
Radley Balko provides reason number one why I will not consider voting for John Edwards.
CNN had a clip of John Edwards earlier this afternoon. He was responding to a question about what we should do about oil closing at over $100 a barrel today.
First, Edwards said, we should launch an immediate investigation into whether the oil companies are price gouging. If they’re coming “right up to the line of the law” without violating it, he said, then we should change the law.
I’m more ashamed of my vote for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. I would still cast it, but only because we needed to get President Bush out of the White House.
I’ve noticed a tendency for comments to repeat recently. I’m guessing it’s because the site is taking a long time to process requests. Also, when posting a comment, the page refreshes without the comment. However, it is captured. Refreshing the page again after it posts will reveal the comment.
I do not know why this is happening. It should post immediately. I’m planning to have Rolling Doughnut redesigned soon, so that’s something that will hopefully go away. I’m also looking for a new host because the current speed isn’t acceptable. I appreciate comments and want to make it as easy as possible to post them. Bear with the inconvenience just a little longer.
I’ve seen one too many blog entries this morning praising white Iowans for being courageous enough to vote for a black man in large enough numbers to earn him a Caucus victory. That we’re having these kinds of conversations demonstrates that too many people making the comments have not moved on. I’m not arguing they’re racists; they’re not. But they’ve clearly not moved beyond race consciousness as a storyline.
Sen. Obama is black. (And white.) Big. Fucking. Deal. Is he competent to be President of the United States? That’s the bottom line. Many Iowans are saying yes. Why can’t that be enough? Why do we have to imagine that white voters in Iowa thought, “Hmm, he’s black, but I think I can actually vote for him”?
Before I appear as a Pollyanna, I get the significance. It hasn’t happened before. I’m content to read those stories. I accept that some voters won’t vote for Sen. Obama because he’s black. And some white voters will praise themselves for voting for a black man. But I’m not willing to accept the “lily white Iowa voted for a black man” as a universal explanation. That’s a flawed angle. Is it really so hard to believe that maybe voters in the past didn’t pass on candidates like Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes because of skin color, but because they were crazy and unfit to be president?
I already said I think Sen. Obama is probably the least bad option among the candidates. But he’s still promoting a moronic slate of economic populism that will do more to further burden Americans with taxes, debt, and hampered economic growth than is remotely sane. That’s why I will not vote for him. The color of his skin has nothing to do with it. Why should it be any different for his supporters.
I’m reminded of a story I heard years ago. I can’t find a copy, but I remember it well enough to give the condensed moral. The enlightened man does not walk into a room full of differences and praise himself for overlooking them. The enlightened man does not notice the differences. Perhaps the voters in Iowa are enlightened, as opposed to the appearance of enlightenment we’re ascribing to them.
The reality that neither winning candidate’s politics satisfies the moral of my story is not lost on me. I’m a libertarian partly because I believe all men are created equally, not that a man can be more or less equal than others according to politically favored circumstances as Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee so clearly believe.
On so many things, I’m always amazed at the ways people manage to rationalize away facts so that they’re not threatening. For example, in response to a request for clarification on how sugar can be considered not vegan, a reader writes to Jonathan Zasloff:
Some super-strict vegans will not use sugar if the activated charcoal used in the filtration process was or might have been made from bones. (To give some idea how far-removed it is from an actual animal, it’s kosher pareve.)
That’s a very interesting concept of far-removed. Kosher pareve only means the food contains no dairy or meat. Bone char is not meat. But it is not “far-removed” from an actual animal. It is a direct, immediate connection. If we were playing Six Degrees of Separation from an animal, bone char’s number is zero.
I choose veganism. You choose to be an omnivore, if you wish. Just don’t pretend that what you’re consuming isn’t directly from an animal. Be honest about your choice.
Link via Megan McArdle, as she contemplates going (temporarily) vegan.
Guaranteeing that children are cared for is legitimate, but contracts matter.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.
…“Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother’s reproductive prerogatives,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.
Like so many things, the ability to enter into a contract does not necessarily include the ability to competently enter into a contract. That does not mean the competent party must be held retroactively responsible for the poor decision by the incompetent party. Courts should not provide an “oops” clause not found in the original contract.
Also from the article:
A county judge said it was in the twins’ best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order.
If the law can ignore a valid contract, why not rule that it’s in the twins’ best interest that Brad Pitt be required to support them? I’m sure he has more money, and I bet the twins might enjoy hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities. That would be no less based in fact than the county judge’s actual order.
Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child’s right to support. “The children point and say, ‘That is our father. He should support us,'” Eakin wrote. “What are we to reply? ‘No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.’ I find this unreasonable at best.”
Children have a right to support from parties obliged to support them. In this case, that’s the mother. So, yes, we are to reply “No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.” I find this reasonable. The facts are what they are.
I’m still organizing my thoughts on the political chaos in Kenya, so I don’t have much coherent to say on it right now. I’m not sure when or if I’ll write anything more specific to the topic of this entry, but there is a larger issue here that has been ignored for too long. The current situation makes it worth discussing, though. For now, this story will suffice:
Sexual violence has also been reported against men, with the Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi on 2 January saying several men had been admitted after they were assaulted during the violence.
“There are several men admitted in various wards after they were subjected to forced circumcision,” a source at the hospital said.
[Challenger Raila] Odinga’s core supporters come from the Luo ethnic group that does not practise circumcision, while [incumbent President Mwai] Kibaki draws most of his following from the Kikuyu group, one of several tribes in which male circumcision is an essential rite of passage from adolescence to manhood.
Like I said, I’m still working on a macro-level analysis of what the current unrest means. I don’t have enough information right now, so I won’t speculate. But the micro-level question is undeniable. How is the forced circumcision of infant males any different from the forced circumcision of these adult males?
The answer offered will surely rest on intent. This is a valid discussion point in many instances, but intent can’t be relevant in unnecessary, forced circumcision. These adult men clearly have not sought circumcision before, and they didn’t seek it now. They are now the victims of (sexual) violence.
In contrast, the parents of infant males do not seek to impose violence on their son when they have him circumcised. That does not negate the imposition of violence that occurs when they have him circumcised. If left alone, he would not likely choose (or need) circumcision in his lifetime. Any decision to the contrary fails to meet any standard of reasonable. The mere presence of good intentions is a subjective attempt to validate what is at its core a violent, unnecessary intervention on the body of a healthy individual.
The answer will probably also include an incorrectly-nuanced nod to a difference in rights between children and adults. That can’t withstand scrutiny, either. The reason the violence inflicted upon these Kenyan men is problematic is because it is a human rights violation. Too often advocates of circumcision ignore human. Children are humans, too. Their rights do not magically appear at the age of majority. They exist from the child’s birth. Each child possesses the very same basic right that was violated in these Kenyan adult males.
Given that I don’t think I’ll find anyone to defend what was done to these men¹, I’m left to conclude that there are four categories of sexual violence, with one subtle difference.
No potential benefit or belief in good intentions or deference to parental rights superseding a child’s human rights can validate the inclusion of usually in the last category. Sexual violence is sexual violence, regardless of gender or age.
¹ I’m sure I can find someone who will say these men will now be better off, a subjective speculation. Pro-circumcision advocacy knows some very strange boundaries. I’ve seen strange boundaries among those opposed to infant circumcision, although I do not believe I appproach them. Yes, I know I’m insulated from a completely unbiased, critical analysis of my own thinking.
Continuing on my last entry, in his essay, David Cross also writes about children’s movies:
MITIGATING FACTOR #1
I have not seen the movie so I can’t really comment to whether it’s an “evil” or “dangerous” “piece of shit “or not. The reason I haven’t seen the movie is because I am not eight years old. I am an adult and don’t see children’s movies.
Exactly my sentiments. If you’re an adult and like movies aimed at children, fine. If you’re an adult who has children and like movies aimed at children that contain more universal themes and appeal, fine. See what you want to see, skip what you don’t want to see. But don’t pander to me that family-friendly is more than a euphemism for children’s movie.
As the presidential election gets going today, it’s clear that we’re going to hear a mind-numbing count of references to family-friendly culture. Blech. I don’t have kids now, but I expect to at some point in the near-ish future. I’m sure I would take my hypothetical kids to family-friendly movies. But I’m not going to stop seeing movies that are family-unfriendly. Or television shows or books or music or video games or whatever else interests me. Rather than dumbing down my life and denying myself what I’m interested in, I’ll exercise a little responsibility to know what is and isn’t appropriate for children to view.
If that means playing Call of Duty 4 after the kids are in bed, so be it. But politicians need to stop pretending that I should deny myself Call of Duty 4 because it isn’t suitable for an eight-year-old. I, like most adults, am not irresponsible. I do not need the guiding hand of government to intervene for me to understand the issue or to make intelligent decisions.
There’s apparently some controversy and he said/he said confusion surrounding David Cross’ appearance in Alvin and the Chipmunks. I googled through a bit of it to understand the background. It bored me quickly. I’m not interested in what’s hip or what side I’m supposed to be on. Do what makes you happy, for whatever reason(s) it makes you happy.
Still, David Cross’ explanation for why he took the role is awesome. The entire essay is worth reading, but this part made me happy. He’s describing the cottage in Upstate new York he wanted to buy:
MITIGATING FACTOR #4a
… It was a little more than I had budgeted for but it was definitely worth it. I asked the owner if he’d take some of my credibility as payment. He looked at me as if I was an alien with A.I.D.S. speaking some intergalactic gobbledy-goo. I had to patiently explain to this country bumpkin about my indie hipster cred, and I would now like to cash it in. This rural rube was so backwards and ignorant that he couldn’t even conceive of how financial markets work and simple free market capitalism. I tried again to explain the concept of the value of “credibility” and “artistic integrity” but he refused to take it in exchange for the house. This guy was a fucking idiot! But what could I do? He wouldn’t take no for an answer. If I wanted that cottage I would have to pay him money. Sigh. So I used my “Alvin and the Chipmunks” money to pay for the down payment. Seriously, I totally did.
Say what you will about art and how credible or trashy it can be. There is no honor in poverty¹ for the sake of the good opinion of others. Of course buying a second home can’t be considered poverty. Consider poverty here to be a simple substitute for larger concepts, among them sacrifice and/or self-denial. Refraining from buying something you want solely to avoid keeping up with the Joneses is as ridiculous as buying something you don’t want to keep up with them. That holds whether it involves upgrading from your old 5-Series BMW to a new 7-Series or passing on Alvin and the Chipmunks to appear in indie film people will pretend to like because it’s indecipherable and/or coma-inducing.
Link via Pop Candy.
Gary Schwitzer, an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism & Mass Communication, provides the best explanation for why most reporting on health topics are irresponsibly incomplete. His critique reviews TIME’s year-end medical breakthrough list, which placed circumcision and its ability to “prevent” HIV at the top.
We believe that with any claim of “breakthrough’” the claimant should include some discussion of the quality of the evidence behind this claim. And for stories that discuss treatments, tests, products or procedures, we should be talking at least a little bit about how much these “breakthroughs” will cost.
…Yes, we know that editors think these lists are cute, promotable features. But the cumulative effect of discussing breakthrough after breakthrough without any mention of cost or evidence leaves the reader waiting for Santa to arrive with the next one.
Any look at how (voluntary, adult) circumcision can reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission must include the costs, risks, and ethical issues, with an honest contextual analysis of statistics. Without that, parents in America will irrationally apply findings to their own children and commend themselves for being so smart. It’s a national farce encouraged by sloppy journalism (among many problems).
Link via Kevin, M.D. The title of this entry refers to this commercial.
