Propaganda – Page 8 – Rolling Doughnut

Only an elitist allows results determine his efforts.

Let’s all show our surprise that abstinence education doesn’t work.

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

Teens will have sex. Who knew? And they will make bad choices, as well as “bad” choices. Yet, if the information is structured with a “just say no” pretense, everything will be okay. People who believe that should not be in charge of anyone else’s money. They probably shouldn’t operate heavy equipment, either.

More pathetic, though, is the resort to ad hominem from our culture warriors, aka politicians.

Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, said that it seems “rather elitist” that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate. “I don’t think it’s something we should abandon,” he said of abstinence-only funding.

I guess “elitist” is the new “for the children.” But about those parents providing preferred types of sex education, if they’re the ones teaching their children abstinence, why is the federal government spending taxpayer money on something that parents know how to teach? Isn’t there an implication that parents won’t provide their children the appropriate type of sex education if it’s not funded by taxpayers? I guess that doesn’t qualify as “elitist”.

Link via John Cole.

The new looks like the old.

I have a lingering internal question over whether my mistrust of government is still a healthy skepticism or is now in mired in the depths of cynicism. I don’t think the difference matters significantly because I still reach the same conclusions. But the latter might make the rare exceptions harder to accept when they appear. And yet, as I wonder, a story like this on Senator McCain’s proposed “gas-tax holiday” comes along (link via John Cole):

Earlier Monday at a community college in the Philadelphia suburbs, Obama rejected a tax holiday as bad economic policy. “I’ve said I think John McCain’s proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea,” Obama said, warning consumers that any price cut would be short lived before costs spike back.

“We’re talking about 5 percent of your total cost of gas that you suspend for three months, which might save you a few hundred bucks that then will spike right up,” Obama said. “Now keep in mind that it will save you that if Exxon Mobil doesn’t decide, ‘We’ll just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost.’”

I’m calling my mental approach skepticism because Senator Obama demonstrates here what cynicism really is. Where he could talk exclusively about the stupidity of a tax holiday bribe, he had to jump into talking points. Let’s assume Exxon Mobil, since they’re the working man’s evil oppressor du jour right now, would “just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost”. Then what? I, as a price-conscious consumer in need of gasoline, drive to the Shell station where the 5 percent isn’t “just tacked on”. Although it could be, because in a competitive market, companies are able – and certainly willing, the evil bastards – to “just tack on” whatever little windfall profits they want.

I’ve heard Senator Obama is a new kind of politician. I’m not buying it. A new kind of politics would rely on something a little more honest than pandering to voters with a scapegoat and misrepresentation of economics. This is one more reason I will not be voting for Senator Obama in November.

The First Amendment still protects talking points.

Senator Obama had some interesting comments the other day. Oh, not those comments. No, he shared a thought or two on public financing for political campaigns.

Senator Barack Obama said today that the public financing system for presidential campaigns, which has been in place since 1976, is antiquated and should be overhauled in the era of Internet-driven fundraising.

“I think that it is creaky and needs to be reformed if it’s going to work,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a morning news conference. “We know that the check-off system has been declining in participation and as a consequence, the amount of money raised through the public financing system may be substantially lower than the amount of money that can be raised through small donations over the Internet.”

The check-off system is a tax on those of us who are smart enough to ignore that $3 box by those of us who are not. But there’s a better point buried in there. Senator Obama has found a new, better way to finance a campaign than big, moneyed interests. (I’m correcting the ridiculous hyphen placement used in the article.) Isn’t this the same new, better way to finance a campaign advocated by Jerry Brown in 1992, with the Internet being the only difference? What Sen. Obama is ultimately saying is that the Internet is an equalizer. But that would mean that the system is no longer necessary, not that it should be swept into an updated ~~First Amendment infringement~~ campaign finance regulation. His campaign is showing that government can never keep up with efforts to avoid the letter of the law. His political spidey sense tells him we should still try, subjecting ourselves to a permanent game of public catch-up that “we” can never win.

Of course, it’s not about the power of the voice of the small donor, is it?

… “I would like to see a system preserved. And I intend, if I am the nominee, to have conversations with Senator McCain about how to move forward in a way that doesn’t allow third parties to overwhelm the system.”

I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is stupid enough to think that a third-party candidate is going to overwhelm the system in 2008. At the current pace of legalized incumbent entrenchment in Washington, I’ll be amazed if a third-party candidate can win in 2108, to say nothing of overwhelming “the system”. But what if some third party’s candidate did make noise? Is that bad, or do the voices of those parties not matter because we already have our two deserving parties to balance each other?

This is just a useful, if unsurprising, reminder that Senator Obama likes the outside role until he’s an insider. Just like every other politician.

I was teased into a dangerous fixed-rate mortgage.

The narrative is established:

Just as subprime mortgage borrowers were teased into taking out loans they later could not afford when the interest rates spiked, scores of municipalities, schools, hospitals and even museums are now facing soaring interest payments on unconventional bonds that proved too good to be true.

Ready to be unleashed on any and every victim:

The District has begun paying an extra $1.2 million every month because its interest payments have doubled, and in some cases even tripled, on $601 million of these bonds. That represents nearly one-seventh of the city’s total debt and includes $24 million for the Washington Nationals’ new stadium, the District’s treasurer said. City officials were convinced by investment banks that these types of loans would be safe and cheaper than traditional borrowing.

Naturally, deceit (i.e. “teased into”) is the only explanation. We can’t expect politicians to be diligent when subjected to the avarice of evil capitalists. They couldn’t possibly be stupid or greedy themselves.

The surge in the cost of these bonds is the primary way taxpayers are being burdened by Wall Street’s credit meltdown.

The insatiable appetite among all politicians for spending unbounded by tedious constraints like tax receipts is the primary way taxpayers are being burdened. Without debt, there would be no upwardly-fluctuating interest payments.

Politicians lie to please us because we allow ourselves to be pleased.

Via Wired, the Los Angeles Times reports on a scheme to fight global warming. Or, rather, I should write that the scheme is claimed to fight global warming, although the specifics (unsurprisingly) suggest otherwise. Consider:

Motorists in Los Angeles County could end up paying an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump, or an additional $90 on their vehicle registration, under proposals aimed at getting them to help fight global warming.

Voters would be able to decide whether to approve a “climate change mitigation and adaptation fee” under legislation being considered by state lawmakers and endorsed by the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

So state lawmakers are offering a Pigovian tax, right? Their interest is in countering the negative externalities of carbon pollution, right? You know the answer, right?

The money would fund improvements to mass transit and programs to relieve traffic congestion at a time when transportation dollars from Washington and Sacramento are hard to come by.

Of course. Sin taxes always purport to be about reducing the offending behavior, but are never actually designed to correct the problematic outcomes. The politicians always end up saluting General Fund.

And it often comes with “words mean what I say they mean” baggage.

[Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn] also objected to the measure’s being called a “fee” — which requires a simple majority for approval — instead of a “tax,” which requires two-thirds approval.

[Assemblyman Mike] Feuer’s bill would allow the MTA board to ask voters either for a fee of up to 3% of the retail price of gas, or for a vehicle registration fee of up to $90 per year. The money would pay for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Want to bet how quickly lawmakers would revisit “3% of the retail price” tax if the retail price of gas falls, lowering tax receipts? Bonus points to anyone who can find an example of Assemblyman Feuer endorsing an expansive governmental role in lowering the price of gas. Oh, wait, scratch that. Finding an example is actually quite simple. Surprise!

Service to the President: What McCain wanted to say.

John McCain offered useful insights into his (dangerous) political mind at the Naval Academy on Wednesday. For example:

I’m a conservative, and I believe it is a very healthy thing for Americans to be skeptical about the purposes and practices of public officials. We shouldn’t expect too much from government — nor should it expect too much from us. Self-reliance — not foisting our responsibilities off on others — is the ethic that made America great.

But when healthy skepticism sours into corrosive cynicism our expectations of our government become reduced to the delivery of services. And to some people the expectations of liberty are reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee.

Actually, my healthy skepticism is still healthy. I expect government to ineffectively deliver services it shouldn’t be attempting, even though it tries and tries and tries. And when it fails, my healthy skepticism knows that it will try harder, but with more money.

My definition of corrosive cynicism looks something like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold. This is the belief that individuals can’t be trusted, so someone smarter must look after their interests for them. That brand of corrosive cynicism believes expectations of liberty should be reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee. My healthy skepticism understands that competing brands of political speech are a form of liberty thankfully enshrined in the First Amendment. The corroded cynic speaks of quote First Amendment rights.

Continuing:

Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

Senator McCain and I have different opinions on how our rights are protected. As noted above, we don’t share the same opinion on our rights. But the problem here is his idea of a “cause greater than yourself”. Who decides what cause is greater than me? Who decides whether or not my actions constitute sacrifice? And I’m not thrilled by the idea that “success, wealth, and celebrity gained and kept for private interest” is allegedly a “small thing”.

I’ve long believed that we are a citizenry who behave as though we are rightfully subjects of the government. Among his many faults, Senator McCain is too friendly to perpetuating that mistaken belief. We are electing the president of a government (previously?) limited by a constitution, not a king limited only by his mandate by his higher calling.

Link via Hit & Run.

Delicate Decision: Post 4 of 4

On Monday the Los Angeles Times offered a typical analysis of infant male circumcision. There are many points to address from this story, so I’ve broken them up into multiple posts. (Posts 1, 2, and 3.)

Point four:

FOR nearly all of Nada Mouallem’s pregnancy, she and her husband, Tony, had a running argument. She wanted to have their son circumcised. He didn’t. “Many days, I’d go off and research all the pros. He’d go and research all the cons. Then we’d get together at night and fight,” she says.
…

For the Mouallems, family tradition and religion were not factors. “We kept those separate and focused only on the scientific reasons,” says Tony Mouallem, who was against circumcising his son because he didn’t think it was necessary. Plus, he’s not circumcised. “You have to work a little harder to keep it clean, but that’s not a big deal.”

His wife, Nada, however, worried about the responsibility of keeping her newborn’s penis clean. She thought circumcision would help reduce the risk of infection and disease. “I wasn’t keen on my baby having a surgical procedure, but then I thought, why not if we can offer him more protection?”

In the end, Tony sided with his wife. Their son was born Feb. 10, and was circumcised the next day. Tony held him during the procedure. “There was no bleeding and he didn’t even cry,” he says. “I’m still not convinced it was medically necessary, but I didn’t want to burden my wife with the worry of cleaning it. And maybe it will be easier for him in the locker room.”

Choosing surgery over responsibility is the abdication of an obligation when having children. No one states that an intact penis can’t be kept clean. Even ignoring the absurdity that it’s more difficult to clean in his early years when his foreskin adheres to his glans and shouldn’t be retracted, keeping your children clean and eventually teaching them to care for themselves is parenting. Anything else is the selfish subjugation of the child’s needs to the parents’ whims. In this case, that whim is further discredited because the father presumably understands how to keep an intact penis clean.

Post Script: This most fits the “typical” analysis. These “balanced” articles always contain a couple who can’t decide. And the couple always chooses “yes”.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Delicate Decision: Post 3 of 4

Point three:

Robert and Cara Moffat of Los Angeles, who are expecting their first child, a boy, in May, had no trouble deciding, and plan to have their son circumcised. Robert, who is 30 and circumcised, said, “I grew up with it, and my wife has a preference for it, so that’s what we’ll do. We’re doing what the family is comfortable doing.”

His father is happy being circumcised, so the boy will be happy with it. This is an unverifiable assumption at birth. His mother prefers having sex with circumcised partners. This is irrelevant because I presume she does not intend to have sex with her son. So it leaves the conclusion that his future sex partner(s), who they apparently know will be female, will prefer that he be circumcised. This is an unverifiable assumption at birth. Finally, “what the family is comfortable doing” is hardly a principle of ethics, liberty, or science.

Also note that the parents have said nothing about (potential) medical benefits in forcing this on their son. Yet, they’re allegedly qualified to decide that their son will want this. And legally we’re all supposed to think this is reasonable.

As parents and task forces sort through the variables surrounding this intimate decision, [Dr. Andrew] Freedman offers parents in turmoil this comforting advice: “Rest assured. No matter what decision parents make for their son, most men think whatever they have is just fine.”

There are four potential realities for an adult male when he is finally legally protected to make his own genital decisions the way females are protected from birth. He can be intact and happy. He can be circumcised and happy. He can be intact and unhappy. He can be circumcised and unhappy. In the first scenario, he could do something but he wouldn’t. In the second, he can’t do anything but he doesn’t care. In the third, he can do something and he will choose either the perceived benefits of circumcision he seeks or not facing the drawbacks from adult circumcision. In the fourth, he can do nothing and society rejects his opinion as an individual.

In the first two scenarios, we conclude that the child validates the parents’ decision. We mistake an unrelated outcome for causation. In the third scenario, whatever we conclude, we’ve achieved the minimum standard of liberty that the male retains his right to choose (or reject) medically unnecessary procedures. In the fourth scenario, we either deny its validity or babble on about the rights of the parents. This generally involves some hand-wringing about parents making lots of tough choices while actively missing that none of the other choices involve removing parts of his anatomy. (You didn’t forget that parental rights are greater when speaking of sons, did you?)

Dr. Freedman’s opinion tells every man in scenario four his parents’ opinions about his penis matter more than his own. Anyone who argues this refuses to reconcile the complete lack of medical need with any notion of ethics and individual rights. Just because science can (allegedly and potentially) achieve an outcome does not mean it should try to achieve that outcome. That is a slippery slope unbounded by any consistent rule or principle.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Delicate Decision: Post 2 of 4

Point two:

In the first year of life, 1 in 100 uncircumcised [sic] boys will develop a urinary tract infection. Only 1 in 1,000 circumcised boys will. “While that’s a tenfold reduction, you have to keep in mind that the risk was only 1% to begin with,” says Dr. Andrew Freedman, pediatric urologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Proper hygiene can prevent most infections.

When considering potential benefits, context matters more than an isolated statistic. For example:

The downside of letting the child make the decision later is that adult circumcision is more expensive, painful and extensive. During an infant circumcision, practitioners numb the site with local anesthesia, then attach a bell-shaped clamp to the foreskin and excise the skin over the clamp. The clamp helps prevent bleeding. In adults, the procedure involves two incisions, above and below the glans (tip of the penis), stitches and a longer recovery. The cost is about 10 times that of a newborn procedure.

Let’s ignore the rights of the individual for the moment. I don’t, but the hypothetical does, so I’ll stick with it. The cost is about 10 times that of a newborn procedure. So what? As a fact on its own, it means nothing. How likely is it that an intact male will need circumcision in his lifetime? If it’s less than 10%, and it is, then a basic cost-benefit analysis shows that we will spend less overall by circumcising only those males who medically require circumcision. The “ten times more expensive” meme is worthless upon minimal inspection.

Dr. Freedman seems to understand this:

“The HIV data is the most compelling to date that circumcision can help prevent the transmission of the virus in male-female sex,” Freedman says. “While this is important to sub-Saharan Africa, the question is how many infant boys need to be circumcised in the United States to prevent one case of HIV transmission 25 years from now? Factoring in even the rare complication that can occur with circumcision may render this study insignificant.”

No kidding. Aside from not being able to predict who (or if) circumcision will help prevent HIV, we can also not predict who will suffer a complication. I seriously doubt the few children who suffer a significant mutilation of the penis care that most circumcisions are “successful”. Nor do I suspect the few boys who die from circumcision care about the general outcome. Of course, this should matter now, even before reducing a child to his (unknown) place in the statistical herd.

But he might not get it:

If parents do opt for the procedure, Freedman advises that they do it when the baby is a newborn, have someone trained and experienced perform the procedure, and use pain control. “The older a child gets, the less benefit there is, and the greater the risk,” he says. “I would ask parents of an older child to strongly reconsider if the only reason they’re doing this is cosmetic.”

The parents of a newborn who choose circumcision for cosmetic reasons? Those are somehow okay? Again, the individual – the patient – matters. When he is healthy, every other outside opinion is meaningless to the consideration of his body.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Male Circumcision and HIV.

Delicate Decision: Post 1 of 4

Point one:

Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology in the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, says the CDC is looking at how the findings apply here. “The early opinion from the consultants — and not the position of the CDC, which involves a peer review process and public comment — is that, given all the previous data on circumcision plus the recent HIV African studies, the medical benefits of male infant circumcision outweigh the risks and that any financial burden barring parents from making this decision should be lifted,” he said.

Nationalizing health care will no more end routine infant male circumcision in America than the elimination of Medicaid funding has ended it in the states where Medicaid no longer pays for the unnecessary procedure. There is a political constituency that strongly supports imposing this on children. Until the universal principle that each individual owns his or her body is codified into law for males the way the Female Genital Mutilation Act now protects female minors, medically unnecessary circumcision will continue. And the state will pay for it when parents can’t (or won’t). Any protection of the individual based on entrenching an existing, or establishing a new, collective will fail.

Here’s a half-point in which I doubt Kilmarx understands the missing half:

“The procedure is so ancient, and steeped in cultures, I’m not surprised that the rate of adult circumcision in civilized countries doesn’t track with medical evidence,” Kilmarx says. “But as scientists, we don’t solely rely on what other countries do as a guideline.”

But as Americans, we don’t (mustn’t) solely rely on what science tells us as a guideline. Ethics matters. The rights of the individual matter, particularly the healthy individual. There is a hierarchy for decision-making concerning surgery on children. Kilmarx, among many, does not start at the beginning (i.e. medical need). That leads to mistakes, as clearly shown by the million-plus unnecessary infant circumcisions performed every year in America.

More analysis of this article and the CDC’s obtuse approach can be found here and here at Circumcision and HIV.