Ranting – Page 5 – Rolling Doughnut

The ABC of HIV prevention means “Always Be Cutting”?

I don’t know which is more frustrating, stupid “science” articles or the reporting on those articles. Last week, my news world was filled with various regurgitations of this nonsense:

According to a new policy analysis led by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of California, Berkeley, the most common HIV prevention strategies-condom promotion, HIV testing, treatment of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), vaccine and microbicide research, and abstinence-are having a limited impact on the predominantly heterosexual epidemics found in Africa. Furthermore, some of the assumptions underlying such strategies-such as poverty or war being major causes of AIDS in Africa-are unsupported by rigorous scientific evidence. The researchers argue that two interventions currently getting less attention and resources-male circumcision and reducing multiple sexual partnerships-would have a greater impact on the AIDS pandemic and should become the cornerstone of HIV prevention efforts in the high-HIV-prevalence parts of Africa.

Hold off on assessing the validity of such claims. Wouldn’t it be appropriate if they put the two key words – voluntary, adult – in front of male circumcision? That’s all that the studies being cited as gospel looked at. The press release does later invoke voluntary, so I wonder if the omission of adult implies that children consent. Perhaps a look back at past writings from one of the studies authors, Daniel Halperin, might reveal anything:

As Holbrooke noted, circumcision has indisputably been proven to prevent HIV. It reduces the risk of male infection during intercourse by at least 60 percent and, unlike a condom, cannot be forgotten during a moment of passion. Nearly all of 15 studies conducted throughout Africa found that most uncircumcised men would want the service if it were affordable and safe, and even more women prefer it for their partners and children.

Excerpted from Halperin’s essay referenced in my original entry.

How convenient. Even more women prefer it for their partners and children. Regarding the former, I don’t care what influences or reasons adult males use if the decision to undergo circumcision is voluntary. But with the latter, that simply isn’t the case. And how is it sexually relevant to (male) children what their mothers prefer regarding their genitals? (Also notice how nearly all of the studies revealed that most intact males would want circumcision. Contradictory evidence is still evidence.) Obviously I don’t come to this report with any pre-established respect for circumcision promoter Daniel Halperin. But continuing from the new article.

The AIDS pandemic continues to devastate some populations worldwide. In most countries, HIV transmission remains concentrated among sex workers, men who have sex with men and/or injecting drug users and their sexual partners. In some parts of Africa, HIV has jumped outside these high-risk groups, creating “generalized” epidemics spread mainly among people who are having multiple and typically “concurrent” (overlapping, longer-term) sexual relationships. In nine countries in southern Africa, more than 12% of adults are infected with HIV.
…

For example, condom use is widely promoted as an HIV prevention measure and is effective in countries such as Thailand, where the epidemic is spread primarily through sex work. However, studies have found no evidence that condom use has played a primary role in HIV decline in generalized, primarily heterosexual epidemics, such as those in southern Africa, the authors note. This is mainly because most HIV transmission there occurs in more regular sexual relationships, in which achieving consistent condom use has proved extremely difficult.

I want to pound my head on my desk until I can’t think any more. Where HIV transmission occurs, it occurs because the couple is engaging in unprotected sex where one partner is HIV-positive. If a condom is not used, that is not an indictment on condoms as a prevention technique. It’s not even about condom use in a relationship. It’s obviously about unsafe promiscuity. It does not take a genius to figure out that, if behavior remains consistently immune to logic, circumcision will not matter. HIV will spread. The only potential difference under discussion is the rate at which the disease spreads. Have unsafe sex with HIV-positive partners and you will become infected. It may take an extra encounter, but it will occur.

Circumcision also has the potential to encourage “just this once” disregard for safe sex practices. “I’m circumcised, so just this once, I’ll ignore the condom.” How many times will be “just this once”?

Under this focus on the rate, though, the true implication becomes clear. This is best shown in the poor ~~reporting~~ regurgitation of articles like this. For example:

In western Africa, were male circumcision is high for cultural and religious reasons, the prevalence of HIV is low and controlled trials have shown that the operation can stem the rate of infection, said Professor Malcolm Potts, of the University of California, Berkeley. “It is tragic that we did not act on male circumcision in 2000, when the evidence was already very compelling,” he said. “Large numbers of people will die as a result of this error.”

Because we didn’t implement mass circumcision of males in Africa, large numbers of people will die. As opposed to saying that, because many individuals¹ aren’t engaging in safe sex practices, large numbers of people will die? Which is more accurate at portraying a direct cause? Which advocates speculation that can’t be verified? Which is scientific?

Individual actions matter. If We&#153 are going to intervene, we must provide nothing more than the tools for individuals to choose for themselves. Where individuals ignore known risks and engage in dangerous behavior, there will be consequences. Suggesting that we shift from truly voluntary prevention techniques such as ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) and voluntary, adult male circumcision to involuntary male child circumcision is little more than an indication that We will save Them. Because They do not partake of the known methods to protect themselves as individuals, we must do it for them.

Of course, there’s the giant elephant in the room. “Reducing multiple sexual partnerships” sounds a lot like Be Faithful. So we’re left with only one different approach the authors believe should receive more funding. New articles and studies like this always have the goal² of pushing mass male circumcision, voluntary and involuntary, adult and child. Always.³

¹ I know that the issues of consent in sexual relations are more complicated than assuming every sexual encounter is voluntary and free from any pressure. Conceded. But that does not change the point that involuntary circumcision is not an answer to this problem. Correcting a wrong with a wrong is not valid. Individuals have rights, not collective groups.

² If you look at what the article is saying, you’ll also note that the validity of ABC instead of a collectivist, utilitarian perspective on male circumcision applies to the United States. Our HIV problem is not caused by what circumcision is supposed to protect against. That hasn’t stopped circumcision advocates from promoting (infant) male circumcision in
the United States as a way to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission.

³ It would require its own blog entry, but I don’t think any of this is some mass conspiracy by any group or profession. A mindset closed to a full set of facts, maybe, but not groups. Still, the point remains: it’s always about circumcision first, even if the stated justification is “public” health or some other goal perceived to be noble.

The headline omits the bad news for the company.

Both candidates for the presidency, and most certainly the lone straggler in the race, will focus only on $10.9 billion in profit, ignoring the full story:

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, said Thursday record crude prices helped its net income grow 17 percent in the first quarter, but the results came in below Wall Street forecasts.
…

As expected, margins at the company’s refining operations dragged heavily on the bottom line as the big jump in prices on refined products such as gasoline, while a menace to consumers, failed to keep pace with the rapid increase in crude prices.

Still, queue the countdown clock to when Exxon Mobil will be once again demonized by politicians. Forget that the price increases at the pump are based in market dynamics and not just arbitrarily set to claim more windfall profits so that the CEO can make more money for himself. The correct answer will be ignored because the ignorant fairy tale purchases votes.

I wish to make a pledge. I will write a nice entry praising a policy position of whichever presidential candidate waits the longest to cite Exxon Mobil as an example of rising gas prices and why government needs to step in.

Hey! Other topics exist. Who knew?

I’m not an attorney, so I can’t get completely into the questions of what Congress has restricted explicitly versus what leeway is authorized. But the Department of Justice has an insightful, albeit obviously broken, theory of how a liberty-minded society should fight an open-ended, poorly-defined war:

The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.

While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

This administration can’t be trusted. We knew that already, so this is just another example. I’m more amazed at my capacity to be surprised by this egregious implication.

Forget the injured and dead prisoners, I suppose. The former will heal, unless they won’t, in which case we’ll classify them with the latter, who deserved it. I do sometimes forget that our government only incarcerates terrorists, not accused terrorists. As long as the intent of the is to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, it can’t possibly be humiliating or *gasp* abuse.

I’m so tired of the argument that intent matters more than the act, that it should be enshrined as a rule. Beyond the obvious fault that the potential for abuse dictates clear rules limiting government, it’s impossible to completely legislate a competent determination of the subjective distinction between good and bad intent. The mere potential for an exception where a vile, illegal act can be excused becomes the rule. That is not a sane path. Prosecute the act; acquit the legitimate exceptions.

Don’t worry, though. Our government still cares a little.

“The fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant, but there are things that a reasonable observer would deem to be outrageous,” [a senior Justice Department official] said.

Who determines what is a “legitimate security purpose”? Congress? The president? What if the reasoning is classified, as it most certainly would be, an assumption the administration demonstrates¹ repeatedly? Are members of the administration who authorize such measures the reasonable observers who decide? The answers are important, since they speak to the continued development of what is supposed to be an open and free society.

¹ To be fair, the Bush administration is not alone in this inclination, nor is it unique to a party.

The U.S. owes the world. The world owes nothing to individuals.

Here’s an interview (part 2 of 3) with Stephen Lewis¹, a former diplomat now involved in HIV/AIDS issues. Here are a few curious excerpts (italics added):

What do you think should be done [to fix PEPFAR]?

People should demand more – much more. No one denies that when you pump several billion dollars into a response it will mean something. Of course it will; millions of people will be treated. That’s terribly important.

But that’s what we deserve to expect from the United States. You don’t kneel down before a country because it’s doing… something that the world has a right to receive. The American administration is so discredited, George Bush is such a lamentable president, that when anything of a positive kind happens people are prostrate at the unlikelihood of it and they shouldn’t be.

It gets worse from there, but it’s most important to focus on the key assumption. The world has a right to receive American funding for its problems. I’d like to know the socialist theory Lewis is using to arrive at the conclusion. Presumably we’re only allowed to call our giving “charity” if we need to feed our American egos. The world will acquiesce with that concession, but the dollars must continue to roll in to satisfy the world’s right to receive.

I don’t have anything else nice to say about that, so I’ll move on to the next interesting bit. (Again, italics added.)

How about the response of the United Nations to HIV/Aids in Africa?

There is just so much more to be done. Frankly, one of the things that is inadequate is the United Nations agencies. Some of it is bewildering.

For example, you get the Minister of Health in South Africa (Dr. Manto Tshababala-Msimang [sic]) attacking and dismissing circumcision as a preventive technology. Here you have three determinative studies, definitive studies, we have UNAIDS and WHO encouraging male circumcision as a way of reducing transmission and you get an attack on it by the minister of health in South Africa. Where is the United Nations’ voice? Why haven’t they taken on the minister? Why haven’t they said what should be said, which is that she’s effectively dooming people to death and it need not be done? You have to have a much stronger voice of advocacy from the United Nations in dealing with disease and related matters.

Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang is nuts is HIV, yes, but Lewis’ rant against the United Nations is bizarre. Whether it’s pushing circumcision through UNAIDS with breathless calls-to-action, issuing press releases touting the latest hype on the original story from WHO, or endorsing gender-based human rights violations through its remaining organizational reach, I’m not sure it’s possible to do more for the organization to insert its reach any further into this debate on the wrong side of human rights. But that’s defensible. Instead, let’s complain that they never criticized Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang for being stupid and dangerous.

Except, they did.

The United Nations special envoy for Aids in Africa has closed a major conference on the disease with a sharp critique of South Africa’s government.

Speaking at the end of the week-long gathering in Toronto, Canada, Stephen Lewis said South Africa promoted a “lunatic fringe” attitude to HIV/Aids.

Mr Lewis described the government as “obtuse, dilatory and negligent about rolling out treatment”.

Hey, wait a minute. Stephen Lewis? Stephen Lewis, working as special envoy for AIDS in Africa, attacked Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang’s comments in August 2006. Denouncing idiotic statements is necessary, but move on. Leave the grudge match to the WWE. Instead, every microphone is dead horse meets Stephen Lewis’ stick.

I did thoroughly enjoy this, in an “I’m disgusted” way:

“It really is distressing when the coercive apparatus of the state is brought against the most principled members of society,” he said.

Clearly Lewis is exhibiting a textbook case of Kip’s Law. I would challenge Lewis’ assertion that he is principled, since the UN’s Declaration of the Rights of the Child clearly forbids medically unnecessary genital cutting, without exceptions for gender or potential disease prevention. Nor am I particularly moved by his claim of oppression. Are infants subjected a coercive apparatus when they are circumcised, in part based on the rantings of individuals like Stephen Lewis?

¹ The following biography accompanies the article:

Formerly the special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa for United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, [Stephen Lewis] is now chairman of the board of the Canada-based Stephen Lewis Foundation, which endeavors to ease the pain of HIV/Aids in Africa by funding grassroots projects. Lewis is also co-director of Aids-Free World, a new international Aids advocacy organization based in the United States.

This will be important later in the entry.

With advocacy like this, who needs enemies?

Advocates for Youth is

… dedicated to creating programs and advocating for policies that help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. Advocates provides information, training, and strategic assistance to youth-serving organizations, policy makers, youth activists, and the media in the United States and the developing world.

Helping young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health is a noble goal. This is not that:

Human rights—Planners must take an approach to offering male circumcision that acknowledges the human rights of the client:

Every adult male who is considering circumcision for himself should be able to give informed consent.[1]

Where a minor is the prospective client, counselors must take extra time to ensure that the minor and his parents understand the procedure and that the young male consents to it.[1]

When an infant is to undergo the procedure, his parents must be fully informed.

If he is an adult, the male must consent. If he is young, the male must consent. If he is an infant, no human rights principles apply to him. That is a pathetic view of human rights. Anyone who accepts that view is not an advocate. At best, he is a propagandist who does not believe in principles, only principals who may act on another according to an undefined criterion.

What is the delimiter indicating when a male ages out of “pre-young” and into young, conferring a human rights requirement for consent before his healthy genitals may be surgically altered? I reject the answer in advance for reasons I’ve explained in detail. Still, I want to know because I do not understand the magical powers wrapped around the penis that reduces mankind’s ability to think when applying principles to its anatomical sanctity. So, advocates of the “pre-young” qualifier within human rights, when do “pre-young” males get the (ahem) equal right to consent – or refuse consent – to the surgical alteration of their healthy genitals that young and adult males possess?

Post Script: The footnote attached to the young and adult requirements points to an excuse from the usual suspects in infant male genital cutting advocacy. I will not provide a link to that report here.

Post Post Script: I addressed a similar, gender-based ethical lapse in a previous entry challenging nonsense from UNAIDS.

Surgery as a Replacement for Parenting

I used to feel some reservation about quoting parents when they’ve said something stupid about circumcision. You’ve probably figured out that I shed that a long time ago. When someone says something stupid to a reporter, I highlight it solely to point out that people are using stupidity to justify imposing permanent, medically unnecessary surgery on their child. (Doctors are complicit in this nonsense, which will also be obvious.) From an article out of St. Louis:

“I tell people there’s not a real medical reason for them to have [ed. note: Have? Force.] a circumcision,” said Dr. Jack Klein, chief of obstetrics at Missouri Baptist Medical Center, where 1,873 of the 2,144 boys born in 2007 were circumcised. “I will tell you the majority reason that people get circumcised is because they want their kid to look like other kids.”

That social conformity is reason enough, say some parents concerned about future locker room comparisons and sexual relationships.

“I really didn’t want to be faced with a teenage boy asking me why I didn’t do this and not have a really good reason for him,” St. Louis resident Amy Zimmerman said of her 2-year-old son John.

Notice who she is concerned about. Her concern was about her own feelings, her own desire to avoid the potential for (allegedly) tough questions from her son. That was enough for her to justify unneeded surgery on her son. She seems to wish to parent her son only in ways that do not exceed her level of comfort with potential issues. If it might be uncomfortable for her, her fear is enough to dismiss the healthy, intact (i.e. normal) individual he was, as well as the preference he may one day hold for having his genitals intact. Ms. Zimmerman fails to understand what it means to “not have a really good reason”.

Not that he would’ve complained if she didn’t have him circumcised. That’s speculation. But even if he would eventually complain, it’s an easy position for parents to say “We didn’t cut your healthy penis because it was healthy.” That’s rather simple. If he’s not placated by that, it would still have been possible for him to choose circumcision. But if she’s faced with a teenage boy asking why she did this, and he is not happy about it, what then? Oops?

If an individual does not want to parent his or her children, that person should not have children. Cosmetic surgery on healthy children to avoid future questions is a coward’s solution.

**********

Unfortunately, doctors are complicit in this abdication of parenting. Dr. Klein’s statement above makes this clear, since the surgery is objectively not indicated. But they cede this point in the name of parenting, a very poor conception of that responsibility.

Ultimately, it’s a personal decision, said Dr. Joseph Kahn, chief of pediatrics at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center.

“Like every decision for every surgery on every child,” he said, “it really needs to be something that’s discussed with the parents.”

Ultimately, we don’t treat it as a personal decision. The male choosing or rejecting circumcision for himself would be a personal decision. And like every other decision for every other surgery on every female and male child, it really needs to be something that’s medically necessary. That’s the first principle that’s ignored. Or can parents just order any cosmetic surgery for their ~~child~~ son(s)?

Female genital cutting is prohibited, of course, regardless of the “personal decision” parents might wish to make. We don’t listen to nonsense about parents deciding what’s best for their family, the newest mantra I see developing around male genital cutting. What’s best for your family, when you decide to have a family, is that each person’s bodily integrity is respected. You decide to have children. When they arrive healthy, you do not then have a special veto power over the form of that child’s body just because he is a he and not a she.

Where medical need is absent, intervention is illegitimate.

Failure is not a sin to be prevented at everyone’s expense.

I’m slowly beginning to figure out that politics is a test of wills. Whoever has the most endurance will win. My resolve is based on strength of ideas. Unfortunately, politicians are supported by power to be used as freely and stupidly as possible. Eventually, they’ll win because everyone with sense will go insane.

I’m not quite at insane, so today, this:

The Senate on Thursday passed a bipartisan package of tax breaks and other steps designed to help businesses and homeowners weather the housing crisis.

The measure passed by an impressive 84-12 vote, but even supporters of it acknowledge it’s tilted too much in favor of businesses like home builders and does little to help borrowers at risk of losing their homes.

The plan combines large tax breaks for homebuilders and a $7,000 tax credit for people who buy foreclosed properties, as well as $4 billion in grants for communities to buy and fix up abandoned homes.

And what about those of us who, while stupid enough to buy in the bubble, were smart enough to finance at a fixed-rate on a loan properly proportioned to our income? We get nothing? Mind you, I don’t want anything because I’m not interested in sending money to the Treasury so that it can then be returned to me masked as a constituent service. I’m already paying indirectly for the mistakes of others, as everyone is and must in a free market. I’m content with that because I know it works. This is just part of the process. But why should I also pay directly for the mistakes of others?

Specifically, the last thing homebuilders need right now are tax breaks that will inevitably encourage more speculation. There is an existing inventory of homes that may be purchased. Perhaps those aren’t the homes people want. I don’t claim to know, nor do I need to know. But expecting willing buyers to find a willing builder to produce the correct new home in the correct location without incentive from the government is the only reasonable position. A tax break just covers up the risk of speculation and the reality of failure. Dumb.

That’s not to say the proposed $7,000 tax break for buying a foreclosed home is any better. That incentivizes buyers into a foreclosed home over a non-foreclosed home. If they prefer the foreclosed home over a non-foreclosed home, they’ll be willing to negotiate a price without the incentive. If they prefer the non-foreclosed home over a foreclosed home, the incentive may skew their decision away. Sure, the owner(s) of the non-foreclosed home could lower their price by $7,000, but that just demonstrates the perversion Congress is imposing on them to benefit another party. It’s the same game of picking winners and losers outside of the marketplace.

Remember, though, that the actual marketplace is not a zero-sum game. Both parties gain from their transaction, or they wouldn’t enter into it. If they would agree without an external incentive, the incentive is unnecessary. If they would not agree without an incentive, the incentive skews the market away from its optimal point. Buyers have a required range of acceptable terms and sellers have a required range of acceptable terms. If the two do not overlap, that is not a failure of the market. The market is working as expected.

The housing market needs to stabilize. Unfortunately for me it will stabilize below what I owe. However, I want that to happen sooner rather than later because that is better for me, as it would be for any homeowner, whatever their equity status. More information is better than less information. But the market will not stabilize correctly, or as quickly, as long as Congress forgets that its job description does not include “Do something”.

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.

Biographical suggests reliance on history.

Warning: Although it’s semantically incorrect that revealing facts presented in a television show based on a biography of a historical figure as large as John Adams counts as a spoiler, this entry discusses how those facts are presented. If you wish to watch HBO’s John Adams and judge its merits for yourself before reading my impressions of the show, stop reading now. End warning.

I eagerly anticipated John Adams when I first saw an ad for the miniseries. It’s good, except it’s not. It’s compelling entertainment, as much of what HBO produces seems to be. But as history, it’s becoming quite clear that it’s at best a CliffsNotes version of John Adams’ life, and then only if sections of the CliffsNotes version were lost or cropped. Why?

The series leads the viewer to believe all sorts of strange interpretations of events that happen to be at best inaccurate. Events have been smushed together, with little things like periodic visits home being omitted. This may give dramatic tension to the filmed version of John Adams’ reunion with, separately, his wife and his children, but it has the inconvenience of being false. While I understand that turning a book into a film requires edits, alteration is not editing. The miniseries is poorer for it. As a result, my enthusiasm for the remaining three episodes is waning.

Worse, the end of episode four, “Reunion”, angered me. I can’t find my copy of David McCullough’s John Adams because we’ve temporarily piled our books into a closet as we remodel, so I can’t verify whether or not this appears in the source text for the miniseries. However, Mr. McCullough consulted on the script, so I doubt he wasn’t given a chance to comment on episode four’s conclusion, which involved the inauguration of George Washington. To be more precise, it involves John Adams’ reaction to George Washington’s inauguration, but it presents Washington’s oath of office to demonstrate the point.

The episode depicts George Washington reciting the oath in a quiet reserved tone to suggest the humble nature of a great man. After “…defend the Constitution of the United States,” Washington bellows “so help me God.” Are we really to believe that George Washington said this? What does Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution say about this?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Is it realistic to believe that any of the founders, having spent more than a decade to realize the fruition of a new republic based on limiting the power of government over the people, would deviate from a rule so basic as the oath of office as proscribed in the Constitution? I know our politicians violate the Constitution every day, but is anyone so morally defective that they’d blatantly do so in 1789, in this specific manner? (Yes, I’m aware that the First Amendment was not yet ratified in 1789.) If he was as smart as he must’ve been, would he overlook the absurdity of ignoring the Constitution while swearing to uphold it? And if Washington did add “so help me God,” would he essentially mumble the oath, only to loudly proclaim faith in God at the new nation’s birth? That’s inconsistent on multiple interpretations.

Personally, I lean to Kip’s view that the original appearance of this “fact” precludes any conclusion other than willful deceit. For a more cautious view, read Jonathan Rowe’s analysis.

Unfortunately, America’s founding fathers are misrepresented to push the Christian nation myth. They all believed in a single god, so clearly they wanted us to include God in everything the United States government does. We’re to ignore the controversy from not including a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution presented to the States, as well as the rather quick ratification of the First Amendment after the birth of the new Constitution. It’s ridiculous, but people want to believe it. And nonsense like this episode of John Adams encourages it. For example:

I hope this show can let some people remember that this country was founded by a bunch of men who were extremely religious [sic]

Even if that were true in the way that the writer believes, so what? Some of our founding fathers owned slaves. Are we to conclude that we should own slaves as a result? Or are we to conclude that imperfect men created a system of government capable of filtering human deficiencies from the exercise of power better than any other structure yet created? The text of the Constitution is sufficiently clear on this topic to know that the specific religious views of the founders are interesting but rather irrelevant to how we should operate today.