Stupidity – Rolling Doughnut

The NHL Is Dumb. The Lockout Is Dumb.

As I wrote earlier in the week, I love hockey and the NHL. I want to watch games every minute of every day. I watch old games on NHL Network during the summer, even when I know the outcome. It’s a fantastic sport. I wish more people watched.

The NHL is currently working to guarantee fewer people watch. It’s engaged in a lockout of its players, its second lockout in eight years and third in eighteen. It was the second major professional sports league to cancel its championship, the first to do so as a result of its own actions¹. It’s the only professional sports league to cancel an entire season (i.e. 2004-2005), which didn’t even happen during World War II. This shameful fact is an indictment on the league’s negotiating skills and tactics. We’re again learning how putrid the league is at both. The former is probably defensible. The latter is not.

As we’d already lost the first two weeks of the 2012-2013 season, the NHL made a surprise proposal to the NHL Players Association on Tuesday. It offered an attempt to save the full 82 game schedule for all teams and what seemed to be an excellent start to resolve the core economic differences between the two sides. A few days have now passed. The league now says its offer was not its starting point, but its finish line. Its tactic is to require capitulation. Whether that happens now or in August 2013, the league provides no reason to believe it cares when. It appears quite ready to destroy another season if that means “winning”. Past evidence suggests that wouldn’t be fatal, or even significantly damaging. The past’s applicability to the future is open for debate here. The league appears indifferent to fatigued diehards and the growing-but-fragile fan support it’s gained in the last few years from a resurgence of big-market teams.

Reports indicate that the league recently received pressure from its major sponsors and television partners in Canada and the United States. This, to me, is the most interesting aspect of the continuation of the lockout. Obviously everyone wants a healthy business going forward. And the league’s sponsors want to be associated with a sport that is stable, exciting, and growing. They had a chance to continue getting that from the league until its proposal shifted from an opening offer to its final offer without announcement. The league is so determined to get its deal that it will accept an unnecessarily damaged, smaller revenue stream from its victory. This is idiotic. Its sponsors will attach their brands to a league that embraces upheaval, ruthlessness, and repeated disregard for its customers. We’ll find out how willing and committed they are to supporting that combination in the post-lockout NHL, whenever that arrives.

I doubt sponsors will feel the same level of enthusiasm they’ve shown in recent years if a deal can’t be reached by Thursday. That failure would likely mean a large chunk of the season being axed next Friday. (Missing the Thursday deadline would also mean the season will likely die.) The league is about to find out how much of its projections is hubris. As I wrote before, the diehards will be back whenever the league returns. That includes lifelong fans and more recent converts like me. The league is correct on that. I wonder how much revenue it expects from me if that happens. It will get my $170 or whatever it will charge for the Center Ice television package because I am out-of-market for the Blackhawks and I like watching other teams. But I bet the league thinks I will also still want t-shirts and jerseys and other branded merchandise. I will want them. I will not buy them. The League’s revenue will not be zero. But its revenue will not be what it was before. It will get the smaller revenue base it deserves. I am foolish. I am not a complete fool without any respect for myself.

The league takes the support of its fans for granted. It thinks we’re stupid. It’s told us for several years that the league is growing and experiencing record revenues. It said so earlier in this now-extended off-season. Yet, now it also demands immediate givebacks from the players because teams can’t survive without them. It wants us to ignore that more than half of the cumulative losses experienced by the weaker teams last season belonged to the Phoenix Coyotes, a team owned by the league itself. On average the teams losing money are losing just under $2 million each. (This is based on reported numbers. Possible accounting tricks are not considered for the validity of this loss.) If team owners can’t absorb a $2 million loss for a few years as the league transitions to a more stable economic structure, they shouldn’t be involved in this high risk, high dollar business. As a fan I want my team and the league to be healthy. I do not want to be treated as though my only involvement is to hand over my money as often as possible.

I’d resolved myself to the reality that this lockout would cost a significant chunk of the season. Then, the league worked to win back support by making an offer. I’m optimistic but I do not appreciate being used in what is now an obvious ruse to win an irrelevant PR war the NHL deserves to lose worse than it was losing it on Monday. I’m not interested in subjective notions of fairness. A 50/50 split is no more fair than a 57/43 or a 43/57 split. Context matters. Fairness here is negotiating honestly and striving to satisfy as many goals as possible. The owners want a 50/50 split. The players want their existing contracts honored. Great, there’s a deal to be made. But the fans are lost in this equation. We are customers, not equal participants in the product. We want hockey. There are many ways for the owners and players to get – or get close to – what they want. Fans have no involvement to get we want. We have only the power of the dollar after the fight is over, whenever that might be. It should be by Thursday. It probably won’t be. The clock is unforgiving against a battle of egos. If/when I lose, most of the dollars I’ve spent in the past will remain in my wallet.

In the end the owners will win this lockout. They have all the power. I don’t much care where they end up. I care a lot how – and when – they get there. They should start asking themselves what they’ll win if there is no deal by Thursday. They should ask this without first using their assumed answer to beg the question. Fifty percent of nothing is no better than fifty-seven percent of nothing. Without a deal that enables a full season, everyone loses.

¹ Major League Baseball lost its World Series in 1994 due to a players strike. Current NHLPA executive director Don Fehr was the players’ union chief at the time.

I Hate Politicians, and So Should You

Partisan propaganda is easy. Today I saw this photograph (source via Wil Wheaton’s Tumblr):

Anti-Romney Propaganda

Of course we should forget about Mitt Romney. That shouldn’t default as an endorsement of Barack Obama. I created the image below:

See how easy that is? Should I thus assume that those against Romney think any (or all) of the factual marks against Obama indicate the same “don’t vote for him” decision that facts about Romney indicate?

They’re both liars. All politicians are liars. Why would I vote for either of these liars, when both will only take away the rights of citizens and steal more power for government?

Pee-wee Herman Should Read the Transcript

Last month Arnold Kling wrote a great post:

The following thought occurred to me recently. Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology. Such writing can

(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author

(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author

(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

So, think about it. Wouldn’t you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn’t that sort of pathetic? …

I think that’s right, and worth remembering when writing to persuade. More importantly, he wrote about Tyler Cowen:

Tyler is good at paying attention to the strongest arguments of those with whom he disagrees. Focusing on weaker arguments instead is a classic (c) move. …

That is exactly right, and it’s the antithesis of partisan politics. It’s the primary reason I despise partisanship.

With the new perpetual election season, but specifically the imminent 2012 election, we’re stuck with this. The current example is Rush Limbaugh pretending that the villain in the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, is a liberal swipe at Mitt Romney because the character’s name is Bane, which is similar to Bain, the venture capital firm Romney ran. So, Limbaugh is a radio DJ who said something obviously ridiculous. Therefore, we get to indict Republicans for believing this.

For example:

To believe that Bane is a Hollywood conspiracy to elect Barack Obama, you’d have to believe that Bane co-creators Chuck Dixon, Doug Moench, and Graham Nolan* (COINCIDENCE?!?!?!) anticipated prior to Romney even announcing a run for public office that Romney would eventually win the GOP primary in 2012, or that Christopher Nolan, anticipating all of this, chose to pick a villain whose name sounds like the company Romney used to work for. On the other hand, if you’re the kind of Republican who believes Barack Obama’s parents placed a fraudulent birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper in order to shore up his claim to American citizenship in the event he might someday run for president, this probably doesn’t sound like the dumbest thing ever.

Rush Limbaugh is estimated to have around 15 million listeners. Fifteen million.

If you’re that kind of Republican, of course you’re that gullible. But if you’re that kind of person, you’ll believe anything your partisan friends spew. You want to believe. That’s powerful in hiding the truth.

Even if we assume all 15 million listeners of Limbaugh’s program believe every stupid thing he says, we’re left with 294 million Americans who don’t listen to him. Are they all Democrats? If so, President Obama has nothing to worry about. If not, then presumably the goal is to convince the non-Democrats that President Obama is the best choice. Using this as a tool for anything other than mocking Rush Limbaugh is focusing on the weaker arguments.

It’s also worth asking whether or not it’s possible to find 15 million Democrats who believe stupid, irrational nonsense about Republicans.

P.S. The Limbaugh transcript should get this treatment.

All Your Citizens Are Belong to Us

Thomas Ricks has an op-ed in today’s New York Times on reinstating a peace-time draft. It’s embarrassing in many ways, but two especially:

And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

Great, can we implement this now? That means no taxes, as well, right? I know, hahahaha, of course not. A straw man dipped in gasoline is easily burned.

But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.

Three words: starve the beast. With the national debt standing at $15,883,106,924,772.24 and counting, when can we put that to rest? Politicians do not operate on logic. And the majority of voters would still not be participants whenever our government waged war. The cannon fodder would still be a minority to be wielded by the majority. They just wouldn’t be volunteers any more. That’s not an improvement.

Political Healing Is Not Physical Healing

So, I was wrong with my prediction on the ACA. I was correct that if the mandate went down, all of it would go. But Chief Justice Roberts agreed that the mandate acts as a tax. Okay.

There are still other problems. Eugene Robinson highlights them, although not intentionally.

The political impact of Thursday’s stunning Supreme Court decision on health-care reform is clear — good for President Obama and the Democrats, bad for Mitt Romney and the Republicans — but fleeting, and thus secondary. Much more important is what the ruling means in the long term for the physical and moral health of the nation.

I find the idea that this is an improvement to our nation’s “moral health” ridiculous and offensive. It’s the simplistic view that opposition to the ACA is opposition to the claimed goals. It’s the pretense that opposition is founded on an “I got mine, so screw you” idea. It’s hackish. Opposition guarantees no such intention, and maybe I’m foolish, but granting the government more power to use force against individuals is hardly an improvement in our moral health.

All but lost in the commentary about the court’s 5 to 4 ruling, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. unexpectedly joining the majority, is that the Affordable Care Act was intended as just a beginning. We have far to go, but at least we’re on our way.

Obama’s great achievement is not any one element of the health-care reform law — not even the now-upheld “individual mandate,” which compels individuals to have health insurance or pay a fine. The important thing is the law’s underlying assumption that every American, rich or poor, should have access to adequate health care.

But that’s not the issue. The important thing is how well the law will achieve its aims. Will it? Which unintended consequences will result? What will it cost in trade-offs? Early evidence suggests a strong “no” for the first question, which should raise further concerns about questions two and three.

Here, we don’t even get to the first question. Mr. Robinson is endorsing the Do Something theory of government. This is Something, so it must be good. It’s untethered from outcome. We’ve merely expressed the right feelings that every American should have access to adequate health care. That isn’t a solution to a problem that exists in large part because of previous feelings-premised public policy solutions. The ACA is not the only way to try to achieve the real goal of reform and improving health care access and outcomes. The ACA merely doubles down on the existing structural problems. When government is failing, ordering more government is hardly a credible solution.

As I wrote in my prediction, tying insurance to employment is inefficient and stupid. Our current unemployment rate is an excellent indicator of a flaw in the policy. Mr. Robinson gets at this:

Most working-age Americans who have health insurance obtained it through their employers. But this is a haphazard and inefficient delivery route that puts U.S. businesses at a disadvantage against foreign competitors, most of which shoulder no such burden. Tying health insurance to the workplace also distorts the labor market and discourages entrepreneurship by forcing some employees to stay where they are — even in dead-end jobs — rather than give up health insurance.

With this acknowledged, it appears the only way to endorse the ACA is to focus on the important thing, the good feelings. The ACA will work to untie insurance from employment, but only because it makes the burden of employer-provided insurance so onerous. It pushes people into public options. That’s aiming for single-payer without having the political courage to admit the aim. Such lack of courage does not suggest good outcomes when the inevitable financial crisis from the ACA results. And now, because this reform was so ham-fisted and clueless, no one will have the political capital necessary to reform the reform.

Rather than seek a radical reshaping of the health-care system, Obama pushed through a set of relatively modest reforms that will expand insurance coverage to a large number of the uninsured — about 30 million — but still not all. He also tried to use free-market forces to “bend the curve” of rising costs, slowing but not halting their rise.

The ACA doesn’t try to use free-market forces. It attempts to manipulate them, at best, and pretend they don’t exist, at worst. It’s the idea that prices can be mandated, that supply and demand are fully malleable with political will. It’s neither an honest nor an intelligent attempt by the Congress and President Obama. It will fail. The only questions are how soon, who will be harmed, and what will we do in response.

Penn Jillette on Obama’s Marijuana Hypocrisy

Penn Jillette is awesome for many reasons. As such I’m a fan of his new weekly podcast, Penn’s Sunday School. It always delivers, like last week when he went on a rant about President Obama’s continuation of the unwinnable, anti-liberty drug war and his hypocrisy. It’s brilliant and can be fully experienced in the clip below in a way the transcript can’t deliver.

Like Mr. Jillette, I’ve never consumed drugs or alcohol, but I do not care if another wants to do so. My only criterion is what I use for everything: do it voluntarily and without harm to another. Ingest drugs? No harm. Rob someone to get money to buy drugs to ingest? Harm. Drive while under the influence? Harm. It’s not complicated.

Contrast that with President Obama’s comments in his interview with Jimmy Fallon (video via NORML):

Notice the nanny-state mentality where anything that might be an individual problem automatically becomes a matter of “public health”. No one is an individual, just a cog in the machinery of the state to be managed and used.

Of course, Obama’s hypocrisy goes further. (As it does for all politicians, who are, by default, moral defectives.) Via the same NORML link, he clarified his remarks in an interview with Rolling Stone (from April):

Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not “use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana.” Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What’s up with that?

Here’s what’s up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law. I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, “Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.” What I can say is, “Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.” As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.

The only tension that’s come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we’re telling them, “This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way.” That’s not something we’re going to do. I do think it’s important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we’ve done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We’ve had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that’s an appropriate debate that we should have.

Only to a politician does “not prioritize” mean “vigorously pursue”. And, sure, cutting off supply of marijuana to people who may legally possess and use it within specific states isn’t “prosecution”, but it sure isn’t the same as federalism or a passing nod to his campaign promises. Nor, circling back to Jillette’s destruction of Obama’s hypocrisy, is his implied wrongness of recreational use vindicated by anything he’s said or done. He’s nothing more than a bad parent’s slogan: Do as I ~~command~~, not as I do.

One’s Conscience Should Favor Children Having Parents

Virginia is so ridiculous sometimes that it makes me say “God, damn Virginia”. Should there actually be a god, surely that god is not a fan of the hatred and bigotry that so many Virginia politicians and citizens embrace and repeatedly seek to codify. So it is again with SB 349 / HB 189, which Gov. Bob McDonnell can’t wait to sign. It updates the law for adoption agencies to include a “conscience clause”. Being Virginia this is nothing more than the legislature’s way of saying “EWWW, TEH GAYZ”.

Child-placing agency; conscience clause. Provides that, to the extent allowed by federal law, no private child-placing agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. In addition, the bill provides that (i) the Commissioner of Social Services shall not deny an application for an initial license or renewal of a license, nor revoke a license, of any private child-placing agency and (ii) no state or local government entity shall deny a private child-placing agency any grant, contract, or participation in a government program because of the agency’s objection to performing, assisting, counseling, recommending, consenting to, referring, or participating in a placement that violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. The bill provides that the refusal of a private child-placing agency to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in a placement that violates its written moral or religious convictions or policies shall not form the basis of any claim for damages.

As a libertarian, private actors should be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want to hate. Denying access to one’s personal services is a right. Free markets require more than one consenting party. Likewise, I possess the right to give my business to someone else who more closely shares my values.

But it’s also clear that one stops being 100% private when one starts (voluntarily) taking public money. Want to discriminate? Fine, do it with your own money. When everyone is forced to contribute money to you, constraints tied to basic principles are reasonable. in short, you’re entitled to your religious beliefs. You’re not entitled to use my money to spread them in the world.

Lifting the Venn of Ignorance

This Mother Jones blog post – “The Venn of Ron Paul and Other Mysteries of Libertarianism Explained” – is ostensibly a rebuke of libertarianism by dumping on its (alleged) chosen vessel, Ron Paul. Unsurprisingly, the author, Josh Harkinson, does not understand libertarianism. The diagram:

I know, ha ha. Especially with the additions of the accompanying “Libertarian Theology” glossary and the “Rand of the Free” poll. It’s so powerful.

If only it were true. To quote David Boaz:

… Libertarians are not against all government. We are precisely “advocates of limited government.” Perhaps to the man who wrote the speeches in which a Republican president advocated a trillion dollars of new spending, the largest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, federal takeovers of education and marriage, presidential power to arrest and incarcerate American citizens without access to a lawyer or a judge, and two endless “nation-building” enterprises, the distinction between “limited government” and “anti-government” is hard to see. But it is real and important.

And:

A government is a set of institutions through which we adjudicate our disputes, defend our rights, and provide for certain common needs. It derives its authority, at some level and in some way, from the consent of the governed… What we want is a limited government that attends to its necessary and proper functions… Thus libertarians are not “anti-government.” Libertarians support limited, constitutional government — limited not just in size but, of far greater importance, in the scope of its powers.

Admittedly, in the comfortable mindset of someone who likes ignorant gotchas, I probably violated my libertarian principle of individualism because I let someone else speak for me. I just stole his words. Nevermind that I cited Mr. Boaz and provided the necessary links. As a libertarian, I’m required to live without assistance from anyone for anything, forever. Hell, I drive on government roads every day. Eventually I’m going to figure out that this makes me not a libertarian.

To show that anyone can have fun with drawing, I’ve attempted my own Ha Ha.

To finish the point, I have an entire blog category in which I explain why more state action is warranted and necessary. So, yeah, “anti-government”? Not so much.

Link via Boing Boing. (Note: Original venn diagram re-sized to fit my out-of-date blog template.)

Congressman Brad Sherman Is Wrong On Circumcision

This is why I don’t like the political process for ending non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.

Congressman Brad Sherman announced today that he will be introducing the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, a bill to prevent San Francisco and other municipalities from banning the circumcision of males under the age of 18.

Sherman’s new bill is in reaction to a measure that has qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco that would make the performance of circumcisions on males under 18 a misdemeanor—with a possible $1,000 fine and one-year prison term.

He’s framing the problem incorrectly, which allows him to protect a “right” that doesn’t exist and ignore a right that does. The proposed bill in San Francisco would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcisions on males under 18. Healthy children do not need surgery, even if the parents’ god says so. California law already restricts the rights of parents to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters for any reason, including religious claims. Is that an infringement? Of course not. Likewise, there is no First Amendment right to inflict permanent harm on one’s ~~children~~ sons (only).

Sherman expressed concern over the motivation of the provision. “To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision.”

The provision, shown by its generally-applicable wording, would protect the right of all healthy males to keep their normal body intact and free from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery to which they do not consent. It’s the same right U.S. and California law protects for their sisters. That right is being violated. It must stop. This is a way to achieve that, even if it may not be the best way.

But if we incorrectly assume this infringes a legitimate religious right, San Francisco (and every other locality) has a compelling medical reason to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision: it’s non-therapeutic genital cutting imposed on a non-consenting individual. The healthy child does not need circumcision any more than he needs an appendectomy. If he has an appendectomy, he will never get appendicitis. That is a potential benefit. Should we therefore allow parents to have a surgeon cut their healthy ~~children~~ sons (only) to remove his potentially harm-producing appendix? In the name of parental rights? No, because that would be stupid. The ability to chase some possible benefit can’t be an ethical justification to perform an invasive, unnecessary surgical intervention on a healthy child.

Congressman Sherman added:

“Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents,” Sherman said. “And, nothing in my bill prohibits statewide law ensuring that male circumcision occurs in a hygienic manner.”

To the extent that Congress has a legitimate interest¹ here, it’s in protecting the individual rights of every citizen, including male children. It already protected female children with the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996. That prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting female minors for any reason, including religious claims by the parents. Does that infringe on parental religious rights? Are we illegitimately denying religious rights by not permitting other acts by parents sanctioned by various religious texts? Are the healthy genitals of male minors beneath the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment?

“Congress has historically legislated to protect the free exercise of religious rights from state and local intrusions,” Sherman said. “In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, designed to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome local zoning laws.”

The logic of the law Congressman Sherman cites favorably requires the conclusion that his proposed bill is flawed. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act establishes that the government may not impose a burden

…unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution–
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(A) Protecting children from unnecessary, objective harm is a compelling governmental interest. Circumcision, as surgery, inflicts objective harm in every instance. When there is no offsetting medical need, the harm is the only guaranteed result. Preventing that is the premise behind prohibiting all female genital cutting on healthy female minors, even genital cutting that is less severe, damaging, or permanent than a typical male circumcision. The government recognizes that girls are individuals with rights that deserve to be protected. Infringing on a non-existent parental right to cut the healthy genitals of their ~~daughters~~ children is a legitimate state action.

(B) The least restrictive means would be for parents to understand that non-therapeutic genital cutting on healthy children is ethically and medically wrong and, thus, refrain from imposing it on their sons. Yet, religious and non-religious parents alike cut the healthy genitals of their sons. How else is the state supposed to stop it without exercising its legitimate police power?

Congressman Sherman should withdraw the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 immediately. He should also introduce a bill to remove the gender bias from the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 to create the Anti-Genital Mutilation Act of 2011, if he’s serious about using the powers of Congress correctly to protect the rights of all American citizens.

Update: More from Congressman Sherman:

Sherman said he did not consult the text of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 in composing the bill he will put forth in Congress.

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking,” Sherman said.

Since he’s working with a closed mind, I’ll simplify: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong. The extent of the damage is irrelevant. The reason cited is irrelevant. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong.

¹ I want to be proved wrong on this, but Sherman’s statement is further evidence of my prediction that ceding power to the government on health care would lead to arguments that child circumcision provided fiscal benefits to the nation. It wouldn’t change the ethical violation involved, but Congressman Sherman doesn’t provide a cost-benefit analysis for his claim. Only in Congress can spending money always mean saving money.

Teaching Compliance, One Traveler At A Time

On Thursday I experienced the new TSA screening procedures for the first time. The security line I went through had both a metal detector and a backscatter X-ray scanner. (Two lines fed to these machines.) A TSA employee “randomly” directed citizens to one of the machines. My informal count suggested that approximately two-thirds of the lines were directed to the backscatter X-ray scanner. The randomness seemed to be more about time. Observationally, as the line for the backscatter filled, overflow was directed to the metal detector.

I got the backscatter X-ray machine. I opted out. After confirming that I wished to opt out, the TSA employee directed me to the individual screening area. As I stood on the mat, I told him that I wanted to let him know upfront that I would cooperate with his search but did not consent to having my genitals touched, and that if he touched my genitals, I would file a complaint. He stared at me dumbly for a moment before going to get his supervisor.

I repeated to the supervisor what I’d told the first agent. I told him I’ve had skin cancer and do not wish to be exposed to more radiation than necessary. That’s true, though incomplete. I’d rant about the 4th Amendment, but that wouldn’t be any more productive than the implication of my statements already.

He seemed mildly surprised but remained focused. He asked me to clarify, telling me what they would be doing. After I repeated my position, he asked if I was refusing to be screened. I told him that, as I said before, I would cooperate but do not consent to having my genitals touched and would file a complaint if anyone did so. I also stated that I understood he did not set the policy.

The supervisor opted to perform the pat-down. He asked if I’d like to have the screening performed in private. I declined because I wanted everyone to see my objection. Once underway, he informed me of each step he was going to take before he proceeded. He ran his hands over my clothing but did not press into my body. When he finished the pat-down, he asked if I wished to file a complaint. I declined because, as I told him, he behaved reasonably within an unreasonable policy. He showed a level of professionalism that I have not encountered in any other encounter with TSA (c.f. August 2008).

I will engage future TSA experiences the same way, even in the inevitable likelihood that someone will be unreasonable and deny me access to my flight. I would have filed a complaint if he’d touched my genitals, regardless of his professionalism. He did not touch my genitals. I did not believe a complaint would be a useful means of protest in the context. I want more people to object, as I explained to the woman receiving a pat-down next to me. But dumping on the TSA employee wouldn’t convince him I’m right that he’s wrong to continue violating other’s rights by following unreasonable policy. Our representatives are the ones we should be blatantly and repeatedly antagonizing.

The kicker is what demonstrates the stupidity of this: to get to the individual screening area, I had to walk through the metal detector. It didn’t buzz.