Politics '11: Keeping up with the Xornses

[NotMiki]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/cartoons/20100510_ink_tank?pg=14

for the supers

[Shale]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/

No, seriously, Arizona. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[metroid composite]

Mumei: This just makes me happy
Mumei: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20133ededb76f970b-550wi
Mumei: This is a conservative Republican transgender Cuban-American politician.

http://donnamilo.com/MeetDonna.html

Neat.

[superaielman]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-20/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-injustice-of-female-genital-mutilation/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL1

Credit to NRonline for linking this. The American Academy of Pediatrics wants to allow a (Admitally light) form of female gentital mutalation, which the author blasts them for.

[NotMiki]

I think the author has it wrong.  If the procedure as described truly is not harmful (in the long-term sense) and it's legally available, it reduces the urge for families determined to have it done to obtain it in a more dangerous and permanently damaging form.  Same type of arguments one would make for abortion or male circumcision (which I believe is a silly cultural practice given cover by its actual medical benefits). Shaping harmful cultural practices into harmless one with a little nudge is much more likely to change minds than banning a practice outright, and will probably produce more living girls with intact genitals than the all-or-nothing alternative.

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/the-war-is-making-you-poo_b_585343.html

Alan Grayson introduces "The War is Making You Poor Act."  God damn does that guy know how to message.  I mean, obviously it's not going to work, but that has to be the best bill name since No Child Left Behind or the Patriot Act.

[Grefter]

If nothing else regarding the female genital mutilation article, he has a flawed argument that falsifies what it is arguing against.  You have 1 paragraph about the bill, 1 describing what it is allowing and then 6 paragraphs describing full blown genital mutilation.  Pure scare tactic and not relevant to the actual bill being put forward.  I am entirely sympathetic to the argument that it is about and do agree that the genital mutilation happening around the world is mind boggling and absolutely disgraceful, but that is part of a far bigger argument than the one at hand.

Edit - And yeah, nice to see someone actually stepping up about that shit in more than just angry anarchist publications Jim, but as you acknowledge, not going to do anything.

[metroid composite]

male circumcision (which I believe is a silly cultural practice given cover by its actual medical benefits).

Male circumcision...well from what I've heard, Americans do it to every baby (not sure if that's true or not, but some American friends of mine claimed it).  I don't think it should be forced like that, but I don't see anything wrong with giving people the option, any more than I see a problem with giving people the option to get their ears pierced.  Fundamentally it doesn't appear to be damaging, unlike female circumcision.  The question I would raise with male circumcision is whether it should be done at birth, the way it usually is now, or whether the kid should be old enough to have some say in it.

(Are there medical benefits to doing it at birth compared to doing it later?  The only medical benefit I know of offhand is "less likely to get AIDS from sex", which really should not come up until the kid's at least 12).

[NotMiki]

It's a more dangerous and painful operation if you do it later in life (potential for infection, etc).  The vast majority of American boys are circumcised, I believe.

[Taishyr]

I'm not really sure what to say about the circumcision discussion, but yes I do approve of "The War Is Making You Poor" Act just on name judo alone.

[Dark Holy Elf]

well from what I've heard, Americans do it to every baby

Honestly, mc, if you have time to read this topic and type this, you have time to spend 10 seconds on Google and learn the truth yourself. Your friend's wrong, though it is the majority (looks like ~75%). The Canadian rate appears to be somewhat lower, though I didn't find statistics I trusted at a quick glance.

Are there medical benefits to doing it at birth compared to doing it later?

The benefit to doing it at birth is that it's much less painful then. I don't think too many men would choose to have it done as an adult (though admittedly, some do), but many are glad that it was done to them as infants (though admittedly, not all). It may sound weird but it's true. Men are squeamish about that sort of thing.


EDIT: largely ninja'd by Jim. Oh well!

[superaielman]

Male circumcision protects you from penile cancer. It's also an incredibly minor surgery, since you're just removing a tiny flap of skin. There is no real benefit to waiting; the earlier the better there.

[Cotigo]

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_2x_can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp

Circumcision is baby torture as far as I'm concerned.  It might just be a "small flap of skin", but claims of its medical benefits are over exaggerated to say the least.  Babies still go into shock during the unanesthesized procedure, and the only reason it's "better" to do it early is because at that point the baby won't fucking remember the procedure.

Claims that the foreskin can easily become infected are also blatantly false or exaggerated.  The procedure is unnecessary and I'm sorry if claiming cultural/religious reasons as an excuse to "cut some skin off" makes me want to kick you in the nads until you're unable to reproduce.

You can probably guess my stance on the equivalent procedure performed on women. 

[Pyro]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest/index.html?hpt=T2

Israeli raid on the much talked about 'aid floatilla' leaves several of the boat's civillian crew/passengers dead. Still pretty new so not enough details to paint a clear picture of what happened, but this is likely to have negative fallout all across the world.

For my part, I think the violence was probably forced on the IDF boarding parties by civillians attacking them (based on footage of the events), but that the raids were ill conceived and should have been done in a manner that ensured nothing like this would happen. Regardless I find myself feeling little sympathy right now for the crew if the events really did unfold that way. It does make for a rather serious political event, and one that puts the US (as Israel's UN shield) in a painful position (again).

I also tend to disagree with the Gaza embargo as a whole after reading Amnesty's report on the issue.

[Dunefar]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?_r=2&hp

Interesting court case involving Miranda and the right to silence.

[Lady Door]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?_r=2&hp

Interesting court case involving Miranda and the right to silence.

Hooray for irony!

For the case in question, the ruling makes perfect sense. Dude did not say he did not want to talk, did in fact respond several times during the interrogation, and all long after  he acknowledged his rights. Can't go back and say "oops, sorry, not speaking (much) meant I didn't want to speak (about my involvement in this crime), so you can't use that (incriminating answer)!" THANKFULLY.

Intellectually, however, I resent the idea that you need to invoke such a right. Perhaps it is (and should be) different in the legal case, but it sets a scary precedent if you need to deliberately declare interest in your rights in abstract. It makes sense to invoke your right to a lawyer -- how will they know that you want/need one unless you tell them? It does not make sense to invoke your right to silence. They cannot give that to you, or take it away. It, unlike a public defender, is not within their purview.

Big for that.

[Dunefar]

I agreed with you on the first reading, but on reflection I'm not so sure.  I mean, despite being silent, there's a distinct invocation of a right at play here. Why not make it so you have to be explicit about it? Remove the ambiguity so these situations have a clear, solid precedent to work off of.

[Lady Door]

In all cases, I agree non-ambiguous statements are best. That doesn't mean they're always possible, or should always be required. In other words, I don't think "best practice" should turn into "only practice."

[NotMiki]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?_r=2&hp

Interesting court case involving Miranda and the right to silence.

This is pretty simple to me.  He remained silent for a period of HOURS.  That's dozens, maybe hundreds of questions he remained mute for, not just one or two.  The right to remain silent should be one that needs to be asserted, but no one in their right mind could possibly conclude that the meaning of two hours or so of silence in that situation was anything but a desire to not speak, and more specifically a desire not to self-incriminate.  We shouldn't all have to learn magic words to say just to have our existing constitutional rights respected.

[Dunefar]

He wasn't quiet all the time, from the article:

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering ''yes,'' ''no,'' ''I don't know,'' nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for ''shooting that boy down,'' Thompkins said, ''Yes.''

[NotMiki]

Dune, I still say if he refused to verbally respond to questions, it's a clear signal he's invoked his rights.  You're right, though, that the phrasing makes it unclear how long he was silent (and doesn't touch on refusal to answer questions, which is what I think this should turn on factually).  So while I think the principle that a right to remain silent can be established by silence, it's not entirely clear whether what happened here would qualify.

I think the best way to look at this is to ask whether the right against self-incrimination is established by invoking it, or whether it is waived by failure to do so.  The right to remain silent is an aspect of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  I think the best view of individual rights conferred by the constitution is that there should be an assumption that a party is, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, always exercising those rights.  To say otherwise would essentially allow people to commit constitutional violations against those unwilling or unable to complain without fear of recourse.  And that's a bad thing.

[Lady Door]

Dune, I still say if he refused to verbally respond to questions, it's a clear signal he's invoked his rights.  You're right, though, that the phrasing makes it unclear how long he was silent (and doesn't touch on refusal to answer questions, which is what I think this should turn on factually).  So while I think the principle that a right to remain silent can be established by silence, it's not entirely clear whether what happened here would qualify.

I think the best way to look at this is to ask whether the right against self-incrimination is established by invoking it, or whether it is waived by failure to do so.  The right to remain silent is an aspect of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  I think the best view of individual rights conferred by the constitution is that there should be an assumption that a party is, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, always exercising those rights.  To say otherwise would essentially allow people to commit constitutional violations against those unwilling or unable to complain without fear of recourse.  And that's a bad thing.

This is what I was going for, too.

[NotMiki]

http://volokh.com/2010/05/31/shedding-light-on-the-az-immigration-law/

the pdf in the link is a great analysis of the Arizona immigration law.

the upshot: people like the AZ governor and the bill's author who insist the bill does not authorize racial profiling are flat wrong (and, of course, they should know it).  At the very least, the bill allows racial profiling, because the bill only forbids racial profiling that would be unconstitutional or against federal law, and not all racial profiling is (for example, in immigration, using a person's race as one of multiple factors in determining whether police have a reasonable suspicion is permissible).  At most, the bill may require racial profiling by allowing private parties to sue the police to force them to enforce the bill.  The extent permissible and extent necessary will only become clear after a few rounds of litigation.  A complicating factor is that the governor signed an executive order modifying this bill that she said was intended to prevent racial profiling, but the change in the text doesn't do that (but courts, especially "liberal" ones, will find it relevant that she said, on the record, that that was what the change was for, and may decide to honor her stated intent rather than the formal change in the text).

When police are required to stop people and ask for their papers, and when they are not required but may do so, is also not entirely clear.  Cops can demand papers from people they have a reasonable suspicion are illegal, but that mostly goes back to what kind of racial profiling goes on.

[NotMiki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05blow.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx

Acceptance of homosexuality passes the 50% mark because of men.  You're welcome.

[metroid composite]

Thank you.

I have to admit I didn't see this one coming.  Or rather my reactions were...

"Men have historically been less tolerant" *nodding* sounds right
"And so the percentage of tolerant men is rising faster" *nodding* sounds right
"And now the percentage of tolerant men is higher than the percentage of tolerant women" *record scratch* wait, what?

I'll be very interested to see the next poll in a year or two.  I'm curious if the two percentages will stay about equal, or whether the gap will now reverse.