FDGay

The FDA decided to keep its lifetime ban on Homosexual blood donors. Yes, blood groups think the ban is unnecessary, and yes, blood testing can detect HIV in less than a month after infection, and no, the FDA doesn't care.

The thing is, the nation needs blood (Google shows many "shortages" since 2000). The FDA says it would reverse its policy if it were shown that gay blood did not pose a “significant and preventable” risk to blood recipients. Thats one goal, but what about the "significant and preventable" risk posed to patients who need blood but may not be able to get it? Also, and just to point it out, its not like only gays get AIDS. If you want to really get a hold of this, ban blood from anyone who's ever had unprotected sex, or if you think like Dr. Sen. Bill Frist, been cried on by a gay guy.

Anyway, I think this article shows three things.

1. Yeah, there's a bias against homosexuals in government. Not really news.
2. The FDA has a reputation for favoring politics over science. This looks like another arrow in the quiver of that accusation.
3. Even if one and two are false, it does show that once the government reacts/over-reacts to something, it stays reacted/over-reacted to. Which is really the most important lesson here.
   

Hollow Apology Award Nominee

Washington Redskins RB Clinton Portis rushed (heh) to the aid of Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick who is charged with hosting dog fights at his Atlanta home. So Portis, in an interview says,

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not," Portis said. "But it's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

And later about a Vick conviction,

"Then I think he got cheated. ... You're putting him behind bars for no reason — over a dog fight."

It's about here where Portis' agent and the Washington Redskins lose their lunch. My bet is the conversation went something like this. "Hey dumbass, have you had one too many concussions? Do we need have your head actually examined? Do you realize that our fans loooooove dogs? Do you want little Johnny fan who loves his best friend Rover to think you like watching dogs fight to the death? How 'bout Bubba fan who hunts with his dog on Saturday's and watches the 'Skins on Sunday? There are probably more dogs in NFL households than people, and you just alienated all of their owners. You're on tape laughing over a bloody illegal sport involving man's best friend. What company do you think will now call you and ask a dog killer to push their product? You gotta fix this, and now!"*

Then Tim Hardaway called to thank him.

So then Portis released this statement through the team,

"In the recent interview I gave concerning dog fighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dog fighting or condone dog fighting in any manner"

Maybe one of the least believable apologies I've heard. Maybe he was just going for some street cred, or trying to help a buddy and it backfired. But you can decide for yourself which view he really holds, and how sincere he is with his apology.

As far as Vick, if I own the Falcons, at some point I have to question the decision making ability of my franchise QB.

*What I say about dog fighting in this post is not based on any extensive research, what I'm describing is the perception of dog fighting.

When worlds collide

Reading this article about the big drought hitting Florida (for those of you in the know, the water crisis will hit the planet long before Global Warming becomes a big thing) and one part stood out,

The cane sugar industry is also bracing for a big hit. U.S. Sugar Corp. spokeswoman Judy Sanchez said crops were worse than the 2001 drought. The company is the nation's leading producer of cane sugar. The drought is compounding damage from some earlier cold weather."We had probably three freeze spells in winter that knocked some of the young cane back to the ground," Sanchez said. "It did not have adequate water, so some of the cane that was frost-damaged has not recovered its growth."

Sugar Cane is the sweet nectar that can bring environmentalists and free marketeers together (if only quit knee jerking and look at the issue).

Sugar cane takes huge amounts of water to grow, huge amounts of water to process, and it also creates huge amounts of pollution that damages what water is not used in growth or production. Easy to see why the Greenies don't like it.

Also, the sugar subsidy insures that US consumers pay more for sugar, a lot more. US sugar prices are about twice the global market rate, and that hits every product that has sugar, or in our house, everything worth eating. It's a $10 billion dollar a year industry that has major Governmental protection and pays for it. According to the above link, "During the 2006 election cycle, they contributed $2.7 million to congressional candidates; 60% of that went to the newly empowered Democrats." A protected $10 billion industry who's protection costs every American real money. Easy to see why free marketers don't like it.

Banning together, Greenies, Good Government types, Libertarians and Freemarketers, could all get a win. But that would mean someone may not get credit, some of the benefits may not be direct, and people with differing views on other subjects would have to work together. All Big Sugar has to do is play off the natural distrust and inaction to win. Smart money's with Big Sugar, but they would be soooo easy to knock off.

The day Romney lost my vote

From Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in the Republican debates,noting that

"some people" have said we ought to close Guantanamo, boasted that "we ought to double Guantanamo,"And,He added that he liked to have suspects in Guantanamo because "they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil."

Count me out. Again, is our "War on Terror" about justice or vengeance? I strongly believe that our President should be passionate about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anyone who can be so dismissive of the concept that "All men are created equal..." or mentally amends it to read, "All men who I don't think are guilty are created equal..." is not fit to be President of the worlds greatest democracy.

Tired of Being the Worst

In a bid to move up one spot on the "Worst President" list, Jimmy is bashing W again. "Hey, I know I did nothing good...but did I really do anything BAD?" America responds to his comments, much like his legacy, with a yawn.

Why We Need Term Limits

Sitting on the chair of an appropriations subcommittee is not very different from sitting on a throne. And the longer you sit, the more throne-like that chair becomes as you gain more influence and become more bulletproof. Murtha's behavior is far from outrageous and far from unique. Sadly, it is quite commonplace. How could it not be? Politicians are paid for their influence and as it grows so does their income and self-importance. There is no trap more human. These entrenched tumors of power are not democracy in action, they are democracy thwarted as their districts yield a disproportionate amount of influence over the nation. Their constituents are as likely to vote against them as union workers are to reject a pay raise. Even ineffective incumbents are almost impossible to beat. The solution is to remove the corruption that results from a career spent at the controls of the sluice. We don't allow the drunk to continue to be liquored by the barkeep, let's apply common sense to politics as well.

Little Brother is Watching Them.

The City of Denver will pay Evan Herzoff $8,500 because Mr Herzoff was arrested for asking Police Officer Jeffrey Morgan for his business card. Apparently,

Herzoff was walking home April 8, 2006, when he saw police arresting an individual. He filmed the arrest with a small camera and was approached by Officer Jeffrey Morgan, who asked Herzoff for his identification.

Morgan examined Herzoff's ID and was told he was free to leave. When Herzoff asked Morgan for his business card, Herzoff was handcuffed, arrested and forced to spend a night in jail.

Mr Herzoff is a volunteer with a group called Copwatch.

Again, this is an example of how technology can increase democracy. Copwatch could not exist without the internet. A random event in Denver, hits the world, and this blog because of said internet. City organizations now know that they face immediate and complete scrutiny of their actions and have to act accordingly, which only helps the citizens. Cameras are getting smaller and better (not to mention camera phones) which enable everyone to be a reporter, and again, the internet gives everyone a venue.

Bottom line, I don't think Mr Herzoff would have received his $8,500 30 years ago. Lots of people are afraid of technology, fearing that the government will use it to increase its power. In reality, time and again, governments fear technology because it erodes their power.

De Soto on the Hudson

How do you solve the crisis of 200,000 people living in public housing projects? Give them the apartment . I haven’t worked through all of the implication yet but this could be a great idea.

Terror is as Terror does

The article points out what can be called the limitation of categories. Everyday we are bombarded with terms without ever being given their meanings. The meanings are left to be assumed. We create categories without boundaries or boundaries that change with the whims of society. Moral relativists argue this is necessary for an evolving societal ethic. That can seem reasonable until you realize this also means that slavery was not wrong until the society that practised it determined it was wrong. Which begs the question: were the fighters against slavery first wrong and then later right? If so, wouldn't it have been "right" to have stopped the freedom fighters? It can get quite confusing. Which brings us to terror...

What is a terrorist? Anyone who uses terrorism as a tactic? Then what is terrorism? Any attack against non-military targets? Or is motive a component of terrorism? Is it like a hate crime. Is it somehow worse to do a bad think if your thoughts at the time were also bad? Are some thoughts worse than others? Should some be outlawed?

I think the argument that the eco-terrorists should be called just that is perfectly reasonable. But that does not mean it makes the most sense. Should "terrorist" like "nigger" be given some kind of mystical power that makes it more than just a description with a definition? Do we gain more than we lose when we do this? Does it really matter?

Shocking developent

Radio Shock Jocks Opie and Anthony apologized for a really, really bad segment that aired on their show (won't go into it here, its in the link). They also face disciplinary action from XM Radio (their boss).

What's interesting is that satellite radio is an FCC free zone. Yet, somehow, the trappings of FCC oversight are still there. Someone says something really stupid, people get upset, said person issues a public apology and faces some sort of penalty from their boss. Weird how all that happened without the aid of government bureaucracy.

However, XM and cable are both starting to draw the curiosity of said bureaucracy. One way for the industry to head off the FCC is to unbundle their product. As it is now, you have to buy a package of stations, and you can add "premium" stations on top of whatever package you purchased. In radio's case, as a consumer of XM, I have to "buy" Opie and Anthony even though I despise them. I can't boycott advertisers since their aren't any, so my money goes to them regardless. I have no direct means to voice my displeasure. If I could opt out of Opie and Anthony, then I, the market, could directly punish them. They do something stupid, subscribers go down, they lose money. They lose enough and they go away. If I'm in the minority, they stay, but at least I know that I'm not giving them money, so I feel better.

As it stands, I could cancel my whole subscription to XM,which would put pressure on XM and the other shows who would also lose their share of my revenue. This is the "punish the group for the actions of one" mentality. Its not as direct, or as effective. I lose, innocent shows lose, and the damage to the target is minimized.

Cable and Satellite have been very reluctant to allow consumers to unbundle stations. I believe that if they give the market this tool they can use the market punishment option to get ahead of any new FCC intrusion into their business. They win, the consumer wins, and we all keep the FCC at bay.

Ready, Aim, Fired?

From the AP via Fox News.com:

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. — Staff members of an elementary school
staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it
was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.

The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience
and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales
Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.

Seriously, are they thinking of our President Bush?

Minor scandal playing out over at the World Bank involving Paul Wolfowitz (the whole thing is somewhat ironic given that cleaning up corruption was his big thing going in, but anywho). Latest twist is that the board of direcectors is going to get tough on Wolfie and send in a vote of "no confidence." Why not just fire him? Well, being foreigners (loooved both "Four" and "Records" classic, classic rock) they lack, well, guts. Rather than fire him, they decided to go with "no confidence" because,

Board members are betting that a strong expression of dissatisfaction will persuade the Bush administration to withdraw its support and urge Wolfowitz to step down.

I'm sorry, are they new to the party? Are they really thinking that Bush will bow to their cute little "no confidence" vote and withdraw support for Mr Wolfowitz? Where have they been for the last six years? I know it shouldn't, but that line of reasoning just insults me. W is a man who won't take urging from the US SENATE on his AG, even when members of his own party have "no confidence" in his man. Do they really, honestly think that W cares at all about their "confidence" in Mr Wolfowitz? They will pass the "no confidence" measure, and W will assume that the whole mess has blown over. Mr Wolfowitz did something wrong, the Board handled it with their cute little measure, and all's well.

I honestly don't care either way. But at this point, I'm rooting for the two W's. If the Board can't summon the courage to fire a boss they have "no confidence" in, and if they're homework is really so bad that they think that that vote will force W's hand, then, well, they deserve to be frustrated. That's what happens when you lack courage and are incompetent.

The good news for Stalin is that this action only builds on his argument that global institutions are completely incapable of dealing with any kind of crisis.

When Libertarians Go Bad

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[3] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[4] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)"

Creepy.

Hey Stalin, France is waiting for its apology.

France elected the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy. Apparently they will stop at nothing to antagonize our own Stalin Malone.

Cows of Jackson Hole, Rejoice!

Terri Gregory, the Public Health Manager for the Teton County Board of Health (Jackson Hole, WY to you and me) has decided to ban tongue and genital (owwwwww) piercing as well as branding, lacing, and scarification (though I'm sure the cows are happy to hear about the branding part).

Say's Jackson Hole's only tatoo/piercing parlor, Sub-Urban Clothing Tattoo's Susan Woodward,

But I'm incredibly disappointed more than anything. I still don’t understand their rationale behind the ban. There isn’t any information showing there is risk factor problem here. No statistical evidence. It is pre-emptive.

"Pre-emptive" she says. Hah, what a conspiracy theorist. For a counter, let's turn to City of Casper-Natrona County Health Department Environmental Health Specialist Ruth Heald

We did it as more of a pre-emptive move. We had the impression that it was too invasive and had high potential for infection.

Ummm, oh. Well, lets turn to Ms Gregory,

We looked at medical information both pro and con. With tattoos, there is much less health risk than, say, tongue piercing. From a nursing standpoint, the deeper you are penetrating, the greater the risk."

How much greater? How much more risk? Also, can I assume that this means that all forms of elective procedures that go deeper than tattoos will soon be banned?

I leave the final word to Ms Woodward.

The problem with banning is we have already seen home brandings and piercings being done...It won't stop it. It will make people do it in an unsanitary environment.

And she's right. Is this really a necessary rule? Is it a good rule? Is it an effective rule? I say no to all three. Banning popular things doesn't stop them. Taking piercing and the like underground only makes the risk of infection and harm greater. In the end, this rule creates exactly what Ms Gregory says she wants to avoid. Just like most laws in the nanny state.

I hate hate crimes? Is that a crime?

President Bush is threatening to veto a new piece of legislation expanding Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to cover gender and sexual orientation...on the surface. Underneath all the media hype about a double standard for not protecting homosexuals and trans-gender types, the bill actually greatly expands the reach of the Feds into "hate" crimes. I know, I know, who would have thought that the Federal government would do something to expand their power under the guise of doing the right thing, and if you're really paying attention you would also not be surprised that the media missed that and focused on "W hates gays" (which may be true, or not, I don't know. I do know that there's no way I'm buying the "I don't want to expand federal power " line, not from the biggest fan of big government since FDR). However, I too would veto this legislation.

Bottom line? This bill will actually expand federal powers far beyond their current reach and I'm not a fan. However, Congress could actually do what they're saying by simply amending the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. The Volokoh Conspiracy does a nice job distinguishing between this bill and the 1969 law (for some reason Volokoh and many other sources have it as a 1968 federal hate-crimes law-Wikipedia says 1969). Also, here's a quick take from Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign.

I think, again, that the Dems just do not think strategically. Simply doing what they say has the obvious benefit of being a pleasant change from any political body, it also puts W under pressure. If he vetoes a simple amendment to the 1968(9) law, then it forces him to veto it to appeal to his base and further harm his standing with mainstream America (helping the Dems), or allow it (helping the Dems). W wouldn't be able to hide behind "expanding federal powers" and would find himself in a no-win situation, and the Dems would be helping their base in the process. Lose-lose for W, win-win for the Dems. Sometimes simple is better.

Hate Crime legislation is a whole nother ball-o-wax. Personally, I bounce back and forth, but generally settle in against them. I do think motive matters, as does circumstance. I also think that most of motive and circumstance can be handled in the sentencing process. If a crime has a 3-5 year sentence guideline, then I think you get five if your motive was particularly heinous, and three if not. However, with more things like mandatory sentencing and leeway being taken away from judges and juries by the legislative branch, then we will find ourselves in the position of having to think through and legislate things like "hate crimes."

The NRA supports Terrorists!

No they don't, they support you and your rights under the Constitution, but their opposition to a bill that would strip citizens of their right to buy a gun if they are a suspected terrorist would clearly put them in that camp if they weren't the NRA. Any other group, especially a "lefty" group, that did something similar would earn the wrath of the right. Soft of terrorism, they don't get it, this is what you can expect from them, more surrender talk, etc.

For the record I agree with the NRA. At some point the nation needs to understand that terrorism is a crime, not an invasion and act accordingly. Just as you can't deny someone the right to buy a gun if they're suspected of car theft, you can't deny someone the right to buy a gun because of some arbitrary, and legally ambiguous, label of terrorist "suspect." Just look at how screwed up the national no-fly list is. Denying thousands of citizens of their constitutional rights because they are merely suspected of doing something wrong definitely goes against "innocent until proven guilty." This isn't a Brittney Spears fan club membership we're talking about, its you're Second Amendment Right. I'm really uncomfortable with a law that strips you of your Constitutional rights without trial, and without you even knowing it. Seriously, how do you get on the list, how do you get off the list? How do you defend yourself? The bottom line, this is an unannounced stripping of your Constitutional rights. How is that defending what America stands for?

Also note that this bill will add to the list of things that can deny you of your Second Amendment rights, won't be the last.

Canada moves to hog the jukebox

Looking to, and I'm not making this up, make a move that "takes Canada's reputation in the gold bullion industry to an unprecedented level" Canada created a $1,000,000 dollar coin (Canadian, or $850,000 USD, or 6 Euros). Looks like Canada read my post on having the killer instinct, this move will surely show whoever's chasing Canada for the title of "Gold Bullion Champion" that Canada's for real bi-atch.

I guess that means I'll be getting these coins in my change when I buy a coke at the Buffalo 7-11. I hate it when that happens. I know that when I try to use this Canadian coin to buy 850,000 bags of Doritos, they're just going to get jammed in the stupid vending machine.

Money Hates Blacks

A new study conducted by sober minded economists found that "money has it in for the less fortunate". Using financial records and tax statements covering the last 75 years, economists revealed some pretty disturbing truths. While money seemed to gravitate to the affluent, at times it was shown to completely ignore the most needy. This group of neglected Americans includes a disproportionate amount of blacks. When asked why this would be so, one prominent American blogger stated, "The Mavericks just don't have a killer instinct. When you see someone who isn't as good as you, you should just kill them right away."

In an attempt to disarm extreme right wing critics who insist money has no decision making capabilities, the economists point to the disproportionate number of paper cuts received by blacks every year. Granted, there was little data to support this, but the facts speak for the themselves, "We think it's pretty clear that if money doesn't enjoy the company of blacks, it will do whatever it takes to get away...even lashing out if necessary."

Another study revealed that critical thinking hates liberals. A class action law suit has been proposed by presidential candidate John Edwards. Sen. Hillary Clinton has proposed legislation declaring any statements made by Democratic lawmakers must be considered "well-reasoned and truthful" to make up for this historical injustice

Hey Ref!

From FoxNews.com:

An academic study of NBA officiating found that white referees called fouls
at a greater rate against black players than against white players, The New York
Times reported in Wednesday's editions.

The study by a University of Pennsylvania assistant professor and
Cornell graduate student also found that black officials called fouls more
frequently against white players than black, but noted that that tendency was
not as pronounced.

Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at
Penn's Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in
economics, said the difference in calls "is large enough that the probability of
a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the
refereeing crew."

The study, conducted over a 13-season span through 2004, found that the
racial makeup of a three-man officiating crew affected calls by up to 4 1/2
percent.

The NBA strongly criticized the study, which was based on information
from publicly available box scores, which show only the referees' names and
contain no information about which official made a call.

Stalin's take: If you are taught that the referees are basically there to help you you will have one type of interaction, if you are taught that they are out to get you you will have another type.