Jeff Jacoby writes about this in his column. Apparently, this fall voters in San Francisco will get to vote on whether to ban circumcision on infant males. If the measure passes, circumcising a baby boy will be an actual crime with a sentence of a fine up to $1000 and up to a year in jail.
Why? I didn’t think that this was a problem. I mean, with all the other problems that the state of California and the city of San Francisco are having, why are they even bothering with this. The majority of males in the United States are circumcised and I haven’t heard anyone complaining about it. And what about the Jews? Wouldn’t this law be kind of anti-Semitic?
Jeff Jacoby explains who is behind this:
The ballot campaign in San Francisco is being spearheaded by a group of self-described “intactivists,” political crusaders obsessed with the preservation of foreskins. Their mania might be laughable if not for two things: (1) they hijack terminology used to describe a dreadful type of violence against girls and women, and (2) they are attempting to criminalize a fundamental rite of Judaism.
Promoters of the San Fancisco initiative call it the “MGM bill.” The initials stand for “male genital mutilation,” a dishonest phrase meant to link the safe and medically unobjectionable procedure of male circumcision with the frightful cruelty of female genital mutilation.
The two are not remotely comparable. “Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits,” the World Health Organization and nine other international organizations stressed in a 2008 report on the scourge, which persists in much of Africa and the Middle East. “On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways.” It is painful and traumatic; it makes childbearing “significantly” more risky; and it leads to higher rates of post-partum hemorrhaging and infant death. Long-term consequences of female genital mutilation “include chronic pain, infections, decreased sexual enjoyment, and psychological consequences, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Yes, the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation is that circumcision, in no way impairs the functioning of the male organ, while female genital mutilation is a deliberate attempt to prevent females from having any pleasure during intercourse.
Michael Medved really lays it on to Ron Paul in his last column, referring to Paul as “The Mad Doctor”, “The Crotchety Candidate” and “Dr. Demento”, largely because of Ron Paul’s uncompromising Libertarian views.
How would you describe a perennial presidential candidate who insists in a televised debate that government has no more right to interfere with prostitution or heroin than it does to limit the right of the people to “practice their religion and say their prayers”?
The phrase “crackpot” comes immediately to mind—and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman Ron Paul.
The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers and Holocaust denying neo-Nazis, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the Thirteenth (appropriately enough) by declaring that, as President, he never would have authorized a lethal strike against Osama bin Laden. The firestorm over this remark distracted attention from previous controversial comments just eight days before, when he used the first debate of the 2012 race to stake out exclusive territory on the lunatic libertarian fringe.
It gets better, or worse, from there. Any person running for public office must choose a middle course between two extremes. On the one hand, a politician who has no convictions and just shifts with the wind, or the polls, is worthless. A leader ought to have some principles or convictions to guide the decisions he makes. On the other hand, there is such a thing as being consistent and principles to the point of idiocy. I think most would agree that legalizing heroin or prostitution is over that line. Not only do such stands make a candidate unelectable, but it shows a certain unwillingness to consider the real world consequences of political theories and policies, or to do what must be done even if it is against your particular ideology.
From Yahoo News. This is really interesting. It seems that an Australian university student, Amelia Frazier-McKelvie has discovered where the “missing mass” of the universe went while on an internship with Monash University‘s School of Physics. Apparently it i to be found in the “filaments” of galaxies.
Monash astrophysicist Dr Kevin Pimbblet explained that scientists had previously detected matter that was present in the early history of the universe but that could not now be located.
“There is missing mass, ordinary mass not dark mass … It’s missing to the present day,” Pimbblet told AFP.
“We don’t know where it went. Now we do know where it went because that’s what Amelia found.”
Fraser-McKelvie, an aerospace engineering and science student, was able to confirm after a targeted X-ray search for the mystery mass that it had moved to the “filaments of galaxies”, which stretch across enormous expanses of space.
As I said, I find this interesting and I hope to find out more details.
I liked the first comment on this article by one Josh
There should be more news about this kind of stuff on the front page.
But instead of this great story, we have stuff about how Justin Bieber got two tattoos.
What is wrong with us as a nation?
What indeed? I can’t imagine why anyone would care about Justin Bieber’s tattoos. In fact, I barely know who Justin Bieber is.