Supreme Court Ruling on Animal Cruelty Videos

As much as it may pain the heart, the ruling by the Supreme Court in this case is correct. Criminal punishment is due to those who committed loathesome acts of cruelty on animals. There are appropriate laws in place and every effort should be made to uncover the criminals, charge them, try them, and if convicted, punish them.

But what to do about people who purchase and watch such material? Such an act cannot in and of itself be criminal. They cannot even be charged as bystanders. The only measure that may curtail such behavior in the cause of human development would be massive societal displeasure.

So here's a challenge to the hackers of the world. Do something useful. Find out who's buying such videos and let us all know. Shunning has worked for centuries.

The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American

Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?
Here's the author's ( Michael Lind) version:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. And for the support of these principles, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Farewell to Norman Jay Levitt (1943–2009)

We've lost a terrific mind. I hope you'll read his review essay entitled “Science: A Four Hundred Page Hissy-Fit,” a review of Science: A Four Thousand Year History by Patricia Fara.

REALIZING FREEDOM: LIBERTARIAN THEORY, HISTORY, AND PRACTICE

For more than 25 years, my friend Tom Palmer has lived his life according to a very simple ideal: Liberty is for everyone. Realizing Freedom is a testament to that ideal. Written from his perspective as scholar, journalist, and activist, Tom Palmer's incisive articles range in subject from the theory of justice, multiculturalism, and democracy, to limited government, globalization, property rights, censorship, individual liberty, and more.

Using Twitter to Confront an Anti-Semitic Attack in Chile’s Paper of Record

A superb and alarming post on anti-Semitism in Chile.

Sign the Petition against Protectionism

Some friends are starting an international campaign to protect and expand free trade and the free movement of people. The Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the International Policy Network, and the Atlas Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace, and Prosperity are sponsoring a global Freedom to Trade Petition to be released just before the upcoming G-20 meeting in London. Please sign the petition.

Video Raises Serious Questions About Death Row Conviction

I urge you to get this into the hands of as many people as possible.

In 1993, 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux drowned in her bathtub in West Monroe, Louisiana. Bite mark identification and analysis performed by forensic experts Steven Hayne and Michael West tied Jimmie Duncan to Oliveaux’s death. Duncan was convicted of murdering the baby girl and sentenced to death. He has been on death row for 10 years. But an autopsy videotape obtained by Reason magazine’s Radley Balko shows the bite marks were not on Oliveaux’s body at the time of her death. You can see the video, and still photos from it, here. Balko asked Michael Bowers, a deputy medical examiner for Ventura County, California, and a past chairman of the American Board of Forensic Odontology’s Exam and Credentialing Committee, to review the tape. When asked how abrasions on Oliveaux's cheek that were not present when the video begins could later appear, Bowers said, "Because Dr. West created them. It was intentional. He's creating artificial abrasions in that video, and he's tampering with the evidence. It's criminal, regardless of what excuse he may come up with about his methods." Balko's Reporting on Mississippi's Criminal Forensics System

Arts and the Enlightenment

This article offers an interesting insight into the debate between negative and positive rights.

Should scientists study race and IQ?

What always gets overlooked in such a discussion as posited by this article is that in this instance the findings really don't matter because they apply to a group and have nothing to say about any particular individual.

Before the law it is the individual who is equal. It is individuals who are accountable and responsible. It is individuals who achieve and who fail. It is with other individuals that we form relationships.

This is why it so dangerous for any public policy to be formulated around the concerns or perceived needs of a special group.

Beacon of Liberty

Everything old is new again. From the essay in question:

The wider context was the challenge to liberalism and the free market posed by
the rise of a generalised state interventionism in the form of planning,
corporatism and socialism. Capitalism seemed on the brink of systemic failure
and for many it was capitalism itself that was to blame. Its decline and its end
appeared inevitable.

Read the whole thing.

Pitt on tyranny

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt

Beethoven on The Essential Individual

“What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven.”
Ludwig van Beethoven

Time to Forcefully Oust Mugabe

I'd like to recommend this excellent op-ed from John Prendergast. Go here.

Human Rights Foundation

I'd like to call your attention to this press release which I am including in full.

CARACAS, Venezuela (January 16, 2009)-- The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) published a report today detailing the arrest and torture of Jose Humberto Quintero, a lieutenant colonel of the Venezuelan National Guard. Quintero was detained in January 2005, by the Venezuelan government for allegedly capturing terrorist leader Ricardo Gonzalez, popularly known as Rodrigo Granda, of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).“The case of Humberto Quintero exemplifies numerous violations of human rights, including violations of international law--specifically, provisions that prohibit arbitrary detention and the use of torture, inhumane, and other degrading treatment. Colonel Quintero’s imprisonment also appears to be politically motivated, as his arrest came at a time of heightened tensions between the governments of Colombia and Venezuela over Granda’s capture,” said Sarah Wasserman of HRF.
As Commander of the Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit, Quintero led successful counterterrorism operations. The Venezuelan government charged him with high treason, abuse of authority, violation of military decorum, and illegitimate deprivation of liberty for purportedly capturing Granda in December of 2004, and delivering him to the Colombian authorities in return for a cash payment.

Quintero was arrested, taken to a dungeon at the military intelligence division, and tortured by members of Venezuela’s military intelligence and civilian police for seven days. At the time, Granda, a senior leader of the FARC, served as foreign secretary of the terrorist group and lived in Venezuela under the protection of the Venezuelan government. Granda was on INTERPOL’s list of wanted guerilla members in Colombia. The Paraguayan government claims that in September 2004, while he was in Venezuela, Granda planned the kidnapping and eventual murder of Cecilia Cubas, daughter of former Paraguayan President Raúl Cubas. An arrest order for Granda from a Paraguayan court is still outstanding.

“During an interview with HRF inside Ramo Verde prison, Quintero told us that he was subjected to asphyxiation, beatings, and threats to kidnap his wife and daughter and hand them over to the FARC. He suffered internal bleeding and back pain, which continued for at least another year after the beatings. We were able to verify the damage to his thorax during a visit in November 2006,” added Wasserman.

“The FARC is a terrorist group with demonstrable yet unaddressed and unacknowledged ties to the Venezuelan government since the early years of President Hugo Chávez’s administration. These suspicions were recently confirmed by computers recovered by Colombian security forces from a FARC encampment, which contained messages describing meetings in which Venezuelan officials offered assistance to the Colombian guerrillas, including safe havens and weapons procurement,” continued Wasserman.

According to Quintero, the reason for his torture was three fold: to coerce him to accept his alleged responsibility for Granda’s capture; to force a confession that he had received a significant monetary reward for the capture; and to make him declare that members of the Colombian and US Special Forces had been part of the operation. His forced confession was videotaped and for seven days he was denied access to legal counsel. He was not allowed to see a doctor for several weeks after the beatings. He remains incarcerated at Ramo Verde while he undergoes a second trial for the same charges.

To date, the Venezuelan government’s response to the concerns of the human rights community has been unsatisfactory; it has failed to launch an independent inquiry, despite numerous complaints filed by Quintero’s lawyers and by human rights groups.

The Caracas Nine campaign promotes awareness of human rights abuses and seeks legal protection for individuals persecuted and endangered by the Venezuelan government. The nine cases featured in the campaign are emblematic of the widespread human rights abuses directed against those who openly criticize Venezuela’s government. Francisco Usón, whose case was the first taken up by HRF, was freed from prison on conditional release on December 24, 2007.

The Essential Individual: South Carolina Makes a Mockery of Informed Consent

The Essential Individual: South Carolina Makes a Mockery of Informed Consent

South Carolina Makes a Mockery of Informed Consent

There is nothing that impacts an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more than the question of childbearing. To my mind, that protects a woman's right to choose as protected by the Constitution. Here, Sigrid Fry-Revere of the Cato Institute's Cato@Liberty blog pens a perfect argument.


South Carolina Makes a Mockery of Informed Consent

Yesterday the South Carolina House passed a bill mandating that women seeking abortions sign a sworn statement that they have seen an ultrasound of their fetus before having the abortion. Rep. Greg Delleney, the sponsor of the bill and a Republican from Chester, said “I’m just trying to save lives and protect people from regret and inform women with the most accurate non-judgmental information that can be provided.” This is an amendment to the existing South Carolina informed consent law that requires doctors to give women information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion.

Informed consent is probably the most important principle of modern medicine. Its purpose is to enable autonomous decision making. The South Carolina ultrasound law does everything but empower the patient. Offering a woman the option of an ultrasound as part of the informed consent process or doing one that is medically necessary is understandable, but forcing her to watch one as a prerequisite to having an abortion is an abuse of the informed consent process. The scene in A Clockwork Orange where Alex’s eyes are forcefully held open as he is shown images intended to recondition his social behavior comes to mind.

I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that the law correctly recognized in the conflict between mother and fetus, that a woman’s rights take precedence over those of her fetus. A human being’s rights under the law increase with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as well as world wide for most of history. To suggest that a fetus has the same rights as a mature adult individual borders on the perverse. In balancing the rights of fetuses with those of their mothers, women’s rights must always take priority otherwise the law is treating women as second to the fetuses they are carrying – that is, treating women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only second as autonomous individuals.

For those, like myself, who believe abortion is fraught with moral difficulties, the correct course of action is to teach, communicate, and discuss with our daughters, our female neighbors and our friends. We must help them come to the right conclusion based on good clear reasoning and the strength of our convictions. To force someone to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth unwillingly is not far from slavery, no matter what the rationale. Pregnancy and birth are the most dangerous things most women will ever do in their lives. Not to give them the choice to escape those dangers, let alone plan their lives, is to treat them with the greatest disrespect.
There is no question that decisions about abortion are horrendously difficult, but just because a decision is difficult doesn’t mean women aren’t fit to make them, or as is required by the South Carolina law, that women must be forced “for their own good” or “for the good of their fetuses” to undergo an unnecessary procedure and view images, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, that they don’t wish to see. Life is fraught with difficult decisions, many of them involving life and death. Men make decisions about how to protect their families and their way of life – unfortunately sometimes those decisions involve going to war and killing innocents. Women, like men, make decisions about what is best for their families and their way of life — unfortunately sometimes such decisions involve abortions.

What a perversion of the concept of informed consent, let alone an unconscionable intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, to impose a medically unnecessary procedure on women seeking abortions. Fetuses are potential children, not full grown adults, and women are full grown adults, not children. It is time we start treating each with the respect and dignity they deserve.
posted by Sigrid Fry-Revere on 03.22.07 @ 3:54 pm Email
Filed Under: General, Civil Rights, Domestic Issues, Health Care

The Eyes of Van Gogh