Trouble in Paradise

This headline caught my eye: STDs Running Rampant In Retirement Community:

A gynecologist at The Villages community near Orlando, Fla., said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did in the city of Miami.
. . . .
Local 6 featured Lois Franklin, who used to date in the community at least three times a week. "I have had a better dating life since I have been here than I have ever had," Franklin said. "I know there are things going around."

A doctor blamed Viagra, a lack of sex education and no risk for pregnancy for the spike in sexually transmitted diseases at The Villages.

"All I can repeat are the things I have heard which are things like, 'Should I bring the little blue pills over tonight?'" community singles group president Richard Matwyshen said.

Damn. I could go in several directions with this. Comments?

UPDATE: CNN has a video up.

Unreasonable Search

There has been a lot of misunderstanding, all the way from the former Director of the NSA to the blogosphere, about the "standard" that must be respected regarding domestic surveillance. Those wanting the most restrictive standard talk about the "probable cause" required for a warrant to issue from a magistrate, whereas those wanting to bypass that standard talk about whether a search is "reasonable" so as not to require a warrant. We'd best start with the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Self-education on this topic could hardly find a better starting point than Cornell Law School's annotations to the Constitution. The first one to read is "History and Scope of the Amendment." Its subsection "Scope of the Amendment" contains a history of Congress' adoption of the specific language and the reinsertion of a previously rejected substitution of “and no warrant shall issue” for “by warrants issuing.”

Madison’s introduced version provided “The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.”

See also footnote 11 on this point:

The amendment was originally in one clause as quoted above; it was the insertion of the defeated amendment to the language which changed the text into two clauses and arguably had the effect of extending the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures beyond the requirements imposed on the issuance of warrants. It is also possible to read the two clauses together to mean that some seizures even under warrants would be unreasonable, and this reading has indeed been effectuated in certain cases, although for independent reasons.

The text preceding footnote 11 explains:

There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment’s two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are “reasonable” are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are “reasonable” searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause.

As the annotation rightly describes:

This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest.

As I have written previously in You Be the Judge, however, the Supreme Court has also had to decide what constitutes a "search" in the area of electronic surveillance, finding that a warrant is required when the surveillance is pursuant to a criminal investigation but leaving open the question "[w]hether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security." The Court a few years later said in United States v. United States District Court (1972) that "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch." All serious students of this great controversy of our time should read the full opinion of the Court, if not also Justice Douglas' concurrence, which presciently described many of the issues which have arisen since George Bush's expansions of warrantless surveillance on the American people. This case is covered in more detail in the annotation "Electronic Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment" and its subsection "Warrantless 'National Security' Electronic Surveillance," but see footnotes 152 and 153 for reservations on the scope of the decision.

Since that case, however, the Court has drifted from a general "view that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, with a few carefully prescribed exceptions," to a broader "view of permissible exceptions and of the scope of those exceptions," so that:

By 1992, it was no longer the case that the “warrants–with–narrow–exceptions” standard normally prevails over a “reasonableness” approach. Exceptions to the warrant requirement have multiplied, tending to confine application of the requirement to cases that are exclusively “criminal” in nature. And even within that core area of “criminal” cases, some exceptions have been broadened. The most important category of exception is that of administrative searches justified by “special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Under this general rubric the Court has upheld warrantless searches by administrative authorities in public schools, government offices, and prisons, and has upheld drug testing of public and transportation employees. In all of these instances the warrant and probable cause requirements are dispensed with in favor of a reasonableness standard that balances the government’s regulatory interest against the individual’s privacy interest; in all of these instances the government’s interest has been found to outweigh the individual’s.

You can read more about this process in the annotation "Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants."

As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Correspondingly, we get decisions made about "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the President, Congress, and Supreme Court that we have. Perhaps our current Court will issue a definitive judgment if, as an earlier Court commented, a suitable case can ever make it there. As for the other two branches, if you don't like the way things are going, there are elections in 2006 and 2008. There is uncertainty in this area of constitutional law; but I hope this post eliminates some confusion about what there is to know.

Generalizations

My regular readers know how much I like to trace down the original source of immortal quotations. I had a memory of "No generalization is worth a damn, including this one," that I thought was Mark Twain's. If you Google that, you will find it in that exact form, along with some uncertain and inaccurate attributions. OK, I did the work for us on that wonderful paradox; and this is the best I could find, in chronological order.

The first appearance of a "generalizations" aphorism seems to be from Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), author of The Prince, who said "Men are more apt to be mistaken in their generalizations than in their particular observations." Other pearls of his political wisdom are here.

The second appearance seems to be from Alexandre Dumas père (father) (1802-1870), author (with the aid of numerous ghostwriters) of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, as "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." Other interesting Dumas quotes are here.

The third appearance, crystallizing the paradox, is indeed from Mark Twain (1835-1910): "All generalizations are false, including this one." More of Mark Twain's nuggets can be read here and here, including one used by Craig Brewer in Hustle and Flow: "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." But then, no generalization is worth a damn, including that one.

Voodoo Economics

Before you hit the heady economics link in the title (much advised, though), know that the lead graphic in this post is the vévé of Legba, voodoo god of the crossroads. I painted this vévé on a guitar case I had that flipped out ZZ Top one night in the parking lot of a Memphis 7/11. I sold that guitar case to my old friend Steve LaVere, who did the Robert Johnson double CD re-release for Columbia.

Anyway, Sebastian Mallaby, writing for the Washington Post, has penned important debunkings of the myth that tax cuts increase tax revenues, in the pieces "Don't Feed the Beast" and "The Return Of Voodoo Economics," based on studies by conservative economics experts. Scratch one talking point. Looks like we need to go the other way, in fact. Read up and weep.

UPDATE: Freedom's next move.

UPDATE: Bush’s Nominee For Treasury Secretary: ‘I Don’t Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves’

Deep Thinking Conservatives

There's been some deep thinking -- and not a little pessimism -- going on among conservatives of the small government variety in the wake of Republican deficit spending and foreign policy distractions. A new online publication, Cato Unbound, features an interesting discussion, "The GOP and Limited Government: Do They Have a Future Together?", led off by David Frum and responded to by Bruce Bartlett, David Boaz, and Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam. In case any of you conservative deep thinkers missed it, Wintermute has got you covered. Go check 'em out. Oh, and click the pic if you're too young to remember Dobie or need your memory jogged (theme song).

Libertarian Women

You gotta love 'em for being able to think outside the box, so to speak. In the modern world where women have a voting majority, you better appreciate fair-minded women who can transcend their own sex's self-interest. Favor them with your comments. They are treasures.

Two I advise you to watch out for are Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young.

Wendy's latest is usually found, of all places, on the Fox News site. More of her articles are collected on Lew Rockwell's site. She has her own iFeminist site too, where you can find an informative brief history of American feminism; and she now has a blog. That's her picture to the right. Lately Wendy has pointed out the unfairness of the media's publishing the names and pictures of the Duke students accused of rape while refusing to do the same for the alleged victim.

The names and photos of the accused are smeared across network television in what sometimes seems to be a conscious effort to destroy lives. Meanwhile, so much as hinting at the accuser's initials is strictly forbidden. The imbalance is wrong.
. . . .
The media is not required to protect the name or privacy of accusers. Although rape shield laws are widely viewed as imposing such an obligation, they are actually rules limiting what evidence about a victim's sexual history can be presented at trial. They do not limit freedom of speech or the press.

Read the rest of that piece here, and a related piece, "False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought," here.

Cathy Young (Ekaterina Jung) has weighed in on the Duke case too, both at ReasonOnline and in a piece on her blog cross-posting and elaborating on her column on the subject in the Boston Globe. Cathy also has a website with archives of her columns. That's Cathy to the right.

To recognize that some women wrongly accuse men of rape is not antifemale, any more than recognizing that some men rape women is antimale. Is it so unreasonable to think that a uniquely damaging charge will be used by some people as a weapon, just as others will use their muscle? Do we really believe that when women have power—and there is power in an accusation of rape—they are less likely to abuse it than men?

Regardless of the eventual outcome, you've got to respect this kind of clear, gender-neutral thinking. I've blogged some examples of conservative women's sympathetic writings before; but it is high time to honor these libertarian women as well. If any of you brainy ladies are passing through my town and need a tour guide, I am your man.

INSTANT UPDATES: Girl, 13, admits sex with 7 wasn't forced; and Woman rips off her husband's testicles with bare hands.

My Next Girlfriend

If things don't improve pretty soon, my next girlfriend may have to be one of these new oriental androids...or should they be called estroids, or femdroids? Anyway, the Koreans have built a new model called Ever-1, for Eve Robot 1. Here's what she looks like:

You can read the original report on the English-language Korean news site here; I just cancel the Korean language packs. But here's what they say about her:

Korea has developed its own android capable of facial expressions on its humanoid face, the second such machine to be developed after one from Japan.
. . . .
The Korean Institute for Industrial Technology (KITECH) said the android, which has the face and body of a woman in her 20s, is 160 cm tall and weighs 50 kg. Ever-1 can move its upper body and express happiness, anger, sadness and pleasure. But the robot is still incapable of moving its lower half. Ever-1's skin is made from a silicon jelly that feels similar to human skin. The face is a composite of two stars, and its torso on a singer.

The 15 monitors in the robotic face allow it to interpret the face of an interlocutor and look back at whoever stands near it. Ever-1 also recognizes 400 words and can hold a basic verbal exchange.
. . . .
"The Ever-2, which will have improved vision and ability to express emotions and can sit or stand, will be debuted towards the end of the year."

Heh. I can hardly wait. Remember Sean Young in Blade Runner? Surely we'll be able to get these babes made to order.

UPDATE: Human Brain Waves Control Robot.

UPDATE: Robots Get Soft, Human-Like Skin.

UPDATE: Forecast: Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050.

UPDATE: Hardwired for love: Are robots the sex partners of the future?

Liberty vs. Safety

There is no perfect safety from terror attacks.

Israel in particular has had to endure periodic terror attacks for decades. Israelis retaliate when they have a good idea where the attack came from. They take security measures to combat future attacks. But attacks still happen. Attacks cannot be completely prevented. Israelis conduct their funerals, clean up the mess, and rebuild. Israelis do not go into a national panic every time they are attacked on their homeland.

The American homeland, on the other hand, prior to September 11, 2001, had not been successfully sneak-attacked since Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, a sixty-year run of good fortune in that respect. American soldiers are brave; but compared to the Israeli citizenry, American citizens are still acting like trembling cowards five years after 9/11.

Suppose you're willing to live in a total surveillance society -- and make me live in one too -- to minimize your fear. Then you need to read this report by defense experts on methods of virtually unstoppable attacks:

It may sound like science fiction, but the prospect that suicide bombers and hijackers could be made redundant by flying robots is a real one, according to experts.

The technology for remote-controlled light aircraft is now highly advanced, widely available -- and, experts say, virtually unstoppable.
. . . .
Bruce Simpson, an engineer from New Zealand, managed to produce an even more dangerous contraption in his own garage: a mini-cruise missile.

Go read the whole report. Then we'll trace a particularly evil and cowardly meme coming out of the mouths of a few U.S. Senators. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said on December 20, 2005: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." As Reason Online Hit & Run reports:

There's been a little fuss over Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his comments at Gen. Michael Hayden's confirmation hearing.

"I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead."

This would be one thing if Roberts was flustered and winging it to defend the nominee. But he's said the same thing multiple times this year. He said it on March 26 and February 3. Senators Jeff Sessions and John "I miss Harriet Miers" Cornyn have used the same line of, uh, argumentation, but Roberts alone thinks it's clever enough to keep repeating.

Much to his credit, Senator Russ Feingold responded to the first use of this hideous meme with the perfect anti-meme, Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death:"

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

UPDATE: Special forces to use strap-on 'Batwings':

The lightweight carbon fibre mono-wings will allow them to jump from high altitudes and then glide 120 miles or more before landing - making them almost impossible to spot, as their aircraft can avoid flying anywhere near the target.

UPDATE: Safety a concern as drones catch on.

Circumcision, Fidelity & HIV

I ran across a very interesting article on Medical News Today, "Circumcision, Fidelity More Effective HIV Prevention Methods Than Condoms, Abstinence, Researchers Say":

[C]ircumcision has been shown to reduce male-to-female HIV transmission by 60% to 75% .... A study ... of men living in South Africa finds that male circumcision might reduce the risk of men contracting HIV through sexual intercourse with women by about 60%.

So it works in both directions. Here is the Kaiser Foundation report the article quoted. The researchers for another study -- finding a 30% reduction in male-to-female transmission -- offered this graphic but memorable explanation and news of a further bonus:

[T]he reduced risk of transmission might be related to the structure of the foreskin, which can contain a concentration of the virus that is nine times the amount found in the outer layers of the penis .... Male circumcision also was found to reduce the rate of women's infection with trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis....

The Public Library of Science (PLoS) study that found a 61% reduction in female-to-male transmission concluded, "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved." And what he doesn't get, ladies, he can't give to you. From the PLoS study's Introduction:

Male circumcision (MC) is associated with various cultural factors, including religious sacrifice, rites of passage into adulthood, and the promotion of hygiene. The earliest documentary evidence for circumcision is from Egypt. Tomb artwork from the Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 B.C.) shows circumcised men, and one relief from this period shows the rite being performed on a standing adult male. Genesis (17:11) places the origin of the rite among the Jews in the age of Abraham, who lived around 2000 B.C.

Presently, MC practices in Africa are varied. Whereas men in Muslim countries are circumcised, as in North Africa or a large part of West Africa, in other societies the prevalence of MC depends on other cultural factors, such as changes that occurred under colonization.

Well, the moral is plain in this cutting edge post.

UPDATE: Newsweek special report: How AIDS Changed America.

UPDATE: Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths-study.

UPDATE: Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'.

UPDATE: Circumcision: Fact, Fiction and Hype.