Being a better blogger.

"Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . ."

Polonius, Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2, 86–92

Verbosity is not a virtue.

In an effort to become a better blogger, I've decided to REALLY try and limit the length of each of my posts.

This was a perfect example of something that was too long - I halved the length here without losing any of the impact of the post.

So I've decided to usher in a new era of slimmer, trimmer blogging. My intention?

To make sure all of my posts accomplish the following:

• Answer a particular question, or raise a particular topic to make them engaging and encourage traffic/readers
• Express a forthright opinion about the issue raised, to encourage comments either agreeing or disagreeing with my post.
• Remain brief and accessible. Accomplishing it all within 500 words or less.

It's a difficult set of boundaries - obviously, complex issues demand longer posts. However, in this age of soundbites, people demand their news and information more and more concisely. I intend to trim the fat, cut to the chase and give new visitors exactly what they demand.

Let's just see if I can keep it up!

Ask Militant Ginger

It's that time again! When I trawl through the 'keyword analysis' to answer the questions that somehow drove search engines into recommending this blog:

Why are so many Americans against the NHS?

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Depending on who you go to, you'll find that the majority of Americans want to keep the health care system exactly as it is, or adopt a single-payer system like they have in most industrialized countries. In February, polls put that figure as high as 59%.

Recently, the National Health Service of Great Britain has received a lot of flak, being held up by conservatives as an example of how 'terrible' a single-payer system would be if it was implemented here in the United States. Admittedly, there are some horror stories about the NHS, many of which I've perpetuated right here on Militant Ginger!

But conservatives neatly side-step the fact that the British health care system is ranked considerably higher than Americas - and the UK has a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy. While American health care at it's best is undoubtedly superior to that of Britain - at it's most mediocre, it's arguably worse.

Sadly, there will always be a compromise between quality of care and breadth of coverage. In many ways, the NHS and the American system are the two most polarized examples of each philosophy - and many Americans will rail against 'nationalized health care' simply because of that reason.

How does the American private health care system work?

Very, very confusingly.

In America, health care is 'private.' That means, unlike in the UK, the government don't own and operate hospitals, ambulances, doctor's offices or laboratories. They're all independent businesses out there to make a profit.

When you visit a doctor, or get a test done, you get billed for it personally. As these medical bills can add up incredibly quickly, most people buy 'health insurance' to pick up some or all of the costs. For example, health insurance will generally cover as much as 90% of the cost of an operation, with the private individual paying the 10% difference.

The problem is that health insurance itself is quite expensive, since the bills are so high. It can easily cost $300 or $400 a month to cover a small family. Therefore, employers often offset the salary they give their employees by offering health care coverage instead. They can get group discounts for using the same company to insure all of their employees - and that means the individual gets a keener rate.

Companies cover either the entire cost of health insurance, or a portion of it.

If you're self-employed you can buy your own health insurance, although you have to pick up the entire cost, instead of a company covering all or part of it. Also, because you don't get the 'group discount' you tend to pay a higher rate.

Finally, health insurance is like car insurance - it costs more or less depending on your coverage. For example, you can get cheap insurance that only covers emergencies, or more expensive coverage that covers the bulk of medical costs. Likewise, you can adjust the percentage of the medical bills you're expected to cover 'out-of-pocket' with higher or lower premiums.

The problem with this system is that health care costs are continuing to rise. In the last decade, health insurance premiums have doubled. That means more and more of a percentage of people's salaries are going towards covering their families.

Even worse, more and more coverage is being dropped by the health insurance companies to keep their costs down. This means the consumer is paying more and getting less - and it's a generally accepted fact that there's not enough competition between health insurance companies to keep prices keen.

It's a system that has both major advantages and serious flaws. The problem with 90% of the people who argue about how to improve the current setup, however, is that they're not fully cognizant of both.

What is a derogatory term for a life-long politician?

A 'Democrat'*.

America's longest standing Senator - and former Ku Klux Klan member - Robert Byrd

*Nod to Tom - Editorial Bear

How do you start writing erotica for money?

Let me get one thing straight- nobody got rich writing erotica.

The opportunities for making money writing sauce, smut, erotica and pornography are increasingly elusive, as more and more people attempt to get in on the act. There's a misunderstanding going on that writing erotica is somehow easier than writing anything else. That's really far from being true.

I have made my fair share of money writing smut - but it quickly lost it's novelty value. The pay is low, the competition is high and it's a fairly thankless task.

But the opportunities are out there. A good place to start is with Hustler Fantasies, who publish about twelve or fourteen stories every month (and pay $25 for each one.) You can find out more here.

Alternatively, you can aim for a higher-brow audience, by submitting something to the queen of Erotic fiction, Alison Tyler, or a high-class magazine like Jacques. Just be aware that they have excruciatingly high standards and you'll either be expected to submit your first few works for free, or share royalties with dozens of other writers.

If I haven't talked you out of it, though, I still recommend writing commercial erotica simply to become a better writer. Why? Because it's surprisingly good training for 'real' writing.

1. Magazines like Hustler have a specific style - and getting a story accepted involves developing incredibly self-discipline to keep within the expected guidelines.
2. Erotic teaches a writer brevity. Exposition isn't foreplay. Word limits can be brutal. Keeping your writing focused, curt and efficient is an excellent habit to get into.
3. Most readers are looking for a specific genre - sometimes a specific sex-act - so writers need to learn to cater to their audience. This is the single most important lesson a writer can learn.

It's also excellent training for the simple habits of writing commercially - letters to editors, keeping track of submissions. If you take up writing erotic for money, I can promise you two things. Firstly, if you sell even one story, you will have become a better writer. Secondly, by the time you've sold that story, you'll probably have grown utterly, utterly jaded about how 'easy' and 'fun' writing erotica really is!

Why do women die their hair red?

Because unlike in the UK, where red hair is seen almost as birth defect, most civilized countries consider red hair to be attractive and distinctive, especially on a woman.

In France especially, many women dye their hair red (or some close approximation thereof) and 'the redhead' is a staple of film noir and hard-boiled fiction over in America. A redheaded woman, like the one Bruce Springsteen wailed about, is seen as passionate, sexy, emotional and just a little bit dangerous.

The only problem? You really can't fake it. Because red hair is normally accompanied by pale skin and beautiful green or blue eyes, most women who attempt to mimic a natural Titian end up failing. It can look pretty, but it never looks natural.

And, as I've found out by going both black and blond, that is true the other way around, too!

(This beautiful redhead is Kristen Carter, whose profile on Model Mayhem can be found here.)

What’s the connection between Erica Henderson and Pete Abrams?

Pete Abrams is the incredible brain behind Sluggy Freelance, my favorite webcomic and my first port-of-call when I do the Internet rounds each morning.

Erica Henderson is the sublimely talented cartoonist, artist and all-round everything from I Fail At Life, who I just think is the Bee's Knees.

For a short time, Erica stood in as 'Saturday girl' for Pete's webcomic - allowing him to take a day off from Sluggy to concentrate on his family.

The result was some wonderful artwork that took the wonderful creations of Pete's comic and put Erica's unique spin on them.

Sadly, she's not doing the Saturday art any more - but those filler strips certainly stand out as some of my favorite of all time.

Video Blogging?

For a while now, I've had the odd idea of 'video blogging' running through my head.

Generally, I'm not a fan of videos on blogs. I tend to ignore them, as I do my blog-reading during lunch hour at work. Even if you're scoffing your well-deserved sandwich as you do so, it's still not de rigeur to watch TV in the office!

Likewise, I try to avoid posting videos on my blog, as some readers don't have access to Broadband and it's frustrating to try and watch choppy, jagged videos - or not be able to see them at all.

But video blogging does have the potential to be cool - and net you a lot of attention. It's also a unique and exciting way of expressing yourself on the Internet in a way words simply can't.

Like blogging itself, there are various thoughts about where is best to host your videos. You can upload them directly onto Blogger - although that eats into your storage space - or use an outside service like YouTube.

A new alternative is Thoughts, a social-networking site which labels itself as a 'conversation' site. You can host videos there, linked to a personal profile with widgets and other cool gadgets that allow you to control exactly how other viewers see you and your content.

This is pretty cool, since it means people can see your videos on your blog and then 'follow' them back to your Thoughts profile if they want to see more. The facility to generate feedback, conversation and interaction with other viewers (which equals more blog hits) is considerably slicker than with other video posting sites.

Redux: NHS vs. American Health Care

A reader pointed out that my post yesterday was very, very long - which is fine, apart from when you painstakingly dissect facts and figures and suffix it all with a statement like 'but that's all irrelevant to the matter at hand.' So, because Shakespeare said that 'brevity is the soul of wit' here is the same column with the fluff removed:

72% of NHS patients complain that the stethoscope is too cold

Comparing the British NHS to American Health Care
Now with 50% less superfluous exposition!

Comparing the NHS and the current health care system in the United States isn't really fair or helpful.

On the one hand, the American system can be criticized for being monstrously expensive and not covering enough of its citizens. Per capita, it costs twice as much to offer health care to the population of the United States - yet Fox News reports that 13.4% of Americans are still left without coverage.

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has universal coverage, a lower rate of infant mortality and a longer average life expectancy. The cost of giving medical coverage to Britain's citizens is also several thousand dollars less per person than in America.

But while Britain's health care is cheaper and covers the whole population, many people argue that this is only possible thanks to the indirect benefits of America's privately funded system.

It's a fact that many of the worlds leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the United States - and most of the new and exciting drugs and treatments emerge from the American health care system. The US system absorbs the related costs of researching and developing these new treatments (perhaps explaining why their health care costs so much more.)

And without having to pay for 'inventing' them, British patients benefit from these new drugs and treatments - just not immediately. Most commonly prescribed medication is as much as a decade 'behind' the new and exciting drugs available in America.

But at least British patients don't have to pay for that development - and that cuts a huge chunk out of the related costs of running a universal health care system.

Perhaps that's not a fair analysis - but it does offer an explanation for the gross disparity between the costs of universal health care in Britain and America's privately funded system.

America's race to develop new treatments also explains why some areas of medicine - like the treatment of cancer - are notably 'better' in America than in the UK.

Some British people have to come to America to get the medical treatment that's simply not available to them at home. Meanwhile, drugs developed in America make a huge impact when they're eventually adopted by the NHS.

So it's fair to argue that the two systems are inextricably linked - and the discussion about changing the way America looks after the health of her 300 million citizens actually affects far more people than just those with a US passport.

How the NHS rates against American Health Care

72% of NHS patients complain that the stethoscope is too cold

The inimitable Siger forwarded an article to me about a recent report by the UK's Patient's Association - which claims that hundreds of thousands of patients have suffered 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment at the hands of the NHS doctors and nurses.

"The report disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff."

It's a fascinating article and one that will no-doubt yield bundles of ammunition for American conservatives intent on criticizing Obama's much-lauded 'public' health care option (even though what he's proposing is very far from the almost Soviet-style National Health Service in the UK.)

But what interested me was in the conclusion of the article.

Chris Beasley, Chief Nursing Officer at the Department of Health, is quoted in defending the NHS, citing that: "...recent patient experience surveys show that 93 percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent."

Why is this so interesting?

Because Fox News, that bastion of 'fair and balanced' reporting, recently cited that 89% percent of Americans had been similarly satisfied with the most recent treatment they'd received. This actually increased to 93% for those patients who'd recently suffered a serious illness.

Which is, somewhat coincidentally, the same percentage as those satisfied with their treatment from the NHS.

You can take that observation how you will - either as an indication that both systems are comparably successful, or to allege that both the NHS and Fox News are using conspicuously slanted statistics to support their agenda!

But what's really interesting is looking at the other end of these much-touted facts and figures - like the Fox News analysis which concludes that 'only' five million Americans are both uninsured and 'very dissatisfied' with the quality of health care they receive - roughly around 2% of the population.

According to the NHS article, the patients receiving what they determined as 'poor' care extrapolated to over one million people - also roughly about 2% of the population.

The same figure. Again.

To my mind, it just goes to reinforce the fact that there isn't a right and a wrong answer to providing health care for a nation's citizens. The best and worth of both seem comparable - whereas we really know they're not.

On the one hand, the American system can be criticized for being monstrously expensive and not covering enough of its citizens. Per capita, it costs twice as much to offer health care to the population of the United States - yet Fox News reports that 13.4% of Americans are still left without coverage.

The World Health Organization rank the United States as having the 37th best coverage in the world; not exactly a figure to boast about.

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is ranked 18. Britain also has a lower rate of infant mortality and a longer average life expectancy. The cost of giving medical coverage to Britain's citizens is several thousand dollars less per person than in America (and, of course, covers everybody and costs its citizens nothing.)

But in many ways, such statistics tell us nothing.

Because while Britain's health care is cheaper and covers more people, many people argue that this is an indirect benefit of America's privately funded health care system.

It's a fact that many of the worlds leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the United States - and most of the new and exciting drugs and treatments emerge from the American health care system. The US system absorbs the related costs of researching and developing these new treatments (perhaps explaining why their health care costs so much more.)

And without having to pay for 'inventing' them, British patients do eventually benefit from these new drugs and treatments - just not immediately. The NHS generally offers only 'generic' medication, the copyrights of which have expired, meaning that most commonly prescribed medication is as much as a decade 'behind' the new and exciting drugs available in America.

But at least they don't have to pay for that development - or the research, marketing or related bumf. That cuts a huge chunk out of the related costs of running a universal health care system.

Perhaps that's not a fair analysis - in many way, it makes the NHS seem like a parasite, sucking drugs, treatments and developments from better funded health care systems - but it does offer an explanation for the gross disparity between the costs of running universal health care in Britain and the price of America's privately funded system.

America's race to develop new treatments also explains why some areas of medicine - like the treatment of cancer - are notably 'better' in America than in the UK.

So there's a truth we don't discuss much in the health care debate - that no nation's policy towards medicine exists entirely in a vacuum.

Some British people have to come to America to get the medical treatment that's simply not available to them at home. Meanwhile, drugs developed in America make a huge impact when they're eventually adopted by the NHS.

Because of that, the two systems are inextricably linked - as are the health care systems of Canada and other nations with a publicly funded system that benefits from America's private one.

This means that the discussion about changing the way America looks after the health of her 300 million citizens in reality affects far more people than just those with a US passport.

Was Ted Kennedy an advertisment for Term Limits?

America was saddened yesterday by the death of Edward Kennedy - the last surviving Kennedy brother and nine-term senator for Massachusetts.

A lot of debate's been raging about the man's life, legacy and just where his passing leaves the Obama administration and their battle to pass Health Care reform legislation.

Kennedy was one of Obama's biggest allies in the battle and his death leaves the Democrats short of the filibuster-breaking sixty seats they need in the Senate.

But to me, Ted Kennedy's departure highlights a different question entirely. He first entered the Senate in 1962 - to replace his brother when JFK became President. His career spanned over 45 years. Is that too long?

Career Kennedy

At 77, Kennedy was twelve years older than the normal retirement age in America.

There was certainly nothing lacking in his mental abilities - he remained one of the sharpest and most capable politicians in the Senate - but was it right that he'd spent almost half his life in political office?

The term 'career politician' is normally a derogatory one. It's arguable that the longer a politician stays in office, the less and less understanding they are of the 'real' world and the constituency they represent. Ted Kennedy was perhaps the best example of a man in that sort of position, being both the second most senior Senator and part of 'American royalty.'

In fact, Kennedy's progressive attitude and modern outlook was perhaps astonishing given his privileged upbringing and the decades spent in Washington. There are other 'career politicians' in the Senate who resemble dinosaurs compared to Kennedy.

How a Byrd evolved into a Dinosaur

Senator Robert Byrd of Virginia is a prime example. At 92, he's the oldest senator in office and has been a senator since 1959. His political career has witnessed some of the most historic events in recent American history - unfortunately, Bryd's been on the wrong side of most of them.

For example, in 1942 he was unanimously election 'Exalted Cyclops' of his local Ku Klux Klan chapter. Two years later, he wrote to Mississippi Sensator Theodore Bilbo boasting:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

After being elected to the position of Senator in 1959, Robert Byrd set about on a campaign to support segregation and oppose Civil Rights. In 1964, he filibustered the Civil Rights Act and similarly opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - an utterly shameful legacy.

Out of political expediency, Byrd tempered his segregationist views (he actually supported the Civil Rights Act of 1968.) But it's still difficult to believe that a current Senator - and third in line to the Presidency, after Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi - once vehemently opposed granting basic civil and human rights to African Americans.

The Dingell Dynasty

John David Dingell, Jr. is another example of a career politician. Since 1955, he's been representing the same district in Michigan - the longest serving representative and third longest serving congressman in history. Somewhat more astonishingly, he took the position from his father - meaning that a Dingell has represented that district for over 75 years!

26 successful elections - generally standing against no major opponent - has seen this congressman witness the Civil Rights movement, the moon landing, the fall of communism and the election of the first African American president while in office.

Just like Senator Byrd, his age and background have led to some deeply questionable decisions (like voting against the desegregation of schools) but in other ways he's remarkably progressive. Dingell puts forward a national health insurance bill at the start of every session of congress (as did his father.)

In both cases, though, you have to ask whether their constituents are being best served by politicians who've effectively had no other job.

Lautenberg, long-term

My personal punching bag is New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, who has represented my district (on and off) since 1982.

He won that election by attacking his Republican opponent, Millicent Fenwick, on the grounds of her advancing age. Currently he's 85 years old - far older than Fenwick was when she lost her seat.

I'm not being 'ageist' in any way - some of the most capable people I know are in their 'third age.' I'm just arguing that politicians who sit implacably in office for decades might not necessarily be the best choice to represent their constituents.

The Brighter the Flame, the Faster it Burns

Politics - especially American politics - has always energized me because of the ideas and forceful personalities it attracts. Just consider last year's election - between an inexperienced first-term Senator from Illinois and a Vice Presidential candidate from Alaska (who appeared on the political scene with the force and dynamism of a timber wolf.)

I honestly believe that term limits should be considered, for both senators and congressmen. It seems to me that limiting the longevity of a political career would be a powerful inducement for people to stand on the basis of individual issues rather than longevity - and force candidates to come from accomplished and varied backgrounds - instead of simply being a 'born politician.'

One of the problems of British politics has been the emergence of 'career politicians.' They're in it for the financial and social benefits - not to change the system or advance any particular cause.

In some ways, America has more extreme examples of federal fossils embedded in the electoral system. Isn't it time we start asking ourselves whether we need 9-term senators and 26-term congressmen? Or is the cure for America's ills to be found by injecting fresh new blood into the political system?

Athiests can't adopt: Seperation of Church and State in New Jersey

"This child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

Superior Court Judge William Camarata, East Orange, N.J.

Above, I've quoted the ruling of a New Jersey judge, when he denied John and Cynthia Burke of Newark, N.J, permission to adopt a 17-month-old baby girl.

His decision was based on the fact that they had left the 'religious affiliation' section of their adoption paperwork blank.

John Burke is an Atheist. Cynthia is a 'pantheist' (who believes that God is an all-encompassing abstract principle.) Despite what he recognized as their 'high moral and ethical standards', the Burke's religious beliefs (or lack of them) were apparently incompatible with those Judge Camarata considered necessary to adopt a child (despite the fact that the Burkes had previously adopted a little boy from the same agency.)

He pointed to a section in the New Jersey State Constitution which reads:

"No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."

According to his 'interpretation' of that amendment, parents who don't believe in God (or what he deems to be an acceptable, monotheistic version of God) will raise their child to be 'Godless' and therefore in violation this principle (despite millions of children who grow up to have different religious beliefs than their parents.)

To say I'm disgusted is an understatement.

It's such an astonishingly, blatantly, absurdly obvious violation of the 1st Amendment that you have to wonder what planet Judge Camarata is living on, or whether he actually attended law school at all. He's basically ruled that all Atheists in New Jersey are unsuitable parents.

What's even worse, Judge Camarata ruled that Eleanor, the little girl the Burkes adopted, must be removed from their home and returned to the adoption agency - being separated from the only family she's ever known because of Judge Camarata's illegal, unconstitutional and just plain offensive ruling.

The Burkes have appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. I'm praying that they make the right decision and reverse Camarata's disgusting ruling.

If they don't, according to the dangerous precedent he set, all Atheists could have their children removed from their homes and put up for adoption.

In this ruling,Judge William Camarata has shown nothing but contempt for the law of New Jersey, the principles upon which this nation was founded and basic human kindness.

He disgusts me.

UPDATED:

The inimitable Tom pointed out that this article, which is somehow currently doing the rounds amongst Atheist websites and tweets, is actually dated from the 1970s!

It turns out to have a happy ending, too. The Supreme Court ruled in the Burke's favor and little Eleanor got to stay with them. Thank goodness for logic and reason!

I'm tempted to delete this whole post, because it makes me look like a bit of an arse not to have checked the date! But it's still an interesting topic and a scary slice of (fairly) recent history, so I'll keep it up here, with this addendum to clarify things.

Question for the CDC

I have a question for the CDC, who are considering advocating circumcision for all newborn infants, in an effort to reduce HIV infection (a flawed plan, as I argue here.)

1. How come the USA, in which the majority of men are circumcised, is rated 10th in the world for rates of HIV infection - whereas Europe and Japan, where men are generally not circumcised, have considerably LOWER rates of HIV infection?
   

Doesn't that just shoot the efficacy of this cruel and unnecessary procedure right out of the water?

CDC poised to advocate infant circumcision?

It was quack doctor John Harvey Kellogg who helped usher in America's era of neonatal circumcision. In his 1903 book Plain Facts for Old and Young, he advocated the removal of a child's foreskin as an effective remedy against the 'evils' of masturbation.

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

For decades afterwards, the routine circumcision of America infants went almost unchecked - with as many as 80% of children having their foreskins removed in the days following birth - all in the interests of 'hygiene' or 'aesthetics' or similarly discredited theories.

In fact, it wasn't until 1999 that the American Medical Association finally examined the issue - and rejected all the bunk 'science' that suggested circumcision was medically necessary or beneficial - stating:

“Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.”

However, just like female circumcision in Africa and the Middle East (more accurately labeled 'genital mutilation') it was difficult to change the habits and prejudices of three generations of American parents. While routine circumcision dropped from 80% of all baby boys to just 60% - more than half of all newborns still had their foreskins unnecessarily removed.

But it did appear that the tide was changing - and that an increasing number of infants were being left intact just as God intended - until this week.

Because this week, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States considered advocating routine circumcision off all infant boys again - because studies in Africa suggested that circumcised men were 50% less likely to contract HIV than ones who were uncircumcised.

Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the CDC announced:

“We have a significant HIV epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic. What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

The problems with Kilmarx's suggested campaign of circumcision? Where do I start?

Kilmarx has presented three studies conducted in Africa to indicate that men with a circumcised penis are 50% less likely to get infected by HIV - and advocates routine circumcision in American infants to carry those benefits over to the United States.

The problem is, America isn't Africa.

Here in the United States, our HIV 'epidemic' isn't on the same scale as in Africa. In some parts of Africa, up to 20% of the population can be infected. In the USA, the CDC estimate that just over a million Americans carry HIV (either diagnosed or undiagnosed.) That's 0.3% of the population. So already, an American's chance of encountering a person with HIV (much less having sex with them) is 66 times less than in Africa.

Secondly, America is a country with has reasonable sex education (no thanks to President Bush) and easy access to condoms. Condom use in Africa is practically unheard of. Therefore, Americans already have a far more effective way of preventing HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse than somebody in Africa does.

Thirdly, 67% of all men who are infected with HIV in the United States catch it through male-to-male sexual intercourse - and according to 15 studies, circumcision does nothing to protect either the 'bottom' (receptive) partner or the 'top' (giving) partner.

A further 17% of HIV infections are through injection drug use - another area in which circumcision has no applicable benefits.

And finally, the fastest growing group of heterosexuals being infected are women - and just like with receptive male-to-male sex, circumcision offers no benefits to reduce infection amongst that group.

Oh - not to mention that it will be at least 16 to 20 years before we can expect to see the 'benefits' of this campaign. In fact, the fastest growing demographic of people infected with HIV are actually in their thirties - so we'll actually have to wait three decades to see if Kilmarx's suggestions are really right.

So on paper Dr. Kilmarx's suggestions will (according to the CDC's 2006 figures) potentially prevent over 2,074 HIV infections when the 'new batch' of circumcised Americans become sexually active.

But it will still do nothing to prevent 33,106 other men, women and children getting infected - and will require over a million infants being circumcised - meaning over 48,216 kids will have to undergo a painful, brutal, unnecessary and dangerous procedure for the sake of preventing one hypothetical infection.

Of those 48,216 kids?

According to a 1996 study by Williams and Kapilla, between 2% and 10% of them will encounter complications arising from their circumcision. A 1999 study, examining 48 boys suffering from circumcision complications, witnessed 21% of them developing serious infections and one had to have his penis amputated entirely.

Does it really make statistical sense to butcher almost 50,000 kids for the sake of possibly preventing a single HIV infection twenty or thirty years in the future?

Of course not. It's just shameful that Dr. Kilmarx and the CDC are too blinded by science to see that fact for themselves.

Please do not circumcise your child!

(Data on US HIV and AIDS rates taken from the CDC factsheets.)
(Statistics of the three randomized African trials taken from InterScience)

When did Conservatives become as dogmatic as Socialists?

My problem with the conservative position on health care reform is that it's all based off a misnomer - the automatic, dogmatic assumption that the unfettered free market is best for everybody.

That's simply not true - as recent history has uncompromisingly taught us.

Look at the housing market. Democrats like Barney Franks fought tooth and nail against regulation (which the Bush administration proposed, time and again) and, as a result, the market blew up into a bubble...

...and collapsed.

By this time next year, half of American mortgages will be 'underwater' - with borrowers owing more than their house will ever realistically be worth again.

[Wait - didn't Militant Ginger blame the collapse of the housing market on too much government interference before? Read this post and see if he's contradicting himself. Editorial Bear]

Unregulated, the free market is a permanent cycle of 'boom and bust,' which is is simply not an acceptable model to adopt when dealing with something as essential as a nation's health care.

That's not to argue against private industry, capitalism or the free market playing the largest part in the health care. It just can't be the only part - because if it is, what happens when the 'free market' goes wrong?

Which is does, infrequently, but catastrophically.

Take Social Security, for example. During the election, conservatives often proposed 'privatizing' Social Security, by giving people the opportunity to pay up to 75% of their mandated payroll payments into private funds rather than the Social Security itself.

(In fact, I advocated the exact same thing in March 2008.)

It was a great idea, before 'the crash.' In 2007, 401k and private retirement accounts offered considerably bigger payouts than Social Security, which was (and continues to be) heading towards bankruptcy.

But last year's devastating economic collapse wiped out some people's private savings accounts and 401ks. Mine lost something like 94% at one point - which is terrifying considering that some people were forced to cash in their private retirement funds when they'd lost 50%/60% of their value.

Imagine if they didn't have the cushion of boring, bankrupt, dependable Social Security? Imagine if they'd taken their 75% of payroll payments and put them into those private retirement fund instead? Ask THEM whether the free market worked better than government-run Social Security, when they'd watched almost half of their life savings dissolve away before their eyes.

In this instance, the free market system didn't work better.

And that's the rub, really.

While I believe the emphasis on society should always be entrepreneurship and private enterprise, it's become increasingly apparent that the free market can't be relied upon to 'always be right' - and however bad the government 'solution' to the free market weakness might be, they've usually got enough taxpayer clout to make it work.

Regular contributor Tom, for example, recently used the example of 'cash for clunkers,' suggesting it was a failure:

"Take a look at cash for clunkers. The program is 200-300% over budget, because the government overestimated demand for its services...

...and it would be further over budget if it hadn't been shut down early. Payment for the dealers, which was promised to happen in 10 days, has been overdue for weeks, causing several dealers to drop out of the program.

Now, ask yourself... are these the people you want managing your health care?"

Are you kidding? By those standards, 'cash for clunkers' was a blistering success!

It actually got people into the showrooms - and buying cars. That's why it ran out of money so quickly, because it worked!

Certainly, there are criticisms of how slowly it paid out and how bureaucratic it was, but 'cash for clunkers' still boosted sales for GM and Ford in a way that - you guessed it - the free market couldn't.

The 'free market' had led to the virtual collapse of the American car industry, whereas the much-criticized ‘cash for clunkers’ boosted sales for the first time since 2007. That means it wasn’t a failure, judging by it's impact on the car industry..

The simple fact is that the unregulated free market GETS THINGS WRONG from time to time - and, in a mixed economy, the government's there to pick up the pieces.

Now, I'm not advocating a socialist state, or expanding the powers and influence of government until they reach the same level as, say, Britain or France. One of the reasons I love living in America is because it embraces the opportunities of the free market (as well as its risks.)

But I just don't know where the conservative's dogmatic insistence that the free market is always right comes from. It's not.

If the events of the last year have taught me anything, it's that our 'mixed' economy in America is something of a blessing - and that the conservatives who believe the 'free market' is entirely infallible are simply no better than the idiots who believe in socialism or communism.

"Moderation in all things," said Benjamin Franklin. "Including moderation."

Glenn Beck: Advertisers object to his racist rants

President Obama is a racist, with a deep-seated hatred for white people.

Glenn Beck, 28th July 2009

As readers will know, Militant Ginger is no great fan of Glenn Beck - the vile right-wing demagogue who rants on Fox News.

Fortunately, it seems like this offensive little troll is finally getting his comeuppance. After spouting the snap-fire line above, outraged advertisers are dropping support for Beck's show like wildfire.

"We do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts," a spokesman from Clorox said, directing that their commercials not be aired during Beck's show. Caremark and Sprint similarly abandoned Beck.

"We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," CVS Caremark explained.

The campaign to eliminate Beck's sponsors is being orchestrated by ColorofChange.org, a left-wing, African-American group that cites a progressive attitude towards race relations in America. A counter-campaign, Support Glenn Beck, has cropped up to defend Beck's so-called 'freedom of speech' by appealing to advertisers not to abandon him.

But freedom of speech really isn't the issue here. Unlike the fate of former inopportune pundits - like Don Imus, who was fired for calling the Rutger's women's basketball team 'nappy-headed hos' - Glenn Beck's not finding himself a victim of censorship.

He hasn't been fired, or censored. He's merely received a very clear message that what he stands for - vile, ignorant, racist drivel - is very different from the image that companies like Clorox, Sprint and Caremark want to be associated with.

For Beck himself, it's not all bad news. Still pulling in almost 2.4 million viewers, he's very unlikely to be fired - especially since most of the advertisers are merely shifting their advertising to different time slots, not abandoning Fox News entirely (with the admirable exception of UPS.)

So Fox isn't taking much of a financial hit over this scandal.

But it does mean that Glenn Beck's television program finally has a caliber of advertisers appropriate to his audience - like a company hawking penis-enlargement pills and an ambulance-chasing firm of personal attorneys.

What is Obama's Health Care plan? What is Obamacare?

There's been so much misinformation spread about so-called 'Obamacare' that it's difficult to tell the facts from the lies - and there are a lot of lies and misinformation being spread around (largely by insiders from the insurance industry.)

The absolutely inexcusable failing of the Obama administration is their inability to clearly and concisely explain what 'Obamacare' actually entails - which is why lies about 'socialized medicine' and 'death panels' appeal to the populous so much.

So here, in my typically unqualified fashion, is my explanation of 'Obamacare.'

The current reform bill being debated is America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

It proposes:

• All US residents with an income above poverty level will be mandated to purchase health insurance, or face penalties during tax season.
• Health insurance companies will be forbidden from refusing coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions.'
• Health insurance companies won't be allowed to cancel coverage except in cases of proven medical fraud.
• Maximum out-of-pocket expenses will be limited to $5,000 annually for an individual, or $10,000 for a family.
• A tax credit will be provided for low-income families, so they can afford health insurance.
• All employers with payroll costs of over $250,000 will be required to provide medical coverage for their employees.
• Medicare payments to hospitals which discharge their patients too early, characterized by frequent re-admissions, will be punitively reduced.
• A Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research will be created, which will seek to discover why some medical treatments cost more in certain parts of the country.
• Medicare coverage will be expanded by requiring pharmaceutical companies to reduce or rebate the cost of qualifying drugs for eligible patients.
• A National Prevention and Wellness Strategy will be developed, which will aim to promote healthy living and preventative medicine to reduce the overall need for medical treatment.
• A Health Insurance Exchange would be created, which would mean small business could 'pool' together to participate in more cost effective insurance plans (currently, only larger businesses have the 'clout' to earn lower premiums through increased participation.)
• A 'public' health insurance option would be created, which would compete with insurance companies in an effort to reduce insurance premiums, while maintaining coverage.

What Obamacare does NOT propose is the following:

• There will be NO 'government takeover of the health care industry.' A 'public' option will exist alongside the current insurance industry, so this is NOT a socialized or nationalized health care plan. It's not even close.
  
• There will be NO 'health care rationing' beyond that which currently exists in the marketplace.
• 'Grandma' won't be unplugged or denied treatment. So-called 'death panels' are actually 'end of life' discussions - proposed by Republican Charles Boustany. These will offer patients the chance to discuss with their doctor under what circumstances they would want to refuse medical treatment (like in the case of complete, irreversible brain death.) The doctors themselves cannot elect to refuse treatment.

There are elements of the health insurance industry who are fighting tooth and nail to have America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 totally derailed. They are using the so-called 'grassroots' movement to disrupt Town Hall discussions - even though the protesters themselves will suffer if this bill isn't passed.

If conservatives successfully keep the status quo, the following will happen:

• Health insurance premiums will continue to rise - they've more than doubled since 1999, rising twice as fast as wages. They're projected to increase by a further 94% by 2020. Unless this is stopped, nobody in America will be able to afford health care!
• The percentage of out-of-pocket costs will continue to increase, too. This year, economists reported that medical debt was the leading cause of bankruptcies in the US. You should be able to be treated for cancer without losing your house - and currently, that's not how the American system works.
• As premiums rise, coverage drops - and more and more Americans find themselves refused coverage because of 'pre-existing conditions' or dropped altogether thanks to exclusions in the small print. If this continues, only healthy Americans will be 'privileged' to pay for health insurance (that they don't need.)

It's no wonder that pro-industry pressure groups like Conservatives for Patient's Rights are fighting so hard to combat health care reform. They'll continue making millions by preserving the current system - out of the pockets of hardworking Americans like you, me and the misguided protesters.

Friday Unfunny

A little reminder that evangelicalism [Fundamentalism, not evangelicalism. We HOPE this is not representative of evangelicalism - Editorial Bear] in America can be deeply scary. I can understand conservatives not liking the concept of same-sex marriage. I don't like it, but I can understand it. But this?

These are the words of Pastor Steven Anderson, of the Faithful Word Baptist Church (which proudly warns: "Don't expect anything contemporary or liberal here!")

"The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! God commanded they should be taken out and killed."

This is a pastor saying this. Somebody who stands up in front of a crowd and supposedly teaches them what's 'moral.' And he's advocating the killing of gay people.

Perhaps you can understand why I have such intense problems with the evangelical [fundamental, not evangelical - Editorial Bear] movement over here.

(Thanks to Right Wing Watch for this link.)

Out of respect for Susanne, and after some gentle prodding from Tom, I have changed the term 'evangelicalism' to 'fundamentalism' as I reluctantly concede that it is more accurate.

Friday Funny

Check out the guy in blue, with sunglasses. Brought to you by the totally shameless Exile.

Is Chris Christie really going to fight corruption?

November 3rd sees New Jersey's general election, in which the people will get to choose between keeping incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, or ousting him in favor of Republican candidate Chris Christie.

Christie and the Republicans are launching an aggressive campaign to overthrow Corzine - largely based on the promise of 'stopping corruption in its tracks.'

On his website, ChristieforNJ.com, the corpulent candidate highlights his three step plan to reform the New Jersey legislature:

• Eliminate the Legislature’s conflicts of interest
• Eliminate loopholes to strengthen laws banning 'pay to play'
• Demand greater transparency and accountability in government

Ironically, though, some argue that appeal to 'battle corruption' flies in the face of precedents Chris Christie has set during his own political career. Is he really the man New Jersey can trust?

Chris Christie is most famous for his career as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey - a position he was nominated for by fellow Republican George W. Bush.

During his six years in office, he successfully prosecuted 130 public officials (both Republican and Democrat) for corruption - never losing a single case. He was also the man who set the groundwork for last month's astonishing corruption arrests.

But Christie's also demonstrated blatent favoritism to friends and political allies during his time in office - making a mockery of his 'desire' to end 'conflicts of interest' and 'pay to play' in NJ.

For example, as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Chris Christie awarded a multi-million dollar contract to former U.S. Attorney David Kelley, without allowing any competiting bids.

Coincidentally, David Kelley had recently investigated Corzine's own brother, Todd Christie, for financial fraud - and declined to prosecute him despite Todd being ranked the fourth most significant suspect in the allegation (and the three higher ranking suspects - and the eleven below Christie - all facing charges in court.)

Was the multi-million dollar contract a pay-off for letting his brother off the hook?

Christie was similarly criticized in 2007, when he awarded another no-bid contract - worth over $50 million - to former boss and political ally John Ashcroft. The House Judiciary Committee even began hearings on the matter - but Christie was conveniently bailed out when the Bush administration rewrote the rules on such appointments before testimony was called.

The U.S. Justice Department wasn't so forgiving when Chris Christie negotiated with pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb over their $311 million fraud settlement. Christie deferred criminal prosecution in exchange for the company dedicated $5 million to his old alma mater. The Justice Department later wrote specific guidelines forbidding such practices as a result of Christie's decision.

In the lead up to his gubernatorial campaign, Christie's been hit once more with accusations of 'cronyism' - awarding a lucrative federal monitering contract to a company that has donated $23,800 to his election campaign (earning him $47,600 in public finance matching funds.)

So serious are these allegations that Christie himself was hauled in front of a congressional panel in June to explain his blatent favoritism. After being peppered with questions for two and a half hours, a visibly frustrated Christie stormed out of the hearing with his entourage in tow.

“It is very telling that Christie got up and walked out as he began to be questioned about the multimillion-dollar, no-bid contract given to the former U.S. attorney that refused to charge his brother,” said New Jersey Democratic chairman Joseph Cryan.

“If Christie tried to answer for all the other multimillion-dollar, no-bid contracts he gave out to friends, he would have been testifying until Election Day, and none of his statements would have matched.”

In short, while Chris Christie talks big about ending corruption in New Jersey, his record tells a starkly different story. Blantant cronyism, political machinations and questionable ethics are all simply part and parcel of the way this former U.S. Attorney conducts his business.

Perhaps in New Jersey, the 'Soprano state', such activities are simply par for the course. But I find his promise of 'ending corruption' leaving a rather unpleasent taste in my mouth.

Lockerbie Bomber freed?

Seriously? Words fail me.

Today, Scottish courts released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the bomber who blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over 21 years ago - killing 270 innocent people.

al-Megrahi was apparently diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and had been released for 'reasons of compassion.'

Understandably, the families of the victims of the bombing are disgusted. I don't blame them. There seems no acceptable reason for doing this. Murdering one person apparently gets you life in prison, but (inexplicably) murdering 270 gets you less jail time than a serious assault charge.

Personally, I think we should have given al-Megrahi just as much 'compassion' as he gave the victims of Flight 103 - and left him to rot in H.M.P. Greenock until the end of his miserable life.

The 'heros' of Anti-Health Care Reform

The right-wing is trying to portray opposition to health care reform as emerging from the grassroots - the regular men and women of America who object to government interfering in how they get access to medical treatment

Protester picture borrowed from Looking at the Left

But it's becoming increasingly clear that the most effective anti-reform protests are being organized and orchestrated by political organizations - like Conservatives for Patients' Rights.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights is a health care pressure group which claims to lobby government to enact health care reform 'based on free-market principles.'

Their founder, Rick Scott, pushes the group's agenda through both high-cost advertising and organizing the group's supporters to attend and disrupt town hall meetings. They provide lists of local meetings for supporters to attend and provide video tutorials on how to most effectively push their agenda (largely by drowning out debate.)

But who is Rick Scott? And what are Conservatives for Patients' Rights' real aims?

Well, Rick Scott's no activist, leading the charge to preserve America's freedoms. He's a health industry insider with a checkered history; who stands to make millions by derailing health care reform.

Scott was the founder of Columbia Hospital Corporation, which was at the center of the one of the biggest Medicaid and Medicare frauds in American history. His group fleeced the government out of billions by charging for services they didn't render, giving their own organization kickbacks and self-referrals and issuing fraudulent cost reports.

Rick Scott was eventually ousted from the board of directors and plead guilty to fraud, earning a record fine of $1.7 billion dollars.

So we've already established that he's a liar and a fraud.

But that didn't keep him out of the health care industry. In fact, Scott then co-founded Solantic, an organization that provides urgent care services, immunizations, physicals and drug screenings - a business that stands to reap huge rewards by preventing the cost-cutting measures and government-run competition proposed by Obama.

So instead of being a hero of the free-market health care system, Rick Scott is a stooge. He founded Conservatives for Patient's Rights not to help Americans get fair access to affordable health care, but to derail health care reform.

And why? Well, in the words of rival group Health Care for America Now:

"Scott and his insurance company friends stand to make millions by preserving the broken system we have now."

And how about Conservatives for Patient's Rights? The group Scott founded?

The group rally support amongst grassroots protesters and regular Americans through well-funded advertising campaigns - claiming that health care reform will 'squeeze' Americans and provide 'lousy public health coverage.'

"Obamacare could crush all your other choices, driving them out of existence, resulting in 119 million off their current insurance coverage."

However, their adverts have been accused of being misleading, or even incorporating outright lies. This isn't surprising since the PR firm behind the commercials - Creative Response Concepts - is best known for their previous work with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - who ran a campaign of outright lies and slander intended to derail the election campaign of 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry.

'Swiftboating' is already in effect - a good example being how two British women were duped into recording for a fake 'documentary' on health care reform - only to find their words taken out of context and used in a Conservatives for Patient's Rights commercial slamming the NHS.

"I was told that they were a company in the United States who were doing a documentary on whether health care in the US should be nationalised," Katie Brickall, one of the duped women, told The Times. "I feel I was duped. The irony is that I campaign for exactly the people that socialised health care supports. I would never align myself with this group at all.”

FactCheck.org have a comprehensive list of lies Conservatives for Patient's Rights have told on their website, here and here.

To back up their campaign of misinformation, Rick Scott and the Conservatives for Patient's Rights list local Town Hall events across the country, and use email and social networking sights to orchestrate protests, demonstrations and disruptions to the political process.

"They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob."

The worst part of all this? The grassroots activists who are misguidedly working with Conservatives for Patient's Rights are actually shooting themselves in the foot.

Instead of defending their personal freedoms, fighting higher taxation and rebelling against unnecessary government interference, they're being used and manipulated into furthering the financial stranglehold the insurance companies have on the health care system.

If health care reform is derailed, these regular Americans will continue to feel the sting of higher insurance premiums, reduced coverage and shrinking services - while health industry stooges like Rick Scott will reap millions by milking the system for every penny he can squeeze out of it.

Are the Town Hall disruptions staged?

Intimidatingly intelligent commenter Tom took exception to my post comparing the Town Hall disruptors to Hitler's brownshirts - and posted a rather fascinating link when he did so.

While I still stand by my accusations about the loud, verbally disruptive Conservatives who attend these meetings - and the intimidating, gun-toting thugs who linger menacingly nearby - this revelation is simply too astonishing NOT to repost.

Was the most famous OBAMA=HITLER placard a Democratic plant?

Is this man a fraud? And I mean the one holding the poster.

It sounds almost too absurd to be true, but Conservatives insist that one of the disruptive events I was blogging about - a man turning up to a town hall rally with a poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache - might have actually been a fraud.

Democrat John Dingell held a Town Hall event last week, in which this angry protester was spotted with the enormous poster of Obama-as-Hitler. This was reported on MSM as proof that the Conservatives were engaging in dirty tactics to protest health care reform.

However, this same man was apparently spotted later in the day actually working with John Dingall's team - handing out fliers for the Democratic politician!

So was he a Democratic plant? Ordered to hoist a placard far more offensive than any the Conservatives themselves carried? There's anecdotal evidence to support that accusation here, on the link that Tom posted.

But what's perhaps more interesting than the accusation itself is the startling lack of proof.

Even in the words of the blogger Tom linked to; "If the link is out there," proving the accusation, "I haven't found it yet." It all apparently hangs off the word of a nameless couple who apparently attended the event - not exactly firm evidence.

But the fact that suspicion remains should remind us that the ol' 'Hitler' comparisons are used by both sides to attack each other - and perhaps that's something we should both stop doing.

For eight years, as Tom pointed out, President Bush was compared by Liberals to Hitler (which was stunningly absurd, since Hitler's primary attribute was being a powerful orator - and George Bush's patently wasn't!)

So surely it's just par for the course for the Conservatives to level the same accusation at Obama? (Who arguably did conjure up almost hypnotic support during his campaign.)

Well, even if it's not fair, they've insisted on doing so since before the election!

But why do I bring it up?

Because if Tom's right in the stern conclusion to his intricately researched comment, in which he argues that comparing the opposition to Nazis "shows which side has abandoned debate in favor of name-calling," surely both Conservatives and Liberals are equally guilty.

Perhaps Tom's comments suggest that we should 'step away from the Swastika' and start debating each other on the basis of facts from now on.