Friday, September 07, 2007

BEIJING (AFP) - Doctors have discovered 26 needles embedded in the body of a woman in China, believed to have been inserted not long after she was born by grandparents upset she was not a boy, state media said Friday.

The sewing needles were found in an X-ray after the 29-year-old, Luo Cuifen, went to a hospital in Yunnan province complaining of blood in her urine, the Beijing Morning Post reported.

Doctors plan to operate to remove as many of the needles as they can, it said, but face "great difficulties" as the images show several had penetrated vital organs including her lungs, liver, bladder, small intestine and kidneys.

She also had needles in her head, neck, and shoulder -- some of which are dangerously close to major arteries -- and one in her brain that has broken into three pieces, the paper said.

"Her grandmother and grandfather are suspected of doing it because they had wanted a boy, but as they are dead now there is no evidence," the paper said.

Luo, who comes from a poor farming community, said two needles were removed by doctors when she was a child, the paper said. But she has had no health problems until recently giving birth.

Due to the difficulty in removing the remaining needles, the unnamed hospital is organising a 16-member team of doctors, including some from as far away as Canada, for consultations ahead of an operation expected next week.

"Taking out the needles will be like dredging for needles in the ocean," the paper quoted one doctor as saying.

"But if we don't operate, her life could be in jeopardy."

Under China's "one child" family planning policy, the traditional preference for boys remains strong in the vast and poor rural countryside, and reports of aborted female foetuses and infanticide remain common.

I'm trying to imagine grandparents (or anyone else) shoving needles into a baby, in hopes that she'll die, so that her parents can try again for a son. I certainly understand just how strong some cultural pressures can be on individuals, but it still amazes me that some persons are capable of doing such horrible things to others.

Surgeons to Try to Remove 26 Sewing Needles from Woman

Associated Press
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

The issue is for a judge to decide, because the issue is the constitutionality of a state law, and that's precisely the domain of the courts. I despise activism on the part of judges (legislating from the bench), but this is a logical application of constitutional rights.

Associated Press
Hanson ruled that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

Initially, I had assumed the judge was applying the Iowa Constitution, but his language references the U.S. Constitution.

Iowa Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 1.
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Iowa Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6.
All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We'll see how this plays out. One would think that, if a county judge can apply the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn a state law (especially if the decision withstands appeal), then a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn all state legislative and constitutional prohibitions against same-sex marriages, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

Laws prohibiting interracial marriage were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883, and that judgment was finally overturned in 1967, the court stating that such laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Likewise, I hope (if not expect) that the Court will eventually do the same regarding laws against same-sex marriages. I just hope something similar to last year's proposed Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't get passed first.

Judge Rules Gay Couples Can Marry In Iowa

The central figure, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting, and potentially damaging to transgender women. In the past few years, several prominent academics who are transgender have made a series of accusations against the psychologist, including that he committed ethics violations. A transgender woman he wrote about has accused him of a sexual impropriety, and Dr. Bailey has become a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities.

The hostilities began in the spring of 2003, when Dr. Bailey published a book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” intended to explain the biology of sexual orientation and gender to a general audience.

“The next two years,” Dr. Bailey said in an interview, “were the hardest of my life.”

Many sex researchers who have worked with Dr. Bailey say that he is a solid scientist and collaborator, who by his own admission enjoys violating intellectual taboos.

In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s, in part by telling the stories of several transgender women he met through a mutual acquaintance. In the book, he gave them pseudonyms, like “Alma” and “Juanita.”

“I think for me, for the work I do, honestly, I don’t really care what his theories are,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, of Dr. Bailey. “But I do want to feel like any theories that affect the lives of so many people are based in good science, and that they’re presented responsibly.”

But that, say supporters of Dr. Bailey, is precisely the problem: Who defines responsible? And at what cost is that definition violated?

(Some of my comments below were previously posted on my own website.)

Autogynephilia is described as an attraction to the image of oneself as a woman (referring to M-to-F transsexuals). It is a controversial theory intended to explain transsexualism, originated by Ray Blanchard and advanced by Anne A. Lawrence and J. Michael Bailey, in which transsexualism is caused either by homosexuality taken to an extreme (in androphilic males), or by paraphilia in the form of a misdirected sex drive (in non-androphilic males), rather than being a matter of intrinsic identity, as indicated by traditional conventional wisdom.

I do think that the theory of autogynephilia could possibly explain why some M-to-F transsexuals are the way they are, but I don't believe that autogynephilia and/or homosexuality are the o... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege

A service offering a complete "revenge package" in which people can destroy the financial status and relationships of their enemies at the click of a mouse is being offered over the Internet. For as little as $20 a month, customers of the confidentialaccess.com Web site can make the credit ratings of people they dislike plummet, and even have them suspected of fraud. Victims' bank accounts can be shut down remotely and all their essential utilities cut off.

Website Offers to Ruin People's Lives for $20 a Month

The Rook.
Ahhh… the safety and security of bricks and mortar are the lesson to be learned here. How solid and dependable are the rooks? They occupy and guard the outer edges of the world, keeping the other players safe from invading paws, curious kittens, and insurgencies of spilt beverages. But how high is the price of such security?

I’ll tell you – it’s a terrible toll. Severely restricted movement, and a mindset programmed to think in unbending lines. Compare this to the United States, where the price of freedom is restrictions beyond their wildest nightmares – a government hellbent on tying down its own people to protect them from themselves, and others.

Thus, the Rooks are the US Government of the chess world. Bulky, cumbersome, and programmed to defend and destroy, or die trying.

The Politics of Chess

...and yet, there are still some who claim the Mafia doesn't exist.

Boy's Lemonade Stand Robbed...

The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."

House Passes Federal Gun Control Bill

Your child: Why can I have only one glass of apple juice?
You: Because we will eat dinner soon, I don’t want you to spoil your appetite!
Your child: Why does apple juice spoil my appetite?
You: Because it's filling and it has a lot of sugar!
Your child: Why can't I have sugar?
You: Because it will make you more thirsty and it's not good for your teeth!
Your child: Why is sugar not good for my teeth?
You: Eating sugar attracts bacteria and they make holes in your teeth!
Your child: Why do bacteria make holes in my teeth?

Chess is more complete than life - by Christian Hesse

Beef: it's what's for dinner, unless you're working for Paul McCartney.

'Live and let live' foreign idea to left
By Ted Nugent, Texas Wildman
Sunday, June 17, 2007

I like sizzling meat on the grill. Wild, huh? Anybody? Now, we all know ol' Nuge isn't by any stretch of the imagination a weirdo when it comes to an omnivorous diet.

Especially here in the great Republic of Texas, a smiling, drooling preference for succulent, protein-rich, nutritious backstrap over aromatic mesquite coals is as American and natural and right as Mom, apple pie and the flag. It's beautiful, really.

But a culture war rages against such universal, self-evident truths. It would be laughable if it were not so deranged. Some weirdos actually are on a crusade to outlaw the consumption of flesh.

I have musical touring associates who have been fired from their jobs with ex-Beatle Paul McCartney for sneaking a hamburger.

You heard that right. Fired for eating meat by an animal-rights maniac, hard-core vegan bass player.

The entire agenda of the gazillion-dollar-financed joke known as PETA literally is dedicated to outlawing meat.

Neither I, nor any hunter or meat eater on the planet, has any desire whatsoever to influence any vegetarian's choice of diet or to force them to eat meat. We are the friendly, tolerant Americans.

This is but one of many issues that represent the line drawn in the sand between liberals and conservatives.

Our own intrepid opinion editor at the Trib, my friend John Young, doesn't want to simply make the choice to be unarmed and helpless for himself. He has again recently insisted that you and I must also comply with his soulless condition of unarmed helplessness in "gun-free zones."

Nobody from our side wants to force anybody to have a gun or defend themselves. It is us, the conservatives, who are for individual choice.

"Soulless condition of unarmed helplessness"?

Ouch!

"This is but one of many issues that represent the line drawn in the sand between liberals and conservatives. It is us, the conservatives, who are for individual choice."

Obviously, the suggestion here is that liberals are intolerant, by nature, and conservatives aren't. While I certainly agree with Mr. Nugent, in that "live and let live" is a "foreign idea" to certain individuals on the left regarding the two particular issues he mentioned, I have to point out that some individuals on the right are often reluctant to "live and let live" when it comes to issues such as homosexual marriages, teaching evolution in public schools, and recreational drug use (not that I condone the last one). While Ted Nugent and I will probably be fighting on the same side during the next American civil war, I would caution him against assuming that either liberals or conservatives have cornered the market on intolerance. There's plenty of that to go around.

...and I prefer my steak medium, please.

Live and Let Live?