Sardonic Ex Curia: August 2012

August 31, 2012

The Women of the RNC - AT (Cooper)

Evil Right-Wingers Turn to Family, Not Government - AT (Jonescu)

The Wisdom of John Taylor of Caroline - TIC (Birzer)

Defending the Constitution - TIC (McLean)

A Glimpse into the American Mosque - Public Discourse (Hassaballa)

Ronald Dworkin on the Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision - Liberty Law Blog (Rappaport)

Illinois Bonds Downgraded over Pension Crisis - Via Meadia

August 30, 2012

August 30,2012

Is this 2012 or 1896? Romney/Ryan v. Obama/Biden- TIC (Domitrovic)

Liberals and the Politicization of Rape - AT (Thomas)

The Last Line of Defense: Property - AT (Jonescu)

How 'The Shy Republican' Could Be Masking a Landslide - AT (Shaw)

Race, the Race, and Racism - AT (Hundehutte)

Romney/Ryan Must Target Catholics and Evangelicals - AT (Voshell)

Being Successful is Romney's Greatest Appeal - AT (McQuillan)

Political Scientists Bow to the Laws of Nature - Liberty Law Blog (Masugi)

A Job Is a Social Issue - The Indiana Barrister

Dems Give Their Best Shot, Ryan Still Standing? - Via Meadia

The Free Society and Its Limits - Liberty Law Blog (Conway)

RNC and the Ghost of Cuomo's Famous Keynoter - AT (Trzeciak)

Attorney General Holder grants BATFE expanded forfeiture powers - Volokh (Kopel)

Swing State, Religion, and Policy - MoJ (Leary)

Romney Prepares to Battle Obama on Foreign Policy - Via Meadia

President Obama: American Tory? - Via Meadia

Legally recognized multi-partner unions: Why not? - MoJ (George)

Ryan: "A Country Where Everything is Free but Us - Pundit & Pundette

California Pension Reform: Too Little, Too Late - Via Meadia

PAUL RYAN’S VALID POINT ON THE JANESVILLE PLANT - Human Events (Hayward)

Miller v. Alabama: Mandatory Life Sentences for Juvenile Homicide Offenders as Cruel and Unusual Punishment - The Originalism Blog (Rappaport)

Does Rand Paul Have the Future? - The American Conservative (McCarthy)

August 29, 2012

The Upside-Down Constitution, Right Side Up - Liberty Law Blog (Greve)

2016: Obama's America or Romney's - AT (Chantrill)

Government Clamp Down on Free Speech: Marine vs. Occupier - AT (Evan)

Will Mitt Seize His Moment? - AT (Stokes)

We Will Win - AT (Walker)

Presidential Debate Advice for Mitt Romney - AT (Cary)

Red-Baiting vs. Rand-Baiting - AT (Pappas)

Think, McFly, think! - Edward Feser

St. Augustine: “I Have Other Well-known Sayings, Too, You Know” - TAC (LarryD)

Paul Ryan’s Intellectual Muse - Defining Ideas (Epstein)

Abortion and the Courts: A Brief Political History of Judicial Conservatism - Public Discourse (Fragoso)

Alypius and the Gladiators - Maverick Philosopher

High Profile DUI Flameouts: Warnings To Us All - Via Meadia

I Was Forced to Show My Papers! - Maverick Philosopher

Top Romney Financial Backer Cuts across Media Stereotypes - Via Meadia

The Welfare Issues is Back - KausFiles

Middle Class Sank and Shrank During Recovery - Via Meadia

August 28, 2012

A Revolution Not Made But Prevented - TIC (Kirk)

Does Liberalism Make You Fat? - AT (Lewis)

The Party of Factions, Republican or Democrat? - AT (Smith)

President Obama's Problems with Women - AT (Crouse)

Who's the Extremist? - AT (Folks)

Obama versus Jesus: Black Christians Must Decide - AT (Marcus)

Those Secretive Mormons (Who Never Shut Up about Their Church) - AT (Ashby)

Poor Coverage of the Rachel Corrie Verdict - Volokh (Bernstein)

Tehran Sends Aid to Damascus - Via Meadia

U.S. Businesses Lock Up Their Money - Via Meadia

Breivik’s 21 Years - Liberty Law Blog (Dalrymple)

Elizabeth Warren’s CabbieGate – caught misleading about connection to assailant - Legal Insurrection (Jacobson)

Devastating: Charlie Crist Endorses Obama, Will Speak at Democratic Convention - TAC (Zummo)

Smart Writing - TWS (Swaim)

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s passion for looking, not thinking - New Statesman (Monk)

America’s Exceptional Fiscal Conservatism - Project Syndicate (Johnson)

August 27, 2012

Mediscare, Mediscaid, and Block Grants - Liberty Law Blog (Greve)

Welfare Rights as Socialist Manqué - Liberty Law Blog (Mahoney)

Miller v. Alabama: Justice Thomas’s Originalist Dissent - Liberty Law Blog (Rappaport)

A Campaign of Contempt and Personal Attacks - AT (Crouse)

Pitchfork Protest Farmer Confronts Government Corruption and Retribution - AT (Fitzgibbons)

Laying the Groundwork of Obama's Second Term - AT (Volsky)

Dissatisfaction with Obama Isn't Enough - AT (Hunt)

Aiken, Abortion, and the GOP - AT (Wieck) [Editor's note: I think this article contains a logical fallacy concerning abortion - however, I am posting it for the other points made concerning Biden and Reid.]

If the Birther Issue Comes Up in Debate - AT (Cashill)

The Naked Week in Review (UK edition) - TIC (Masty)

Hayek’s Serfdom: Fifty Years Later - TIC (Ancil)

Eliot on Education and Religion - MoJ (DeGirolami)

Can we do to Dems in Maine what they did to us in Missouri? - Legal Insurrection (Jacobson)

American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks - Volokh (Bernstein)

California Prepares Major Pension Bill in Secrecy - Via Meadia

Anarchy in Libya - Via Meadia

August 26, 2012

Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: A Book of Love & Marriage - TIC (Kalpakgian)

The Whitewashed Sepulchers of Washington, D.C. - AT (DeAngelis)

The Party of Death in Convention Assembled - TIC (McClarey)

NYT v. NYT - Volokh (Adler)

WRM Interviewed in The Hindu - Via Meadia

Suit Filed Against the President's No-Deportation Policy - The Originalism Blog (Ramsey)

Deja Vu In New Orleans? - Via Meadia

August 25, 2012

August 25, 2012 (Late Afternoon)

Young People Abandoning Smoking - Via Meadia

Neil Armstrong: Requiescat in Pace - TAC (McClarey)

Mitt Romney selling mugs with his birth certificate on them … oh, wait - Legal Insurrection (Jacobson)

Why Do Jews Do So Well and Arabs So Poorly? - Maverick Philosopher

A Difference Beyond Question - RCP (Cohen)

Welcome to the first "real" blog post of Sardonic Ex Curia. It will likely be followed by more, though not on as regular a schedule as my link postings. Therefore, they will be irregular, but (I hope) interesting.

I have long wondered at the philosophy at the root of the argument that condoms and hormonal birth control ought to be available for teens (and anyone else) to use in preventing pregnancy and disease. Scientifically, that they can prevent pregnancy and disease cannot be doubted. However, my thoughts revolve more around the behavioral questions.

The first behavioral aspect to which I refer is the argument (used to justify both greater access to all birth control and against abstinence education) that "they are going to have sex anyway". (The "they" may refer to Africans, teens, the poor, college students, or any mix of these.) In conversation with conservative friends, this line - that the sexual urge is so uncontrollable that it will occur regardless of risk of pregnancy or disease - has become so commonly attributed to proponents of contraception that I thought it must be overstated. However, it turns out that the line "going to have sex anyway" is fairly widespread, and proponents of contraception, including teenagers, use it as often a conservative writers. See, for instance, the statement "Some schools only teach abstinence. I don't think that's very good because kids are going to have sex anyway" made by a 16-year old in an interview with The New York Amsterdam News, or the statement by a Canadian "sex therapist and radio personality" in the Alberta Report that she is "not saying girls should jump every Tom, Dick and Harry....But they're going to have sex anyway. We have to teach them not to settle for mediocre sex. Great sex is not one night stands. It tends to be with people who know you, and who can provide intimacy." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides another example, with an editorial arguing that "It is about grasping reality -- knowing that some youngsters, even knowing the risks, will have sex anyway." Or the statement by a U.N. STI/HIV advisor that "People, especially sexually active people, will have sex anyway because it is a normal part of life and people enjoy it."

Putting aside the somewhat circular statement contained in the last quote, it seems like the philosophy behind these statements is something to the effect of a naturalist fatalism - the idea that, no matter how much the risk of disease or the possibility of pregnancy, the sexual urge is so powerful that many will engage in it regardless of their knowledge of the potential bad outcomes. So, the argument goes, contraception is necessary because it will prevent / reduce the risks associated with sex.

But does that argument work if one extends the naturalist fatalism in question to ALL aspects of behavior? I believe that the argument as one for greater use and availability of contraception eventually turns back on itself. In regards to condoms, to sum up the argument for their greater availability, "condoms should be more available because the natural sexual urge is so powerful that sex will occur regardless of education of risk". However, condoms themselves are inherently unnatural. There is nothing in the history of the sexual urge that indicates an evolutionary predilection to use a barrier during the sexual act. In order to make the claim that condoms are effective in terms of preventing the naturalistic fatalism, one would have to argue the following: "The sexual urge is inherently natural and powerful, and therefore, sex will occur because humans are programmed to do it. However, the sexual urge is not so inherently natural and powerful that humans cannot be programmed to pause before or during the act to use condoms." I suspect there is a fallacy here, in which the "it is natural" meme is twisted to make arguments for condom use work however proponents wish. (I do not get into the questions about condoms raised by Harvard researcher Dr. Steven Green on the idea that condoms may be increasing AIDS in Africa due to risk compensation....another example of the failure to extend naturalistic fatalism to its ultimate conclusion.)

The careful reader will note that I do not discuss hormonal contraception much above. Hormonal contraception does not seem to be subject to the same naturalistic fatalism problem that condoms face. However, I believe it is but one step removed. First, take the example of antibiotics - the problems with individuals failing to finish their entire prescription results in a series of problems, individually and societally, with (for example) both the drug being less effective for the individual and more resistant bacteria developing from the bacteria the lessened dose failed to kill. And, as is well known, some individuals may be naturally more inured to certain antibiotics, making them less effective. While claims for hormonal birth control range to 99% effectiveness, due to these natural and behavioral effects, the actual effectiveness may be lower, and estimates vary from the 91% to the 92% range, with women potentially overestimating the effectiveness of contraceptive types. This may be for several reasons. One may be that drug companies claim a high effectiveness rate for oral contraception, and that is taken as "gospel". (Curiously, the teen penchant for underestimating risk seems to spread even to contraception - yet another example of failing to take naturalism argument to their utter end.) In addition, antibiotics may interfere with the effectiveness of hormonal birth control, as well as other medications, including tetracycline, commonly prescribed for acne(!), another problematic risk - if sex will occur regardless, why would a woman abstain from sex despite the knowledge that the effectiveness of her hormonal birth control would be reduced?

The argument I am addressing here is solely the one based upon "fatalistic naturalism", and the necessity to confront claims for expanding use of condoms and oral contraception based upon the idea that one can somehow argue that the unnatural use of birth control will occur simultaneously in people that have ireprressible urges to have sex.