Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The record of demagoguery and lunacy from the right wing continues. The CDC is considering -- just considering, mind you -- adopting a policy to encourage -- just encouraging, mind you -- people to have their children circumcised on the grounds that it reduces the risk of disease. Run that through the silly straw prism of right wing spin and it magically becomes "Obama is going to force us all to cut off our genitals!"
Ed Morrissey of the conservative blog Hot Air writes, "If the CDC -- which is part of the same government that will control health care -- decides that circumcision is beneficial and cost-efficient in the long term, that same mechanism would create pressure on doctors and patients to perform them."
More pointless fear-mongering, as the author notes:
Morrissey's argument has the same basic flaw that animated the "death panel" fears: an inability to distinguish between advice and force. If this CDC proposal goes into effect, it, like the now-dead end-of-life counseling proposal, would make available some valuable medical advice. There's nothing on the table to penalize doctors who don't circumcise newborns, or parents who decline the procedure. To have a "mechanism [that] would create pressure on doctors and patients," you need, well, a mechanism. Morrissey can't come up with one.
Rush Limbaugh ups the ante on this stupidity:
But when was the last time that stopped these guys? Two days ago, Rush Limbaugh claimed, "It is President Obama who wants [to] mandate circumcision ... And that means, if we need to save our penises from anybody, it's Obama."
The black man wants to take away our penises! Run away, run away! They'll get my penis when they pry it out of my cold, dead hand. I think the source of Limbaugh's fear is that he understands that if the government starts destroying dicks, he'd be on the top of the list. If you gave Limbaugh viagra, he'd just get taller.
Politics
Comments
Aren't these people likely Christians, who generally circumcise anyway? The only way this could be weirder is if there were Jews complaining about it, I think.
Also, I'm totally stealing that last line. Brilliant.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | August 31, 2009 9:09 AM
You do realise that this is just going to degenerate into a thread about the health benefits of circumcision?
Speaking of my actual, personal hose, as an uncircumcised male, I find that just washing it is generally enough to enforce hygiene. Crazy, I know!
Posted by: wazza | August 31, 2009 9:16 AM
You can count on Limbaugh to say something stupid, but the Ed Morrissey quote is right. CDC guidelines are pressure on doctors and patients. They are supposed to be. The real problem with the Morrissey piece is the following:
"Why should the CDC push circumcision at all? The government has no business being in the middle of that decision. "
That is wrong. The point of the CDC is to study the spread of infectious disease and recommend the most effective ways to slow or stop the spread.
Posted by: delurking | August 31, 2009 9:26 AM
The CDC should be spreading information intended to educate the public. To help fight the spread of infectious stupidity that appears to have reached pandemic proportions in this country.
- Kurt
Posted by: Kurt | August 31, 2009 9:50 AM
I must say that I always find internet discussions on this subject fascinating. Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Morrissey should be reminded that Joshua of Nazareth underwent this procedure on the 8th day after his birth, which is why New Years Day is on the 8th day after Christmas. I don't recall that he had anything to say about the subject one way or the other. We do know that there is no evidence that he hauled Joseph and Mary into court by suing them over subjecting him to the operation without his consent, unlike some nutcases who are suing their parents, the hospital where they were born, and the doctor who performed the procedure.
Posted by: SLC | August 31, 2009 9:52 AM
Shouldn't the right-wing christians applaud CDC on this? I thought they were all for masturbation phobia.
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | August 31, 2009 9:52 AM
There's a joke in there somewhere about '...prying it from my cold dead fingers', but I'm much too mature to go there.
Mike.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | August 31, 2009 9:58 AM
"You do realise that this is just going to degenerate into a thread about the health benefits of circumcision?"
damn right! :) these recommendations are based on a complete failure of scientific reason and logic. It's like saying we should all cut off a toe because people that lose a toe are less likely to lose an arm afterwards. It's a statistic corrolation with no real method to back it up.
I think they would get the same results by just recommending better hygeine by cleaning your nads after sex.
Posted by: Chris | August 31, 2009 9:59 AM
Sure, and to that end I suppose we'd all be less likely to catch diseases by not having children, full stop. They're notorious disease spreaders, after all. That doesn't mean it's a good idea for the CDC to encourage that.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 9:59 AM
I am 100% against strongly encouraging parents to routinely circumcise their newborn boys.
Here are my reasons:
The circumcision rate has decreased in the United States to the lowest point since before WWII. More and more people are realizing that the United States being the only Westernized country with the majority of boys being circumcised for non-religious reasons is wrong in its thinking.
The foreskin, which is a healthy body part that serves a major function in protecting the glans of newborns, belongs to the owner. Parents and doctors should only concern themselves in the VERY rare event that there is an anomaly necessitating the modification or removing of the foreskin. This is a civil rights issue. In our country, we have seen lawsuits filed against doctors and parents by young men who have been circumcised against their will. I believe there will be an increase in this activity. We have laws against modifying female genitalia, why not protect males as well? This is a double standard. The female genitalia is responsible for spreading and harboring disease, yet we protect females. "Circumcised" females would also be cleaner and lead to higher reductions in transferring disease.
The foreskin protects the glans, keeping the skin of the glans soft and sensitive. This is a major plus during sexual activity, whether it be masturbation, intercourse or other activity. In addition, the female and male both benefit from the foreskin's gliding action leading to more pleasure for both parties.
The foreskin has some 20,000 nerve receptors, providing more sexual satisfaction for the male.
The removal of the foreskin often has adverse results. Many men say they feel robbed because they find a hardening of the skin on the glans leading to less sensitivity. Many men feel robbed because they did not have the choice to choose between having and not having a foreskin. Circumcision also leads to too much or too little skin being removed. Too much skin removed leads to painful erections. Too little removed leads to re-circumcisions and penile skin adhesions. Also, the instance of meatal stenosis is high. Cosmetically, a lot of circumcisions have glaring scarring that is there for the life of the male.
The act of circumcising a newborn is painful. Even though there are guidelines strongly recommending proper anesthesia, many doctors use no anesthesia or use Emla Cream which is not recommended by the manufacturer or the AAP. Imagine, the pain of feces and urine stinging the open wound over the week to ten days it takes to fully heal.
A study that was unveiled on the opening day of the CDC Convention in Atlanta showed very clearly that mass circumcision would not make a dent in the number of HIV/Aids cases in the United States. Almost all of the cases are derived from male-to-male sex and dirty needles.
There is a belief that uncircumcised males suffer from an elevated level of urinary tract infections. Yes, there is a slight elevation compared to their circumcised counterparts, but still below the incidence of urinary tract infections in baby girls.
There is a belief that uncircumcised males will get penis cancer. As you know, it is VERY rare to see penis cancer in an uncircumcised man.
There is a belief that chlamydia is spread by uncircumcised males. It is a rampant disease with no relation to circumcision status.
It is said there is a slight increase in cases of syphilis and gonorrhea instances in and transference from uncircumcised males to others. It is important to note that these are slight increases.
As a country, we need to closely observe why in several European countries, circumcision rates are under 10% and HIV rates are also minuscule. I imagine it is because of more education of youth and adults so that protective actions are taken prior to sex. Unprotected sex is the problem, not the foreskin. The CDC's energies would be far better spent on massive education on how to have safe sex and about the need for abstinence if protection isn't used. Let's say the cost of circumcision is $300.00 and let's say that all insurance companies and all state Medicaid programs covered neonatal circumcision. In one year, a million circumcisions would cost $300,000,000. That is a lot of money that could be put into education and the availability of free condoms. And, because this program would not be aimed solely at circumcision (which would have only a slight positive effect of the spreading of disease) we would see a major downturn in all types of diseases and in children being born out of wedlock and in other non-planned pregnancies. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars in benefit every year.
Leave our foreskins alone. Appreciate all of the positive aspects of leaving little babies intact. Should a young man decide he wants a circumcision, then it becomes his choice. In writing a recommendation, clearly state the true statements regarding the minor benefits of circumcision, but instead of recommending universal circumcision of baby boys, stress what needs to be done in preventing contact between infected and unifected people and stress the need for medical screening of sexually active teens and adults to identify and treat STD's.
Posted by: msreason | August 31, 2009 10:18 AM
Please, please, please do not turn this into an argument over whether circumcision is good or bad. That really has nothing to do with the point of this post.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 31, 2009 10:21 AM
Q: What is the useless bit at the end of a penis called?
A: A man.
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 31, 2009 10:28 AM
Good call, wazza. Your prediction came true regrettably quickly. msreason, please piss off.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2009 10:32 AM
I'm going to echo that, and I would like to amplify it thusly: Although I have not read msreason's loooong comment, I also would strongly oppose the CDC adopting such a policy... however, the point of Ed's post is that, while there may be plenty of legitimate discussion to be had about the merits and detriments of such a policy, the Right in this country is NOT engaging in such a legitimate discussion. While I think the net effect of such a policy would be detrimental, to equate it with forced circumcision is BAT SHIT INSANE.
It baffles me, you know, it's not just that the Right is loony right now... it seems like they are intentionally avoiding any sound lines of argumentation. It's truly baffling.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 31, 2009 10:35 AM
Then all that leaves us to talk about is the fact that there are a bunch of right wing fear-mongerers who want to make Obama sound as scary as possible, and what more is there to say about that?
Besides, the question isn't whether circumcision is good or bad. The question is whether the CDC has any business encouraging it, and my answer to that is no.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 10:37 AM
Delurking has a point that the Morrissey quote is not completely crazy, except in its tone. Indeed, the entire point of a CDC recommendation is to put pressure on doctors and patients -- but not to force them. That's just fine. Which is why carefully-reasoned discussion needs to be had over what procedures the CDC ought to recommend. I think I can safely say that Rush Limbaugh is not going to be helpful is such a careful discussion.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 31, 2009 10:39 AM
Emily Bazelon and Hanna Rosin spoke about this on bloggingheads.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 31, 2009 10:41 AM
At least they're consistent. Encouragment = force. Living wills are gericide, voluntary public insurance is the third reich, promoting isn't protecting people's health, it's forcing people to have sex, and, apparently, statements of circumcision policy are castration.
Good to know. Pravda would be proud.
Posted by: MPL | August 31, 2009 10:48 AM
Where else are we baby-eating athiests supposed to get our calamari appatizers, from squid? Yuck!
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 31, 2009 10:49 AM
Let me think for a moment. If Limbaugh is a Dick-h$%d and Obama wants to cut off his you-know-what, where will we be forced to go next to keep up with Limbaugh's brilliant commentary?
Posted by: Susan Klopfer | August 31, 2009 10:53 AM
The Christian Right should be happy. Clearly, Obama is just building a dowry in a time-honored Biblical tradition. Duh.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 31, 2009 10:53 AM
So now the Death Panel has the option of castration available. I increasingly want to serve on one of these panels.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 31, 2009 10:54 AM
That which is not forbidden is mandatory.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 10:57 AM
Oops, I remembered wrong. Gell-Mann's Totalitarian Principle is "Everything which is not forbidden, is compulsory."
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 10:59 AM
Not really:
* They don't want to set a precedent
* They would confuse their base
* They would be fighting on the enemy's home territory
* They would totally alienate the anti-rationalists
* They'd have to have someone explain "sound argumentation" to them
* Rational arguments don't fit in sound bites
I've undoubtedly missed a few. That, and I wish I were being sarcastic.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 31, 2009 11:03 AM
James Sweet - Ah yes, but they were the foreskins of philistines.
No wonder those beer-swilin', huntin', fishin', "not one of them effete elitist", "100% heterosexual", chicken-hawk Republicans are nervous. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 31, 2009 11:09 AM
If the Republicans are implying that circumcision is coherced, then for once -- shockingly -- they are not crazy. When the victim cannot consent or voice objection that is much like cohersion, is it not.
Posted by: TheDude | August 31, 2009 11:13 AM
strange --- when i think of the sorts of people most likely to object to infant circumcision, i do not automatically think "republican voter". rather the opposite, in fact.
since when do folks who even pretend to care about traditions, accepted community norms, and "the way things always have been done" want to reduce the frequency of male circumcision, a practice so common and of such longstanding precedent in the USA that it pretty much has to be considered traditional here? is even the label of "conservative" now less important to them than the need to oppose the policies of the black man in high office?
i'm not really surprised that they're getting hysterically worked up about it, though. the current crop of GOP pundits do seem very given to theatrical hysterics, after all. but the subject itself really doesn't deserve such furor --- i've got a foreskin, it's not a huge deal or very important part of my body, if i had to do without it i very easily could. i sincerely doubt there's any real health benefits to be had on either side of that snip.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | August 31, 2009 11:25 AM
Abby @19
Just thinking about sushi for lunch when I read your post. I think I'll stay in, thanks...
Explaining that the right is using fear to continue to rouse the crazies has some point in that it rouses the rationalist indignation too. Unless we find a way to focus the energy to rebut Rush, Beck and ilk effectively, I see no joy other than the camaraderie of shaking heads and fists in disgust. Giving them play lets their lies live longer.
TheDude @27,
What? You think waiting until the age of consent is a better approach for circumcision? The option rightly rests with the parents who can obviously provide all the consent required in what they feel is the best interests of their child.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2009 11:28 AM
In the bizarro world of right wing projection, Obama has penis envy envy.
Posted by: pough | August 31, 2009 11:39 AM
For chrissakes, when are we going to start using their chronic paranoia against them? "I hear Obama's going to start handing out free guns to people, so they can help defend this country against terrorists." "I hear Obama's going to eliminate any form of medical insurance, and makes us pay for health care directly." "I hear Obama believes in Jesus."
Posted by: Davod | August 31, 2009 11:48 AM
OMG! OMG! OMG!
The Republican objects to anyone even vaguely suggesting a circumcision.
Circumcision is an ancient Jewish custom.
Therefore the Republican Party is Anti-Semitic! Break-out the swastikas! Heil Billo!
(Don't get alarmed folks, just trying out my Fartman Logic circuits.) - :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 31, 2009 11:50 AM
MikeMA,
So you think infant female circumcision is ok as long as the parents feel it is in the best interest of their child???
Parents first and foremost have a responsibility to their child. Mutilation is definitely not one of them.
Say NO to Obamacare.
Posted by: Say NO to Obamacare | August 31, 2009 11:54 AM
Say NO to reasonable social policies, #33:
You do realize that the CDC's proposed recommendations are a very different and unrelated issue than the proposed health plans being discussed in Congress? "Saying NO to Obamacare" will have nothing to do with whether or not the CDC makes this recommendation; preventing the CDC from making recommending "mutilation" will have nothing to do with whether Congress passes a comprehensive public health plan.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 31, 2009 11:58 AM
Say NO,
Sorry to disappoint. We were discussing the GOP crud machine using fear of gov't to rally morons against healthcare by way of male circumcision. No one mentioned anything about genital mutilation. It isn't Obamacare either. Its Healthcare. For everyone. Like most sane countries offer.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2009 12:03 PM
Nomen said:
Not a black man-- a Democrat. This is what happens when the need to be partisan is paramount. Obama could say that America is a Christian nation in which every person should be allowed to have an Uzi under the bed and sex before marriage should be outlawed, and hard-right partisans would oppose it. They believe two things: 1) everything the government endorses or even allows must be the good, and 2) Democrats don't know or don't care about the good. So if a Democrat in power proposes something, it is wrong by default.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 12:24 PM
MikeMA,
If the Obama folks can't even get the circumcision bit right, what on earth makes you think that the liberal morons can get anything else right?
Posted by: Say | August 31, 2009 1:02 PM
Not a black man-- a Democrat.
And a White Sox fan, to boot. How could this happen in my America?
Posted by: Shay | August 31, 2009 1:14 PM
Say,
If you can't even get the coherent and logical post bit right, what on earth makes you think that the right-wing trolls can make any sort of rational or truthful argument?
Posted by: Michael | August 31, 2009 1:23 PM
Say @37
First, they haven't got the "circumcision" thing wrong. The CDC is recommending the best course based on current science. On the other hand, Obama is offering a chance for millions of Americans to have and keep healthcare. Why that bothers you, I have no idea. Maybe you are in a healthcare plan offered through your or someone else's job. Hope that job is secure. Hope you are never diagnosed with a serious disease either. The private healthcare insurers you fight for will kick you to the curb pretty quickly. For whatever reason you hate liberals, they want you to have access to care regardless. Damn shame in your case.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2009 1:25 PM
They are not interested in reforming healthcare, they are interested in causing Obama's Waterloo over healthcare, and crippling his presidency right from the get go.
This is the party Obama wants to be bipartisan with, even as they bury him.
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 31, 2009 1:50 PM
MikeMa said:
The second sentence does not entail the first. Current science also says that removing the penis altogether will do a lot to prevent the transmission of STDs. That doesn't make it advisable. Science is not normative.
There are a lot of reasons it could bother someone. The first few that come to mind are: 1) they object to the particular form that the proposed health care is going to take, 2) they have no trust for anything the Obama administration does, so are convinced that the plan will fail or have unintended and undesirable consequences, or 3) they object to government handling health care in principle. You might object to all of these reasons, but it's not like it's hard to come up with them.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 1:58 PM
Ummm... if you anti Obama types can't even get the spelling your own names bit right, what on earth makes you think that you conservative morons can get anything else right? :D
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 31, 2009 2:00 PM
The CDC recommends enough coffee before posting, though. Sheesh! :D
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 31, 2009 2:09 PM
Thank you, wazza - way up top!
I've never understood how the ignorance of ancient Jewish tribes - or any ancient group - always seems to come down to us as 'wisdom' to be honored and revered when they were, most likely, in fact, ignorant and stupid people who wandered, confused, through their own darkness.
If you keep your dick clean, you're not likely to have any problems with disease. If the person you're having sex with keeps their equipment clean, too, then ditto.
Same for any other body part or opening.
Just because Jewish and Muslim people have turned circumcision into a religious fetish, doesn't mean everybody else has to buy into their silliness.
If they had only learned about personal hygiene and cause and effect while they were out in the desert we wouldn't be wasting time discussing it now.
Circumcision is perversion.
Posted by: little peanut | August 31, 2009 2:10 PM
Gretchen,
Having a bad day?
"Say NO" made some stupid remark linking genital mutilation of females to what she saw as 'Obamacare' requiring circumcision. I merely pointed out that healthcare reform was offering information about circumcision that the CDC scientifically approves of as a recommended course of action. I'm rather fond of my penis and would like to keep it on, with or without foreskin.
As for having issues with healthcare reform, I agree that there are lots of things to complain about but none as much as doing nothing and letting GOP morons run the country into the ground as spite for Obama winning the election.
Get a grip.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2009 2:19 PM
MikeMa said:
Not particularly, but I am allergic to false characterizations.
Yeah, I got that. But the thing is, "scientific approval" is a misnomer. "Say NO's" point was that neither parents nor the CDC have any business deciding that infants should be circumcised, even if it means that they'll have a slightly better chance of resisting STDs as an adult if they have unprotected sex. Since infants obviously do not have sex (unprotected or otherwise), the decision about whether it's worthwhile to get circumcised in order to avoid disease should be left to the potential circumcisee, when they are capable of informed consent. While I will certainly not agree with "Say NO" that this damns health care under the Obama administration in general, her point that people should be allowed to make decisions about whether to get circumcised for themselves is a valid one.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 2:33 PM
Gretchen @47,
I think the idea that the government can collect statistical data and provide recommendations based on that data is valuable. As I understand it, it is not just STDs that circumcision reduces, but a whole host of infections and problems that occur well before sexual activity or the age of consent. Certainly, keeping that area clean is a possible alternative to circumcision but as a parent with three kids, I can see the value of having one less thing to worry about keeping clean. If, as a parent, you want to take responsibility for cleaning penises, a lot, I am happy for you to go against CDC recommendations. As a circumcised adult, I'm glad my parents chose the way they did. Be silly to care now anyway.
To accuse Obama of forcing circumcisions, as some posters have espoused, is ludicrous. As Ed says, its another GOP death panel attack with little sense and less than no value.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2009 2:49 PM
MikeMa said:
Sure it is. But scientific conclusions do not take into account ethical considerations such as the right of an individual to have control over his or her own body. For example: scientifically speaking, giving birth is an enormous health hazard to a woman. But would that justify the CDC deciding that people should not have children, as I mentioned in my first post? Of course not, because people should be allowed to take risks when it comes to their health for the sake of their own happiness. A reasonable argument can be made that unless something constitutes a clear and present danger to a person's health, you should not cause permanent physical alterations to their body.
And yet somehow, the majority of Europeans do not seem to have been overcome with a rash (no pun intended) of these afflictions. How could that possibly have happened, if circumcision is so important?
The fact that you're fine with the non-consensual and unnecessary alteration to your body that your parents authorized makes it no less of a violation. A lot of people are unhappy that they were circumcised, and they have good reason to be. Try asking the victim of a botched circumcision if he's glad that his parents decided on the procedure.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2009 3:06 PM
Looking at wikipedia, there is no mention of Joshua or foreskins. Considering that the Roman Calendar is the one that set up the date (yeah, I know it was changed), any connection with Joshua is coincidental or reading more into it than exists. I doubt the Romans gave two figs for a minor folk hero of a province.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Day
Posted by: Badger3k | August 31, 2009 3:19 PM
my personal experience does not support that statement. i grew up in Europe, where --- as Gretchen noted --- male circumcision is not normally done; there were no plagues of penile infections among my peers, any more than i have ever encountered any. nor was cleanliness-focused OCD any more common where i grew up than it is here.
(seriously, it doesn't take much maintenance. a quick pull-and-swipe each time i shower; three seconds a day, tops. how hard is that?)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | August 31, 2009 3:20 PM
I agree thsi is a bad recommendation. Regardless of any health benefits, this should be left to the circumsizee. I can think of plenty of things we can suggest to do to babies that woudl have some sort of health benefit, but would still be unethical. Howver, I note the lack of any outcry that being slightly protected against STDs will encourage boys to have sex.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | August 31, 2009 3:40 PM
Re Badger3k
My information comes from an essay by Stephen Jay Gould. Wikipedia is not the best source of information. Actually, it is doubtful that Joshua of Nazareth was born on December 25th under either the Julian or Gregorian Calender or that he was subsequently circumcised on Jan. 1 under either calender. We do know that the procedure took place on the 8th day after his birth per Jewish practice.
Posted by: SLC | August 31, 2009 3:41 PM
SLC - Wikipedia was the quickest source since my history texts aren't here, but if Gould said that, I'd say he was pretty ignorant of history. Our calendars were created a couple of centuries before Yeshua was supposed to have been born, even though they have been modifed (sorry - not used to seeing it Anglicized that way - too many other Joshuas to count, so missed the connection to Christmas).
Of course, I may be wrong on that, but since reading Gould bores me to tears I missed that particular essay. I've never heard of it from any historical source that I am aware of, though, which is why I stated that. The Christians used existing Roman days and holidays and fit theirs to that, rather than create new ones. If I think of it, I may have to do a search at home and see what I can come up with about the Julian calendar, but I am very doubtful as to a connection to a Jewish ritual.
Do you have the name of the essay so I can check it out myself?
Aah, sorry to divert this from the "merits of circumsision" divergence.
Posted by: Badger3k | August 31, 2009 4:06 PM
To circumcise or not to circumcise? It's all relative, isn't it? Rush isn't concerned about suggestions to circumcise. It's a smoke screen for his hard right diatribe against the Democrats. The word PENIS certainly gets a lot of attention and he knows it as he chuckles away. Next week he'll be talking about the horrors of circumcising women. In that case he'll use the P or C word to get the media's attention while he again chuckles away and continues his hard right diatribe. That in a nutshell is the behavior of perpetual adolescents.
Posted by: ReadALot | August 31, 2009 4:17 PM
That's fascinating. When I read the headline my first thought was going to be some worry mongering that someone was trying to claim that Obamacare would not cover circumcisions or something like that. This seems like an even stupider claim but I can't quite articulate why.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 31, 2009 5:18 PM
It strikes me that one of the more common and feared powers ascribed to witches was ability to make a man's penis disappear. Witch hunters and theologians devoted a great deal of time and ink to that particular claim. I find it kind of interesting that it still works today to make rational people jump at imaginary specters.
(And because I mentioned witches I must warn that the first person to make a Monty Python reference will be cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril... Er, starting now.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 31, 2009 5:45 PM
Look, I don't care if you want to circumcise your child or not, but when you start talking nonsense about what science does or does not say, then it gets my hackles up. The CDC is only thinking about recommending a procedure that is actually backed up by lots of credibly science. For a lovely summary of the science, this is a nice stop: http://www.circinfo.net/index.html
Have all the arguments you want about liberty and forced mutilation, but there is good research suggesting the use of circumcision prevents disease. Whether enough to warrant the loss of the skin in that region is for you and your significant other to determine.
Posted by: Scott Reese | August 31, 2009 5:47 PM
Depends upon how sensitive you are.
badger et al: I am completely lost as to what you are discussing, other than the Holy Foreskin. Are we truly worrying about the date of the circumcision when we don't know the date of the birth?
Posted by: kehrsam | August 31, 2009 6:04 PM
Kehrsam - sorry - I wasn't concerned about the thousands of holy foreskins that have existed (true, if bizarre, story on that - Joe Nickell wrote about it, even though I haven't read that particular book), but about the historical origin of new years day and whether or not it had anything to do with foreskins. While it has been celebrated as a Catholic Holy Day (albeit one we never celebrated in my school/church, not that I can remember at least), I think that is a later development (that whole correlation / causation thing).
Hmm - if they do force us into circumsion camps with the evil UN black helicopters, what will that mean for the hypothetical origin of New Years Day? Actually, the first part was semi-serious - anyone want to bet that a "circumsion camp" meme gets around, even if we have to start it?
Posted by: Badger3k | August 31, 2009 7:57 PM
Scott @58
Thanks for saying what I wanted to but you said more succinctly.
I found references to uncircumcised males having an increase of urinary tract infection especially under age 1. Very painful. The link is at work and I am home and too tired to find it again. Sorry.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2009 8:08 PM
Badger3k: Thanks. I have always heard that moving the start of the new year as a Roman innovation to cope with the expanding Empire. Under the Republic, the New Year started on March 1, which was also the date army commanders (frequently the provincial governors) took up their posts.
As the Empire expanded, the travel time from Rome increased. Also, the most difficult provinces (Spain and North Africa) needed commanders in the field early in the year. So they just moved the date back two months. I believe this occurred when Julius Caesar made his overall reform of the calendar @ 48 bc. So, no Christian foreskin reference, I'm afraid. A pity, really.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 31, 2009 10:07 PM
There's the common factor of people engaging in all sorts of spectacular intellectual dishonesty in order to make the "facts" support the misguided traditional practices they're in favor for, ultimately, rather pathetic emotional reasons.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2009 12:24 AM
ITISATBSB (I think I see a T-shirt, bumper sticker, billboard) here.
"Barack Obama--my president, cut or un-cut!"
msreason:
"The removal of the foreskin often has adverse results. Many men say they feel robbed because they find a hardening of the skin on the glans leading to less sensitivity."
Being a male who has been circumcised for as far back as I can remember (thank you, universe, for my lack of "total recall") I gotta say that "sensitivity" has not been a problem. I've been with some women who've said that I'm "overly sensitive" but, then, they were ladies who thought any male orgasm was premature.
Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2009 8:15 AM
I don't think circumcision should be viewed as a minor surgery - I couldn't walk for over a year after I was circumcised.
Posted by: dean | September 1, 2009 2:54 PM