Sick Transit

This is depressing but not truly surprising:

Estimates of price relative to income show that this isn’t actually that different from the risk premium paid in other dangerous jobs.

Here’s the part that gets me, however–why would men want to purchase condomless sex? Obviously it’s more pleasurable; but if a prostitute sells bareback to you, then presumably she’s sold it to other men as well. You have no idea whether or not she’s infected. Why take that risk?

The post at Marginal Revolution suggests that education of prostitutes may have reached its limit of effectiveness; is there anything we can do about male stupidity?

I can’t think of a more blatant example of a ‘nanny state’ than a government that tries to protect adults from sex. But that seems to be the policy of Toronto, where Miss Universe is not allowed to wear her regalia at public events:

So are strip bars and porn outlawed as well? Is it illegal to air a beer ad that includes a woman in a bikini?

Memo to my fellow Democrats who spoke about moving to Canada last November: you may not like it very much up there. Unless you’re anti-porn feminists, in which case you’re welcome to leave.

I’m sure Schumer had help with this excellent list of questions for Judge Roberts. There appear to be a couple of inappropriate/irrelevant ones. E.g. “How should Congress balance the interests of industry against environmental interests” is a matter of policy, not law; and “Which Supreme Court Justice do you believe your jurisprudence most closely resembles and why?” is IMHO an unfair question, because it asks the nominee to establish an equivalence with someone they may still have very significant disagreements with.

Over all, however, the list seems to be very much on point; it addresses issues of political controversy, but strictly from a perspective of legal reasoning, and does not ask the judge to rule on any future hypothetical cases. Question set #4 is especially good; it addresses the issue of precedent–which is how Roberts avoided answering questions about Roe v. Wade at his last confirmation–without actually touching Roe:

I don’t know how much time the minority Senators get. I hope Schumer gets to ask all those questions.

(Link via Pandagon.)

She writes:

You gotta problem with that?

I don’t agree with Arthur Chrenkoff’s politics, but this pic is just too cute not to pass on:

(Link via Secular Blasphemy)

Eugene Volokh takes on the ridiculous term “homicide bomber” here, here and here.

Since I posted the cheap-shot case for ending agricultural subsidies below, I should just link to these caveats from Tyler Cowen.

My condolences go out to the victims of yesterday’s attacks, as well as all those affected. London was not as badly hurt–this time–as New York or Madrid, but for the families of those who died, the numbers matter little.

Our reactions to the attack, however, are less about the number of deaths, than about the breech in our sense of security. There is no similar level of mourning at the daily toll of civilian casualties in Iraq, because they are distant and expected. They don’t disturb our sense of safety here at home.

We need to remember that reality when considering what a suitable response to terrorism actually is. Bush’s recent speech repeated yet again the ‘flypaper theory’: that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight them at home. Events like yesterday’s prove that the flypaper theory is not an absolute; but even if it has marginal value, how can its effect on Iraqi citizens possibly be justified? The Iraqi newspaper Azzman editorialized:

The idea that we are entitled to use an entire foreign country as our hunting decoy is so arrogant as to defy imagination. It is basically a flat-out statement that their lives are worth less than ours.

I’m no naive idealist; I realize that as a nation we have to look out for our own interests first. We can’t police the whole world, feed the whole world, or provide healthcare or jobs to the whole world. I don’t pretend to know exactly where the boundary line is that defines necessary selfishness. But I can’t believe that an explicit policy of drawing our murderous enemies to another country is not considered beyond the pale.

P.S. I see that publius already made a similar comparison between London and Baghdad.

I’ve never been a fan of agricultural subsidies (American or European), but this statistic from Anne Applebaum (quoted by Sully) dramatizes their wrong-headedness:

Free trade is not just an economic issue–it is a human rights issue.

Well today is the 4th of July, and that means I’m entitled to stand on my soapbox and bloviate a little bit.

We throw around the word ‘Freedom’ way too much in this country. During WWI, sauerkraut was called Freedom Cabbage. The (thoroughly justified) invasion of Afghanistan was called Operation Enduring Freedom. The replacement for the destroyed World Trade Center is being called Freedom Tower. We equate freedom with the United States; if we’re threatened, then freedom is threatened.

The concept of freedom–a corollary of independence–means something different to each of us. For me, the deepest formative experience of my life was growing up in a high-control religion, where I could not question received teaching, or speak my thoughts openly. * Perhaps because of that, I think that freedom of speech is the cardinal freedom.

All other freedoms are dependent on freedom of speech, and cannot be sustained without it. A right to property, or to protection from unreasonable search, cannot be enforced if you can’t publicize violations. Even the right to vote is useless if the political opposition is jailed or suppressed. Conversely, if free speech is allowed, the government will eventually have to bow to public sentiment in allowing other rights. **

And that is why I am proud of American freedoms, because our protection of free speech is the strongest in the world. A militia-member can promote overthrow of the government, a fundamentalist Muslim can preach hatred against the United States, and an anarchist can burn the nation’s Flag–all openly in our streets.

Despite all the concerns over the War on Terror and civil liberties, that is still true. I hope it remains so.

Happy Independence Day.

* Ironically, that same religion brought pivotal First Amendment cases to the Supreme Court. That is just another piece of their hypocrisy.

** This may sound far-fetched, but it it is (very roughly speaking) what happened in Britain in the 19th century.

Of all the conservative justices, did it have to be O’Connor who resigned?

No grief meant to her personally, of course; a 75-year-old with a sick husband is more than entitled to retire. But replacing the perennial swing vote with a conservative justice is not a pleasant prospect.

Here’s hoping that the filibuster compromise contained a secret proviso about Supreme Court justices.