Category Archives: Rights

Mitochondrial Disorder: Myth, Iatrogenesis, Or What?

Family, Healthcare, Relatives, Rights, Science, The State

My inclination is to say that Mitochondrial Disease, “a new and rapidly developing medical subspecialty,” is one of those made-up maladies Americans excel at conjuring and then milking for attention, attention-seeking activism, fund-raising, etc. There are rewards and reinforcements to be had in cultivating disease.

Mine is a hunch. However, so does the gamut of “Mitochondrial diseases” appear to be more conjecture than science—to say nothing of the circularity in the argument for their existence: A person lacks energy, therefore the Mitochondria, the locus of energy in the cells, is faulted.

I know nothing about the epidemiology of mitochondrial disorders, although the one study focuses on populations in the more affluent parts of the world: Northern England and Northern Finland.

Perhaps Africans are too preoccupied with survival to “develop” this malady?

The context: Fox-News host Megyn Kelly has been banging on non-stop about the mitochondrially impaired girl, Justina Pelletier. The 15-year-old girl was “taken into Massachusetts State Custody after her parents disagreed with doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital over her treatment plan.”

A guest summed up the travesty more succinctly than the host:

Boston Children’s Hospital and the Department of Children and Families, DCF, [took] this child away from these parents, who love this daughter and who want to care for this daughter, and who simply disagree with the recent diagnosis of a newly minted physician who only had been out of medical school for seven months, who disagreed with her actual treating physicians from Tufts..

Irrespective of whether this newly minted disease is mythical or authentic—there is absolutely no ambiguity in the following: The hospital staff involved in removing this girl from her loving parents, together with the personnel from the Department Which Ought To Be Dissolved; they all belong behind bars for their actions.

UPDATED: Snowden As A Litmus Test For Libertarians

Propaganda, Rights, Russia, Technology, Terrorism, The State

If you have not been rooting for Edward Snowden to evade his tormentors–you are not a libertarian.

If you have not been praying (it’s a figure of speech, not a statement of religious faith) for Vladimir Putin to stand firm against the biggest bully in the world—you are no libertarian.

Today, those proverbial prayers have been answered. The man who has been the laughing stock in US media (a laughable proposition in itself) for his displays of machismo has manned up.

“Although President Vladimir V. Putin and President Obama both sought to avoid a direct diplomatic clash over Mr. Snowden, Mr. Putin and other officials here made clear they would under no circumstance extradite him, despite direct appeals from Secretary of State John Kerry and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.”

And finally, on August 1, 2013, “Russia Granted Snowden 1-Year Asylum,” reports the New York Times.

Russia’s decision, which infuriated American officials, significantly alters the legal status of Mr. Snowden, the former intelligence analyst wanted by the United States for leaking details of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs. Even as those leaks continued, Mr. Snowden now has legal permission to live — and conceivably even work — anywhere in Russia for as long as a year, safely out of the reach of American prosecutors.
Mr. Snowden, 30, departed Sheremetyevo Airport unexpectedly at 3:30 in the afternoon after his lawyer, Anatoly G. Kucherena, delivered to him a passport-like document issued by the Federal Migration Service on Wednesday and valid until July 31, 2014.

Let us hope that this young man remains free, and that “the temporary refugee certificate” is renewed, or is a loadstar for other countries thinking of following Putin’s lead.

UPDATE: “Manning, Snowden and Assange were the ones who took risks to expose crime.” This is a bit of a dumb statement:

Manning’s supporters expressed relief that he was found not guilty of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy, which would likely have carried a sentence of life in prison. He was convicted on 20 of 22 charges, and could face up to 136 years in prison. The sentencing hearing is underway.

John Kerry’s Irate Constituents … In Syria

Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, libertarianism, Rights

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was confronted by his irate constituents … in Syria.

The consequences of the US’s long-standing adventurous foreign policy are that “Angry Syrian refugees … demand [that] the United States and the international community to do more to help opponents of President Bashar Assad’s regime, venting frustration at perceived inaction on their behalf,” Yahoo reported.

They should talk to the rebels. As sad as this is,

“…the US government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. … distinguish we must, moreover, between the [Syrians’] right to be free and our obligation to free them.
We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first. ….
Again, the duty of the “night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory” is primarily to its own.

(From “Classical Liberalism And State Schemes”)

On the other hand, while “compassionate pickpockets” of the left are eager to conscript the country into inefficient and unethical policies, we should all agree to say a big, “YES TO US AID, NO TO USAID”:

As private individuals, we can give to the Syrian people as much as we like. It is far more efficient, provided one finds a private charity operating in the region.

Proof that USAID seldom reaches the people for whom it is intended: “the situation remains unchanged” in the refugees camps even though,

The U.S. has provided nearly $815 million in humanitarian aid to Syrians through the United Nations. Of that, $147 million has been directed to relief agencies working in Jordan, which is home to about 600,000 displaced Syrians.

Prior Restraint Arguments As Pretex To Watch YOU

Argument, Constitution, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Intelligence, Law, Liberty, Rights, Socialism, Terrorism, The State

If we accept state aggression based on prior restraint arguments, then aggress we must ad absurdum. Why not stop all statists from procreating, lest they sire proponents of state theft and aggression? Such a program would at least be in furtherance of liberty. (And we could all do with fewer Meghan McCains.)

Prior restraint arguments are being galvanized as justification for nation-wide information sweeps conducted by the state for over a decade. Another cow, “Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching,” said “that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.”

It is quite telling that the story about the “NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily” was broken by Glenn Greenwald (an American) writing for The Guardian (British).

Most serious libertarians have been shouting about state snooping from the rooftops for over a decade. Now you’re listening! I already told you weeks back that there was absolutely nothing new about state snooping.

Via The Guardian:

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.
The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.
The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.
The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.
“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

(I believe “Entertainment Interruptus,” published on November 28, 2001, was my first column touching on the The Patriot Act.)