In honor of Halloween...

So this political cartoon is claiming... ?

Apparently that several of the accepted tenants of JWT died at the desk of Cheney.

Do you see any problems with this claim (logical fallacies, informal fallacies, or factual issues?)?
Or is it plausible?

"Female Circumcision"

Check out this story here:
Here.

This is a topic you've probably heard of before and has been hotly debated for some time:
Female Genital Mutilation. An ancient practice for many tribes in Africa done for a combination of religious, cultural/ethnic, and social custom reasons.
Interestingly, as this news story tells, a man in the US is being brought up on charges for the practice.

Here's my question:
If this practice s illegal and a man is arrested and put on trial for it here in the US... Why isn't male circumcision also illegal?
It seems to be completely parallel:
It is done for religious, cultural/ethnic, and/or social custom reasons. It is a very similiar practice: a remove of part of the genitals on a child (that is, before the child has the ability to voice their reasoned consent to the practice).

What do you think? Currently in this country male circumcision is of course legal, but female circumcision is illegal.
Anybody have any problems with that?

A little business ethics?

It's funny where ethical discussions crop up. This excerpt below is actually from the Tuesday-morning Quarterback article at ESPN.com. Regardless of who raises this question, for quite some time I've wrestled over the utterly massive salaries and compensation packages given to big business CEO's in this country. This is just the latest in countless similiar stories that boggle the mind. The question raised by this author is a good one: is this really any different than stealing in any significant way?

"New Record for CEO Gluttony: Last week William McGuire, CEO of insurer UnitedHealth and a centerpiece of the latest corporate-boardroom scandal (backdated stock options) agreed to leave the company. The Wall Street Journal estimated that for his 14 years running UnitedHealth, McGuire pocketed a total of about $1.6 billion. That's $457,000 per day, or $57,000 per working hour. So McGuire paid himself more per hour than the median American annual household income. And this was during a period when UnitedHealth was cutting benefits to those it insures, cutting benefits received by its own workers, and cutting payments to physicians and hospitals for health care. Obviously this greedy little man is beyond disgrace: To experience disgrace, one must have a conscience. But why isn't McGuire's $1.6 billion simply considered theft from shareholders? UnitedHealth is a public company, and there is no possibility the fantastic amount was justified by market forces -- that is, that the UnitedHealth board could not have found a similarly qualified CEO for less than $1.6 billion."

Digitally created....?

Here's a tough one for you to consider.

First, answer this question to yourself: why is child pornography wrong (assuming that you do think it is wrong)?

Now, I'm guessing that the first answer you came up with is something like: "It is wrong because it exploits/damages/victimizes children."

OK, now imagine this: is digitally-computer created child pornography wrong? That is, imagine that some computer programer could develop digitally created pornography that is not based off of any child but is completely made up -- it is not using any specific child as a model for the pornography, etc. So... now, it would be claimed, we've removed the reason you had for why child pornography is wrong -- namely, digitally created child pornography does not damage a child.

So... (two questions):
First, do you think digitally created child pornography (which is not based on any particular child) is wrong?
If so, WHY is it wrong? It would seem that your initial reasons for thinking child pornography is wrong no longer apply here. What reasons could you come up with for claiming that digitally created child pornography is wrong??

Since I'm posting political cartoons, I'll just add this one.... mainly because it is essentially how I feel about the finger pointing over whose failure has been less bad. Perhaps this is the price we pay for living in a democracy: endless bickering, politicizing, and posturing for the next election cycle. No? Help out my cynacism a bit... please.

Iraq: The Frontline for Terror? (creating or fighting?)

Lot's of issues here, of course (such as leaking intel reports, political timing, etc., etc.). The one I'd like to focus on, for the time being, is this basic argument:

If the recently leaked intelligence reports are correct (and other corraborating evidence: other reports, military experience, experts opinions, etc., etc.) and the war in Iraq IS in fact CAUSING more terrorism than it is preventing, then what justification can we use for our on-going efforts therein?

The POTUS calls Iraq the frontline for fighting terrorism. But if it is actually creating more terrorists than it is stopping -- then what kind of justification is the adminstration left with?

Seriously -- I'm asking the question (not rhetorically here): what other major justifications can be used if even THIS last bastion of defense of the war is now lost?