from wired.

dog decided he wanted attention at 7:30 despite my best attempts to sleep in (the husband had spent time with him last night so i could go to sleep early), and after rushing outside to pee, he’s curled up under the blanket with me on the couch. so i’m reading the WaPo. and i’ll share the headlines i found interesting enough to click. because it’s that or fall asleep on the couch and get a crick in my neck.

1. RI wonders if it can divorce a lesbian couple married in MA. maybe it’s because the preliminary schedule is set for my birthday, or maybe it’s just ‘cuz i think that full faith and credit should let RI divorce the couple just like they would a hetero couple married out of state. or perhaps it’s because it’s proof that queers are just like heteros: they marry, and they divorce. but with case law in RI silent on same-sex marriage, i don’t see what the problem is. assert jurisdiction, make a decision, and let the appellate court figure it out.

2. porn for pandas. now this is fascinating, because i didn’t know that pandas could process 2-d images. or maybe not:

On the use of movies, Zhang said: “It’s the sounds of breeding that stimulate them. Pandas are just like human beings. They understand everything.”

and it’s a whole different take on furries.

3. unfortunately, this one turned out to be a boring, pointless article. so the kid sheds his goth persona on turkey day for the sake of his family. yay. and he’s different than any of the rest of us who behave at the family dinner for the sake of harmony how? maybe he could dress up like a pilgrim.

4. and finally, effective december 1 of this year, the national zoo bans smoking on its grounds. (if topeka can do it, it can’t be that big a deal.) this, coupled with dc’s antismoking legislation taking full effect on january 1, makes me a happy jack-booted public health nanny-state thug.

On January 1, 2007, bars, nightclubs, private clubs, brew pubs and bar areas of restaurants are required to be smokefree. This applies to establishments that hold a tavern license (Class C/T or D/T), a club license (Class C or D), a brew pub permit (Classes C/R, D/R, C/T, or D/T) or a nightclub license (Class C/N or D/N). Establishments that hold a restaurant license (Class C/R or D/R) may allow smoking until January 1, 2007, in the bar area only.

the type of attorney i’d like to be.

if you look the term up in wikipedia, it has a photo of mark foley.

no, i’m lying. but it should. how ironic he may be guilty of criminal behavior as defined by legislation he co-sponsored. (according to my resident shrink, not so ironic, actually. something about “methink the lady doth protest too much” and people deep down wanting to get caught.)

it’s not that he’s a pedophile. you’re not a pedophile if you’re attracted to postpubescent teenagers. young, strapping boys hitting their sexual peak. nope. not pedophilia.

now, sexual harassment: oh, yeah. and an astonishing lack of judgment. and if republicans weren’t so damn homophobic, this would’ve been over years ago.

(apparently rush limbaugh asked, “what kind of kid keeps the IM logs?” in spinning that the pages were deliberately seducing foley to bring the republicans down. to which i answer: “what kind of person doesn’t have the jizz cleaned off her dress?”)

behaviorally, mark foley = bill clinton. the difference? clinton’s attentions were bestowed on a chick. foley’s, on young men. and at least in some cases, it seems foley’s attentions were unwanted.

going back to the per-coitus transmission rate for HIV for a moment, i need to clear something up: i’m not advocating unprotected sex. not by any stretch of the imagination. i believe HIV-positive individuals have a responsibility to inform potential (and, where necessary, former) sexual partners; i believe individuals (regardless of HIV status) have a responsibility to protect themselves from STIs; and i also believe that there is a role for government in promoting public health.

what i am trying to get at — albeit clumsily — is the question of how to decide whether a public health issue rises to the level of a compelling state interest. quantitative methods such as cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments taking into account incidence, prevalence, transmissibility (in the case of infectious disease), availability/viability of prevention and/or treatment methods and direct and indirect public costs of same have more validity than public perception (often incorrect due to poor public education and/or media sensationalism) as bases for decision.¹

furthermore, this should not be a static analysis. as the variables change (vaccines are developed, treatments improved, public KAP changes and so on) over time, the determination of the appropriateness of any given legal intervention should be re-evaluated. to use HIV as an example, what may have constituted a justifiable government intrusion in 1986 may no longer be justifiable in 2006.

cont’d (21 aug 06): another issue —

even if it were possible to come up with a magic equation that spit out some number quantifying the “compelling level” (for want of a better term) of a state interest, there would still be the necessity of defining a normative value that would be the cutoff point for justifiable government intrusion.

¹      that said, i would be naive to ignore the political power of public perception (or nifty alliteration, for that matter) or activist groups. however, an impartial judiciary should be a counterbalance to irrational or excessive legislation promulgated by politicians primarily concerned with re-election.

to be continued…