Post-hoc rationalization.

A few points:

- I would rather have the penis I was born with, which would now include not a 'small ribbon' but an area of skin with the approximate surface area of an index card
- There are far less invasive treatments for penile cancer than the removal of the entire penis

But... becoming a girl because you have cancer and lose your penis? Are you for real? It's funny you mention that though, because there's a notable case where circumcision itself did destroy the penis of an infant, and in attempt to fix things they performed gender reassignment surgery (though doomed sexually for life), put the kid on hormones and raised him as a girl. Problem was, he never identified as a girl, and some decades after learning the truth about what happened to him, killed himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

But yep, the science behind the procedure is bulletproof. Except when it isn't.

And to your assertion of cognitive dissonance, I have not experienced this. To the contrary I have found that people will go to any length to convince themselves that they have not been harmed when it's very obvious they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/spray-skin-cells-heal-wounds-fast/story?id=16921765 , which was released August 4th of this year - what a strange coincidence!

Seriously, I can't make this shit up.

Honestly, I'm surprised such an outwardly angry response would be considered insightful. So I'll respond.

A) I never said it was all doctors, and I never said you had to be a member to be a pediatrician. They have 60,000 members, who I'm assuming are mostly pediatricians - is that enough for you?
B) Yes, they do. It's tough to find exact figures, but for example Colorado is saving about a quarter million dollars a year having eliminated the procedure from medicaid coverage in 2010. The issue came back on the ballot in 2012 and was struck down.
C) No, the unbiased science shows it to be unnecessary. The rest of the developed and uncut world already having defunded it en masse shows it to be unnecessary.

And yes, babies die from it. What was the number again, 100-some per year? Ever heard of a baby dying from not being cut? I didn't think so.

Critical thinking much?

Furthermore, the incidence of penile cancer in men is lower than the incidence of breast cancer. In men.

False. It was promoted as a cure-all by doctors in the late 1800s. Read the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Medical_circumcision_from_1870_to_1950_in_English-speaking_countries

The study relies heavily on prior studies done on adult men in Africa, the scientific validity of which has been very strongly criticized:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

Doctors pay dues to the AAP, not babies. Doctors make money off of cutting babies. You joke, but it is a HUGE industry - not just the operation, but afterwards the tissue is sold to make cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Valve's goal is to... crush and destroy Canonical's source of income? How? Canonical doesn't currently sell Steam games, and they never will. Therefore, the market that they're supposedly 'crushing' doesn't exist.

This article is bad and you should feel bad for greenlighting it.

'Internet sites, where reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges.'

I haven't laughed so hard in months. Thank you, PR lackey, for brightening my day.

She didn't "Make it illegal". It was illegal and has always been illegal - she just recognized this fact.

Great news for people who want the shit beat out of their cars by random strangers.

Or quite possibly after two world wars, people simply got so fed up with annihilating each other that they made an actual effort to avoid it for once?

Is it still right to punish those who in good faith believe there is a pressing need to leak certain information? Entrapment aside, this really will have the most damaging chilling effect yet known in the information age. First no whistleblower protection for gov. employees, and now an active campaign to make sure fucked people stay fucked. Proud to be an American!

1. The power company (very likely) already knows your power consumption habits. Lots of meters send automated reads every 15 minutes anyway. This is not new, at all. The processing power and manpower to actually mine this data does not yet exist, and if power companies wanted to put this in the pipeline they'd have to spend bazillions of dollars doing so.
2. The EM radiation emitted by smart meters (especially those in the 900MHz range) is comparable to a cell phone, except for the fact that it's not placed directly against your ear, and it chirps for a few ms every few minutes, as opposed to constantly against your head

The crazies who spout nonsense about cancer and privacy are of the same sort that believe in homeopathy. You will notice that they don't cite their sources, and make generalized, unsupported claims.

I sat in on a town hall meeting where JCP&L fumbled majorly in explaining themselves after taking a week or more to restore power in northern NJ. They gave all manner of excuses, and the meeting attendees pointed out endless examples of dead branches hanging over wires. Their policy? Then don't touch the branch unless the branch is *hanging* on the wire. How's that for foresight? The moment a strong wind kicks up, they lose power. They're so fucking cheap that they fired all their linemen, and now out-of-state emergency support has become the ONLY support.

Shame on them.