Author: Brian J. Noggle

I just can’t stop getting riled over this item about the baby with the birth defects and its litiguous parents. As you remember, this baby died from its severe and disfiguring birth defects and its parents began a crusade to force a newspaper to print its picture with the birth announcement. These parents also filed civil rights complaints against the news paper.

Civil rights complaints? Getting your picture with your birth announcement is a CIVIL RIGHT now?

I imagine they framed this in some sort of discrimination against disabilities legalese. However, the exclusion of the photograph isn’t discrimination against the child, who is dead anyway (although its estate and legacy might turn out to be more than my annual salary). It’s editorial discretion.

Can I file a civil rights claim because I don’t get to grace the cover of Esquire or the centerfold of Playboy (those sexist schnucks are discriminating based on my gender!)?

I would hope whatever authorities see these complaints dismiss them easily, but common sense is proving harder and harder.

When your child is born with extreme, visible birth defects from which it dies from in five days, people expect you to grieve. I can sympathize.

Whereas you might want the child’s birth announcement for your scrapbook, that’s okay too. However, I also understand when the newspaper might balk at running a photograph of the child, especially a newborn with extreme facial birth defects. In normal circumstances, people might accuse the paper of sensationalism or insensitivity for running a photo like that.

I do not have any sympathy, however, for throwing a civil fit because the paper balked.

A couple of parents in St. Louis are doing just that. The mother, in between filing civil complaints against the publisher of the Suburban Journals, offered this bit of vocabularial ignorance:

“He … used the word ‘disfigured,'” Kelly Kittinger said. “He needs sensitivity training if he’s going to be dealing with the public.”

Let’s go to the dictionary:

dis·fig·ure (ds-fgyr)
tr.v. dis·fig·ured, dis·fig·ur·ing, dis·fig·ures

To mar or spoil the appearance or shape of; deform.

These particular birth defects (“Perjorative!” the PC banshees will soon wail) marred the appearance of the baby. Disfigured is an accurate description, and I’m certainly not in favor of sensitivity training that destroys accuracy to sooth inflamed feelings of an allegedly grieving mother.

However, this mother is subverting grief into “righteous” rage at the indignities afllicted upon her lost child by lashing out. Perhaps something good will then come of the child’s short life. Increased “sensitivity” and maybe a little settled-out-of-court jackpot for the grieving raging parents.

Also, kudos to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for its continuing coverage of this important breaking story and for showing its compassion for the “little people” by elevating trivial slights into crusades while humping the legs of big corporate interests in St. Louis (publicly funded stadiums, anyone?). An earlier story this week described the birth defects and their disfiguring nature. The linked story does not. By Sunday’s paper, perhaps you, oh monopolithic dispenser of wisdom, will have forgotten why the Suburban Journal balked at displaying the picture at all.

Nevada Supreme Court overrules Nevada Constitution.

(Pointer from InstaPundit.)

The End.

Meanwhile, back in the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman comments (registration required) on President Bush’s trip to Africa and wonders whether we’re helping or hindering Africa’s case with monetary aid. Good question. Unfortunately, he includes this interesting factoid:

This week, he became only the third U.S. president to visit Africa in the last 25 years.

By my dead reckoning, since 1978 we have had only 5 presidents (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) serve, and of those 5, only 3 have served their complete terms. At very worst, of our last five presidents, 60% have gone to Africa. I’m not certain 60% merits an only.

CNN reports on the latest Congressional Zero-Intolergence law, which will throw spammers in jail for up to two years for a non-violent offense. That’s right. Send an unsolicited e-mail to someone, go to JAIL! I’ll have to watch my step when it’s time to send out next year’s Atari Party invitations.

The story says:

The bill also won praise from law-enforcement officials, who said spammers who now shrug off civil penalties as a cost of doing business may think twice when faced with a jail sentence of up to two years.

“We believe criminal sanctions will make a big difference in Virginia,” Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore told the House subcommittee on crime.

1. How many spammers have been identified and penalized civilly? Not many, but hey, if you’re going to fire aimlessly and not hit anything, it’s best to have a full quiver of punishment arrows so you can just keep firing.
2. “law enforcement officials“? But Jerry Kilgore is an elected politician, undoubtedly only stopping by the Attorney General’s office on his way to bigger and better elected offices.

Undoubtedly, unsolicited e-mail is annoying, but it’s a stupid target for legislation and law enforcement with the current state of deficits and the continued existence of violent crime which, you know, actually hurts people.

An op-ed piece in the Washington Post, written by a former police officer, argues that as long as drugs are prohibited, neighborhoods will be torn up and will occasionally riot against police.

He’s right, of course, but we’re a long way from any repeals at this point, I fear.

Best of the Web Today links to a press release announcing a study by the Cato Institute. The report’s entitled Economic Freedom of the World: 2003 Annual Report, and the press release summarizes the report with the headline Report: Wealthiest Nations Have Freest Economies.

I think this title doesn’t capture the causal link between the two. Instead, perhaps it should say Freest Economies Create Wealthiest Nations.

But I am no economist, I am just a dude who takes the meaning and order of words seriously.

Drudge links to a story in USA Today headlined Report: Feds lacks bioterror experts. The lead goes something like this:

The government will have an increasingly hard time hiring and retaining biologists and others needed to prepare for bioterror threats, a report concludes.

The report, according to the story, shines its light on the usual suspects: government pay contrasted with private pay, the decline of science graduates, and retirements.

On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to mention the interest the government lavishes upon persons that it hires in this capacity.

Maybe they need a new hiring campaign slogan, such as, “Work on Bioterrorism for us, and we’ll take care of you.”

CNN reports: Last ship in Mars-bound armada begins risky trip.

Couldn’t that warmonger keep his ambitions planetary? No! Instead, he and the martial NASA send an armada, literally a fleet of warships, to Mars to conquer another undefended desert!

For certainly, the CNN headline writer was conscious of the ramifications of the word he, she, or it chose, right?

The Federal Trade Commission, an appointed and not elected body, has determined that individual states do not have the right to pass laws regulating commerce within their borders when it comes to the Internet.

In a move my newly-Federalist friend El Guapo might approve, the FTC would lift bans on Internet wine purchases. Some states think it’s too easy for minors to get liquor off the Internet, so they want to prohibit Internet vendors from selling wine to consumers in those states via the Internet.

The FTC, however, has found another way to abuse the powers granted under the ill-conceived interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Instead of letting the individual states handle moral issues (alcohol consumption) and logistical issues (keeping wine out of minors), Uncle Sam must be listening to the last lobbying dollars from vino dot coms.

“By allowing interstate direct shipping, states would give consumers the opportunity to save money on their wine purchases, and would let consumers choose from a much greater variety of wines,” the FTC said in its report.

It’s all for the betterment of the consumer, and it’s at the expense of the states, who lose more power appropriately left ot them and, ooops, lose all that sales and excise tax money which they cannot charge on Internet sales.

It’s oh so wrong in oh so many ways, I will leave it at that before I start foaming Les Bourheois Jeunette Rouge at the mouth and stain the keyboard.