First off, I don’t personally believe that circumcision should be done on infants as a matter of ordinary procedure. It was done to me and my brother simply because it was a matter of policy on the part of the Air Force in the 1960s. I don’t think that this is any reason for the government to step in and outlaw it, though. We have far, far too many highly pressing issues that need attention with much greater consequences – like nearly a billion dollar deficit in California – that the politicians and voters should be spending their time on.

That doesn’t even begin to address the centuries old religious tradition argument, which was the point of my blog posting in the first place. Does anyone think that a law like this is going to pass muster with ANY court? For every so-called expert they could bring in to testify, another will be brought in to testify to the contrary. Ultimately, the 1st Amendment will win out and us taxpayers will be the losers, having spent money on the election first, then defending the case in court.

Someone else close to me had it done in their 30s due to medical necessity, and it was probably the most painful experience of his life that he would have happily avoided given any other alternative. However – I’ve been told that there was ZERO difference in sexual satisfaction post-circumcision! Others’ mileage may vary, of course.

That, right there, is the major difference between male circumcision and FGM (female genital mutilation), or so-called “female circumcision”, where the clitoris is actually removed. Most often, in 3rd world countries, this is done at a young age, without consent (from what I’ve read, to 8-12 year old “brides” in many cases) to prevent the girls from getting any pleasure from sex so they don’t have any desire to stray from their chosen (by someone else) husbands. It is an abhorrent practice that literally IS mutilation. Just check Wikipedia for “Female Genital Cutting”.

For the male, a piece of what basically amounts to excess skin is removed. It does not prevent sexual satisfaction. Arguably it may cause different feelings depending on the individual, but it does not prevent them. That is, by all accounts, a highly subjective matter of opinion. It is not however, by objective terms, mutilation. Unthinking, poor judgement, any such term of your choice – absolutely. Criminal, mutilation, abuse, no freaking way.

FYI, when it comes to politics I may be left-leaning, but the politicians and activists that bring up issues like this are so far to the left of me I might as well join the Log Cabin Republicans. If I’m not mistaken, I believe some of the same people being this movement are the ones that also (successfully?) tried to ban Happy Meals in the San Francisco area recently. These people obviously need to spend more time worrying about their own lives and staying out of others’.

Now my question back to you is, except as a potential mother who might be considering it for their own child, why on earth would this matter to YOU? Let’s face it, unless there’s something you haven’t told us, you don’t have a penis! What others do with their penises (peni?) is not your concern ultimately. Just because some doctors have suddenly decided that they think it may be harmful – with controversial medical studies that are not universally accepted at all – why should this be an issue that should become a legal issue at all, much less something to be voted on by the citizens?

If it is that important of an issue, but there is no clear proof at this point – which there isn’t – why not simply advocate for an education campaign for parents about the possible issues involved with circumcision so they can make an informed choice with their doctor? As for the religious adherents, nothing is going to change their minds, so that’s a hopeless cause from the very beginning.

I also note, while viewing The Trevor Project’s profile on Charity Navigator, that their Executive Director receives a “whopping” salary of just $128,566 per year. That, in itself, is virtually unheard of for ANY Executive Director of ANY organization, for profit or non-profit.

Re: MissionFish and Bush – why does that not surprise me in the slightest? After all, we cannot forget for an instant that MissionFish was instituted at eBay while Meg Whitman was in charge and look what she tried to do when she attempted to buy the governorship of California!

Show me another non-profit organization with **** rating which has Program Expenses 81.2% and Administrative Expenses 15.7%? And MissionFish does NOT do any charity work, they are just delivering money to real charities electronically!! American Red Cross has close to 10% administrative expenses and many people already find this outrageously high, since several of their top people making close to 500K a year. However, Red Cross does actual work to provide services around the world while MissionFish is mostly run by software, and still 15% administrative expenses?!! Somebody mentioned that out of over 200,000,000 donated through Ebay so far somewhere around 20,000,000 or more went to the MissionFish’ administrative expenses. Now, how many people are working at MissionFish’ offices? By the way, administrative expenses of a **** charity are usually well below 10%, check Direct Relief International, how do they manage to have <1% administrative expenses? I assume they also do money transfers!

Finally, to all those people who wonder how MissionFish gets a **** rating and who are trying to suggest that this should be investigated by the IRS, think about this: MissionFish is owned by the Points of Light Institute founded by President George Bush senior who is still very actively involved with the Institute. Do you seriously think IRS will dare to touch this, considering that everything is probably legal, just outrageously deceptive and immoral?