Cut to the Chase

You can't make this stuff up.

This fall, residents of uber-liberal San Francisco will consider a ballot initiative that proposes a ban on male circumcision.

Huh?

Yep, a ban on male circumcision.

Now, whatever you think of male circumcision (my wife, for one, is against the practice), you still have to appreciate the supreme irony presented by this near perfect example of the colossal contradictions that actually describe all of liberalism.

Remember, this city is so liberal that it not only prides itself on standing up for a woman's right to choose, it insists that you must pay for the exercise of that right no matter what your objections.  In fact, San Francisco is so liberal, liberal and green, that an actual abortion is neither a family tragedy nor a necessary evil, instead it's a positive social good.  Why?  Because an actual abortion is evidence both that the right to choose remains secure and because an aborted baby helps keeps the city's carbon footprint smaller than, oh, I don't know, Oklahoma City's.  And that's important because San Franciscans need always to be able to preen about their moral superiority to yokels that live in places like Oklahoma City.

But, if the initiative passes, that same city which would have the day before celebrated the death in the womb of an unwanted child, the day after will simply not tolerate the barbarity that is the removal of the male foreskin.

So why not a ban on female circumcision as well you ask?

Because female circumcision is not a traditional Judeo-Christian practice.  If it were, you can be sure it would be on the ballot too.  But, as it's only a sometime Muslim practice, well, we can't offend Muslims, can we?  That would be intolerant.