What gay marriage is about

Posted on April 11, 2009 by Michael

There’s this insipidly stupid argument floating around conservative (i.e., non-thinking) circles. It’s that gay marriage is all about children and societal security. This argument is designed to knock down the position that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

Societies have a vested interest in the welfare of their children because they are the future of that society. A society is more likely to flourish if these children grow up to become responsible, productive and contributing members of that society. In the last half century, social science research has overwhelmingly validated what societies throughout history have learned through practical experience: Children do best by far on every measure of development, achievement and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.

In truth, this is an emotional appeal. In other words, it’s useless bull that doesn’t actually mean anything. Let’s start at the top.

The most glaring issue with this is the abuse of science. Aside from almost surely not citing any specific studies, the author is intentionally destroying context. That is, the studies he cites are comparing married parents to unmarried couples, single parents, and possibly parents who adopted. None of these categories is gay parents.

He’s begging the question here. He has set out to show that gay couples will make unstable homes for children yet he assumes that very idea in his argument. That is, he is assuming gay couples are equal to any couple which is not married and the biological parents of the children involved. But if he’s trying to prove that point, he most certainly cannot assume it in his argument. It’s a logical fallacy. “Gay parents are unfit. How do I know they are unfit? Because they are gay parents.”

But here’s the gem of the pro-bigot brigade. They argue that anti-discrimination activists are wrong to compare gay rights to civil rights.

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell also rejects the argument that sexual orientation is comparable to race. He has testified that: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

The most interesting thing about all this is that both sides are wrong. Anti-discrimination activists are wrong because the civil rights being violated are not based upon sexual orientation. Pro-bigots are wrong because it is a civil rights issue. It just isn’t about sexual orientation.

Marriage is a secular contract between two people of sound capacity to consent to entering a legal agreement. In other words there are pertinent requirements to entering any contract recognized by the government. In this case they include being of age as determined by state, being willfull, and being able to understand the conditions of the contract. To say that two women cannot marry is discriminate based upon some external requirement to the ones listed. That “external requirement” is not sexual orientation. It is gender. Two women or two men are disallowed from entering a contract based upon gender. That is a civil rights issue. It is against the law – moreover, it is against all common sense. Pro-bigots don’t realize their rights are being trampled, too (mostly because they’re doing the ignorant trampling).

It is primarily to encourage the most positive outcomes for their children that societies encourage men and women to marry and provide special protections and incentives for this social institution. Because same-sex couples obviously cannot produce children, societies historically have never even contemplated allowing them to “marry.”

Liar. Or he’s stupid. Societies have never contemplated allowing gay marriage because societies have historically been filled with bigotry. It has nothing to do with children. But at any rate, this argument is only valid if it is extended properly. Infertile couples must be forbidden from marriage. Elderly couples beyond the ability to reproduce who do not already have children and grandchildren must get divorced; they do not fit the reason for marriage and are thus being rewarded with special protections and incentives without justification.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would so radically change the existing social institution of marriage that it would destroy its time-proven ability to provide essential benefits to society. It would transform marriage from a primarily child-centered institution into something that would be little more than governmental recognition of the professed affection of any two people for each other regardless of their gender.

This is just a bad argument. How does a married gay couple do anything to change the status of a married straight couple? Any interest there is for children in this secular contract can be maintained precisely the same as it has been for so many decades. It is nice, however, that he says “regardless of gender”. It’s good that there’s a twinkle of hope he realizes that this civil rights issue is centered around gender, not sexual orientation.

The link will eventually go dead (unless you want to pay $2.99 for access to old articles from a paper that normally costs $0.75), so I’m posting the article in full here.

Gerald Talbot (“Civil marriage about equal protection of all under the law”) is certainly entitled to his own opinion that allowing homosexuals to marry is a civil rights issue similar to the black civil rights struggle. But he appears to be outside of the mainstream thinking of most U.S. black leadership.

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage and he is not only the most prominent black political leader in the world but a former constitutional law professor. No one would seriously argue that he is not a champion of true civil rights.

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell also rejects the argument that sexual orientation is comparable to race. He has testified that: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

Dee Garrett, a black civil rights leader in the South in the 1960s, also rejects the claim that this is a legitimate civil rights issue. In an eloquent statement that is posted on YouTube and was widely circulated in the California black community, she said, “It’s (same-sex marriage) not about civil rights. Racism was about civil rights. Marriage is about society, the future and about our children.”

In California, seven out of 10 black voters agreed and voted for Prop 8, which amended the state’s constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage. Many credit these black voters for passing the amendment.

Garrett understands what Talbot clearly does not. Marriage is not about adult needs, desires or convenience, whether for social and governmental recognition and acceptance, for economic advantages and tax breaks or simply to make their life easier. As she points out, marriage is primarily about children and the future of society. Understanding this fundamental truth allows us to place the demands of this tiny minority to be allowed to “marry” into the correct and socially responsible perspective.

Societies have a vested interest in the welfare of their children because they are the future of that society. A society is more likely to flourish if these children grow up to become responsible, productive and contributing members of that society. In the last half century, social science research has overwhelmingly validated what societies throughout history have learned through practical experience: Children do best by far on every measure of development, achievement and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.

It is primarily to encourage the most positive outcomes for their children that societies encourage men and women to marry and provide special protections and incentives for this social institution. Because same-sex couples obviously cannot produce children, societies historically have never even contemplated allowing them to “marry.”

Given the critical role of marriage in society, it is easy to understand that defending man/woman marriage is not discrimination. There is no inherent “right” to marry and societies have always regulated this institution for the best interests of society. Brothers and sisters or parents and children cannot marry, for example, nor can minors.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would so radically change the existing social institution of marriage that it would destroy its time-proven ability to provide essential benefits to society. It would transform marriage from a primarily child-centered institution into something that would be little more than governmental recognition of the professed affection of any two people for each other regardless of their gender.

There is absolutely no assurance that this new social institution of “genderless marriage” would, or even could, provide these same essential societal benefits. If it cannot, society and future generations will suffer serious harm. Whether to legalize genderless marriage is much more than a minority “rights” issue.

Bob Emrich, Plymouth, is director of the Maine Jeremiah Project, a grassroots coalition of social conservatives, organizations and churches who support “the sanctity of life, traditional family values, freedom of religion and educational choice” and a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Maine; http://www.mainejeremiahproject.com.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Troopers troopers

Posted on April 1, 2009 by Michael

I have updates for two previous posts. The first is about that Dallas cop – Robert Powell – that stopped a family from seeing their dying relative. He pulled a gun on these people. Think about that: a vehicle slowly runs red lights, puts on its hazards, and pulls into a hospital parking lot. What’s your first thought? Well, if you’re normal, it’s that there’s an emergency. If you’re an almost surely racist, hillbilly cop, it’s to pull a gun out on t’em t’ere niggers. That’s what Powell did, among other things. He has resigned.

“I made this decision in the hope that my resignation will allow the Dallas Police Department, my fellow officers and the citizens of Dallas to better reflect on this experience, learn from the mistakes made, and move forward,” Powell said in a statement issued through his lawyers.

No, he wants to ease his legal situation as best as possible and he knows he’s going to be fired anyway. Understandable move, but he’s lying.

My second update is about my run-in with some officer at the Augusta Police Department who had no idea how the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act works. The Capital Weekly (a local, weekly paper) has asked me to do a first person write-up of the incident. It will not be kind to the offending officer – Lt. J. Christopher Read.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Women and science

Posted on March 29, 2009 by Michael

The mooks over at Conservapedia love to parade out old studies that show statistically insignificant leads for boy over girls in math and science. Despite this heavy dose of misogynistic idiocy, it’s no secret men outnumber women in science. Go one step further: famous men outnumber famous women by a longshot. In thinking of just 10 scientists, Lynn Margulis is the only female that comes to mind.

So when commenters focused on the looks of Sheril Kirshenbaum, she became understandably annoyed.

Now folks, I’m not naive. I recognize everyone forms preconceived notions based on visual and nonverbal cues. As it happens, my next book deals with science and sexuality, so this is a topic I’ve been thinking about a lot lately off the blog. Naturally, attention to physical appearance has been hardwired into our neural circuitry over a few millenia, however, you better believe it’s never acceptable judge anyone based on appearances and number of X chromosomes. And of course I’ve noticed the science blogosphere is buzzing over some neanderthal comments from Monday about my photo. After Phil was kind enough to welcome Chris and I to Discover Blogs, I was disappointed to read several of the responses. For example:

    as a living breathing male of the species, I look forward to any article with Sherils picture attached.

Or even less articulate:

    mmmmmmmm……….. wo-man

Okay, I get it. People are focusing on her looks rather than her credentials. But let’s take a look at that first quote. In full.

Having not read any of their material, I am supremely unqualified to comment on any of their writings.

But, as a living breathing male of the species, I look forward to any article with Sherils picture attached.

That’s just bad practice. While Kirshenbaum has a valid overall point, she misquotes a person. I thought reasoned people had left that up to creationists and other stupid conservatives.

Let’s keep in mind what the original post was all about. It was an introduction. Is there a specific, pre-approved, politically correct response expected? I see an intro to a new blog, a short description, and a picture – the most prominent thing about the post – and not much else. It is entirely reasonable to comment on the picture. Naturally, some level of respect should be given. The above, misquoted commenter did that. He wasn’t vulgar, he noted that he cannot speak of Kirshenbaum’s science credentials, and only then did he say, “Hey, she’s pretty”. Kirshenbaum extends this to a broader point.

I doubt any of the aforementioned anecdotes–or the now infamous comments–were intended to be insulting, but they each highlight a broader social issue. Several female colleagues have similar stories of receiving sexually explicit emails and poetry, while I’ve yet to hear the fellows complain of unwanted advances (though surely that happens occasionally too). This is not an isolated problem, nor is it specific to me as an individual, rather it demonstrates that no matter how much the nature of science has changed, it continues to be very much a ‘boys club.’

This is somewhat inappropriate. Of course, science is a “boys club”. It is a field that is dominated by men, shown to the public through male spokespeople, and probably has a good deal of misogyny running amok. That cannot be extrapolated from a few posts that say “I am attracted to this person”. Let’s drive this home. Here’s another quote from that original post.

Is it just me, or do they look YOUNG? It must just be me getting old I guess. I look forward to reading what they post.

WHOA! WHOA! What’s with all the ageism? Come on, people! Science is such an ‘old persons club’. It’s ridiculous. How about some common respect for the young members of the field?

Don’t miss the point. Please.

Kirshenbaum has valid points and she makes them shine through her other anecdotes. The comments about her being attractive, however, do not illustrate her point. If they do, then I just equally illustrated a point about ageism.

From Kirshenbaum:

Now folks, I’m not naive. I recognize everyone forms preconceived notions based on visual and nonverbal cues. As it happens, my next book deals with science and sexuality, so this is a topic I’ve been thinking about a lot lately off the blog. Naturally, attention to physical appearance has been hardwired into our neural circuitry over a few millenia, however, you better believe it’s never acceptable [to] judge anyone based on appearances and number of X chromosomes.

First of all, I prefer accuracy so let’s augment that last statement a tad. It’s never acceptable to judge anyone based on appearances and number X chromosomes, in most instances. If I’m looking for someone to date, I’m definitely going to find a person to whom I am attracted. If that isn’t physical judgement, I don’t know what is. Second, from the comments I read, there was judgement being passed on Kirshenbaum’s looks, not her quality of science. One cannot necessarily take such comments to be outright ignoring her scientific credentials. The prettiest creationist in the world can open up a blog, but I’m not going to give it any praise for that reason. If I say, “Hey, that creationist is sure pretty, but she’s also pretty dumb”, the first part of my comment may be irrelevant, but it is not harmful and it says nothing of the creationists’ credentials – the latter part of the comment does that. Take out that latter part, and no comment was made on scientific credentials. In other words, no credentials were demeaned. If the post was about Kirshenbaum’s research on a particular topic and people focused on her looks, then, yes, that would be inappropriate and demeaning.

Hell, take the mook Sean Hannity. Torture yourself with just a few interviews. Women will often make the point that while he is attractive, his points are awful and misguided. In other words, “here’s a compliment, but it has no bearing on what I think about what you’re saying.”

Of course, not everyone is so innocent with their compliments. Some people are just saying it for the sake of saying it. If that’s all they’re saying, give ’em hell. If they’re saying it in response to a picture accompanied by little more than a generic intro, it’s difficult to see a problem.

I really want to drive this home and I keep coming up with examples how. Take, for instance, a blogger who has a butt-ugly blog layout. Maybe some gross looking color scheme or whathaveyou. Even simply an ugly avatar. Would it be unreasonable for someone to say “I don’t know anything about John Doe’s science, but that is one ugly avatar/layout/whatever he has”?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Let freedom ring

Posted on March 16, 2009 by Michael

Freedom of information, that is.

I recently gave an update on my experience using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. On two separate occasions I got stonewalled by some Lieutenant who was not familiar with the act (nor with humility). Eventually, the city manager gave me the information. A couple of days later I got this (emphasis added).

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

I have been advised you have made contact twice this week with Lt. J. Chris Read requesting copies of any disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I am now aware that you made your first request on Monday, Mark 9th and returned on Wednesday, March 11th. Each time you received a verbal denial from Lt. Read advising that the information you were requesting is confidential as personnel records are confidential.

I must apologize that as you are aware, should there be a final written decision relating to a disciplinary action taken against an employee, that information is not confidential and you would have a right to access of that information. Your request should have been handled differently and following a review of the individual’s personnel file, you should have been advised that there are no disciplinary action documents in the file. I have personally checked the officer’s personnel file and can state that there are no disciplinary documents of any kind in the file.

As a result of how your request for information was handled by a member of my staff, I have undertaken a review of our procedures pertaining to public access to records. All Police Supervisors are to review our Standard Operating Procedure, Public Access to Records, to ensure that a request for information is handled properly.

Again, there is no information pertaining to disciplinary action regarding Officer Richard Dubois to provide to you per your request. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience you have experienced.

Sincerely

Chief Wayne M McCamish

Quality response. This covers the department from the $500 fine to which Lt. Read potentially subjected them since it covers both my requests within 5 business days of receiving them. While it would have been interesting to see the whole process of a fine being assessed to either the police department or the city itself, I’m far happier to see that the law was followed correctly. Regardless, I’ve contacted a local paper to see if they’re interested in having me write this story for them (I’ve written for them in the past [usually about local hiking]).

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Being right feels so good

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Michael

I recently wrote about my experience obtaining information using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. I wanted any “final written decisions” relating to a local police officers disciplinary record. Another officer told me that was not public information. He asserted that his 20 years of experience trumps what the law actually (and explicitly) says. In short, the man was largely ignorant of the law – and too stubborn to admit it even when faced with undeniable evidence.

After going to the City Manager, I received a letter in the mail. Here is the body of it.

I am in receipt of your request for copies of all disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I have reviewed the officer’s personnel file and find no records of disciplinary action. Augusta Police Department Officers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which prevents written disciplinary action from remaining in an officer’s personnel file in excess of two (2) years unless a similar violation has occurred (relevant language enclosed).

As an aside, I noticed your internal posting this afternoon and enjoyed it. I recommend your journalism professor give you an “A”!

In other words, I am absolutely right that the information for which I asked is public. It just so happens that the information is only left in personnel files for a certain period of time, i.e., some of the stuff I wanted simply does not physically exist any longer (assuming it did at all). For the time when the information does exist, Officer Dubois has had no disciplinary actions taken against him.

Oh, what to do now, what to do now. I can take the high road and enjoy that feeling of being vindicated humbly (minus this current indulgence). Alternatively, I can request the information of Lt. Read and be sure to post it. In addition, I can also be sure the local newspaper hears about this. Furthermore, I can be sure to explore all possible avenues as they related to the officer/police department being fined for not issuing me the required letter explaining why they feel the need to break the law. Guess which road this persistent defender of rights is going to take?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Maine Freedom of Information Access Act

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Michael

There is a law in Maine similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act. It allows the public to access information that is produced through government agencies (with notable exceptions). Many states have similar laws on the books, all varying in one manner or another. One of these states is Massachusetts. Recently, the Boston Globe used the act in order to obtain the disciplinary record of asshat trooper Michael Galluccio. This gave me an idea.

I am currently taking a journalism class because I was too slow at signing up for the classes I actually wanted (though I am enjoying this class). One of my assignments is to obtain information using Maine’s FOIA. Until I saw the Galluccio story, I was at a loss of what to do. However, with the knowledge that disciplinary records are public information in one state, I decided to pursue the record of a particular officer at the Augusta Police Department in hopes that Maine law is sufficiently similar.

Backstory: Sometime ago in high school I got a parking ticket. I was parked at the end of a series of spaces where there were yellow diagonal lines. Clearly, I was illegally parked. I do not dispute that. However, on the ticket the officer wrote “sidewalk”, indicating that the reasoning for the ticket was that I was parked on the nearby sidewalk. This was not the case. 1) Those yellow lines would not extend to a public sidewalk. 2) I went to City Hall and obtained a property blueprint for my school. It was clear that I was not on the sidewalk. I brought this to the attention of several officers, including the one who issued the ticket. Of course, they refused to admit they were wrong. It would be one thing to give me a ticket I technically deserved. Unfortunately, what they did is issue me a ticket for an offense I did not commit. It would be like arresting someone for assault who actually committed theft. The sentence (for the sake of argument) may be roughly the same, but that does not mean that the thief is guilty of something else simply because the result is similar. Just the same, I was never guilty of parking on a sidewalk. The ticket is bunk.

So fast forward to my journalism class and the Globe article and I’ve got my idea. I am going to get the disciplinary record of the officer who issued me the incorrect ticket. I make out a FOIA letter (which is a courtesy, not a required form) and head on down to the APD. I am told by Lt. J. Christopher Read that personnel files are not public information. Bummer, right? Possibly. I follow this up with a call to the Globe. They say he is almost certainly wrong. I then also ask my instructor. She says basically the same thing. I go the next necessary step and find the exact wording in the act.

Personnel records pertaining to municipal, county, and state employees are for the most part confidential. For example, complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action are confidential. However, if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision is completed if it imposes or upholds discipline.

It is clear. If a state employee is disciplined and there is a final written decision, it is public information. I am entitled to it. Now armed with this information, I make some corrections. First, I obtain the name of the offending officer. I originally only knew him as Officer 135. I now know his name is Richard Dubois. I also change my timeframe. I originally asked for all records dating to January 2001. I figured that covered a couple of years prior to my ticket and it also wasn’t so much as to be a pain in the butt. Because I was given incorrect information, however, I have updated my timeframe to date to either 1990 or Richard Dubois’ date of hiring; if they’re going to make me do extra work, I’m going to return the favor.

I bring my updated information back to the APD and speak with Lt. Read again. I present my new letter and read, verbatim, the part of the act I have bolded above. He tells me personnel files are off limits. I again inform him that the exception is when disciplinary action is taken. He tells me that is simply my interpretation and he has been “at this for 20 years”. In other words, the explicit text that says “if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential” can be interpreted to mean something other than, well, that final written decisions related to disciplinary action are not confidential. One wonders what Lt. Read thinks it means. I guess 20 years on the job gives a person super special reading skills and insights. Or it makes them stubborn. Draw your own conclusion.

After it has become clear that Lt. Read is not going to give me the information to which I have a law-given right, I inform him that he needs to give me a written response within 5 business days because the law clearly states that to be the case. He says – and I quote – “I’m not going to do that.” I then ask him if he is aware that there is a $500 fine associated with violating the act and he says “That’s fine.” I presume that is code for “I acknowledge the fact you have just told me, but I do not want to admit that I am ignorant of a tremendous amount of this law.” I then ask Lt. Read if he wants a copy of my letter. My intention here is quite kind, if I do flatter myself: the man is wrong and I know he is wrong. If he checks with other supervisors or simply reads the law, he may realize this. Without my letter, he will not be able to contact me and will thus be forced into violating the law. He says he does not want it. I inform him that I have an identical letter addressed to the City Manager, William Bridgeo.

Once I leave, I head over to City Hall. Mr. Bridgeo was in a meeting but I gave all this information to the clerk/secretary/whathaveyou in the office. She asks for the name of the officer who refused to give a written response, makes copies of my letters along with my excerpt of the act, and tells me that, yes, a written response is required. (She said 10 days, but seemed unsure and soon qualified that it may depend on the information requested. At any rate, a written response is required.)

Further information: I originally saw Lt. Read on Monday, March 9, 2009. I saw him next, new letter (and different dates) in hand on Wednesday, March 11, 2009. He has 5 (or 10) business days to give me a written response to my first request. The second request is being handled by a more responsible entity.

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Those silly conservatives

Posted on March 11, 2009 by Michael

With all the patently silly conservatives running around, I may make this into a series.

Today’s silly conservative is none other than John Lott. I recently wrote about how Lott deleted my comments concerning some stupid things he said. This happened on Facebook. To reiterate, I criticized Lott for, essentially, claiming that Ashley Judd represented all Democrats (among some other dumb things he said). He promptly defriended me. Cute.

Up until now I haven’t been entirely sure what he did with my comments. I presumed he deleted them, but had no proof. Well, because of my super-slick spy skills*, I infiltrated Lott’s friends list and confirmed that, yes, he did indeed delete the comments.

Let’s just recap: I made a couple comments about an article he posted. He responded to these comments. They apparently were not offensive enough to delete. I then put the final nail in his coffin and called him out for making a clearly dumb statement. Despite what one may conclude from reading this here blog, I actually was quite appropriate with my comments. I then found myself defriended. After this, Lott went so far as to delete everything I said – that includes the comments he did not previously deem offensive enough to delete. Apparently this 50 year old man has the temperament of a child.

*I had a friend send him a friend request.

Update: This must be the fastest update ever.

I left a comment on John Lott’s blog. He made a post about plagiarism where he is essentially insinuating that PubMed is a bad source for information. I presume this is because I have cited PubMed several times on his blog, but maybe he grew to hate that particular science outlet from somewhere else. At any rate, his post was specifically about plagiarism, but it isn’t a far cry to say unethical behavior is highly related. So naturally, I pointed out to Lott that it is well documented that his behavior is unethical. What did he do? He changed my post to say “This post has been removed by a blog administrator.”

Let’s take a moment to review Lott’s behavior over the years (and to avoid any insinuation from the 50 year old child, the following comes from the previous link).

  • he almost certainly fabricated a mysterious survey and certainly behaved unethically in making claims for which he had no supporting data
  • he presented results purporting to show that “more guns” led to “less crime” when those results were the product of coding errors
  • he pretended to be a woman called “Mary Rosh” on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.
  • he probably was the person who anonymously accused Steve Levitt of being “rabidly antigun”

    All those claims are backed up quite well, too.

    Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

    George Will is a mook

    Posted on March 10, 2009 by Michael

    Really, it’s as simple as that.

    Q: You have felt the righteous wrath of those who believe in man-made global warming. Are you still all there?

    A: Oh, heavens. Yeah. The odd thing about these people is, normally when I write something that people disagree with they write letters to the editor or they write a responding op-ed piece. These people simply set out to try and get my editors to not publish my columns. Now I don’t blame them, because I think if my arguments were as shaky as theirs are, I wouldn’t want to engage in argument either.

    That is George Will getting a proverbial blowjob from some hack journalist. It is in response to an article he wrote about global warming where he just flat out made stuff up. Carl Zimmer wrote about the errors Will made in his piece, exposing the fraud for what he is. The rest of the blogging community did roughly the same (though certaintly not with the same talent level of Zimmer). Here’s the jist.

    To recap: George Will wrote a column in which he tried to downplay the evidence that global warming has already affected the Earth, and that it will have bigger impacts in the future. Various bloggers have pointed out examples where Will misrepresented scientific studies in this column. The most glaring one was this: “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

    The Research Center put a statement on their site explaining that Will was wrong. On February 15, the day Will wrote his column, there was substantially less ice than on February 15, 1979: the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

    Zimmer goes on to explain that comparing one specific day to another specific day is erroneous. It is not how climate is measured – that’s how weather is done. Anyone who isn’t functionally retarded knows there’s a significant difference. Will did not recognize the difference. We’re left to connect the dots.

    Of course, now some journalist with a hard-on for Will is giving him an opportunity to reply to his critics. We’ve seen his dumb rhetoric above. How about a little meat?

    Q: The big issue was about how much global sea ice there is now compared to 1979.

    •A: And that of course was a tiny portion of the column. The critics completely ignored — as again, understandably — the evidence I gave of the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.

    Looks like the proverbial blowjob isn’t going so well. We just have some flaccid words.

    Zimmer already addressed this in his earlier response.

    George Will wrote a column in which he tried to downplay the evidence that global warming has already affected the Earth, and that it will have bigger impacts in the future.

    Of course, I’m not a fundamentally dishonest conservative, so I’ll be fair. Will’s initial point is that there was concern for global cooling in the 1970s and now there is not. Okay, fair enough. He can make that claim. However, this is not his primary point. His primary point is that because there was some science (which he exaggerates) that sided with global cooling 30-40 years ago, that science which supports global warming today cannot be trusted. This reminds me a recent post about 50 reasons one should not believe in evolution.

    12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.

    That is essentially to what this comes down. Will is a conservative who does not want to do things which will cost large corporations significant amounts of money. That is his motivation for being anti-global warming. The same goes for the vast majority of conservatives who are widely known figures. They’re blatant liars. They have no concern for truth or science. It’s all about their economic, religious, or ideological dogma they’ve come to adopt. All else must fall before it.

    But let’s return to the core of Will’s flaccid words. He’s saying that his primary point was about global cooling hysteria. In truth, that was not his primary point: as I pointed out, he is saying that science’s self-correcting nature makes it currently wrong. That is, his primary point is that some science was wrong in the past, so global warming is wrong today. Okay, so now that some actual truth has been told, let’s continue.

    As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

    If Will’s primary point was that he was addressing “global cooling hysteria”, wouldn’t this be entirely unrelated? Oh, hold the phone. That’s right. His primary point is actually that today’s science must be flawed because of yesterday’s science. One wonders why he would even bother citing today’s science, but if I’ve connected the dots from earlier correctly, he may very well be functionally retarded.

    But regardless, Will is using this to try and support his point that today’s trend in science must be wrong about global warming. Do you see the issue, Will? You made a statement and then tried supporting it with evidence. That evidence does not, in fact, support your statement. By attacking that evidence, bloggers like Zimmer are, in effect, attacking your primary point (obscured as you tried to make it, you liar).

    Imagine a high school kid in a wood workshop. He makes a chair. The seat and back are well done. But he royally screwed up on the legs. They’re of inferior material, too thin, shaky, poorly attached: in short, he made a bad chair. The teacher comes by and tells him that the chair is bad. But no, the student objects, “The legs are just a tiny portion of my chair! You can’t ignore the seat. That’s the primary piece of the chair!” The teacher then proceeds to fail the student for being a stupid jackass.

    Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

    Making stuff up about global warming

    Posted on February 20, 2009 by Michael

    Most conservatives who have a public voice are outright liars. It’s really that simple, so let’s not parse words. It isn’t that they are fundamentally misdirected in their ideas and thus genuinely believe what they say in public. No. They are simply liars. They know better, but they say things which are untrue. George Will is just another case.

    To recap: George Will wrote a column in which he tried to downplay the evidence that global warming has already affected the Earth, and that it will have bigger impacts in the future. Various bloggers have pointed out examples where Will misrepresented scientific studies in this column. The most glaring one was this: “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

    The Research Center put a statement on their site explaining that Will was wrong. On February 15, the day Will wrote his column, there was substantially less ice than on February 15, 1979: the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

    I’m waiting for John Lott to pick up on Will’s piece, citing it as good science.

    Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

    Believers take the low road

    Posted on February 10, 2009 by Michael

    The atheist bus campaign was done with two goals in mind: get people talking about not believing and help them to stop needless worrying. Of course, the second point to that was unlikely to occur, but the intent was at least there. Now some Christian groups, instead of desiring to improve the lives of their fellow humans, just want to take petty jabs.

    Beginning Feb. 9, three separate Christian groups will launch advertisements on more than 200 of London’s buses to convince pedestrians of God’s existence. “It may be unpopular and unpleasant, says David Larlham, the assistant general secretary of London’s Trinitarian Bible Society, a group that distributes bibles worldwide, “but there is a whole lot of truth in the bible that people need to get to grips with.” His organization has paid $50,000 to display posters on 125 of London’s red double-decker buses that quote Psalm 53: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

    Wouldn’t this organization’s time be better spent telling people something at least intended to be useful? With the atheist message – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” – there is the clear intent of easing the stress induced by all the nutty bus messages telling people they’re going to burn in hell. For these Christians, the message is “You’re an idiot if you don’t believe in magic.” They have no interest in doing any good. As with most Christians, their bread and butter issues are really just petty interests with no real concern for other human beings.

    Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

    « Previous Page — Next Page »