Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

More denial of the “Climategate” controversy.

December 6, 2009 1 comment

A once well-respected scientific journal has forever tarnished it’s reputation in a manner not seen since…well since earlier this year when the Nobel Committee ‘jumped the shark’. The Scientific American published an article by David Biello titled, “Scientists Respond to ‘Climategate’ E-Mail Controversy”. Except that the only ones who responded were ones involved knee-deep in this scandal, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who I noted before as being disingenuous at best and have a knack for dancing around the issue to give a non-answer. Nobody outside the controversy weighed in the subject in this story.

In fact, very little attention was given to the actual impact of the leaked e-mails and was instead, a platform for which to dance around the issue.

With all the “hot air” surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a “hoax” in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average temperatures to increase—a drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.

Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindle—as do glaciers across the globe; average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 percent since 1750.

Yes the sea ice continues to melt….except when it doesn’t. The article continues on with a basic explanation of the greenhouse theory, as though the readers are inept. Then we get this little gem.

In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. “There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the atmosphere and warming the planet,” said meteorologist Michael Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. “Further increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater disruption.”

Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails’ wording. For example, the word “trick” in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.

What constitutes a “robust consensus” in the universe of Michael Mann isn’t the same as us unwashed peons in flyover country. Perhaps he is unaware of the tens of thousands of scientists who oppose this “consensus. Certainly they qualify as more of a consensus than 2400 politicians, business owners and scientists begging for grant money at the IPCC. Add to that the fact one of the e-mails details a plan to push a scientist out of the peer review process….you know….for the “consensus”.

I guess we’re just too stupid to understand what “trick” and “hide the decline” mean. Here I was thinking the “trick” referred to the manipulation of data to “hide the decline” in temperature readings. In other words, starting with a conclusion and pounding on the facts to make them fit the result YOU want. Maybe that’s what “reconciling observed temperatures” means when deciphered. Perhaps I’m not so stupid after all, Mr. Biello.

This is not the first time Biello has published an article with less than realistic interpretations of actual events. In an article he wrote on November 24th he tried to insinuate that there were no scientific opponents to the AGW theory. Only political ones.

You can judge the emails for yourself at this wonderful searchable database. While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under deadline while being harassed by political opponents.

Note the adjective there. Political, not scientific, opponents. Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory or alternative hypotheses (all of those, in their time, have been shot down and nothing new has been offered in years) but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world government? The return of communism? If that’s the fear, perhaps someone can explain why the preferred solution to climate change offered by former proponents of inaction is nuclear power. Has there ever been a nuclear reactor built anywhere in the world that didn’t rely on government to get it done? Sounds like socialism, doesn’t it? Hello France? USSR? USA?

Not only did this moron have the gall to insinuate that proponents of nuclear power were somehow hypocrites because the government rightly chooses to control the nuclear fuel and that’s allegedly socialism….or something, but he declared definitively, all contrary views to be debunked in some unnamed ethereal manner.

Just another in the long list of leftist moonbats that will do whatever they can to marginalize the significance of this scam on the world. Where do the liberals keep finding these morons?


Climategate, deja vu and the fork in the road.

November 22, 2009 6 comments

I told you that some would try to marginalize this and it has already started.

Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from Paris that skeptics are “taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious.”

Michael Mann, if you recall, is the one responsible for the nefarious and controversial hockey stick graph. Of course, global warming alarmist try to discredit the very real evidence against the graph by attaching the word “myth” to the argument, while simultaneously refusing to address the complaints of skeptics. I like to refer to it as, “The Art of Stigma“. If you can attach a stigma to any issue you can avoid debate and stifle the voices of your detractors. It’s like using the race card.

In a New York Times article Mann is quoted, once again, trying to downplay the relevance of the breach.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

Well I guess that would hinge on what is meant by, “solving a problem”. If by solving a problem he means correcting errant data then fine, but he doesn’t have a great track regarding that. I believe he meant solving the problem of embarrassing data as opposed to errant data. It is a sentiment shared in some of the hacked e-mails. Remember this part?

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Sound familiar? That aside, I suppose CRU’s statement to, “assure this never happens again” is all about openness and transparency. Clearly not secretive. Yeah, I’ve seen this movie somewhere and I know how it ends.

The Times article continues with Mann’s defense of Voodoo science:

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.

This is a prime example of the scientists using only the data that supports their theories and refusing to acknowledge, even going so far as to hide, data that does not. Mann admits it in this article, but tries to trivialize the significance of engaging in censorship science.

More denial of reality:

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site,, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

Gavin Schmidt just tried to detract from this event by proclaiming that not all scientists are nice guys. This goes back to what I said about “refusing to address the complaints of other skeptics”. In no way does the attitude of scientists diminish the content of these e-mails.

You see, Gavin, the difference between you and Newton is his theories are sound and beyond reproach. They can be demonstrated easily and are proven by reality. His theories are simple and to the point, not a duct taped patchwork of uncorrelated graph data, woven together by editing out that which is inconvenient.  Skeptics want you to prove them wrong. Skeptics are skeptical because they desire real unaltered knowledge. They are a fickle bunch. They see a problem — an inconsistency — and they want it solved, not swept under the rug.

All this reminds me of a few historical figures I learned about in my school days. Several men over the centuries dared to question accepted science. They were often chastised and ridiculed for their beliefs. Some were killed for it, others were exonerated, though only long after their deaths. They were brave men who dared say man was not the center of everything. They had the gall to believe that there are things in this existence that are far larger than humanity. Things that lend no compassion nor contempt to pitiful little creatures like us. You see men like Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno dared stand against the might of the Vatican. They are born only once a generation and have the capacity to see issues, not as scientists, but as realists — as skeptics.

So here we are, full circle, poised to repeat history. We have our own Galileos and Brunos, threatened with violence for having the nerve to question accepted science of our new religion — the boldness to act contrary to the mandated narrative our New York Vatican has imposed with their elite group of Cardinals. And yet again, we have those who believe humans are the center of the universe and that whatever happens, human were the only reason for it. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

In the end, we are faced with a simple choice. Will we continue to make the same mistakes of our past or will we choose to heed the lessons of our predecessors?

Global warming fear-mongering “scientists” e-mail hacked.

November 21, 2009 Leave a comment

This is kind of hilarious, if you ask me. It still is even if you don’t. First, NASA had to amend errant temperature data, now this. Apparently, some computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were hacked and some e-mails and documents were placed on the internet. Some of the more incriminating text seems to indicate that data was tampered with and there may have been an effort to marginalize or discredit dissenting scientists.

From James Delingpole’s blog:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

I can’t tell you how big this is. I am sure some will try to dismiss this and/or claim it isn’t real. I imagine the worthless mainstream media will ignore this and you won’t hear about it except on conservative sites, except the few liberal bloggers who will try to marginalize it.

Some more relevant links:

Pelosicare, MediaMutters and the end of the road.

November 9, 2009 Leave a comment
Now with super silly putty action!

Nancy Stretch Pelosi

As you are probably aware of by now, the health care monstrosity (AHCAA.PDF) passed the House with a vote of 220-215. Of course an elated and possibly extraterrestrial Nancy Pelosi celebrated the passage of a bill that will, for the first time in U.S. history, mandate the citizens of this country to purchase a government product under penalty of law. So unless you’re too poor to file taxes, you are indebted to the federal government for the remainder of your working life. That says nothing of how many democrats just hung themselves with this bill. I know one Republican who did.

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

And right on cue MediaMatters For America (more like MediaMatters for our version of America) completely misses the point.

Willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties. Drudge links to and Unruh quotes from a press release by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) that in turn relies on a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation. That section of the letter dealing with “civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance specifies that Camp asked the committee to “discuss the situation in which the taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and not to pay the additional tax.” Thus, the letter is not discussing the penalties for failure to buy insurance, but the penalties for both failing to buy insurance and failing to pay the tax.

So the fact that the government is forcing you to pay is different from when the government is forcing you to pay the second time. And nothing in that means you’ll be arrested…except where it says you’ll be arrested. Right, that makes it so much better. Nothing to see here folks. Carry on.

Then the liberal site goes on to try to ease the fears of its indignant base.

Fewer than 100 people convicted for “willful failure to file or pay taxes” in fiscal year 2008. From the Joint Committee on Taxation letter: “Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008, fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file or pay taxes under section 7203.” [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]

Again they miss (willfully ignorant of) the bigger picture. They even undermine their own argument.

Most delinquent taxes and penalties “collected through the civil process.” The Joint Committee on Taxation letter states:

The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are collected through the civil process. In determining whether a penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable statutory provision, but also by the written policy of the IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to assert or not to assert a penalty. [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]

Exactly, since most people pay their taxes through their paychecks and failure to pay other taxes (e.g. property tax) results in loss of property (relieving you of future tax liability on said property) comparatively few people are actually brought up on tax evasion charges and convicted. Except this instance is one that you will be charged and imprisoned for failure to comply. Expect those conviction figures to increase exponentially. Not to mention unusually high tax penalties.

All that may be moot, as the Senate proposes a particularly tough challenge for Democrats to ram through their ill-advised legislation. Even if the Senate does pass their version, which isn’t likely, it will have to go to committee to merge the bills and then the Stupak amendment (Labeled as selling out womens health and even sexism.) will play a role. Considering how much the left whined for the right to force you to pay for abortions with your tax dollars, there will be a strong effort to remove the pro-life language from the final bill. Then it will be sent back to the House where 39 Democrats already voted against it. I fail to see how this bill will ever make it to the president’s desk.

Liberty dies to thunderous applause.

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause. -- Queen Amidala"

Enjoy it now, morons. You’ve just butchered your careers.

Categories: Opinion, Politics

New York Times may want to reconsider who contributes articles….Nah, it fits their agenda.

November 6, 2009 1 comment

Foot Soldier

Partisan hack Ruy Teixeira, unleashed this horrendous denial of reality upon an unsuspecting public.

TO hear Republicans tell it, Tuesday’s elections, in which their candidates captured the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, were a repudiation of President Obama and indicated a voter shift toward their party. They should calm themselves down. The results don’t show this and, in fact, suggest some rather daunting challenges for the Republicans.

And what might those challenges be? I don’t see any of those listed in this comical delusion. Maybe you forgot to add that list?

Well maybe Mr.Teixeira meant that Republicans might have a bit of an ideology problem. He did somewhat allude to this:

If any repudiation is going on, perhaps it is of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Democrats captured New York’s 23rd Congressional District for the first time since 1872, as Bill Owens defeated Doug Hoffman, the hard-line conservative who forced a moderate Republican out of the race. Mr. Hoffman’s narrow defeat is now likely to embolden conservatives — who far outnumber moderates in the party — to challenge Republican incumbents they find ideologically impure.

That will be a problem for those in the party seeking to emulate the electoral strategies of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. Those men sought to cover up the conservatism of their views in many areas. That was relatively easy to do in governors’ races in an off-year election. It will be harder for candidates to do in national elections in 2010 and especially 2012.

If you had no clue about ideological demographics this might actually make some sense. Here on Earth, however, reality isn’t quite so linear.

First, if there is a conservative uprising (and I agree there is) it won’t be limited to Republican conservatives. No sir, Ruy. Even Democrat conservatives aren’t safe. Half of all conservatives are registered independents and there are alot of us. According to exit polls we independents aren’t too happy with the Democrats. So if there were some “conservative repudiation” as he suggests, then what makes you think the Democrat party is immune to it’s effects? It’s liberal elitist arrogance. That’s what makes him so obstinate.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, he seems to be suffering from the same disease other out-of-touch personalities have. Scozzafava was no moderate. She was a flaming liberal. She was more to the left than the Democrat was and to be honest, most of us conservatives are just fine with a moderate like Owens. Because we “uneducated rednecks” understand principles are more important than party affiliation. We understand that to be a moderate, you actually have to act like one. What we have a problem with is the lack of representation we have received the last 2 decades. I know it’s hard for you to understand, being a foot soldier for George Soros and all, but the center of the American political spectrum is far closer to conservatism than moonbat ass-hattery liberalism.

So now we know there are no actual “daunting challenges” presented in your controversion of fact and logic, let’s continue:

Start with the predictive value of the Virginia and New Jersey victories: there is none. Sometimes the party that wins both those governorships gains seats in the next Congressional election; sometimes that party loses seats. Far more consequential is the historical pattern that the new president’s party tends to lose seats in the first midterm election. Once that is taken into account, as the political scientist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has shown, victories in Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races tell you nothing about who will gain seats in 2010 or how large that gain will be.

Excellent. So he mentions Mr.Abramowitz and now we have one liberal “erudite” attempting validate his nonsensical gibberish by citing incongruous jargon, written by another alleged expert. Maybe afterwards they can give each other a Nobel Prize in self-affirmation. What I find most interesting about this particular excerpt, is the complete spin he put on what Abramowitz actually said.

We already know that 2010 will be a midterm election year. That means that there is a very high probability that Democrats will lose seats in the House of Representatives and a better than even chance that they will lose seats in the Senate as well. The tendency of the president’s party to lose seats in Congress, especially in the House of Representatives, is one of the best known regularities in American politics.

Somehow, that’s not the same message I got from Mr.Teixeira’s op-ed. Since I respect Mr.Abramowitz’s opinion far more than a jack boot Soros minion, I’ll defer to his judgement. I could go on, but I think that says it all.

Knowing there is no reasonable explanation for posting this prattle of yours, Mr.Teixeira, normally I would question your motives. Except I just don’t think you needed a motive. You had your marching orders…


Emperor Zurg

Categories: Moonbats, Opinion, Politics

Democrats to keep including illegal immigrants in census data.

November 6, 2009 Leave a comment

…and the spin from the left was undeniable before this took place.

If Vitter were successful — and if non-citizens were excluded from the census count for congressional apportionment — states with fewer immigrants would fare significantly better in the upcoming allocation of House seats.

Yes, how dare those legal citizens demand more say in their government than the standing army of illegal immigrants! What right do they have to demand that? La Raza deserves more influence. They should just shut up and let the government do what it needs to do. I mean, we need more pro-amnesty “representatives” in congress. Then we can get more people voting….

This is not unexpected. While some people will tell you, “just because they’re counted doesn’t mean they get a vote,” the truth is it will cause some votes to count more than others. If a blue state with 10 representatives has more illegal immigrants than a red state with 10 representatives and you end up counting those illegals, you now give the blue state more say in the federal government. True states like Texas would benefit, but so would California and swing states like New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Nevada and the representatives they send would likely be Democrats.

Districts are determined by population and if you have a Democrat-leaning district (as is likely with low-pay areas) with enough illegal immigrants then you must redraw the district lines. Possibly splitting that district in two or having parts merge into other districts, effectively marginalizing the parent district’s voters. Districts MUST be equal in population, so illegal immigrants can influence the vote without ever casting a ballot.

According to the Constitution of the United States, this decennial census has one fundamental purpose: to ensure that number of seats each State has in the U.S. House of Representatives reflects the relative size of the State’s population as compared with other States. Currently there are 435 representatives divided among the 50 States. Each of these representatives is elected by the voters of a congressional district, defined as an area established by law for the election of representatives to the U.S. Congress. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in the State as practicable, based on the decennial census count.

To continue this practice is nearly treasonous. What other country gives their illegal immigrants a drivers license and welfare, instead of pinstripes and handcuffs? Of course, why not give them a silent vote too?

The borders need to be closed and businesses who employ them should be prosecuted. Politicians who dangle the amnesty carrot and pander for votes instead of advocating principles are complicit in every crime committed by these criminals.

How many Dani Countryman’s and Adrienne Shelley’s will it take?

Gay marriage struck down in Maine.

November 4, 2009 Leave a comment

While much of the country was tuned into the state elections in Virginia, New Jersey and the special congressional election in the NY-23rd district, there was a vote going on in Maine. No, it wasn’t to elect some RINO fund-sucking leftist. It was a referendum on gay marriage that repealed a law allowing gay marriage in Maine and passed by a slim margin. Gay marriage has now lost all 31 states it has been put to popular vote. Of course the cries of “HOMOPHOBE” are heard far and wide:

“I’m ready to start crying,” said Burnett, a 58-year-old massage therapist, walking out of the ballroom with Swanson at her side. “I don’t understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.

“It hurts. It hurts personally,” she said. “It’s a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don’t understand what the fear is.”

Let me enlighten you: It’s not fear. It’s the institution stupid.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” said Frank Schubert, the chief organizer for Stand for Marriage Maine, which lobbied for the repeal.

Personally, I couldn’t care any less about gays and their lifestyle as long as it’s kept out of schools and isn’t in-your-face like a San Fransicko gay arrogance pride parade.

Of course you have the bleeding-heart morons who will completely distort the reason for opposition to gay marriage:

Portland resident Sarah Holman said she was torn, but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

“They love and they have the right to love. And we can’t tell somebody how to love,” said Holman, 26.

Conservative upbringing? Why was that even mentioned? Nevermind, we all know why. The point was never about their ability to love or with whom the felt that way, it’s always been about what marriage is and should remain. The proponents know this but they’d rather push for special-status of a “protected” group. Which, of course, negates the whole “equality” argument. Marriage is, and should remain, a religious ritual.

If you want the tax breaks, argue that. If you want rights as a spouse, argue that. Stop forcing everyone else to accept your “lifestyle”.

Of course that will never happen as long as there is money to be had. The money keeps flowing and the pride-pushers will keep whining:

“We’re in this for the long haul,” said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. “For next week, and next month, and next year — until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

A similar note was sounded by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law last May and spoke out in defense of the law.

“If we don’t get to the top of the mountain tonight, we’ve made a significant stride. And we’re going to get there,” he said late Tuesday. “We will get to the top of the mountain.”

A significant stride indeed. I can’t wait to see what’s next:

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, said the state of marriage in American society is already undermined by high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates.

Gay marriage, he said, will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships are in. He points to a decade of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen.

“The idea of marriage is outdated,” he said. “Parents lost the sense that marriage was about being a parent.”

Kurtz said he does not anticipate a future “patchwork” of state laws in which some will be gay marriage-friendly while others will not recognize the unions. Either a uniform definition of marriage between a man and a woman will be affirmed or not. In the case of the latter, he warned, “We will eventually turn into Scandinavia.”

Like I said, I can’t wait…

Categories: Opinion, Social Issues