From the Associated Press on 19 May 2008: Global Warming does not cause hurricanes. More accurately, the story cites a study conducted by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Tom Knutson indicates that Global Warming is not the cause of the jump in Hurricanes seen in 2005, and it may even lead to a reduction in Hurricanes.

Before you start calling him a Bush Administration hack, it's worth noting that Knutson had been sharply critical of the administration's policies vis à vis Global Warming. Knutson was one of the scientists originally on the bandwagon that Global Warming causes hurricanes in general, and Hurricane Katrina in particular. 

What makes this study particularly interesting is that Knutson actually dared to show data that indicates that the Global Warming alarmists may be wrong about attributing hurricanes to Global Warming. He did indicate that those that appeared would be worse than in the past (more rain and wind), but that there would be no change in number attributed to Global Warming. This may be the first time that a Global Warming proponent has not blindly attributed some natural disaster to Global Warming. 

I've stated in the past that I'm not so much a non-believer in Global Warming as I am a "Show Me" opponent. I need to see hard evidence of the Global Warming trifecta (that (a) it certainly exists, (b) it is certainly caused by human activity (and, thus, reversible by human activity), and (c) it will certainly and inevitably lead to catastrophe) if I am to support some policy aimed at reducing my freedom to save the Earth. The most important thing that this study – by a Global Warming proponent, mind – does is it undermines all the political claims that have been made on the subject. It casts doubt on the Chicken Little politics of Global Warming that attributes every natural anomaly to increasing average temperatures.

What I hope is that we will be able to use this to springboard efforts to have a real and effective debate on Global Warming. Let's listen to opposing points of view rather than ostracizing scientists who disagree with the trifecta. Let's actually work to figure out a cause rather than associating two possibly completely unrelated events (the alleged increased temperatures, and the whole of the industrial age) based solely on their historical juxtaposition. Let's try and really figure out what the damage, if any, will be rather than making ludicrous claims of 20-foot sea level rises, continent-sized hurricanes, and tsunamis caused by Global Warming. And let's stop making this about punishing industrialized nations in general and the US in particular. If there's a problem it's going to take everybody to fix it, not just the US. China, India, and Africa will all need to chip into this pot because they are all going to (allegedly) benefit from it – presuming the trifecta is true. 

A lot more will get done if we take the politics out of the issue and let the scientists do science. We may find that (a) the warming we've experienced is well within the bounds of what is considered normal, (b) that humans have had absolutely nothing to do with it, and thus cannot do anything to reverse it, or (c) it will be neutral or perhaps even beneficial to the world at large if it warms up by a couple of degrees. Or we may find that the Alarmists are right. Problem is, we won't know until we actually investigate it.

Those who study logic or critical thinking invariably come across the list of logical fallacies that are often used in arguments to steer the reader or listener to a particular point of view without using the facts. A common example in the modern world is called the ad hominem, or “Against the man,” argument. An argument ad hominem consists of attacking the credibility of the opponent rather than the substance of his argument. This is common in modern political mud-slinging campaigns, and we’ve listened to it for 7 years directed at the President. Few people debate the substance of President Bush’s arguments, anymore; they simply attack him, calling him an idiot, a liar, or the like.

One popular fallacy, that is one fallacy that is commonly cited as a fallacy, is the so-called Slippery Slope. A Slippery Slope argument basically states that when one, seemingly innocuous, event happens, it will inevitably lead to something far more dangerous. If I purchase one of the Grand Theft Auto games, for example, it is expected that I will inevitably go on a murderous, carjacking rampage as is commonly depicted in the game. Considering that I already own a couple of the editions of that franchise (a former guilty pleasure of mine, admittedly), and I’ve yet to even have the desire to go on any murderous rampages outside the game shows that the “inevitability” argument is not particularly accurate. Another example of a Slippery Slope is the children’s story If You Give a Mouse a Cookie where a child giving a mouse a cookie causes the mouse demand more and more inconvenient things from the child.

The problem with “Slippery Slope” as logical fallacy is that the situations described as slippery slopes are often 100% accurate. An example is the debate, in 1964, over the civil rights bill of that year. Opponents contended that such legislation would bring about not just equality between blacks and whites, but would have blacks call for privileges like racial quotas, reparations for slavery, and the like. Within 20 years, precisely that had happened with affirmative action and other programs meant to support blacks and protect them from white racism.

The Secular Left is trying now to complete a very long slippery slope. The slope they are pushing is one having to do with so-called “Sexual Freedom.” This past Friday, the California Supreme Court defied the People of California, Federal Law, and the natural order of things by setting aside a referendum aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage as one man and one woman. The court has apparently decided that the convenience of a very small minority of people outweighs the rule of law. Gays can now “marry” in California. This is an intermediate step along the slippery slope into making the hedonistic values of Tolerance and Diversity replace the traditional Judeo-Christian values of family and temperance. There’s still a long way to go before the full effect is felt of this disastrous ruling. California is now only the second state whose courts have forced gay marriage on an unwilling public. However, California is also (as I noted in my piece the day before the ruling) a trend-setting state. As they go, so will go a number of other Leftist states. I’d wager Washington, Oregon, New York, Maryland, the rest of New England, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Nevada will follow suit over the next few years.

Making matters worse, forcing us to accept gay “marriage” now will probably lead the Left to force us to accept other “non-traditional” relationships as equal to a normal, one-man-one-woman marriage. I would not be shocked to see polygamy allowed and “regulated” (as the pro drug lobby wants for marijuana) possibly so that it is made “safe, legal, and rare.” The other option is to simply do away with civil marriage – which some feminists decry as tantamount to sexual slavery for the woman – leaving it solely a religious feature with no civil recognition whatsoever. (Let those crazy Christians do what they want, I’m going to have 6 legal, live-in girlfriends.) If I’m not mistaken, that is, in fact, the primary goal of the most leftist of the secular Left: Do away with the traditional family structure. The consequence will most likely be a breakdown in our societal structure.

I realize that’s a pretty damning statement, but consider this: Society is hierarchical. Everything goes from larger units to smaller units. At the top of a society is the central government. It’s power and jurisdiction extend throughout the territory for which it’s responsible, and all the people who live therein. Most central governments on earth have first-level divisions: States, provinces, departments, parishes, districts, prefectures, regions, emirates, oblasts, etc. Those divisions are often themselves divided into what most Americans call “counties.” Under that are usually individual cities, towns, and townships. Finally, at the bottom of the hierarchy is the family, the smallest societal unit. It is in the family that we, as people, are formed into who we will be when we grow up. Influences outside the family can affect this development, but the effect of the parents on the child’s upbringing cannot be understated, even if the parents are aloof and standoffish. Those who ignore their children’s upbringing allow an undue amount of outside influence, and the children will develop unpredictably. Doing away with the family altogether has the effect of allowing the outside influences to take over the development of the child, putting them at the mercy of the schools or the nanny-state government. When the government is the provider of morality, it can shape children into any mold it wants (like the Nazis, Communists, and Islamists, all philosophies where the state is the provider of values.)

There are they who believe that we do not need a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The lot of them are wrong, and the rulings in Massachusetts in 2005 and California earlier this week are proof of that. The lack of such a definition in the Constitution is used to declare alternative “marriages” a right protected by the Constitution.

I pray we can stop this madness. I hope we can stop basing rights on skin color, or voluntary behavior, or political views.  We all have the same rights. There is no call for special privileges for a segment of the population, especially when that segment is not defined by who they are, but by what they do. 

The California Supreme Court (CSC) is set to hear a case in which it will decide whether or not to give gay people the special privilege of allowing two people of the same sex to marry. The debate on same-sex "marriage" has been going on for some time, and, for the moment, doesn't show any signs of stopping any time soon.

Having said that, however, if the CSC rules correctly and does not bestow a special privilege on a small group of people based solely on their voluntary behavior against the wishes of the people of that state (which people have voted in a referendum to ban the privilege), that could put a significant impediment to the momentum of the issue. California is a large and influential state. (Admittedly, to say that is akin to making the controversial proclamation that the Sun is hot or the Pope is Catholic.) As such it tends to set the trends we see in other states, especially the "Blue" states, of which California is generally a very deep shade (at least overall.) While it isn't necessarily "As goes California, so goes the nation" the Left will often follow suit. (California gave us anti-American war protesters in the 60s, now they are everywhere.)

The important thing is that California will have significantly more influence on the issue than did Massachusetts, whose Supreme Court has, rather famously, granted special privileges to gay couples, however that decision mainly served to have a number of states scramble toward varying degrees of banning the practice. Some, like Virginia, ban any sort of official recognition of same-sex relationships in their constitution. Others ban only marriage and don't speak on "domestic partnerships" or the like. Still others have similar bans in their statutory law, but not in their state constitutions. And some have varying recognitions of "lesser" relationships without expressly calling them "marriages."

There is good news here, though. If the CSC does rule correctly, and does affirm the state's right (and the people's rights) to not allow homosexual marriage, it will likely cause the issue of gay marriage to whither. No other state has the influence of California (Note that one commentator called Massachusetts a "one state parade" on the issue) and the Left making headway on this issue will be far more difficult if the CSC does not vote their way.

Here's the whole problem with the issue of what to do about gays who want to marry. The question is not, contrary to what gay activists would have you believe, a case of equal rights for a historically oppressed segment of society. It is in no way similar to the laws preventing blacks and whites to marry. It has everything to do with a segment of the population wishing the government to provide special privileges based on a pattern of behavior which, regardless of the cause, does not conform to societal norms in the modern world. The argument that homosexuality is an inborn trait, or is in some other way uncontrollable is inconsequential to whether or not gays can marry each other. Even presuming that the predilection toward sexual attraction toward members of the same sex is an inherent trait, acting on that attraction is still voluntary and behavioral.

Contrary to the claims of the gay lobby, there has never been a society that has officially recognized "marriage" between two people of the same sex. Yes, homosexuality has been around as long as there have been people. It is recorded a number of times in the Old Testament, for example. There were societies that tolerated that behavior more than is typical nowadays. But none had officially recognized relationships that operate in the same fashion as marriage where two people of the same sex were involved, certainly not in the permanence that is presumed in marriage. The closest one might come is polygamy, but even there the husband is married to a number of women. The individual women are not married to each other.

Marriage is more than a simple expression of love, a civil contract between two persons, or a way to legitimize a sexual relationship. Marriage is a union between two people. It is the start of a family unit, which is the most basic form of "society" to be found. In Christianity (and other religions, as well, but I'm most familiar with Christianity) it is an important, religious experience. The Catholic Church considers it a Sacrament that bestows God's grace on the couple. It's a permanent, life-long bond. Mormons consider it an eternal union. Those on the secularist Left want to reduce marriage to a simple civil contract. They don't even believe in the need to legitimize sexual relationships because sex outside the bounds of marriage is just as OK as sex within it.

The Left, for reasons that, frankly, escape me, wants to do away with marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years. In the perfect world scenario, any romantic bond could be considered marriage. All are equal. Polygamy, homosexuality, random groups of men and women, perhaps even child marriage (which is practiced in some countries) are all morally equivalent to one-man-one-woman marriage. Failing that (primarily because even some liberals know that there's a big moral difference between a real marriage and a polygamous one) they concentrate on pushing through marriage as being a contract between any two consenting adults, whether they be normal or same-sex couples. If that doesn't work (and it hasn't so far), they try to push "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" with some or all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All these arrangements serve to do is cheapen the meaning of marriage.

"Domestic Partnerships" are particularly problematic. It forces the state to do one of two things. Either (a) recognize that any two unrelated, consenting adults living in the same residence have all the rights and privileges of marriage (work benefits, tax breaks, child custody, etc.) or (b) give that privilege only to selected people based solely on their sexual behavior. The first option renders marriage moot because the formal recognition is unnecessary for the benefits. The second option is clearly discriminatory and favors a lifestyle that is both highly immoral and risky to the life and health of the participants. 

The simple solution is to stop the madness. Back away from this precipice. Put marriage back where it belongs: in the hands of heterosexual couples. If gays want to live together, that's fine. If they want to have ceremonies to profess their "love" for each other, feel free. If they want to live in long-term, committed relationships, good for them. But recognize this: Even if (and I don't buy this, but for the sake of argument we'll pretend it might be true) homosexuality is some inherent, genetic trait, and gays have no control over what causes their impulses, the bottom line is that what they do with those impulses is voluntary. The gays for whom I have the utmost respect are those who brave the ridicule of their own "community," recognize the wrongness of their actions and their predilections, and live a celibate life working hard to avoid giving in to those impulses, as difficult a task as that is. 

I've mentioned before how the Left views rights, especially when expressed in the context of "Tolerance and Diversity." In that post, I note that the Left believes: that "rights" include behavioral rights (like homosexuality or illegal immigration); that no one has the right to trample on the exercise of another's behavioral rights; and that rights are without consequence, and that facing the consequences of ones actions is a violation of their rights. To wit, government funding is required for AIDS research, because AIDS – being a consequence of homosexual or other risky behavior – infringes on some people's rights to act in an irresponsible and dangerous fashion. For example.

But that's an incomplete understanding of Leftist rights. There is no simple explanation to explain it, but the best way to understand rights as they are understood by the Left and the Right, is to do a fairly simple comparison.

The Right believes that the freedoms listed in the Constitution, and inferred by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments involve more a prohibition on government conduct than a grant of service. 

For example, the First Amendment states that the government cannot interfere in the religious lives of the people, cannot restrict their ability to speak out either verbally or in print, and cannot restrict their ability to disagree with the government on policy either by protest or petition. 

The Second Amendment states that the government may not interfere in any way with the right of a person to own and carry a firearm or other personal weapon. 

The Third prevents the government from forcing people to allow soldiers to live in their homes without consent. 

The Fourth prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures by police. 

The Fifth lists a host of rights. The government may not:

• Try a person for a crime without an indictment by grand jury
• Try a person twice for the same crime
• Compel someone to testify against themselves or confess to a crime
• Deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
• Take private property for public use without "just compensation."

The Sixth requires the government to provide a jury trial for someone accused and indicted of a crime, and provides the right to counsel in court.

The Seventh requires a jury trial in civil suits whether between private parties or involving the government.

The Eighth prohibits the government from using excessive, cruel, or unusual punishments.

With nearly all of these rights, the government is prohibited from acting in a certain way. Thus the rights are guaranteed only so far as the government's interference is concerned. The only exceptions are the requirement that a trial by jury and appropriate counsel be made available in court proceedings, though a lawyer is not required for civil suits. In those cases, the government must provide the judge, jury, and – in the case of a criminal defendant – counsel.

The basic point is that the government cannot interfere with my beliefs or my property (particularly my firearms). Besides a trial to protect my rights if I am accused of a crime (especially one which I did not commit) the government is not required to supply me with anything to protect my rights.

The Left takes the theory seen in the 6^th and 7^th Amendments and applies them to a whole host of rights, indicating that the government must provide goods and services to protect those rights. For example:

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to abortion. Those who cannot procure one by their own means must have it provided by the government if desired.

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to primary and secondary education, as such the government must provide schools. More recently, the Left wants the government schools to be at least preferred if not compulsory.

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to earn a living, thus if the person cannot or will not work, they must be provided for by the Government. The "right and duty to work" is a feature in most Communist constitutions.

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to shelter, thus those who do not earn enough money to shelter themselves must be provided government housing.

In summary, the Left's idea of rights frequently deals with the government providing some good or service to an individual either free of charge or at a drastically reduced fee. For some Leftist rights (like the right to practice homosexuality) the government doesn't necessarily have to provide anything (though, now the government is being asked to provide recognition and benefits to "non-traditional couples."), but impediments to those rights, even ones outside the government's control, must be dealt with. I cited the example of government funding for researching a disease that is closely tied to risky behavior. But that also comes with a belief that impediments created by other people, either by simple disagreement, or by not patronizing a business you disagree with, are violations of their rights. Consider what happens when Leftists get wind of someone who disagrees with abortion, homosexual conduct, promiscuous behavior, racial quotas, etc. Such critics are branded "intolerant" or "bigoted" or whatever. 

The contrast between rights on the Right and rights on the Left is stark. The Left believes primarily in rights that require that something be provided. Such rights are "granted" by the Government (through the Constitution in some cases, the courts in others) and, thus, can be taken away. On the Right, rights are seen as simply enabling people to do what they wish within their own means. These rights are natural (or "God Given, if you prefer") and merely confirmed in the Constitution. They are not granted by the benevolence of a government that now must be appeased with sacrifice, like some moldy, Babylonian god, but exist regardless of the government, and may not be infringed by the government. 

It is the beliefs of the Left that make up the sense of entitlement that those on the Left feel. Such ideas are expressed in places like the European Union's constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the constitutions of communist countries like China and the late Soviet Union. And they promote a culture of dependence on Government that tends to dilute and destroy the American way of life, which is freedom from government interference and reliance on self.