Ban This

"Ban." It's all in the choice of words. As in, "The ban on gay marriage."

There is no "ban" on gay marriage. There is a definition of "marriage" provided by the legislature. This is hard for the media, such as the Seattle Times, to accept. So, they call a definition a ban.

The manipulation of language by the media is nothing new and not what's most disturbing about the gay marriage nonsense, but instead the extent to which government has lost its head. Proving the present breakdown and dysfunction of our overly meddlesome government, Washington State's Supreme Court had a hard time upholding the plain definition provided by the Legislature. Our tri-partite form of government, with roles for each of the three parts clearly defined, requires the Court to defer to the law-making power of the Legislature. The Court's role is to interpret these laws, not to make them, and not even to render an opinion as to whether a specific law is a good thing or a bad thing (in their opinions). Meanwhile, the Legislature is free to define anything it wants, as long as it does not tread on a Constitutional right.

Washington's banana court performed its defined function, just barely, while blowing a gasket. The plethora of blowhard opinions from the various idiots on the Court shows just how difficult it was to stay in line. On top of that, even in the ruling statement, the Court found multiple ways to express their view that they don't like the definition of marriage provided by the Legislature.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington."

Oh, OK, so sometimes they do like the initiative process. And, we know what the self-rightous folks on the Court would like as a result from such a process:

"... a judge's understanding of the law is separate and distinct from his or her personal views aboud sound policy."

I thought we already knew that one. The Court is just realizing this? At any rate, redefining marriage is clearly what they would like to see. Moreoever, they'd love to be the self assigned authority doing the defining, but in this case had a hard time making that final step to anarchy with something so much in the public's eye. Don't think they are above it, though, because they have not only redefined some things but even created laws having wide impact over the citizens of the state, such as "meretricious relationship."

All of this provides a reason why government should indeed dramatically redefine marriage, but not along the lines of what our robed masters would like to see. In fact, government should redefine itself out of the entire topic of marriage. From the standpoint of citizens, government, and the Courts specifically, marriage is nothing more than a squishy, ill-defined contract. It is different things at different times and especially in different courts. As in the case of the judicial invention of meretricious relationship, sometimes people who aren't married find that one branch of government magically says they are married. All in all, government has shown itself to be an incompetent and irresponsible arbiter of the institution of marriage.

Two individuals wishing to join in a union could do a better job than any of the branches of Washington State government. People should be free to define their own marriage contracts. Moreover, they should be free to call the contract whatever the hell they want. Could be "marriage," could be "helliage." If they don't want to go to the trouble of writing their own contract, they could use one provided by their institution of choice. For some, that would be their church. For others, a standard contract downloaded from the Internet. The Seattle Borg, who hate to think for themselves, could always just use one defined for them by government, which could provide it's own recommended contract. And, if a couple does nothing, they have no contract.

A man can contract a with another man. A Woman can contract with a woman. There would be no limitations except what is imposed by existing contract law, such as the fact that both parties have to be of sound mind in order to enter into the contract. Unfortunately for some of the more perverse residents of the state, that would exclude animals. Fortunately for the rest of us, that would also exclude children.

Then, maybe our state government could get on with doing the things government is good at doing, or at least those things that are best left to government. Definitions and redefinitions of marriage sure aint one of them.

So, yeah, let's use the initiative process. Let's use it to ban all three branches of government from ever uttering the word "marriage" again.

There's more! Click to read

Mysogony Is Hard to Find, But Brodeur Is Up to the Task

The Seattle Times vagina warrior columnist Nicole Brodeur has got herself worked up into a feminist frenzy again. This time, she’s wrangling with angst over the fact that Seattle Center will host Summer Errotica.

Why is she upset? Well, she uses the usual feminist tactic of trying to fool you with concern for children and families. She worries there might be some around during the Summer Errotica activities. Oh the horror.

That gave me the suspicion that her gender feminist perspective was the true source of her summer of discontent. You see, in her world, it’s bad for women if they are seen dancing sensually for the viewing pleasure of men. (Now, women dancing erotically for the viewing please of other women is another matter entirely). Somehow, this shows patriarchal control and oppression. Strangely, the power these women have over men, who will pay to see them, doesn’t get factored into the equation.

Of course I found I was right as I read on:

But Seattle Center is not the place for all-but-bare-naked ladies with names like Vivacious (if you have any doubt, see www.summererotica.com), private rooms and champagne. Or misogyny.

“Or misogyny.” ? Now, I haven’t seen anything about Summer Erotica that spews hatred for women. Of course, Nicole only hints that mysogony will be present to spoil Seattle Center for all of the city's angry feminists; she doesn't explain exactly what she is referring to. To me, if anything, it looks like Summer Erotica is full of a great appreciation for women. But, these sorts of things leave Nicole, not quite the looker herself, upset. What she wont say, but implies, is that Summer Erotica will be misogynistic because men will be looking at beautiful women. They aren’t looking at her. She should call it misoNICOLyny.

You see, there is very little that occurs in the world for a true believing gender feminist like Nicole Brodeur that does not involve misogyny. She dreams about it. She finds it in her morning coffee. She sees it in men admiring the shapely curves a half naked dancer. And, equaly in those men that are turned off by her own negative attitude. And, when she can’t find something misogynistic to be miserable about, she turns to ruminating about the injustice of made-up statistics, like the non-existent wage gap between men and women.

I've got a suggestion for you Nicole. Head out to Summer Errotica and just enjoy yourself. Maybe you’ll even find a guy there that even wants to look at you.

There's more! Click to read

Global Warming Getting Less Credible

Global Warming Silliness 

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today that debunks the mutual admiration society and hysteria-based psuedo-science behind global warming evangalism.

They make two points. First, in the graphic above, they show that until recently scientists agreed on the historical temperature chart at top, which showed a warm period, a mini-ice age, and then the current warm period. But, this chart was a problem for global warming fanatics, so paleoclimatologist Michael Manna eliminated the warm and cold periods through a statistical averaging technique in a 1999 paper. He came up with the bottom chart. Obviously, the bottom chart is much more alarming and allows for the claim of a "hockey stick" rise in temperatures. But to believe in it, you have believe that there really was no mini-ice age in the middle ages, while there is significant documended evidence of this cold span from the people who lived in Europe at the time.

The problem is that Mann is not a statistician. Actual statisticians have looked at his analysis and found it deeply flawed. From the WSJ:

The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

So, basically, Mann is either stupid, or he choose a statistical method that allowed him to get the result he wanted - a scary hockey stick. Does this mean that global warming does not exist? No, it does not. It simply means that Mr. Mann provided absolutely no evidence that it does. This is the problem with this entire topic. There is no scientific proof, just a set of theories that have not been appropriately challenged through peer review. It's as if Chicken Little declared the sky was falling, and then just because the media picked up on his hysteria, everyone believes it. Those rational sorts questioning the status of the sky are left desperately trying to show reasons why it's not falling.

Then, of course, you have scientists declaring that "global warming" is causing a shifting in Atlantic ocean currents that will cause a mini-ice age in Europe, just like the one it experienced in the middle ages!

Researchers at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, England, found that the flow of warm ocean currents toward northwest Europe has declined by 30 percent since the 1950s.

But, wait, you say, the obvious problem here is that the global warming club declared that the mini-ice age in middle ages did not really occur. But, since we know it did, what caused it? Surely there wasn't human activity induced global warming at that time that shifted the ocean currents.

If it reminds you of some of the social sciences that end up with obviously untrue statements of fact, such as "1 in 3 women experience domestic violence," it should. It's all part of the same attitude towards science and especially statistics. For this crowd, the most important thing is to believe something, usually something scary. Then, to get the rest of us onboard or to get government funding, they mold numbers and statistical analysis to support their belief, as opposed to test it.

What regular references to Mann's analysis does prove is that you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers. The global warming consensus is much like a fashion trend among high school students. Interestingly, the WSJ also points out that social networking experts looked at the group of global warming alarmist scientists and found them to be a strangely interconnected tribe. As the the WSJ editorial says, they appear to be a "mutual adminiration society." The social network also seems to have Mann at its center. This hardly works in science, where peer review is essential.

So, I'm still looking for evidence that I should be worried about global warming. The fact that Mayor Gregg Nickels and King County Executive Ron Sims say that global warming is real does not help me believe. In fact, quite the opposite. The special global warming departments they set up at our expense do nothing more than beat the drums of hysteria to get us all to follow their cause. Those two, plus Al Gore, and most of the rest of the hysterics on this cause leave me believing less and less in global warming. And, when the Seattle newspapers declare it to be so, I become convinced that it aint.

Thus far, global warming seems more like an assertion in which non-believers are forced to prove a negative. If I say, "Martians visited earth 2 billion years ago." And you say, "I don't believe that." Following the global wariming method, I simply respond with, "Prove they didn't." How ya gonna prove that?! This is the current state of discourse on global warming. It's a fun and profitable target for the media, a cause for politicians, and has been asserted so much that it has become conventional wisdom. So, if you don't believe it, you're stuck proving a negative.

Problem is, that doesn't make it true. Unless you believe me when I say Martians visited the earth 2 billion years ago. Which is something that I really actually believe. They came in the form of bright orange iguanas who seeded the earth with life and their own DNA. But, something went wrong in the process and humans popped out in charge 2 billion years later. Which is really too bad, because if Martian iguanas had succeeded as the master race, I highly doubt they'd be going hysterical over global warming right now. They'd wonder why it is so cold and then go find a warm rock in the sun to lay on.

There's more! Click to read

The Status Quo in Old Mejico

For those Americans that are really interested in the source of the illegal immigration problem from Mexico, Denise Dresser continues to provide the best insight into a country with dysfunctional political and economic systems. You can find Dresser's English articles in the LA Times. If you can read Spanish, her best articles are in Mexico City's Reforma newspaper.

Just prior to the disputed July 2 presidential election, Dresser had the following to say about the leftist contender Lopez Obrador. (The opinion column from June 26 seems to have disappeared from the LA Times web site).

Lopez Obrador’s popularity is a symptom of Mexico’s failed efforts to modernize through halfhearted, neoliberal reform over the past 20 years. Mexico followed the free-market path mapped out by the “Washington consensus.” But it did it badly, with botched privatizations that transferred public monopolies into private hands and with economic reforms that benefited a handful of businessmen but not enough consumers.

The result: an economy that doesn’t grow enough, a business elite that doesn’t compete enough, an economic model that concentrates wealth and doesn’t redistribute enough of it and 50 million Mexicans living on less than $4 a day. For too many, the continuity offered by the National Action Party’s Felipe Calderon would mean simply more of the same.

Since Dresser said this in her LA Times column, the July 2 election has come and gone. The PAN’s Felipe Calderon won the election by a narrow margin, which Obrador disputes. In fact, there were some irregularities in the vote count, but nothing so far that indicates fraud.

The ruling class of Mexico, which has aligned itself with Calderon now that he seems to have won the election, is resisting a recount. Dresser rightly says that the only way to put the potential civil unrest Obrador can stir up to bed is to go forward with the recount.

Mexico needs to review the votes in order to move beyond the paranoid style of its current politics — especially now that Lopez Obrador seems intent on destroying the country with the hope of governing it someday. Instead of keeping a cool head, he is butting it against everything he can: President Vicente Fox, the Federal Electoral Institute, the media, international observers and all those who believe that although irregularities might have occurred, massive fraud did not.

Once again he has resorted to the "all or nothing" approach that has become his trademark. He is confronting his opponents, encouraging conflict; he wants the presidency or else he vows to unleash civil unrest.

Paradoxically, the only way to rein him in would be precisely through the recount he has been pushing for.

This might help avert the civil unrest and protests that hotheaded Obrador is already pushing. Sadly, neither candidate is likely to reform Mexico’s economy. Obrador is a false prophet who would redistribute wealth, but through government programs as opposed to instituting competition in the economy and taking down the manifold protections that keep economic power in a small number of hands. His brand of “reform” would be backwards moving and leave the economy in even worse shape. If President Fox (also from the PAN) is any indication, Calderon will not take on the challenge of giving anti-trust law in Mexico some teeth. His only source of power after a disputed election will come from the ruling elite. He may yet surprise us, as his ascendancy within the PAN and then victory in the election were indeed surprises.

Either way, the tide of illegal immigrants is likely to continue. One might think that Obrador’s government programs would entice more to stay in Mexico, but those that leave are actually looking for opportunity and upward mobility, not government hand-outs.

The US is left where it was prior to the election. Mexico needs to be pushed in order to reform its economy. Businessmen like Carlos Slim, who own vast monopolies that constrain the economy, will not volunteer to give up the special protections the government and twisted Mexican law provide. But, nobody in Congress seems to be talking about this, when pressure from the US is about the only force that can (and has) push Mexican politicians to change. Our representatives are either bloviating about building a wall and deploying the military on the border, or they are far off on the left, talking about human rights as if they have any sort of relevance to illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Expect more of the status quo.

There's more! Click to read

Mass Transit is Good?

Wait, tell me again why Seattle wants a mass transit rail system?

Since they put a large number of people into one easily accessible location open to the public, these transit systems seem more and more like aggregators of people for the convenience of terrorists.

If Seattle really wanted to be innovative, it would stop fighting our love of cars, and think in terms of getting traffic on our roads and highways to move faster. The goal should be to reduce average trip time (the time it takes you to go from Point A to Point B in your car) by half, thus reducing car exhaust by half. That means fixing the capacity problems on I-5, especially through downtown. It also means more logical exit and entrance ramps into downtown Seattle from I-5.

On top of that, the city could give credits to employees working for businesses in the city that drive fuel efficient cars to work, instead of taxing businesses for having employees. (My God, how stupid is that?!)

These ideas don't fly in Seattle and King County because Mayor Nickels and KC Executive Ron Sims want to control more money, build bureaucracies, and make people dependent on them. They hate the idea of the freedom of movement and independence automobiles provide.

There's more! Click to read

King County Thugs

More police state inflicted violence in everything-is-oh-so-precious Seattle. Read it here in the Stranger.

This is another story that unveils the dark side of a city that pretends to be all about non-violence and every other politically correct thing under the sun, but is super-stressed about controlling every little aspect of your life they can get their hands on.

A member of Critical Mass, a group of cyclists that heads out in mass to take-over Seattle streets, was attacked by a plain-clothed police officer as the cyclist held up traffic at an intersection so the large group of cyclists could pass through without smacking into a car. Bad behavior on the cyclist’s part in terms of sharing the roads, but hardly unexpected given the whacky behavior official Seattle seems to encourage, particularly from anything smacking of “environment friendly.”

The whole incident got started when Jace Brien, 18, rounded a corner at the intersection of Western Avenue and Vine Street after biking up a long hill with several hundred other Critical Mass bikers. Seattle Critical Mass is a loosely organized ride across the city that takes place every month as a "share the road" demonstration by cyclists. They're usually a ragtag group of bike messengers, students, anarchists, and families riding to remind drivers, via peaceful civil disobedience, to respect bike riders' rights on the road. Friday's ride was the largest in months, with over 200 bicyclists filling the streets.

Riding up the hill on the approach to the intersection, however, the bikers got spread out. Roughly half of the cyclists had already passed through the intersection, blocking traffic as they rode through a red light. Critical Mass riders often encounter impatient motorists who try to drive through the demonstration and have a method called "corking" to keep drivers at bay as a herd of bikers rides through the light. So, Brien rode a little ahead of a clump of bikers and took up position in the Western and Vine intersection. He halted in the middle of the crosswalk, waving his arms at the cars and telling them to stop as bikers started whizzing through the intersection behind him.

The Critical Mass witnesses say:

"He looked like a Seahawks fan with a long, baggy shirt, baggy shorts, and sunglasses. A big beefy guy," says witness and Critical Mass rider Graylan Vincent who submitted a sworn testimony to Speikers. Brien, more on the string-bean side, claims he was afraid the guy was going to beat him up, so he immediately jumped on his bike and rode away. Another guy—equally bulky and baggy with a shaved head—got out of the van, chased after Brien and tackled him to the ground.

Vincent remembers the guy didn't say anything, there were no gestures or verbal warnings. "That was scary. The driver made a beeline toward [Brien] and grabbed him and threw him to the ground. He had this look in his eye like his blood was boiling." Several Critical Mass riders say they saw the man hitting Brien's head into the pavement and kneeing him in the back. A crowd of bikers formed, yelling at the beefy guy and snapping pictures with cell phones.

Treisman rode into the intersection and saw his friend on the ground with the "Seahawks fan" on top of him. Treisman dropped his bike and leapt onto the attacker, grabbing his neck in a chokehold.

The cops say:

Sheriff's department spokesman Rodney Chinnick says that contrary to the witness reports, the officers repeatedly identified themselves. First, the officers sounded an air horn and siren noise while the first pack of bikers rode through the intersection. When Brien arrived a few minutes later and blocked their van, the officers say they sounded the air horn and siren twice.

After Brien dropped his bike and "challenged" them, Chinnick says, an officer stepped out, held up a badge and said, "You're under arrest." Brien fled and the second officer jumped out of the car and flashed a badge before tackling him. The officers also say they heard someone in the crowd of bikers yell, "What's the charge?" so someone, they argue, knew they were police.

Someone knew? Big fucking deal! It was hardly obvious that these two were cops, even if you believe the King County Sheriff story. Check out the photos of these two in The Stranger.

So, you are supposed to assume that anyone that attacks you wearing gang-banger clothes and big flashy necklaces is a police officer? Look, even if two thug-looking guys like these two jump out their car and yell that they are police officers, and then attack you, it would be hard to assume they were really cops. How can any sane person not react in fear, run, or fight for their life? In fact, the rational thing to do, and certainly the natural and instinctive self-preservation response, would be to fight back or run if you can. And, if it’s your friend getting hammered on the ground by these thugs, the natural and honorable thing to do would be to try to help your friend. Go kick some ass, or at least try.

This is the sort of shit that happens in the twisted police state we have here in Seattle and King County. The police are forced by state and local laws to do too much. Their focus should be much narrower and on major crime, the sort of crime that breaks down society if left unchecked. As things are now, if you are even slightly aware of your surroundings, you know you need to live in a state of low-grade paranoia.

Law enforcement officers deserve our respect and society requires that we obey them when they are doing their job. First we have to know that they are officers and not thugs. In the heat of the moment, not many people are going to be analyzing the situation or seeking constructive communication when they think two thugs are after them.

Police should be clearly identifiable. If a police officer is going to chase down and slam a biker into the street right in front of a crowd, there should be no question in anybody’s mind that he is a police officer. He should be hopping out of a squad car with lights flashing, in full uniform, and have a big shiny badge sparkling in the sun.

Yes, there are some investigations that require police officers to be in plain clothes. But, when those officers are in plain clothes, they should be required to behave as regular citizens while passing through the city, except under extreme circumstances. When this bike group passed through the intersection, all the rest of us regular citizens would have to sit and wait, regardless of the fact the bikers were obnoxiously going through a red light and clogging up traffic. We can't just act on our rage that we are getting slowed down by a bunch of self-righteous bikers. The gang-banger disguised (or was it a disguise?) cops ought to do the same. Once the cyclists made their way through the intersection, those King County under-cover thugs could have gone about their business.

Imagine these two guys stomping into your home because your ex-wife is making false allegations against you as part of a divorce proceeding. No wonder you read about so many confused men caught in these situations fighting back. They’ve done nothing wrong, their life is in turmoil, and then the next thing they know they’ve got two of these King Count Sheriff thugs with guns knocking their door down. It's hardly surprising to periodically read in the papers about one of these men fighting back to protect their home and eventually getting shot and usually killed by an officer. If you keep your eye out for it, you'll see it happens more than a few times per year in Seattle. It's the dark secret that you wont hear officials from SPD and the Sheriff discuss.

I actually think the cops get too much grief from people. They have tough jobs and can’t be perfect. These two were acting like thugs, however, so I don’t pity them. But, I generally blame the over-reaching and over-reaction of police on the law-makers telling them what to do, not the law officers themselves.

King County and Seattle would be much better off if they stopped expecting police departments to enforce a politically correct vision of utopia and allowed them to focus on policing the basic things that are needed to keep a society from falling apart. And, while they are at it, chill out on the traffic enforcement. Go catch someone out their selling crack to teenagers instead. Until that happens, we’ll read about another case similar to this one before the year is out, probably a few more men shot to death in their homes by police who provoke them through over-response on supposed domestic violence calls, and more next year and beyond.

There's more! Click to read

933 Is Not the Source of Controversy

Property rights Initiate 933 is not controversial, as suggested by the Seattle Times. The overbearing regulation of government in Washington State, and especially King County with its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), are the source of controversy. 933 simply says that Washington State and King County governments have not and cannot overthrow the long-held regime of property rights we have enjoyed in this country.

There's more! Click to read