Causality? Or Mere Correlation?

The Associated Press is reporting that a new study out of a Canadian University “adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation has a physical basis.” A professor at Michigan State University quoted in the story goes further, stating that the study “absolutely” confirms a physical basis/cause for homosexuality.

Granted, I have not read the study itself. All I have read is the Associated Press story about the study. But after having read that story, I was left with the inescapable impression that, either the AP writer failed to include all the findings that back up the bold conclusion regarding a physical basis for sexual orientation, or the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is extremely weak, at best.

According to the story, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Saint Catherines, Ontario studied a total of 944 persons, taking note of the number and gender of each man’s siblings, and whether the siblings were related by blood or adoption. What he found was that, as opposed to the stated overall rate of homosexuality in men of three percent, men with older biological brothers saw that rate jump to five percent.

Somehow, despite the fact that this still leaves ninety-five percent of the men with older brothers as heterosexual, the always-rational minds of academia – with no agenda-driven motivation, mind you – tell us that this proves that there is a physical prenatal cause.

Never mind the still much larger occurrence of heterosexuality in the group singled out. Never mind that the common factor between the homosexual men studied – older biological brothers – is only one of several that could be cited as possible causes. Never mind that no information is given as to what portion of the overall male homosexual population that this group comprises. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here of the difference between correlation and causality.

It seems the study shows a correlation between older male biological siblings and homosexuality, albeit a very miniscule one. But even granting that, it falls a long way from establishing causality.

The past several Boston Marathons have been won by black men. There is a correlation there. But it does not prove that success at road racing is determined by skin color. But that is the conclusion that the logic in this story would lead one to.

People who know me know how I feel about homosexuality and, based on what anyone can read at other places on this site, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to surmise. But even if I were to grant that there may be a physical cause that affects a miniscule portion of the population in the way claimed – leaving aside the question of whether that alone would make such behavior justifiable – and that the evidence for it is out there somewhere, what is revealed in this story is most certainly not that piece of evidence.

As I noted, I have not read the study – and likely won’t. So I will happily acknowledge that perhaps there is some vital piece of data revealed in it that the AP story left out, and I’ll be happy to consider it, if anyone cares to provide it. In the meantime, I’ll echo the comment of Professor Digory Kirke – of Chronicles of Narnia fame – in asking what kind of logic are they teaching students in schools nowadays.

More Thorough Recap

For a more thorough recap of the Lincoln County Reagan Day Dinner, as part of a larger post on the Senate race in general, go here.

You Might Not Like This, But . . .

I know I’m probably going to get a lot of you mad at me for what I’m about to say, but it’s an issue that’s in the news, and I feel compelled to say it anyway. So let’s get on with it: I am not at all comfortable with the idea of amending the Constitution to allow Congress to ban “flag desecration” – whatever that means.

Of course, in practice, it refers to the desire on the part of many to allow the government to pass laws prohibiting the burning of the American flag as a means of protest or political expression.

Let me go ahead and say up front that I am offended as much as the next man when I see anyone burning an American flag as a means of “expression,” especially when the person in question is an American himself. And I agree with many that appealing to the First Amendment’s protection of Freedom of Speech is a very weak argument in the attempt to justify a means of “expression” that demonstrates such a lack of intellect and creativity on the part of those who choose to employ it.

“Expression” and “Speech” can be two very different things. As noted by the editors of National Review, initiating a brawl can be a means of expression, but no reasonable person would argue that such is protected by the First Amendment. “Freedom of Speech” is, in fact, an errant argument to use against the amendment. But it is not the only one that can be made. There is one that, I believe (failing anyone coming forward to – rationally – convince me otherwise), is rational and conservative.

The fact is that those who express concerns over the proposed amendment on First Amendment grounds are not reading far enough down in the Constitution – not surprising since, for many, the Constitution begins and ends with the First Amendment, but that’s the subject for another day.

The argument that I would make against this amendment – one that I haven’t yet heard anyone in the current iteration of this debate discuss – has more to do with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments than the First. These are amendments that make clear the recognition of the right of American citizens to own private property that, all things being equal, cannot be seized or appropriated by the American government.

Many of my friends and associates have heard me say this, but for those who haven’t, if I burn someone else's flag (which I would never do), prosecute me for theft/destruction of someone else's property.

If I take a flag from public property to burn (which I would never do), prosecute me for destruction of public property.

If I endanger lives by burning a flag (which I would never do), prosecute me for reckless endangerment, or whatever the proper charge.

But if I purchase a flag with my own money, take it to my home, and do whatever damage I want to it, including burning it, within the confines of existing law (which I would never do) I don't see how anyone could make a reasonable case against me. Unless we're willing to say that all U.S. Flags are considered public property. But if that’s the case, why doesn’t the government itself provide every citizen with a flag, rather than our having to lay out our private dollars to procure one? And if government can, with the stroke of a pen, establish control over one piece of property that I own, what’s to stop it from doing the same with any piece of property that I own?

Of course, on a separate level I understand that many see this issue as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and make a stand against the overreaching of the judiciary that has become so rampant in recent years. But I would argue that the courts’ misinterpretation of the laws and their original intent is not necessarily a reflection of a flaw in the law itself as written, therefore there is not a need to rewrite it. The way to address this particular problem is for the people to elect presidents and senators who will ensure that nominees to the federal bench will not use their position to “establish” case law to satisfy some agenda that they personally feel is necessary.

Is the desecration of such a significant symbol of our nation’s glory a cause to be offended? To be sure. But there is no guarantee or right, constitutional or otherwise, against being offended. Frankly, there’s a lot more things going on in America that I wish more people were offended by. Our culture engages in ongoing attempts to assault/desecrate values and institutions that stand to do far more damage to the republic than the destruction of an individual banner. And the answer to this issue has more to do with persuasion than it does coercion to the detriment of basic American liberties. Yes, this is the slippery slope argument, but some slippery slopes really do pose dangers to those who ignore them.

Reagan Day Dinner

Thursday, June 22 saw the Lincoln County Republican Party hosting its second Reagan Day Dinner and Silent Auction at the Lincoln County Museum in Fayetteville. Around 50 attended the event – not the largest gathering by any means, but not bad for a small county, that was competing with a gubernatorial campaign kickoff on the same night.

The evening started off with a buffet meal provided by Angie’s Catering, as the Silent Auction was conducted during the first hour. Once again, several local businesses and individuals made quality donations that provided a little extra revenue for the LCRP as the evening went on.

The Republican candidates in attendance to get a little face time in with area Republicans, even as they too availed themselves of the good food that was served. Those candidates who were able to attend – and who spoke later in the evening – included: Gwen Shelton (Candidate for Mayor of Fayetteville), Sarah Black (Candidate for State Republican Executive Committee), Ray Burns (Candidate for Tennessee House of Representatives – 39th District), Alan Pedigo (Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives – Tennessee’s 4th District), Senator Bill Ketron (Candidate for re-election in Tennessee’s 13th Senatorial District), Mark Albertini (Candidate for Governor), Ed Bryant (Candidate for U.S. Senate), and Van Hilleary (Candidate for U.S. Senate). Paul Fassbender was also in attendance on behalf of U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Corker.

At 8:00 P.M., the Silent Auction concluded, and, following a prayer on behalf of the troops currently serving in the War on Terror, introduction of the various speakers began. With the majority of the remainder of the evening reserved for the U.S. Senate candidates, each of the other candidates was given a couple of minutes to introduce themselves and make the case for the voters in attendance to support them.

As the evening neared its conclusion, Mr. Fassbender was given the opportunity to speak on behalf of Bob Corker, while Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary each made personal pleas for the attendees to support their primary campaign, while noting the major issues that they hope to be able to deal with in the next Congress.

Much like the previous year’s version, the Reagan Day Dinner was the source of great stress to the organizers beforehand, and a source of great satisfaction afterwards. Many thanks go out to Farris Beasley for arranging for the nice facility, Laura Mayer for her work in collecting donations of items for the Silent Auction, Duane and Sarah Black for their work in preparing the facility, and Tanya Harwell for her leadership in arranging and decorating the venue.

Busy Time

Sorry for the lack of recent posts, but this is definitely my busiest time of year with regard to church, family, and party obligations. I'm currently finalizing the plans for tomorrow night's Lincoln County Reagan Day Dinner. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to some normalcy (a relative term, as far as I'm concerned) soon. In the meantime, you can have a look at my recap of the SMTRMC meeting here.

JLH

Here's An Idea

I see from a story in Tuesday’s Washington Times that Democrats are trying to find a way to improve their image in, and thus their ability to get votes from, the military community.

Apparently a meeting of Democrat staffers was held in the basement of the Capitol Building in which this very topic was discussed. It is no secret that the military vote has favored Republicans for some time now and went overwhelmingly to President Bush in the most recent national election. It is understandable that Democrats would want to try to make inroads in this very important constituency.

But amongst all the discussion that took place in the Capitol’s basement earlier this week, I feel safe in saying that perhaps the most important underlying reason for their travails in this regard was not discussed. That is, the hatred and rage that so many Democrats, even among the leadership, feel toward Republicans generally, and George Bush specifically. I cannot recall a time in my life in which a party was driven by sheer rage to the extent that the Democrats are right now.

It’s in evidence when Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says he hates Republicans because he knows that’s what his audience wants to hear.

It’s clearly on display when Sean Penn blames George Bush for his return to smoking or when a lawyer in Virginia writes a piece for the Washington Post in which she blames the President for her decision to have an abortion.

It’s unmistakable when New York State Comptroller, and Democrat, Alan Hevesi praises a Democrat Senator for being the kind of guy who would put a bullet between President Bush’s eyes if he could get away with it.

For some time now, the only clear and consistent message that national Democrats have offered in order to try to sell themselves to the populace is that they hate George Bush – I’m just waiting for “I hate George Bush” to turn up as a candidate’s official campaign slogan – and their whole agenda revolves around defeating him at every turn, regardless of what that might mean for the country on a given issue. A defeat for the Republicans is viewed by Democrats as a victory for themselves, even if it is also a defeat for the nation as a whole.

Where the military is concerned during time of war, it means that Democrats stand in opposition to George Bush as the Commander-In-Chief of the military and hope that his policies and deployments of military forces fail. That translates to working to undermine the war effort, and literally hoping the body count of the good guys continues to rise because of hoped-for negative political results for the President and his party.

Think about it, how often in recent weeks have you heard the Democrat-friendly media report on the number of terrorists killed or captured by our guys? That would seem to be a logical thing to report, in order to give a balanced view of the war effort, and allow them to make logical, objective decisions regarding their support for it. The problem is that it would undermine the left’s efforts to undermine Republicans. Thus, the only time we hear about American troops actually doing the killing and capturing are the aberrations at Abu Grhaib and Haditha. To the Democrats, these are the norms and not the exceptions. The message coming from the left is fairly obvious, our guys, commanded by a Republican, mind you, are the bad guys, and thus they probably deserve the licks they’re taking anyway.

As surprising as it may be to many of the elite national Democrat leaders, who view the men and women in uniform, and their families, as ignorant hayseeds who had to turn to the military only because they couldn’t find a real job – like acting – these families can see these efforts to undermine Republicans at the expense of their loved ones for what they are. The left is not going to make serious inroads in the military community as long as the military community sees the left as being hostile to the well-being of their loved ones in harms way. And it’s difficult to see the left shedding that image as long as their whole agenda is driven by a hatred for their political opponents.

Good Stuff

Allow me to point out, and endorse, the thoughts on the gay marriage debate shared by my buddy Lynn Sebourn. You can find them here.

JLH

Local Notes

The Lincoln County Republican Party held its monthly meeting the evening of June 1 in the Auditorium of the Fayetteville Municipal Building. The featured speaker for the evening was Bill Ketron, Senator from Tennessee’s 13th district, who was accompanied by his daughter Kelsey.

Mr. Ketron began his remarks with a recap of legislative work that was recently wrapped up in the recently-concluded session of the General Assembly. Special note was taken of ethics legislation that came out of the special session, although the Senator noted that merely passing a new law will not necessarily change the behavior of someone who is unethical anyway. In that vein, he noted the ongoing trial of former State Senator Roscoe Dixon, as well as the status of other members of the General Assembly who were implicated in last year’s “Tennessee Waltz” FBI sting.

Regarding legislation in general, Senator Ketron noted that there were over 4,000 bills introduced in the General Assembly in the past session. He is thus looking into the possibility of introducing a bill that would cap the number of bills that can be introduced, currently researching similar legislation in other states.

Among the other legislative issues he took note of were the General Assembly’s dealing with the recent Kelo decision – regarding Eminent Domain – by the U.S. Supreme Court, Minimum wage legislation that Democrats failed to push through despite efforts to demagogue, and legislation dealing with public employees’ pensions. Additionally, Mr. Ketron would note how Democrats branded his English-only Driver’s Test bill as racist, and that more of the same can be expected as Tennessee considers toughening voter ID requirements in the near future.

The Senator also took note of the surplus budget that Tennessee’s government ran for the past fiscal year. He noted that projections for the next couple of years point to surpluses as well, and made the point that this should put to rest any talk of the need for a state income tax as the state is obviously not short on revenues. Part of this year’s surplus was used to put more money in Pre-K programs, Higher Education, and the state’s “Rainy Day” fund.

Regarding his re-election campaign, Mr. Ketron noted that he is one of three Republican Senators specifically targeted by the State Democrat Party, the others being Mae Beavers and Don McLeary – who switched parties to become a Republican in the wake of the Ophelia Ford scandal. State Democrats are going to fully fund Senator Ketron’s opponent, making his need for contributors and workers more acute.

When the floor was opened for questions, the Senator took note of the controversial election bill that was amended by the Democrats at the last minute and passed in the closing days of the session. Noting that he would vote differently if he had to do it over again, Mr. Ketron pointed out that outgoing House Democrat Leader Kim MacMillan introduced the controversial amendment to the bill – toughening the requirements for write-in candidates to get on the November ballot – as all legislators were trying to wrap up work before the session ended. This meant that legislators didn’t have time to study the bill in detail. Upon discussion of the bill with Assistant Floor Leader Diane Black, having been informed that the Democrats were going to kill one of his bills if the election bill didn’t pass, he voted for the bill. In hindsight, he now wishes he hadn’t, and is supporting the State Republican Party’s call for Governor Bredesen to veto the bill.

Stating that he looked forward to seeing the folks in Lincoln County again in three weeks – at the Lincoln County Reagan Day Dinner, the Senator concluded his remarks, and mingled with the crowd following the adjournment of the meeting.

The Lincoln County Republican Party Announces its
2nd Annual

Reagan Day Dinner

Thursday, June 22, 2006
The Lincoln County Museum
Fayetteville, Tennessee
Featured Speakers:
Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary
Republican Candidates for U.S. Senate

Tickets - $30

Call (931)425-6943