DriveThru – Get What You Need

This story caught my eye. Hate crimes against gays have increased “nearly 11%,” says the AP in this story. That number (extrapolated from the just-released annual FBI report on hate crimes compared to the 2007 version)  is of course being trumpeted all over the blogosphere this week by GLBT groups as “see I told you so”  justification for the recently passed federal hate crimes bill.

Except the AP number is seriously misleading. Like on a “Dewey Defeats Truman” scale of misleading. It turns out that AP used the increase in the number of “offenses” reported, not “incidents.” Why does that matter?

Let’s take a (hopefully) hypothetical example. A person with an anti-Christian bias sees me park my car, and notices the “Jesus Loves You” bumper sticker on it (no, I don’t really have one). He goes into a rage, and (1) bashes my head in with his trusty baseball bat (he was on his way to the batting cage), (2) spray-paints “Christianist” on my dog (I don’t know where he got the paint), (3) breaks my windshield and (4) steals my wallet for good measure.

How many “hate crimes” have been committed? One? Four? The FBI would classify that as one “incident” comprised of four “offenses.”  If I had been punched out last year by the same guy after he noticed my bumper sticker – but nothing more – did I experience a 300% increase in hate crimes this year or no increase at all? Your answer to that question will determine if you think like an AP reporter.

Actually, the FBI itself warns readers not to draw quick conclusions from its data, since the number of reporting agencies fluctuates wildly each year, as it is a voluntary program.  This year, roughly 450 more law enforcement agencies participated than last year. Even with that increase in participants, the number of hate crime “incidents” based on sexual orientation increased by only 32. Not 32%. Just 32. And violent crimes against the person based on sexual orientation (murder, rape, aggravated assault) actually showed a net decrease. (Note – If you add back in non-violent crimes and property crimes -  pushing and shoving, calling people names, vandalism, etc. – you get to that increase of 32 I mentioned.)

As a percentage of all “hate crimes,” sexual orientation bias incidents in 2007 came in at 16.6 %, and in the latest report (2008) came in at ….wait for it…..16.7%. Which hasn’t changed much from the mid-1990s when the FBI began keeping these statistics.

The Matthew Shepard Act is an unnecessary  threat to religious liberty, a “thought crimes” fiasco, and a usurpation of state sovereignty. The debate over this law continues. And the last thing we need is for the AP’s confused statistical analysis to take up any more breathing room.

Senator Jeff Sessions, writing in the Washington Post, surveys the history of filibusters against federal judicial nominees. He takes the reasonable, in my opinion, position that the process can be reformed so that nominees can look forward to an up-or-down Senate vote rather than a filibuster.

Since the Democrats have set the rules (with a little help from the Gang of 14 Republicans back in 2005) that filibusters are okay, I see no reason for Republicans to abandon the filibuster unilaterally. You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight if there’s a 9 mm handy.

Back in 2004 and 2005, Republicans (as the majority party) tried to introduce legislation that would have eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees, but minority-party Democrats would have none of it. Why would they? They were enjoying numerous “victories” consisting of blocking top-notch nominees like Miguel Estrada (who might even be on the Supreme Court right now but for obstruction – but that story is for another day), Priscilla Owen and others.

But now the Democrats, as the majority party in the Senate,  might just be a little more reasonable about considering a rules change, since it’s in their interest to do so. The near-miss of the Republicans’ attempted filibuster of David Hamilton just might provide the impetus for a much-needed procedural reform.

While Saturday night’s 60-39 vote to move the health care bill forward was disappointing, all is not lost. 

Americans have all this week, while their senators are home for the Thanksgiving break, to contact local offices and urge their senators to vote NO on the 60-vote hurdle coming up after the holiday.  Did we mention the bill still includes federal funding of elective abortion? Yes, it does.  And we now know that the “reform” will cost far more than the $849 billion that the Dems are touting.  

So eat a lot of turkey this Thanksgiving, and while you’re at it, make a quick phone call to your senators’ local offices and say “vote NO” on the next health care vote coming up.  Just go here, type in your zip code, and then click on your senators’ names to find the contact information for their state offices.  Quick and easy.

The Manhattan Declaration is bold.  The authors and signers unapologetically defend the sanctity of life and marriage from a biblical and social perspective.  The document also outlines the cultural challenges to the freedom of religion and rights of conscience.

The critics will probably try to spin the Declaration as mean-spirited or short-sighted in view of our ever-changing culture, or something similar, but the respectful and compassionate language used will make it difficult to make the mean-spirited label stick. 

The Declaration is a compassionate voice of advocacy for all humans—especially for the most vulnerable including the aged, disabled and young.   Ultimately, the Declaration and signers seek to defend the defenseless, and this contrasts starkly with the goal of those who want to end life and redefine marriage for their own purposes.

Read the document here.  You can also sign it.

A common defense of pornography is that it is a private activity or a choice among consenting adults. In the wi-fi age, this is no longer true. Washington Post staff writer Monica Hesse examines the trend of viewing pornography on public transportation. People are being held captive to public porn use on planes, trains and automobiles, which leaves it neither private nor consenting. She writes:

Perhaps this is the real problem: the increasingly blurred boundary between public and private. If we are so accustomed to burying our noses in tiny screens, carrying our entertainment in and out of the house, perhaps people are simply getting confused as to where they are.

The confusion over private and public boundaries conforms to porn’s design. Pornography inspires a self-centered “taking” approach to sex, so viewing it in public is a logical extension of this narcissistic impulse made possible through better technology. After all, as every porn fantasy teaches, it’s all about ME.

The adage “elections have consequences” can include the unfortunate result that some of those consequences can be totally unforeseen by the electorate focused on election slogans like “hope and change.”

Today, unfortunately, we will probably witness one of those consequences.  The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, to which Hamilton will be appointed upon his expected confirmation by the Senate, had this to say about Judge Hamilton’s 7 year personal vendetta to block Indiana’s “informed consent” law from taking effect:

“For seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the fifth circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana) (Me – that’s Hamilton they’re talking about) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey.”

Hamilton was originally appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1994. At the time, the ABA rated Hamilton as “not qualified.” The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him anyway.

While there are plenty of other reasons why Hamilton should never have been nominated this time around, his refusal to follow clear Supreme Court and 7th Circuit precedent on “informed consent” laws that reduce abortions is a sad indicator of what type of judge we’re getting, and a reminder to voters to pay attention to what type of “change” they are voting for.

Women are bearing the disproportionate burden of negative consequences from the “casual-sex” revolution, but a feminist group at Harvard, ironically, is upset about an increasingly popular movement that empowers both women and men to say “No” to sex. Makes you scratch your head, doesn’t it?

Consider that two of every five babies (40%) are born to unwed mothers who will likely not finish college and have to raise a child alone – at or near poverty.  Meanwhile, Biological “Dad” jumps into the sack with the next girl and the pattern continues. Another young lady’s potential is stunted and one more child goes fatherless.

Just one dorm room over, Dan Disease is sharing HPV, Chlamydia, Syphilis and possible exposure to HIV with Emily, his sixth sexual conquest this year. “Hooking up,” it’s what every sexually liberated man and woman wants, right? I’m still scratching my head.

Hmm … but could the “free-sex” model be an ill-constructed failure? Research is showing that “hook-ups” don’t satisfy and there’s more to sex than, well, just having more sex. The human brain is actually wired to have one mate for life, according to the most recent research.

Sex is more than a physical act – it’s intellectual, ethical, social, emotional and spiritual as well. Although the brain rewards humans for having sex (dopamine reward), brain chemicals are “values neutral,” in that they cannot distinguish between good, bad, healthy or unhealthy behaviors.
 
Freedom is as much the ability to choose something as it is to choose NOT to do something. If life had a rewind button, more than a few sexually active, unmarried women would choose NOT to repeat careless decisions regarding sex.

The further we move from one-man, one-woman marriage, the more our words change.  The New Oxford American Dictionary has announced the word of the year (“unfriend”), and list of other new words.  See the list here.

Among the new words is ”choice mom: a person who chooses to be a single mother.”  The “mom” doesn’t even have to be female—just a “person.” With “choice mom” another word disappears—“dad.”  The child who enters the world via a “choice mom” loses the privilege of a “father”—not that the child has a choice.

And then there are the words with new meanings.  The redefinition of marriage in states like Massachusetts provided new options for “mother” and “father” on a child’s birth certificate.  Paternity or maternity are unnecessary for children in the homes of “Parent A” and “Parent B.”   And the 2010 census is going to count the same-sex couples who have changed the words “husband” and “wife” to suit their own relationships.  You no longer need a “husband” to be a “wife,” you can be a husband and have a husband, or be a wife and have a wife.

Gotta love a new frontier, and on the frontier of social change new store fronts go up every single day.

I started dissecting the accusation of Republican obstruction of Obama’s judicial nominees in this post.

Even the statistics say that Reid is stretching for any kind of believable story line. Of the 25 nominations Obama’s made (way under the number at this same time for Bush – 64), only 14 have made it onto the Senate’s “Executive Calendar” for consideration. Democrats control the process all the way up to that point, so Republicans don’t share any blame there.

Of those 14, 6 have been confirmed through the highly contentious and obstructionist tactic known as the “unanimous consent agreement.”  You know, the very procedure that Reid says the Republicans are avoiding.

Of the remaining 8 on the Senate calendar, 5 have been there for a month or less. That’s not a delay in anyone’s book. (Until you can at least match Sen. Leahy’s Judiciary chairmanship record during the 107th Congress of 19 months in which no hearings were held on 12 Bush nominees, and another 3 received a hearing but no committee vote, don’t even talk to me about obstruction. You’re still in the minor leagues.)

That leaves 3 nominees.  Hamilton, a decidedly controversial nominee who I’ve mentioned before is deserving of a thorough floor debate and then a “no” vote. And Reid finally filed a “cloture” motion on Hamilton on Nov. 10, which means the Senate will vote on him this week. Reid may have been avoiding debate on the radioactive Hamilton by not filing his cloture motion, but that’s not the Republicans’ fault. The other two nominees – for the 3rd Circuit and 11th Circuit – have been “waiting” only since Oct. 1, and Sept. 10th, respectively.

Bottom line – the president has been horribly slow at nominating judges and his friends are trying to deflect any valid criticism away from him by blaming – who else – Republicans!

Dan Savage at the LA Times has been pressed into service by liberal apologists for the administration to “explain” why President Obama has such poor numbers for judicial confirmations at this point in his administration. Savage’s take:

“…liberal activists have voiced growing irritation that Republicans are quietly using their minority power to block Senate votes on Obama’s judicial nominees. They note that during the Bush administration, Republicans insisted the president’s nominees deserved up-or-down votes.”

The story mentions only two judicial nominees  (Hamilton, Chen), but leaves the impression that all nominees have been obstructed.

I was dubious that Republicans could somehow have found a more effective way to obstruct nominees than the Democrats, so I looked at the story for hints. Apparently, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, those obstructing Republicans won’t agree to a unanimous consent agreement that would bring the nominee to the floor for an up-or-down vote without debate.  If Republicans want a debate, this forces Reid to go through the onerous task of. . . .  filing a motion to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote.

Such obstruction makes me shudder.

But it gets worse. More on the numbers in my next post.