Kony 2012: Hype vs. Critical Thinking

March 19, 2012

The Kony 2012 campaign is the sequel to the Invisible Children documentary released in 2006 by the non-profit organization of the same name. Invisible Children Inc. (IC) apparently sought to reinvigorate their efforts to rid the world of Joseph Kony, leader of the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in central Africa, with a newly released video and carefully designed marketing push with two obvious objectives: awareness and money (donations). The video quickly went viral with over 80 Million views. The natural question is what will be accomplished by the awareness and money generated?

Awareness is a funny thing. The comical blog Stuff White People Like makes the following observation:

An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.” Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it.

It’s obvious that awareness for awareness’ sake is useless, and thus the attention moves to IC’s finances.

According to their own records, just over a third of their nearly $9 Million budget goes towards programs in central Africa. Compare this to recommendations by non-profit watchdog groups that 60% – 80% of expenses go toward programs. So where does IC spend the rest of their money? Awareness of course! In an attempt to skirt criticism and being labeled as a scam, IC has made awareness one of the organization’s three primary objectives thereby illustrating how the line between “awareness” and self-promotion can get very blurry.

After awareness/promotion and their on-the-ground programs in Africa, IC’s final objective is political advocacy. A whopping 1% of their expenses in 2011 was used to achieve one of their three objectives. It appears the $22,000 (remember, of nearly $9 Million) is funneled to a lobbying organization they established called Resolve. Their Kony 2012 video points to the decision of President Obama in October of 2011 to send 100 U.S. troops to the region in an advisory role to defeat Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army as the climax of the organizations success thus far. Obama’s decision to commit resources fell in line with the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act passed the previous year. It’s interesting to note that the Kony 2012 video leads viewers to believe that Obama’s commitment of U.S. troops to defeat Kony and the LRA was the first ever commitment of it’s kind. This however is not the case. It was President Bush who, 3 years prior, initiated “Operation Lighting Thunder” in which the U.S. military provided financial and logistical support to a coalition of armed forces from Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan to attack Kony’s main camp. While air raids on the camps were largely successful at weakening the LRA and forcing them to go on the run, Kony escaped and vicious retaliation attacks were carried out by the scattered LRA remnants. It’s odd that IC choose to make no mention of this prior commitment of U.S. military resources and successful weakening and dispersal of the LRA. Whether it was to steer attention away from the ugly casualties of the military involvement and war they advocate, or to paint Obama in a heroic light, the misrepresentation exposes IC as politically motivated manipulators.

Invisible Children Inc.’s misrepresentation of the facts did not go unnoticed. Below is Ugandan Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi’s response to the Kony 2012 video in an effort to shed clarity and apparently re-claim authority on an issue hijacked by a few American film-makers.

The fact that Invisible Children Inc. successfully used social media so effectively to recruit passionate activists to their cause and draw an unprecedented amount of attention in such a short time may be the most interesting aspect of the Kony hype. In accordance to the demographics of primary social media consumers, it can be assumed that it was largely younger folks who can be credited for the viral success of the Kony 2012 campaign. It is among this same demographic that Obama used social media more effectively than any prior presidential campaign to recruit what Jason Mattera referred to as “Obama Zombies”. It’s interesting that these same people who were so passionate about ending the “Bush wars” and getting troops out the middle east can so easily become advocates to establish a U.S. military presence in another unstable region riddled with corruption where, after pursing an evasive enemy, nation-building would likely ensue for an indefinite amount of time. It appears that content, contradiction, or consistency is not as important to this demographic as slick marketing and emotional appeal. To add to the oddity of it all,  those who were so thoroughly convinced of the nobility and selfless compassion of Invisible Children Inc. were shocked as one of their new found heroes, Jason Russell, was spotted and detained by police during a naked meltdown on a San Diego sidewalk.

Those who are actually familiar with the struggles and ailments of the people of central Africa (beyond a 30 minute donation campaign video) may be amongst those most frustrated by the Kony hype. They know that the largely defeated and scattered LRA, while unquestionably evil, pose an infinitesimally smaller threat to the people of central Africa than AIDS and malaria. Kony and the LRA, since about 1990, has been responsible for the murder of about 2,400 and the displacement of more the 2 Million. While not negating the gruesome atrocities committed by Kony and the LRA, it is valuable to those wishing to effectively reduce the suffering of those in central Africa to identify the greatest and most immediate threat to life. While Kony and the LRA have been driven out of northern Uganda since 2006 and significantly weakened since Bush’s “Operation Lighting Thunder” in 2008, malaria continues to kill an estimated 1-2 million each year, the majority of which being children under the age of 5. A child in Africa dies of malaria every 30 seconds.

Fortunately, in the late 1930’s Dr. Paul Muller developed a pesticide called DDT. It was discovered that DDT was extremely effective at killing malarial mosquitoes. Todd Seavey points out that it has been conservatively estimated that DDT has saved 100 Million lives. Thus, Dr. Muller was rightfully awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1948. In 1962 Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, popularized the theory that DDT was linked to the population decline of eagles and other species of birds. While further scientific research was needed to prove such a connection – let alone an analysis (assuming the theory’s accuracy) and consideration of the obvious net positive of DDT for human kind – environmentalists such as the Sierra Club, with complete and careless disregard for the millions of human lives saved by DDT, rallied until it was banded by the EPA in 1972. As the U.S. and England where among the largest producers of DDT, international pressure by these environmental groups can arguably be held responsible for the continued death of millions by malaria. Again, these environmentalist groups find some of it’s greatest strength among this same youthful demographic.

Hopefully, as the Kony 2012 hype fades and more people become aware of the threats facing central Africa, more will appreciate the life-saving chemical DDT and the great improvements that can be made in the fight against malaria world-wide. We can also hope that this experience has increased our ability to think critically and not be so easily persuaded by well-packaged emotionally-stimulating messages.

Advertisements

Economic Woes: Who’s to Blame?

January 28, 2010

American economist Thomas Sowell once said:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

While pointing the finger of blame is often shunned as a counter-productive or divisive practice, as Sowell pointed out, accountability for poor decisions is necessary for effective governance. How else are we to learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent their re-occurrence than to identify poor decisions and those who made them?

In that context, congress’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is currently interrogating bank executives to identify the cause of the economic melt-down. However, while most of the heated interrogation is being directed toward private financial institutions, lets put the politicians on the hot seat and review the government’s role in getting us into our current economic mess.

First, a basic understanding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their role in the housing and lending market is critical in order to comprehend the root causes of the financial meltdown. In the video below, Senator Jim DeMint offers an excellent summary.

As DeMint stated, it is Congress’ responsibility to provide regulation and oversight of government sponsored entities (GSE’s) such as Fannie & Freddie. Following is a brief time-line of events as it pertains to congress and the regulation of GSE’s.

*Hat tip to Mike Costello for being “the squeaky wheel” that guided me in my research.

  • April 2001 – President Bush raised red flags concerning the size of Fannie and Freddie in his 2002 budget request. He identified the “potential problem” that trouble in either institution could “cause strong repercussions in financial markets”.
  • mid 2003 – Reports and hearings showed Freddie Mac “manipulated its accounting to mislead investors” and that they failed to “adequately hedge against rising interest rates”.
  • July 31, 2003 – The Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 1508), co-sponsored by John McCain, was introduced. President Bush subsequently  recommended a massive regulatory overhaul. The bill passed the Senate Banking Committee, however with every single democrat on the committee opposing it, the bill was doomed.
  • Feb. 24, 2004 – Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, warns congress that “if we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency in crisis; we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States”.
  • Sept. 2004 – A report following an 8-month investigation by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO) showed Fannie executives intentionally manipulated their accounting and overstated their earnings by $10.6 billion in order to hit targets and pocket an additional $27 million in bonuses.
  • Late 2004 – During hearings, republicans expressed concern and called for swift action and more regulation, while democrats expressed anger toward OFHEO for bringing corruption at Fannie to light, suggesting there was nothing wrong and no need for increased regulation.
  • Early 2005 – Regulatory legislation was re-introduced (S. 109) however with every democrat in the banking committee once again voting against it, the bill never made it to the Senate floor.
  • May 2006 – John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill and said that “if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole”.
  • July 2008 – After republicans re-introduced a regulation bill (S. 1100) for the third time, it finally passed. Of course by this time, “toxic assets” from years of risky and reckless leadership at Fannie and Freddie had spread through the financial system, and it was too late.

As republicans are the ones who are generally labeled as “big business sell-outs” constantly pushing for deregulation, one may reasonably ask why, in this case, the roles seemed to be reversed.

First of all, democrats were bought-off by campaign contributions from Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Long-time member and current chairman of the Senate Banking Committee democrat Chris Dodd made the top of the list with a purchase price of $165,400. The second top sell-out was non other than…you guessed it, then rookie senator, President Barack Obama. Other democrats making the top of the list include fellow committee member Tim Johnson, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

While they were apparently not as easy to buy off, Fannie and Freddie also contributed to the campaigns of many republicans, including two who also sat on the Senate Banking Committee. Therefore, another motive moved democrats to support the scandal-infested financial institutions. This motive was most commonly presented as “affordable housing”. While those two words have a tendency to create warm fuzzies within liberals, what it really means is putting poor minorities in homes they could in no way truly afford. I wonder how liberals now feel about “affordable housing”, seeing that their compassion-based pipe dream has cost millions of Americans to loose their jobs as well as their homes due to foreclosure. Below is a great video highlighting the role Acorn, Obama, and the dems’ push for “affordable housing” directly and primarily contributed to the housing bubble and resulting collapse.

Is it no surprise that Obama and the dems strive to demonize the executives of the private financial institutions in order to keep attention away from their grievous errors that helped create and/or worsen our current economic woes? How ironic it is that the same individuals who are largely responsible for the collapse of the housing market are now the very same “leaders” who claim to offer the solution to the problem they helped cause. I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry when I visited Chris Dodd’s website and saw that he actually has the nerve to say that he “leads the fight in the Senate for financial regulatory reform”.


Private vs. Socialized Healthcare

November 20, 2009

In a previous post (lie #4) I described how multiple ObamaCare leaders have admitted that a “Public Option” is merely a means to an end – the eventual government take-over of healthcare through a single-payer system. Naturally, one might ask, “Is that so bad? Is socialized healthcare a better system?”. The answer is absolutely, unequivocally, and without a doubt….NO! I will proceed to destroy the five most common arguments in favor of socialized, universal, single-payer healthcare.

False Argument # 1 – Medical treatment is better in countries with socialized healthcare.

The 2007 Lancet Oncology study showed U.S. cancer survival rates were higher in every category than in Europe, especially in Great Britain where their 50-year-old government-run universal healthcare fared worse than the European average.

Also, the 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research study also showed U.S. Cancer survival rates where also higher than in Canada.

Due to mortality as well as the complex and costly nature of treatment, cancer survival rates has become a useful snapshot indicator in healthcare comparisons.

False Argument # 2 – Treatment is more accessible in countries with socialized healthcare.

After proving that the quality of treatment in the U.S. is better than it’s socialized healthcare counterparts, the ObamaCare proponent will predictably complain that the statistics you’ve used illustrate only post-diagnostic data and do not take into account those who, due to financial burden, do not have access to the superior treatment available through private healthcare. Essentially they argue that sacrificing superior treatment is justified if everyone has access to inferior healthcare. While the merit of such a trade-off of quality for quantity is debatable, for the time being I will entertain this argument.

In order to assess the quality of healthcare for all, including those that for whatever reason don’t get treated, statistics illustrating total death counts by cause must be reviewed. Fortunately, we have a 2004 report from the World Health Organization that does just that. When death rates by cause is adjusted for population, the U.S. fares better than the celebrated government healthcare found in Canada, France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

I cranked the numbers for each of the six countries previously mentioned. Death rates for “communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional” (which encompasses TB, childhood diseases, and Hepatitis) where lower in the U.S. than France, Japan, and the UK and only slightly worse than Canada and Italy. Cancer (“malignant neoplasms”) death rates carry more weight in significance as between the six countries I reviewed, Cancer is more than 4 times more deadly than communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional illnesses combined. The U.S. had lower death-by-cancer rates than each of it’s socialized healthcare counterparts.

As these numbers represent death by cause totals, it can be concluded that the current private-run healthcare of the U.S. boasts lower death-rates (by illness) than government-run healthcare….even when access to healthcare, or lack thereof, is accounted for.

False Argument # 3 – Socialized healthcare is less expensive than private health-care.

This argument is humorous as lower healthcare spending is one of, if not the greatest reason for the inferior treatment found within socialized healthcare.

Socialized healthcare, as I discussed in a previous post (lie #2), is not a self-sufficient or “deficit-neutral” system. There is never enough tax money coming in to address everyone’s healthcare needs. Therefore, to avoid taxing everyone out of existence (which socialized healthcare gets as close as they can to doing) and spending the country into oblivion, they must set GDP price controls which lead to the rationing of care. Thus, these countries are constantly struggling just to stay afloat and keeping the entire system from imploding on itself. Needless to say, they don’t have the billions necessary to invest toward the development of new and more efficient drugs and treatments. Instead, they wait for those advancements to come out of the US’ private-run healthcare and for the cost to come down enough for their broken system to be able to afford it.

False Argument # 4 – Life expectancy is higher in countries with socialized healthcare.

Warning, this argument is so irrelevant and easy to tear apart it may embarrass the person that spent the time and energy gathering data to prove an irrelevant point. Life expectancy rates do not focus on medical data, but is a broad topic that includes a plethora of non-medical variables such as suicide and alcohol and drug use. The person using this red herring argument is trying to distract you from the medical data that proves their point wrong and is straining to create an argument from irrelevant data.

False Argument # 5 – It’s the government’s purpose to provide critical things such as heatlhcare.

Many things that can be viewed as necessities and as critical were intentionally left unmet and unsubsidized by our founding fathers. Needs such as employment, housing, food, and health insurance where to be provided by, earned, and possessed by a self-sufficient and independent people – not by the government. Essentially, instead of just giving Americans a fish, the goal was to create an environment in which all could have the ability to learn how to fish. To justify a government takeover of healthcare because of it’s important and critical nature, why not put the government in charge of all important and critical needs such as employment and housing?

In the video below Bill Whittle does an excellent job of explaining the dangers of making a commodity a right and of making the healthcare of individuals a collective responsibility.

This type of thinking is what I believe led communist Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev to prophecy that the U.S. will be led into communism through “small doses of socialism”. Such thinking leads many to believe that Obama’s magical utopian road of entitlements ultimately leads to the dark and freedomless destination of communism.


The Big 5: ObamaCare Deception

November 16, 2009

As the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) continues to face debate and scrutiny in the Senate, it seems appropriate to review the history of ObamaCare and what we’ve seen along the road of healthcare reform. Such a recap is disheartening as we review the 5 big lies Obama and the democrats have made in their effort for healthcare reform.

LIE # 1 – Obama wants transparent negotiations and an informed public.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly declared that throughout the healthcare reform process, he would ensure negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN, that he’d “enlist the American people in this process”, and that “the public would be part of the conversation”. However, less than three weeks after taking office, Obama began multiple closed-door meetings with private health-industry executives which resulted in a secret deal with the same pharmaceutical lobbyist he criticized in one of his campaign commercials.

Obama proceeded to create a sense of urgency by pressuring congress to pass the 1,000 page bill in less than a month, before the August recess. When such a rush leads democratic congressman John Conyers to state that there was no point in even reading the bill, its apparent the American people are being left out of the process and conversation.

As the healthcare debate continued, information and opposition toward ObamaCare seemed to increase in tandem. In response, the white has led a fascist-like campaign to silence opposition through fear and intimidation. Obama’s threat to the first amendment was most clearly illustrated through the illegal establishment of flag@whitehouse.gov as a means for people to report “fishy” opposition toward health insurance reform. This was followed by the White House’s effort to attack what seems to be the only news organization who isn’t working for the Obama administration. The White House’s war on Fox News even led competing CNN to defend a news organization’s right to report political opposition without fear of attack by the government.

LIE # 2 – Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.”

President Obama created quite a stir by issuing his own “read my lips” declaration by stating he would not support healthcare reform that isn’t financially sustainable. Obama’s acknowledgment that being deficit-neutral is a critical component of a successful government-run healthcare program assured Americans that our country will not follow in the footsteps of price-controlled rationing found in other socialized heathcare programs world-wide. If only it were true…

It was the number-crunching wizards of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that exposed the lie. Their review of the proposed bill determined that it would not only not be deficit-neutral, but that it would increase the deficit by $239 Billion in the next decade. CBO director and wizard master Douglas Elmendorf also stated that “the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” It’s no surprise then that Obama’s deception would be referred to as “deficit dishonesty“.

LIE # 3 – Healthcare for illegal aliens.

Many were surprised at Rep. Joe Wilson’s break of decorum when he shouted, “you lie” during President Obama’s heath care address to congress. While fellow members of congress were well aware of what fueled and arguably justified such an outburst, at the time, most Americans were not.

Obama and the democrats claimed that ObamaCare wouldn’t offer tax-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants, pointing to section 246 of H.R. 3200 that, on paper, limits “federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” However, this lie was later exposed by the Congressional Research Service which concluded that in practice, there would be no restrictions keeping illegal aliens from receiving government-offered healthcare.

No big deal though, with illegal immigrant loop-holes brought to light, the bill could simply be amended to ensure that the immigration status of ObamaCare participants is verified. This would be easy through the use of already existing and effective programs such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. Two such amendments doing just that were authored by republican representatives Nathan Deal of Georgia and Dean Heller of Nevada. Democrats showed their true colors by voting down both amendments, implicitly allowing illegal immigrants to milk the would-be Obamacare.

Thus, with two small words, Wilson successfully brought the illegal immigrant deception to the attention of the American people. It was so successful, the resulting backlash of an informed public forced Obama to support a provision that would require proof of citizenship for enrollment in ObamaCare. ‘Atta boy Joe!

LIE # 4 – The real purpose of the Public Option.

Most in favor of ObamaCare claim that the purpose of a “public option” is to complete against private healthcare in an effort to drive down costs. For the time being, I’ll put aside the fact that you can’t possibly consider tax-funded government programs as real “competition” in the private market, or that subsidizing the price of heatlhcare in no ways changes the cost of healthcare. Instead I’ll simply point out the fact that many of the liberal leaders of healthcare reform have outright admitted that the public option is simply a “sneaky strategy” to eventually usher in a complete government takeover of the private healthcare industry though a single-payer system. Such ObamaCare proponents include Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health), Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s Chief of Staff), Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Russ Feingold, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman (NY Times), and Ezra Klein (Washington Post).

In a later post, I’ll further debate the merits of socialized healthcare and single-payer systems. For now, lets stop pretending that ObamaCare is anything other than what it has been repeatedly admitted to be…a means to eventually replace the private health industry, not to compete with it.

LIE # 5 – The “doctor fix” accounting trick.

 

Obama set a $900 Billion price tag maximum for healthcare reform. The problem is that dealing with healthcare includes trying to fix the mess found in Medicare which includes the failed “sustainable growth rate” (SGR) payment formula which limits reimbursements for participating physicians. Repealing the SGR, a critical concession to gain ObamaCare support from doctors and the American Medical Association, costs $247 Billion.

Solution? Both House and Senate democrats proposed simply moving the $247 Billion “doc fix” into a separate piece of legislation and presto! More money to spend while still being able to claim it’s under Obama’s $900 Billion price tag.

Hopefully, the American people will see past the lies and deception used by Obama and the democrats and urge and pressure their representatives to reject ObamaCare.


Fighting Against Same-Sex Legal Rights will Harm “Traditional Marriage”

November 4, 2009

Recently, I was made aware of Washington state’s Referendum 71 which upholds offering domestic partnerships the same legal rights as marriage. Protect Marriage Washington launched a campaign in opposition to Referendum 71. Some may be surprised to learn that I strongly oppose Protect Marriage Washington and any effort to withhold legal rights to domestic partnerships. As a California resident and someone who was intimately and passionately involved in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, I feel California best illustrates why I feel this way.

California domestic partners enjoy the same legal rights and obligations as do married spouses through CA Family Code 297.5. This fact was a powerful tool in exposing the lies spread by the gays about “civil rights” and was cited in Yes on 8 commercials.

Following Prop 8’s passage, it was challenged before the same CA Supreme Court that had recently established same-sex marriage. Fortunately, because gay’s had the same legal rights, the arguments made in court had to do with nomenclature and the people’s right to amend their constitution, and not about civil rights for gays…and thus, Prop 8 was upheld by the court. Surely, had the opposition been able to argue that real legal rights were being withheld based on sexual orientation, Prop 8 would’ve lost, and gay “marriage” would’ve been forced upon California. In other words, offering domestic partners the same legal rights ended up saving traditional “marriage”. Should other states face a similar battle over “same-sex marriage” without offering the same legal rights to gay couples, the courts will likely force gay “marriage” as a means to secure those legal rights…so that in the end, gays will successfully redefine “marriage” on top of securing the legal rights.

Due to the fundamental differences between men and women, the balanced environment created by a man and woman committed in marriage, all things being equal, provide the ideal situation in which a child can be raised. However, the reality is that gays do and will always be able to adopt and raise children. Many of the legal rights given in “marriage” are for the benefit and protection of children. Withholding those rights puts children at risk and punishes them for the sexual orientation of their legal guardians.

It must be understood that fighting against giving gays the same legal rights will be viewed by the majority of the public as hateful discrimination. The technique the gays will use will be to give countless examples of the complications and horrors that gays AND THE CHILDREN INVOLVED can and will face without the same legal rights.

Ultimately, judges will have to decide if legal rights can constitutionally (state & federal) be withheld from someone due to their sexual orientation. It doesn’t take a genius or a prophet to foresee that such denial of legal rights will be determined to be discrimination against sexual orientation.

As an American, I’m proud of the fact that we do not tolerate discrimination in extending legal rights and protections. As a defender of traditional marriage and democracy, I am also proud that we are able to decide as a society what values and ideals we recognize and promote, including the definition of “marriage”.


Gay’s ‘Divorce’ Argument May be Damaging to Cause

October 30, 2009

The GLBT community has recently addressed high divorce rates in their continued effort to win over public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage. Their argument is best illustrated through the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act”.

It is apparent that the GLBT community neglected to see how easily their attack on those defending traditional marriage, can actually be quite damaging to their own argument.

When high divorces rates are mentioned by the GLBT community, they do not claim that divorce rates or marriage as an institution would improve with same-sex marriage, but are rather arguing the following:

“Marriage as an institution is already suffering and failing…you might as well just give up on it all together. It’s already so bad, just stop trying to salvage any ‘sanctity’ and abandon any ‘traditional’ ideology that has apparently not worked in preserving marriage.”

It is important to realize that no reasonable person is really trying to outlaw marriage, and no one in their right mind actually believes either side of the debate wants to outlaw divorce. The GLBT community has created the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act” as a satirical means of making the aforementioned argument.

As society has moved away from traditional family values through premarital sex, co-habitation, and no-fault divorce, etc. an increase in divorce rates has followed. This understanding immediately flips the GLBT argument against them. It appears that divorce rates have skyrocketed as a result of moving away from traditional family values.

Another point damaging to the GLBT community’s acknowledgment of high divorce rates is that the vast majority of people recognize that homosexual relationships are less stable and more promiscuous than heterosexual relationships. This fact has been verified with studies and statistics. In Sweden, where the entire nation has had same-sex “registered partnerships” since 1995, a 7-year study shows that lesbian women without children are 3 times (200%) more likely to “divorce” than heterosexual couples. statistics therefore suggest that same-sex marriage would cause a significant increase in divorce rates…and no one would argue that higher divorce rates are a good thing for society.

Some homosexuals suggest the reason for increased “divorce” rates among same-sex couples is because of the stress and hardships gay couples face in society. This argument will likely fail with most heterosexuals who feel that feeling uncomfortable (or at worst not being invited) at the family holiday gatherings pales in comparison with other marital stresses such as a miscarriage (something gays can’t understand 1st-hand), financial challenges, or serious health complications. Rather, the gay community has established a sub-culture that seems to contradict the ideal of monogamy.

As CA’s Prop 8 continues to be challanged and same-sex marriage is being pushed in other states such as Maine, time will tell if the gay’s use of high divorce rates will help, or in fact harm their agenda.


The Gag Room

July 31, 2009

Often I find myself reflecting upon the content of this blog and wishing it was more positive and inspiring. While some may see this website as my own person political soap-box, “Looking Deeper” offers me the opportunity to share my perspective and analysis of significant issues, and to hopefully learn and grown from the responses I get from others with different perspectives and experiences.

Unfortunately, while I find politics and debate significant and interesting…it doesn’t adequately reflect how much beauty and joy I’ve found in this thing we call life. For example, I’ve recently found myself head-over-heals in love for the most wonderful woman I’ve ever met. I may have a sharp tongue and seem aggressive when I get into “debate mode”, but when it comes to the topics of family, marriage, and love…I’m a total softy.

What started as a “Puke / Fan Club” for close friends and family of ours who found themselves nauseous after watching us give each other googly-eyes and call one another Poodle-Pie and Pumpkin-Noodle, eventually led to the establishment of The Gag Room.

The Gag Room is what I am calling my “happy blog” and is a celebration of the blissful and occasionally gag-inducing love found within marriage and family.

I’d like to take this opportunity to invite you all to visit http://www.TheGagRoom.com and to join the Facebook group to see what I feel I feel is even more important than ousting Obama or voting republican over democrat…something a bit less divisive and a bit more inspiring…that is, family and marriage.