Friday, October 21, 2005

HEAVENLY POWER

”Then he answered and spoke unto me, saying: 'This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying: Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.”

(Zechariah 4:6)

QUOTATIONS FOR THE DAY

“Fortitude is the commander of thought, the armor of the will, and the fortress of reason.”

(Francis Bacon)

“Do not pray for lighter loads; pray for stronger backs.”

(Theodore Roosevelt)

”Each man stand with his face in the light of his own drawn sword - ready to do what a hero can."

(Elizabeth Barrett Browning)

MAINE WON’T DISCRIMINATE
CALLS PRO-FAMILY LEADER
“RIGHT-WING CRONY”

In a letter soliciting funds from its supporters, the pro-gay rights organization Maine Won’t Discriminate has reached a new low in invective by calling Rev. Sandy Williams, the leader of the Coalition for Marriage, “A right-wing crony.” It seems that the heated rhetoric of national politics is spilling over into the debate on gay rights. The left is fond of calling the men around President Bush “right wing cronies.” But how that term ever got applied to Rev. Williams, we’ll never know.  Our well-worn copy of Webster’s dictionary gives the definition of crony “as a familiar or trusted friend,”   and we are certainly more than willing to accept that, but what happened to the loving, compassionate, and open-minded message of the folks over at Maine Won’t Discriminate? We wonder.

In the meantime, the pro-gay rights forces have apparently set up a website that went unnoticed until now. It seems someone intended to feature the writings of among others, Representative Sean Faircloth. It is an interesting and instructive place to visit since it gives an insight into the politics which is driving the gay rights agenda. Moreover, it lets one eavesdrop on the pro-gay rights forces when they think nobody is listening. Be prepared to be shocked at what you see on the gay rights side. One item asks “How many times do you have to knock them down?” Who the “them” is in this case is any one’s guess. Perhaps the writer was referring to the pro-family groups, or perhaps a series of three votes on the same issue. The website, the design of which looks surprisingly similar to that of the League website, is at believeinmaine.com.

IS THE SUN SETTING
ON THE LIBERAL MEDIA?

The conventional wisdom among media pundits is that the old media, consisting of print journalism, and the large television networks, have seen their day, and will soon go the way of the dinosaur.

One day after our story on the perceived liberal bias of the Portland Press Herald, the paper announced a layoff of workers. What the factors were behind the layoff are unknown, but it is certain that there is a gap between how the paper views itself and how the public perceives it.

First and foremost, the public goes to the media as an impartial source of information. When this is lacking, there is simply no point in purchasing the product. Yet until recently no one perceived the liberal bias of the mass media. With the rise of the new media, their hold over the minds of the public was broken, and it is unlikely they will ever regain their grip. The rise of the new technology means that the print media will fade into the pages of history, much as the illustrated manuscripts of the Middle Ages were replaced by the Gutenberg Bible.

The truth is a powerful thing. Anyone who has access to a computer and is willing to tell the plain truth now has the effect of lighting a torch in a darkened cave. People will flock towards the light like moths drawn to a candle, and that is exactly what is happening now. Should the public be overly-concerned about the liberal bias of the mass media? Perhaps not.

The sun is setting on the old media, as the public is turning in ever-increasing numbers to the Internet, the blogosphere, and public discussion boards for the truth. And that means the old media is simply obsolescent.  There is still time for the old media to recover, if they are willing to become what they once were, an impartial and democratic purveyor of the truth, which opens its arms to the community, instead of acting as a sounding board for a distant elite. Still, their recovery will have to be achieved by making innovative use of the new technology. Absent that, their day has come and gone.

DISCRIMINATION REPORT HAS MAJOR FLAWS

The League has reviewed the report issued by The Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence on the subject of discrimination as it relates to the current sexual orientation law.

First, the public should carefully note the circumstances surrounding the report.   The author of the report states in clear and unmistakable terms that the report was intended from the beginning to provide information for the upcoming referendum on the sexual orientation law.

The author of the report, Stephen Wessler, states on Page 9 of the report that the study on which the report is based was begun shortly after the Governor signed the sexual orientation bill into law. Also, on Page 6 of the report, the author states that the purpose of the report is to “provide citizens with important factual information on which to base their decision in the upcoming referendum.”

Second, the study is qualitative and not quantitative, and therefore provides no reliable statistical analysis of the prevalence of anti-gay discrimination in Maine.  Instead, the study relies on anecdotal evidence.

Out of 92 people submitting stories about purported cases of discrimination, 44 cases were thrown out by the author of the study as not meeting the criteria for a bona fide case of discrimination. Assuming that all these cases of discrimination are legitimate, a fact which itself is in doubt, this leaves 48 cases over a five year period, or about ten cases per year.

For a population of approximately 1,300,000 in the state of Maine, this is a phenomenally low rate of discrimination, a rate of approximately 1 case per 100,000 people per year, a figure so low as to be statistically meaningless.  

Third, the report is flawed because it violates a fundamental rule used to judge the reliability of a study of the sort on which the report is based. An organization conducting a study must not have a vested interest in the outcome of the study. It is an unfortunate fact of life that an organization dedicated to rooting out cases of discrimination must first dig them up. The current study is of no more value to an understanding of the prevalence of anti-gay discrimination in Maine, than a study conducted by a barber, which concludes that 85% of the people in the state of Maine need a haircut.

Fourth, the current study has not been subjected to an independent and impartial peer review. Other experts have not evaluated the study so that an independent assessment of the claims of discrimination can be made.  

Fifth, the study provides us with absolutely no corroboration of the claims of discrimination. Worse, the author of the study does not state what methods were used in the report to substantiate the claims of discrimination. While some claims are no doubt legitimate, there is simply no evidence provided in the report that any of the claims are true. 

Based on the above, and based on the date on which the report was begun and the date on which it was issued to the public, the public can only conclude that the report is a politically motivated effort to influence the upcoming referendum.