Alan K. Henderson's Weblog

Police say plainclothes detective William Sample was yanked from his vehicle and punched and kicked until he was unconscious.

Eleven demonstrators were arrested, but his attacker escaped, according to NY1 News.

Sample was hospitalized and is in stable condition with head injuries, which are not considered life threatening. The attack occurred during a march by the "Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign."

This escalating situation reminds me of a statement of a World War II journalist by the name of Dorothy Thompson... Toronto in 1941.... "Before this epic is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up with Hitler or against him..... If he takes no side, he is on Hitler?s side. If he does not act, that is an act?for Hitler."

May I take the liberty of... applying [this statement] to... today? "Before this era is over, every living human being... will have either opposed the onslaught against the family or supported it, for if he tries to make no choice that in itself will be a choice. If we do not act in behalf of the family, that is itself an act of opposition to the family."

At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family - but maybe not.

They heard from us in Afghanistan, and we removed the Taliban.

They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot Qadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.

They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception.

Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war.

Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq.

And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times.

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.

Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change.

But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception.

President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.

He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.

John Kerry's claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him, raises the risk that he would accommodate his position to their viewpoint.

President Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.

Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other external scapegoats.

But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world. It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.

It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria. It certainly does not stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.

The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments that can be role models.

The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There will be no crumbling of a massive wall.

But we will know it. We'll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

We'll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end.

The awful events of September 11, 2001 declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn't really comprehended how near the threat was, and how terrible were the plans of our enemies.

It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil.

We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.

If we do less, we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit.

We were united. First, in sorrow and anger. Then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless, inhumane theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.

We were not two countries.

They [Democrats] stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies. We agree.

And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle. That is what the President believes.

And, thanks to his efforts we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some. I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.

Our President will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all.

War is an awful business. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and diplomacy conflict.

However just the cause, we should shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly.

And while this war has many components, we can't make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct.

He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies, and away from our shores, seriously injuring al Qaida and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven. He worked effectively to secure the cooperation of Pakistan, a relationship that's critical to our success against al Qaida.

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein,

President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

And certainly not a disingenuous film maker [several minutes of applause] who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

Most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.

As I said, I have no dog in this hunt, as the data appears to me that soft drink consumption has been constant for the past 15 years and my understanding is that the formula for soft drinks has been basically constant over that time. On the other hand, HFCS has been added to a large number of other foods during that period, as noted by Bray, Nielsen, and Popkin, so if the effect is large enough it could play some role in rising obesity. They observe in the article, "HFCS has become a favorite substitute for sucrose in carbonated beverages, baked goods, canned fruits, jams and jellies, and dairy products."

In my mind hard to believe that increased HFCS explains the whole rise in obesity, however. First, increased obesity is a worldwide phenomenon, so the HFCS model would have to be generalizable. Second, there has been a dramatic increase in the obesity of dogs and cats in the United States at about the same rate as people (estimates are that some 25-40% of American dogs are overweight or obese), and I'm pretty sure they aren't drinking too much Coke!

All talk radio should be 527's.

Donald Olson, a physics and astronomy professor at Texas State University, and his colleagues determined that debris thrown into the atmosphere by the great eruption at the island of Krakatoa, in modern Indonesia, created vivid red twilights in Europe from November 1883 through February 1884.

...

"It was very satisfying to stand in the exact spot where an artist had his experience," he said. "The real importance of finding the location, though, was to determine the direction of view in the painting. We could see that Munch was looking to the southwest -- exactly where the Krakatoa twilights appeared in the winter of 1883-84."

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley [for the My Lai incident], are war criminals.

John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press," April 18, 1971

Was it Justinian? Leo the Wise? Basil the Bulgar Slayer? Sorry, Democrats. It turns out Kerry is distantly related to Constantine IX Monomachus, who ruled from 1042-1055. Constantine was an aristocrat who came to power by marrying the widowed Empress Zoe. We know a great deal about his reign because one of his closest advisers, Michael Psellus, left us an account called the Chronographia which, believe it or not, I happened to have handy.

Constantine’s accession in 1042 was greeted with great rejoicing in Constantinople. Psellus describes him as a charming man, with "only a genuine desire to cultivate friendship, by deliberated setting out to please." But Constantine "ruled neither with vigor nor discretion." He exhausted the treasury on luxuries and public buildings and conferred high offices indiscriminately. He debased the coinage to pay for his extravagance.

"He failed to realize that [governing] entailed responsibility for the well-being of his subjects, and that an emperor must always watch over the administration of his realm and ensure its development on sound lines," Psellus wrote.

Constantine neglected the army and the frontier defenses and, as a result, rebellions broke out and the empire was invaded in southern Italy, Greece, Macedonia and Armenia. Psellus criticized Constantine for being too conciliatory with opponents. When a strong response was called for, "he dispatched envoys to them with letters that were abject, quite unworthy of an emperor – doubtless because he wished to win their friendship."

"He wanted to rule his empire in peace, and not fight any wars, exactly like most of the emperors before him," Psellus wrote. "Unfortunately, affairs do not usually follow the course we would prefer. A stronger power, beyond our control, presides over human destiny and guides it according to His plans."

He has scores of books out, all detailing his heroic achievements against the forces of evil -- Gadding with Ghouls, Break with a Banshee, Holidays with Hags, Travels with Trolls, Voyages with Vampires, Wanderings with Werewolves, Year with the Yeti, etc., not to mention his autobiography, Magical Me. He tends not to be around when scary things actually happen, and then he makes sure everyone knows that "It's a pity I wasn't there -- I know exactly the counter-curse that could have spared her," or similar things. Throughout the year, however, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his abilities, as he tends to botch things when he's given the chance to act on them.

So then, at the end of the year, Harry and his friend Ron have a showdown of sorts with Lockhart, who admits that he didn't do any of the things in his books, but is exceptionally talented with a memory charm -- he took down the stories of the witches and wizards that actually had done heroic things and modified their memories so he could claim the triumphs as his own, so that he could sell books and be a hero.

The Red Army will once again ride into Soviet Union Square in NYC. We will set up by the Subway station this Saturday and will gather young men and women to join the revolution from 1pm to 6pm. This is a mandatory event for all uniformed personnel. The press has noticed us and plans on meeting us there as well, so look sharp!

Viva la Revolucion!
J.F.Che’

Throughout American history, from the early colonial period to present, changes in cultural attitudes follow a set cyclical pattern. A Civic generation meets a "secular crisis," typically some sort of immediate threat to national survival, and upon success goes on to build lots of physical institutions. An Adaptive generation follows; it admires the Civics and, with strong conformist tendencies, seeks mainly to keep everything running smoothly. This emphasis on external institutions tends to accompany a neglect of the deeper issues of meaning and purpose as they relate to religion, politics, etc. The incoming Idealist generation becomes aware of this. They are full of questions, many of which their elders don't know how to answer ("Don't ask questions, just believe"), so they seek to work them out on their own. Some are inspired geniuses, some are reckless mad scientists, some are totalitarian thugs.

The inevitable ideological divides, plus a side offering of mad scientist social experimentation, creates a highly turbulent social environment in which a Reactive generation grows up. This generation resents the moral perfectionism of the Idealists, who are dissatisfied with this "lost generation" for not turning out the way they were supposed to under their social initiatives. Reactives are highly individualistic and, unlike the security-minded Adaptives, are risk-takers and self-indulgent (sometimes to reckless extremes). As conflicting camps of Idealists polarize the population and the Reactives look after themselves the best way they can, society becomes more unstable. This culminates in a new secular crisis, in which a new Civic generation serves as the footsoldiers. They take their orders from Reactive generals in whom the school of hard knocks has instilled strong survival skills. The homefront is manned by other Reactives, Idealist visionaries who are older but wiser, and Adaptive elder statesmen who are still trying to keep everything running smoothly.

It may be observed, that provinces amid the vicissitudes to which they are subject, pass from order into confusion, and afterward recur to a state of order again; for the nature of mundane affairs not allowing them to continue in an even course, when they have arrived at their greatest perfection, they soon begin to decline. In the same manner, having been reduced by disorder, and sunk to their utmost state of depression, unable to descend lower, they, of necessity, reascend; and thus from good they gradually decline to evil, and from evil again return to good. The reason is, that valor produces peace; peace, repose; repose, disorder; disorder, ruin; so from disorder order springs; from order virtue, and from this, glory and good fortune. Hence, wise men have observed, that the age of literary excellence is subsequent to that of distinction in arms; and that in cities and provinces, great warriors are produced before philosophers. Arms having secured victory, and victory peace, the buoyant vigor of the martial mind cannot be enfeebled by a more excusable indulgence than that of letters; nor can indolence, with any greater or more dangerous deceit, enter a well regulated community...Provinces by this means sink to ruin, from which, men's sufferings having made them wiser, they again recur to order, if they be not overwhelmed by some extraordinary force.

HANNITY: Will you be nonviolent with the police?

MAYO: I'm gonna answer that in the best way that I can. I can't answer it as a yes or no answer. What I can say, is ...

HANNITY: Wait a minute, wait a minute. You can. Will you encourage people in your protest not to be violent with the police - yes or no?

MAYO: People are concerned with the fate of the people of the world ...

HANNITY: Yes or no? Answer the question, Tanya.

MAYO: If you want to do this interview and you want to hear what I have to say, then allow me to answer the question. ... If people are concerned about safety and disruption in the streets, then we need to actually look at who will be held responsible for something like that. And that's Mayor Bloomberg and his administration for refusing the right of people to assemble.

HANNITY: Now I'll ask the question again. Will you encourage your members to be nonviolent?

MAYO: I think our members are a very diverse group of people and individuals will have to make a decision what lines they choose to cross at any given point.

HANNITY: But as a paid leader of the group "Not In Our Name," as a leader of the peace movement, will you encourage members in your group not to be violent?

MAYO: Like I said, those things will unfold as the days come and we'll definitely give you a call back if we have any other answers. ... We have respected everything up to this point. The only people who have sacked the rule of law are the gang in the White House.

Seems like the moment of sympathy had definitely passed, and McGreevey is taking hits from all directions. In response to a rather lame spin by Kevin Jennings, founder and Executive Director of, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, James Joyner says:

"I've been in the closet for many years," he said, "but I'm proud to finally come out and say that I was born a gay adulterer and I have finally embraced who I am."

The governor, who will resign November 15, said he plans to devote himself to lobbying for equal rights for men who cheat on their wives by having homosexual affairs with their subordinates at work.

When Massachusetts gay Congressman Barney Frank confirmed, as reported by the Washington Post, "that he paid Stephen Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials," and that Gobie ran a gay prostitution service from Congressman Frank's apartment, it meant nothing to his voters or to most of the country. Imagine, on the other hand, if a heterosexual politician had such a relationship with a call girl who ran a prostitution ring from his home. The man would have been forced to resign in a week.

So, Gov. McGreevey knew exactly what he was doing when he announced, "I am a gay American." In addition to eliciting compassion, he was appealing to the double standard the country holds on behalf of gays – and striking a blow for same-sex marriage. That is why, as the New York Times reported on its front page, McGreevey's "precisely worded bombshell line – 'I am a gay American' – was strategically devised with the help of a national gay rights organization the governor had consulted."

As the day progressed, it became clear that this was a story unfolding on so many levels only a Shakespearean drama or a Verdi opera could do justice to it.

Excuse the expression, but screw Obama. This was the speech of the year. The most high-profile outing, well, ever, and McGreevey handled it with grace and dignity. He sort of makes me want to go gay, too.

We hope that someday it won't mean much to go on national television and announce, "I am a gay American." Someday, we hope that kind of announcement comes at the beginning of someone's political career, not the end.

Calm down, my right-thinking friends. This is what I meant yesterday: McGreevey's speech was stunning, inspiring and perhaps even profound. . . It's too bad he's so corrupt.

One of the reasons McGreevey's speech worked is that while he apologized for what he had done, he didn't apologize for being gay. He made it impossible for anyone to use his sexuality against him and the bluntness with which he did that raises the bar for every public figure who has to cop to a personal crisis on national television. We admire that.

What would have been really great is if he'd also fessed up to ethical lapses that actually matter. We dream of a world in which McGreevey would have to resign not because he's gay, but because he's at the helm of a political machine driven by cronyism and kickbacks.

"Coming out is a deeply personal journey and Governor McGreevey today showed enormous courage. We are hopeful that, like millions of other American families, Governor McGreevey and his family will come to a place of understanding."

"I refused to play against an Israeli rival to sympathize with the oppressed Palestinian people," IRNA quoted Miresmaili as saying.

Miresmaili refused to play Israeli opponent Ehud Vaks in the 66-kilogram category.

Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, the conservative speaker of Iran's parliament, congratulated Miresmaili on his "brave decision."

"Your disqualification because of supporting Palestine would promote your position in the heart of Muslims," Haddad-Adel said, according to IRNA.

Iran does not recognize Israel and bans any contact with the Jewish state

What catches my eye is how different - and how similar - are the perceptions of female beauty within these two camps. One places sexual beauty on so high a pedestal that non-sexual beauty receives far less notice and appreciation as sexual beauty. The other perceives all or most aspects of female beauty to be sexual in nature, thus calling for a code of modesty that conceals even that beauty which is objectively non-sexual.

So at one extreme women have to be super-sexy to be noticed, and at the other women have to be unnoticed to avoid the appearance of unseemliness. In either world, "mere" cuteness just doesn't pay.

But the problem of women athletes goes deeper. Some theologians claim that any form of sporting activity by women produces "sinful consequences." In 2000, for example, the Khomeinist authorities in Tehran announced a ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles. The rationale? Riding bicycles or motorcycles would activate a woman's thighs and legs, thus arousing "uncontrollable lustful drives" in her. And men watching women on their bikes in the streets could be "led towards dangerous urges."

"If the dress code was not an issue, I would have preferred to stick with gymnastics. I've been doing that since the age of three," Nassim Hassanpour, a petite 19-year-old said.

With the Islamic republic viewing tight-fitting leotards as unsuitable for women, Hassanpour is instead restricted to any sport that can be played wearing the obligatory headscarf and long coat. This rules out sports such as gymnastics, swimming, track and field athletics or beach volleyball.

Instead she chose shooting -- the air pistol on a 10 metre range. And in a gesture of slight rebellion, Hassanpour may be covering up her frame in beige, rather than the ubiquitous black.

...

Her record in the Asia Games was not quite enough to get her into Olympics, but she did win a wildcard for the air pistol competition, set to be held in Athens on August 15.

The comparison doesn't hold in one, very important respect: Abortions are sad. Weddings are happy. Having an abortion--or having a friend or relative who has one--may make you more supportive of abortion rights, but it won't make you celebrate the idea. Abortion won't make you smile.

People support abortion rights out of fear. They support gay marriage out of love. There are, of course, non-emotional arguments on both sides of both issues, but the fundamental feelings are different. That changes the politics, particularly with time and experience.

Here's a hypothetical situation. In a jurisdiction where "gay marriage" is legalized, a same-sex couple visits a marriage counselor. The counselor refuses to counsel them, on the basis that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and that it is unethical to counsel people to pursue behavior that necessitates assuming a disorder to be normal.

Enter the discrimination lawsuit. The plaintiff's lawyer sees it as a slam-dunk. The counselor is painted as the psychiatric equivalent of a flat-earther. After all, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of sexual disorders.

But at the time this edict represented a small proportion of the psychiatric community, and it contradicted 80+ years of published research into the matter. The defending attorney argues that the plaintiff must prove that the scientific evidence supporting the 1973 ruling is so overwhelming that any argument to the contrary is indeed flat-earth nuttery.

You [the gay couple] experience a lot of things that have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality - every one of which is also experienced by heterosexual male friends. I don't believe that your friendship as a whole is wrong. Evidence tells me that that one aspect - same-sex attraction - represents a brokenness that needs to be fixed. That sort of counseling is beyond my training, and apparently not the kind you were looking for.

Outside, a Fox reporter dares to ask protesters about the 1973 ruling. Several protesters blather about the APA "recognizing human rights" (which isn't the APA's job) and "finally coming to their senses." After the first round of meaningless rhetoric, the reporter asks directly, "From what evidence did the APA draw to reach its conclusion?" The protesters become livid, accusing the reporter of "homophobia" and "ignorance." He asks "What is the evidence" three or four times without getting a direct answer.

Unfortunately, he can't get much of an answer from the counterproductive, either. Some personally know or know of ex-homosexuals, and some are mildly familiar with some post-1973 un-PC research. Some have slight knowledge of the events surrounding the 1973 ruling - that gay activists were meeting with APA leaders prior to the ruling and that most APA members objected to the change in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual that resulted - but hardly anyone can state the scientific rationale offered for changing the classification of homosexuality in the DSM.

We're expected to believe that homosexuality is psychologically normal without being told why. "Because the APA folks are professionals and you're an ignorant bigot" isn't a scientific response. (APA members were not and still are not unanimous in their support for the decision.) It's related to some but not all gay-related issues; the overriding issue of sex education, for instance, is whether the government may justly supersede the authority of parents to socialize children.

Also, the question is completely irrelevant to whether social conservatives and gays should be able to get along with each other. Getting along doesn't mean sycophantic conformity. It means valuing another even if you don't value the other's beliefs, actions, or psychological disposition. Everybody thinks that each of their friends is messed up in the head about something. It's not the end of civilization.

Virtually no social conservatives clamor for criminalization of unmarried adult heterosexuals having sex. Such people view that participation in the Sexual Revolution tends to dissipate one's ability to establish intimate, secure relationships. But they see something wrong with arresting people for it; probably very few of them can really put their finger on what it is that they find troubling. Perhaps they fear that if law enforcement is encouraged to interfere with social trends they don't like, it might eventually interfere with those that they do. Perhaps they sense that criminalization will actually reinforce this social phenomenon, breeding among sexual moderates and liberals a resentment that would vastly increase their alienation toward social conservatism. These are valid concerns, whether the Revolutionaries are gay or straight. When people refrain from turning to the law to settle cultural disputes, building bridges is easier and violence is less likely.

One of the lessons of childhood is that you can't make people like you. Exhibit A that leftism is rooted in arrested development.

The vast majority of Americans cherish the rights of all, including our ideological adversaries, to their physical safety, their property, and their choice of beliefs. We reject that anyone is disposable for having the "wrong" beliefs, and while we may disagree with others on various issues and try to persuade them otherwise, we do not begrudge their legal rights to disagree with us.

The [Catholic] Church features an all-male working environment where priests spend intensive amounts of time with boy "apprentices." Rational people have always accepted that, for the sake of avoiding improprieties or accusations of such, an all-boy or all-girl group should be led by people who have no chance in you-know-where of being sexually attracted to their charges. There may be some heterosexual men who can be responsible leaders in the Camp Fire Girls and some homosexual men (who don't buy into theological leftism) who can be responsible priests, but if such doors are opened the few good men will be outnumbered by the wolves who will use such an opportunity to expand their hunting grounds.

Individual rights should not be denied, abridged or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever. The right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent.

Many of the immigrants to America were Christians who left Japan because of widespread discrimination against them, even after the Meiji Restoration theoretically ended the shogunate's severe laws against Christianity.

His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an indulgent liberal. (Sorry, "Progressive.") Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members.