“Grinchy Decision Ill-Timed,” Sioux Falls Argus Leader, http://www.argusleader.com/editorial/Fridayfeature.shtml, 24 December 2004.

Congratulations. If you do business in Sioux Falls, you helped make kids cry.

For the uninitiated, Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota. After the Keenan debacle, the city’s school board selected Pam Homan as the new superintendent. She rapidly made a name for herself by continuing the school board’s lawsuit against an employee who wished to hold a prayer meeting after class. Several federal rulings and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars later, she’s still losing. But unhappy with that petty and unconstitutional abuse of power, she’s now making little children cry.

Sioux Falls isn’t Whoville, and schools superintendent Pam Homan isn’t the Grinch.

It just looks that way.

Let’s review.

Teachers at several elementary schools, as well as Patrick Henry Middle School, planned to take students to see the holiday movie “The Polar Express.” For some students, it was to be a comparison with the book they read. For others, it was a party.

This is hardly unusual. Students take field trips and have parties and do all sorts of things older Grinchy-Claus types find wasteful.

But Homan decided to put her foot down. Cancel the plans. No movie, she said – dashing Christmas hopes of a thousand students, no doubt causing more than a few to cry boo-hoo.

Homan said she had good reasons. She would have us believe that this was no Grinchlike attack on all the Sioux Falls Little Cindy-Lou Whos.

“Given our focus on instruction time, the focus on increased accountability in our schools, the attention given to the quality of instruction and our efforts in the district to extend the learning time for students, my reason is, we were not going to allow the schools to take this amount of time to go to the movie theater,” Homan said.

There’s more to this story than this one editorial. There’s the fact that the trip was cancelled with about 48 hours notice. There’s the fact that the school district had to beg the local theatres to keep the movie ino Sioux Falls, and they in turn had to beg higher ups. There’s the fact that this is the latest of her arbitrary decisions. There’s the fact that she’s overriding teachers decisions on the best way to educate children. The fact that she doesn’t let principals run their schools.

And there’s the fact every resident of Sioux Falls pays for this. There’s the fact that public education, not content to be academically terrible, is determined to be socially terrible too.

Do I care if kids see this movie? No. But I care when money is picked from everyone in the district to subsidize a monopoly that warehouses children. It doesn’t teach, it doesn’t educate, and it doesn’t allow children to be children.

Public education: still terrible. And cruel.

The blanket elimination of movies as a field trip activity goes way too far. We’ve puzzled these things ’til our puzzler got sore.

Perhaps because she enjoys a good fight?

Or, just maybe, her shoes were too tight.

Or maybe she’s a government bureaucrat who enjoys the power she has over small children.

Only a very special type of person makes someone subsidize her job, takes children away from their families, and then breaks their hearts. Pam Homan is that type of person.

“The Nine Most Dangerous Myths About Pesticides and High-Yield Farming,” by Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues, http://www.cgfi.org/materials/speeches/nine_myths.htm.

“100 Things You Should Know about DDT,” by J. Gordon Edwards and Steven Milloy, JunkScience.com, 1999, http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ddt_100.htm.

“DDT vs. Death by Malaria,” by Robert J. Cihak, M.D., TYSK News, http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ddt_vs_death.htm, April 28, 2004.

The belief that your “virtue” is more important than your freedom of your life is widespread. From tyrants trying to ban free trade in medical drugs to Iranians stoning lewd women its universal. This health mullahism is combined with a western and overwhelmingly white, and its victims are overwhelmingly dark skinned, the fear that it goes beyond despotism to genocide becomes real.

One of the greatest of these pseudogenocidal villains is Rachel Carson. The method she pioneered, which would be so effective in killing blacks and browns, was banning DDT.

To do this, she claimed DDT caused cancer. She claimed it weakened the young of birds. And she ignored those it saved. Now that she is dead, her legacy is filth, disease, and death.

She claimed it caused cancer. Worse, she claimed that this was proven. That pesticide “six of seven” others were known to bring this disease, she claimed. Never mind it wasn’t true. Find a scientific article from before 1962 (when her ghastly Silent Spring was written). And since then scientific results have debunked her specious allegation. Scientific papers spanning the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, some on studies lasting decades found no link between DDT and cancer. The most extreme of the studies, where primates were fed thirty-three shousand time the average human’s exposure to DDT in the early 1970s found no conclusive results.

Her back-up allegation, that if it does not harm mammals certainly it does something to our feathered friends, is also wrong.

According to Avery

The myth about DDT thinning birds’ eggshells also came directly and wrongfully from Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. She wrote, “Dr. Dewitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diets DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.”

Ms. Carson was lying. Dr. Dewitt’s study actually showed no significant difference in hatching rates between the quail fed DDT (80 percent) and the control quail (83.9 percent). When Dr. Dewitt tested pheasants, he found that those fed with DDT hatched more than 80 percent of their eggs, while the controls birds hatched only 57 percent.

To give a scale of the counterevidence, here is one point from Edwards and Milloy work, as well as its documentation

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

[Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning].”) ]

On the same theme, they debunk the supposed harm of DDT to bald eagles

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 — 25 years before widespread use of DDT.

[Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942.

[Anon. Science News Letter, July 3, 1943]

The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937.

[Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

[Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

Cihak outlines the morality, or virtue, of the ban

In a remarkable article in the April 11 New York Times Magazine, “What the World Needs Now Is DDT,” Tina Rosenberg, a Times editorial writer, describes how DDT should be used more extensively in Africa, and points out why it is not. She writes:

“… South Africa is beating the disease with a simple remedy: spraying the inside walls of houses in affected regions once a year. … [S]prayed in tiny quantities inside houses – the only way anyone proposes to use it today – DDT is most likely not harmful to people or the environment. Certainly, the possible harm from DDT is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children’s lives.”

So, why is DDT not being used in this benign manner, let alone more aggressively against malarial mosquito breeding areas? The answer: Wealthy Western funders won’t allow it. And they won’t allow it because of a combination of outdated science and pseudo-science, coupled with a truly breathtaking faux morality.

And Africans need food more. Because they are starving to death.

Africa today averages only about 2300 calories per capita per day, compared to Europe’s 3400, and Africa’s average is declining. The International Food Policy Research Institute warns that by 2020, current farming and population trends would leave Africa with more than 200 million malnourished people—even after African farmers clear wildlands equal to the land area of France.

Charitably, Carson was mistaken. Maybe she felt strongly about the issue, and felt that facts were less important than her faith. Certainly many religions feel this way. But many of her allies knew what they were doing. They’re intent was to kill people.

During the DDT hearing in Washington in 1972, Dr. Charles Wurster, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that DDT was a danger to birds. Asked if a DDT ban would lead to more human deaths, he stated that the world had too many people. “We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”

“Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion,” by Peter Wallsten and Mary Curtius, Los Angeles Times, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/20041223/ts_latimes/democraticleadershiprethinkingabortion, 23 December 2004 (from Democratic Underground).

“Tim Roemer’s Votes on Abortion Related Issues,” by “sherilocks,” Democratic Underground, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1094274&mesg_id=1094294&page=, 23 December 2004.

A leader is great not in how he changes his people, but in how he changes other people.

Nelson Mandela piloted the African National Congress from terrorism to nonviolent reconcilliation. This was important. He piloted the Afrikaner Nationalist Party from apartheid to nonviolent reconcilliation. That was great.

Margaret Thatcher turned the Conservative Party into an anti-establishment party of economic freedom. That was important. She forced the Labor party to reform to also becoming an anti-establishment party of economic freedom. That was great

Is George W. Bush turning the Democratic Party into a Party of Life?

WASHINGTON — After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.

The fight is a central theme of the contest to head the Democratic National Committee (news – web sites), particularly between two leading candidates: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news – web sites), who supports abortion rights, and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe who argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society’s most emotional conflicts.

Roemer is running with the encouragement of the party’s two highest-ranking members of Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Dean, a former presidential candidate, is popular with the party’s liberal wing.

If Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic chairman in the Feb. 10 vote, the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party’s congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

A vital part of the GOP’s victory were values voters who oppose mass infanticide. If the Democratic Party would switch sides on this, it would seriously hamper future Republican coalition building. It would herald one of the greatest turn-arounds in political history. But it will not be easy.

After noting “Tim Roemer votes on abortion related issues” as

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

DU’s “sherilocks” adds

If Roemer heads the Democratic Party, I’m on my way out the door.

The religious right or secular left. The Democratic Party can play to one of these. Their choice is which one.

“Bush team says drug imports too costly,” USA Today, http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=national&story_id=122204b1_drugimports, 22 December 2004 (from Google News).

WASHINGTON – A Bush administration task force recommended strongly yesterday against permitting U.S. citizens to import lower-cost prescription drugs from other countries, saying “it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly” to assure safety.

The finding, while expected, was a blow to advocates of legalizing a practice that is already widespread. Tens of thousands of Americans, particularly seniors who lack a drug benefit through Medicare, have gone to Canada or arranged mail purchases of drugs from that country. The federal government has not stopped most drugs imported for personal use, but the threat of prosecution remains.

*sigh*

The choice? Bankruptcy and/or sickness and/or death for Americans, or “potentially unsafe” remedies?

*sigh*

“New York Electors Did Not Vote for John F. Kerry: Certificate of Vote, US National Archives,” by Mike Fieschko, Free Republic, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305510/posts, 20 December 2004.

“To: Make Fieschko,” by “Brokkanic,” Free Republic, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305510/replies?c=36, 20 December 2004.

“Oh god, will this nightmare never end?,” by “Placebo,” Democratic Underground, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1090857&mesg_id=1090859&page=, 22 December 2004.

Current Electoral Vote Totals

For President
George W. Bush 286
John F. Kerry 220
John L. Kerry 31
John Ewards 1

For Vice President
Dick Cheney 286
John Edwards 250
John F. Kerry 1

Fieschko broke the news. Brokkanic did the totals. Placebo, writing

in Oh god, will this nightmare never end? nicely sums up the deseperation of a minority of voters.

“A Consumer’s Guide To Environmental Myths and Realities,” by Lynn Scarlett, Reason Foundation Policy Report No. 165, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s165/s165.html, September 1991.

“I like the Cato Institute’s variety of informed dissertion,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2004/12/19/wasteful_recycling.html, 20 December 2004.

Aaron is skeptical of Cato’s rhetoric

I like the Cato Institute’s variety of informed dissertation. Watch as I mimic it.

Here’s a good example, then my own will follow:
“Moreover, making recyclables generates waste. For instance, producing paperboard burger containers yields more air and water pollution and consumes more energy than does manufacturing polystyrene clamshells. It takes more water to recycle newsprint than to make it afresh.”

Now me:

Business investment actually shrinks the economy. For every dollar thrown into a corporation’s treasury, it’s just another dollar blown. Giving a corporation money in exchange for limited ownership only weakens the earning potential of the company.

See what I’ve done here? I’ve just said things, matter of factly. It’s like citing research, but without the messy hyperlinks or names and dates

The Reason Foundation has churned out a large of number of policy papers, each assiduously footnoted. Aaron’s skepticism seems foused on food package materials, and these are addressed. (The original footnote numbers are included, and in the original article they are hyperlinked as well):

On packaging in general:

* Packaging represents from 30 to 40 percent of the solid waste disposal in the United States, but only 20 percent in Mexico.
* Yet despite the fact that Americans throw away more packages, the average Mexican household throws away three times more food debris.26
* As a result, the average Mexican household throws away 40 percent more total refuse than the average U.S. household – an amount equal to 1.6 pounds per household each day.
* To put this number into perspective, if Phoenix, Arizona, disposed of as much trash per household as Mexico City does, city sanitation crews would have to collect, haul and bury 80 more tons of household garbage each workday.

On fast food packaging:

Several cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Newark, New Jersey, have essentially banned polystyrene food packages – used until last year, for example, to hold McDonald’s hamburgers. Yet studies indicate that fast-food plastic packaging is not the &quotvillain” some of its critics have claimed. Indeed, such packaging may actually conserve resources relative to the standard alternatives. Franklin Associates performed a life-cycle study of a set of paper and plastic fast-food products, looking at energy use, air and water emissions and solid waste. Comparing the foam polystyrene &quotclamshell” hamburger container with a coated, bleached paperboard alternative, the study found that:44

* Although the paperboard contributes 29 percent less solid waste by volume than polystyrene clamshells, the clamshells require 30 percent less energy to produce.
* The production of the clamshell results in 46 percent less air pollution and 42 percent less water pollution.

Many of the same comparisons apply to the debate over polystyrene cups versus paper cups. For example, a study published in Science argued that:45

* The average 10-gram paper cup consumes 33 grams of wood and uses 28 percent more petroleum in its manufacture than the entire input in a polystyrene cup.
&quotPolystyrene requires less energy and leads to less air and water pollution than many paper alternatives.”
* The paper cup requires 36 times as much chemical input as the polystyrene cup, partly because it weighs seven times as much.
* It takes about 12 times as much steam, 36 times as much electricity and twice as much cooling water to make the paper cup.
* About 580 times as much waste water, 10 to 100 times the residual effluents of pollutants and three times the air emission pollutants are produced in making the paper cup.

In addition to all that, paper cups cost the consumer about two-and-one-half times as much as polystyrene cups. And polystyrene is completely recyclable, which isn’t always true of the paper used in cups.

The oppontents of freedom are motivated by religious zeal. Whether John Ashcroft, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or Greenpeace, the hate your freedoms. They hate you are tempted by an easy life. And while they fight amongst themselves, they are organized.

“From the terrorists: We are not feeling any strategic despair in Iraq—you are,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Thompas P.M. Barnett :: weblog, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001067.html, 27 October 2004.

“Proof of the Ideological Coalition Shift,” by Chris Bowers, MyDD, http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/21/152556/76, 21 December 2004.

“This would…,” by “Jas1001,” Daily Kos, http://dailykos.com/comments/2004/12/21/193313/66/28#28, 21 December 2004.

To take Dr. Barnett wildly out of context:

My point is this: the strategic despair is on our side (our troops decry: “My God, there’s too many of them to kill, we’ll never get the job done!”), when it should be on our opponents’ side (“My Allah, there’s too many of them to kill, we’ll never get the job done!”). So guess who’s talking about pullout and who’s talking about jacking up the effort?

Strategic despair is both a symptom and cause of defeat. It is a sympton because defeats generate it. It is a cause because it creates a culture of defeat. If you’re going to lose anyway, why not take the easy route? Its so much simpler to become anti-social, blame every setbacks on some conspiracy, and continue to be destroyed in peace.

Unrelated but almost simultaneously works on MyDD and Daily Kos indicate liberate Democrats are feeling it in the worst way. Discussing the long-term inability to find liberal voters, Mr. Bowers writes

Now, no one can dispute that there are more self-identifying conservatives than there are self-identifying liberals, but I admit that my entire argument is based on the assumption that the two coalitions are now primarily ideological rather than regional and ethnic. To date, I have not had the hard evidence to back this assumption up, and instead I have attempted to infer it from my studies on the partisan index. However, today I finally came across exit polls for every presidential election since 1976. Looking at these polls leads me to believe that I now have the proof of this ideological coalition shift that I always desired.

…

In other words, the conservative southern shift into an ideological coalition only slightly preceded the non-southern liberal shift into an ideological coalition. The two coalitions, which had been primarily ideological for several decades, became almost entirely ideological as 85% of liberals and conservatives now vote for the coalition that supports their ideology. In 1976, that number was around 70%. Half of the non-ideological partisans abandoned their party, and because there are more conservatives than liberals, Republicans benefited greatly from such a shift.

We are living an ideological age. We need to recognize this, and be willing to fight an ideological war. If liberals remain significantly outnumbered by conservatives, Republicans will remain the “natural” ruling party for two generations.

Strategic despair in the long term situation. The editorial’s admirably couched a call to action, but if Republicans may remain as a “natural” ruling party for two generations, it can’t be good.

On the rumor of a much more tactical move to make generally Kerry-supporting income-tax states to pay more in federal taxes — which would “punish” states that vote wrong and retard the long-term growth of states that “govern” wrong, a very elite Daily Kos follower frets

This would…

redraw the economic landscape in America to crush remaining Democrat bases of fundraising while encouraging business and wealthy individuals to move to red states.

It’s so… wonderfully brutal, ruthless and efficient, in an evil sort of way.

If there is no left, the center cannot hold.

To summarize these: the long term hopes for the left are very bleak. They will become bleaker. Without a left for balance, all political debate will be within the right. America will be as rightist as France is leftist.

It is hard for me to believe the titanic impact President Bush has had. Under him America has gone from a Clintonite nation with an ascendant New Democratic ethos and tenuous Republican Congressional majorities to having the GOP as a radical, progressive, structural, governing party.

Wow.

“This is Not a Defense,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2004/12/14/derbyshire_s_homophobia.html, 20 December 2004.

“This is not a defense, because it doesn’t call into question the primary reason behind homosexuality.

Love.

Many lesbians do not even engage in sexual intercourse, nor do some men. I sincerely doubt that Sir Ian McKellan is still punting or receiving at his age. This article doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of romantic affection between parties. Given the bevy of homosexuals who would no doubt be lining up to court Sir Elton John, I find it entertaining that his monogamous relationship has lasted so long. Lots of heterosexual religious folk establish meaningful relationships long before they ever engage in erotic fulfillment exercises. Is it impossible for homosexuals to do the same?

Now, men are genetically predisposed toward sexual activity. We produce far more testosterone than we need, which keeps us in a constant state of sexual receptiveness (except with the presence of dysfunction). Two men together are probably pretty likely to heavily focus on erotic fulfillment. But that’s not the sum of their relationship. Anyone who can’t see a homosexual relationship as a consensual sharing of emotion shouldn’t be able to see it in a heterosexual environment, either.

So, if a relationship cannot exist without sexual intercourse, or not focusing exclusively on it, then I deeply question the religious’ views on pre-marital relationships. Why even bother? Pre-arrange marriages and stone women who have extra-marital intercourse. That will solve all our societal dysfunction exactly as well as it has for the Arab world.

The only answer to this question is acceptance. The right needs to drop their fear of the “niggers” of the 20th century and realise that marriage isn’t under attack from homosexuality. Divorce, an economy that demands more and more “efficiency” (both parents working, etc.) , and a society of competition are far more destructive than young Billy Cheney having two aunts. He’ll just eat twice as well when he’s at their house.

Aaron’s post is well argued, and seems to contain three theses. I’ll summarize them as best I can, with apologies if I am incorrect

1. Love is transcending
2. Homosexuality is not necessarily sexual
3. Men are hypersexual
4. Homosexuals are an oppressed class
5. Homosexuality isn’t attacking marraige
6. The modern world is attacking marriage

First, aphrase for shock value: “love” is almost meaningless. I mean here the word “love” — it incorporates a variety of sometimes contradictory meanings. The four most important are romance, devotion, affection, and loving kindness, or in Greek eros, stergo, philo, and agape. Especially in controversial areas, it pays to be precise. Civil Roman society was once convulsed because of the catastrophic ambiguity of translating “Eucharist” as “love feast” (written in Greek as loving kindess, taken by Romans as romance).

Clearly Msrs. McKellan or John feel romantic for other men. Feeling devotion, affection, or loving would be irrelevent. Applying pseudo-Christian rherotic of loving kindess to romance leads to confusion.

Second, two different ideas of asexual homosexuality are presented. One example sited is older male homosexuals, who relates to the ambiguity of love above. As to lesbianism, it can’t be taken as homosexuality. There can be no intercourse. While the Puritans meerily executed homosexuals, lesbianism was classified under private indecency, which was a petty crime. This neatly flows into…

… the third argument, which is male hypersexuality. Young men are the most productive, healthiest, most violent members of society, and least careful members of society. This gives itself to a natural parasite-host relationship. The history of all hitherto existing society is the cooption by young males to benefit other classes. In patriarchal societies (by far the most common), productive efforts are channeled through a combination of civil (paid for in women, psychological relaxation as part of a defined hierarchy, and promises of future positions of power and wealth) and uncivil (conscription) bounds. Human culture is built on this parasitic cooption, and subcultures that remove parasitic influences (male homosexuality circles, military special forces, Islamic madrassas) tend to be hyper-productive hyper-deadly.

Fourth, Aaron compares homosexuals to pre-Civil Rights American blacks. I’m unsure why, as the situations are so different. Even if you agree that homosexuals are oppressed, astounding important differences include

Fratriachical v. Patriarchal (Southern black) or Matriarchal (Northern black) society
Easily identifiable (black) v. not easily identifiable visual characteristics (if identification is undesired)
Disproportionately wealthly v. Disproportionately poor
Disproportionately educated v. Disproportionately ignorant
Marriages confined to in-group (Jim Crow marriage laws) v. Marriages confined to out-group (homosexual men may marry only women)
etc.

Homosexuality has more in common with a religious sect (a comparison that is more disturbing the longer pondered) than a race or ethnicity.

Fifth, homosexuality is a direct attack on the purpose of marriage, which is childraising in a male-female environment. Obviously a homosexual relationship does not have this sexual (as opposed to gender) bipolarity.

Last, marriage is under attack from other forces as well. As John Kerry might say, “We do not live in a simple world.”

“Two women, two states, one child,” by Chrstina Nuckols, The Virginian-Pilot, http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=79273&ran=16653, 13 December 2004.

For some reason I’m on a roll today. Synopsis: Blue-state Basic synposis: lesbian couple decide to entangle children in their relationship. One thinks better of it, moves to a Red-state. Spurned lesbian attempts to use Red-state court to kidnap child back. Red-state court refuses.

Vermont Renewal, an organization that opposes that state’s civil union law, has mailed fund-raising letters to its supporters in an effort to help Lisa raise money for her legal costs.

“Lisa is now a former lesbian,” the letter states. “With the help of counselors, church and caring Christian brother she has begun to turn her life around.”

The letter said Lisa wants full custody of Isabella because she “doesn’t want her child to be raised in a harmful, confusing, tormenting and psychologically damaging environment.”

But it gets better!

Leaders of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have urged caution in filing court challenges against state laws banning gay marriage. They are warning activists that more work needs to be done to build political and public support. However, Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the group, said child custody cases can’t be put on ice while that grassroots work is occurring.

As young Billy Cheney might text message: “101 0mg, 50 g4y, r07f1!!!111″

“Yes, Free Nations Embrace Freedom,” by “DJ,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2004/12/18/republic_of_the_gag.html, 21 December 2004.

DJ’s comment, interpersed with my commentary. I appreciate the time he took to write, and his well composed thoughts.

Yes, free nations embrace freedom. But they do not and should not embrace and allow the hate of others to be publicised through them.

What defines hate? Is it the largest political party in a functioning democracy, like Belgium (which was recently banned)? A second most successful political party in France’s Presidential election (which is commonly accused of racism)? The Pim Fortuyn Block in the Netherlands (which was on track to win the Dutch election, until Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by an eco-terrorist). Comedians in the UK (who may face prosecution for insensitive comments)?

Freedom means freedom for the unpopular. I would not take freedom away from unpopular politicians such as Howard Dean or Pat Buchanan, or even racist ideologues like Tariq Ramadan.

Europe has a long history of giving freedom only to those who agree with governmental actions. They have lost their Empires, the control of the world, and millions of lives as a result.

CNN publishing Osama Bin Ladens speeches isn’t quite the same as a channel dedicated to anti-semetism. Osama bin Laden is a recognised criminal throughout the western, free world and is connected to the Bush administration, or to CNN in no way.

Imagine what the reaction of the world would be if Osama bin Laden appeard as a guest on some Arab TV place, and actively encouraged Muslims to kill more westerners, for example. Would that be acceptable?

An antisemetic television station — such as the BBC or Al-Jazeera? Al Aribiyah Television has invited foremer high-ranking Ba’athis as guests.

If someone’s a criminal, imprison or kill them. But revoking the civil liberties of the unpopular, or muzzling debate, does not create a free world.

A television programme which is in France, or any country for that matter, which spews forth racist ideas frequently is connected to the French media kingdom, as it tolerates such a channel to operate and broadcast out of its borders.

Mr. bin Laden has been a guest of tiresome regularity on Al Jazeera. Before the American election, it broadcasts his threats to states that vote for President Bush. It’s not his speech I have a problem with. It’s the fact he is alive.

I see youre quick to call France a “hateful state” and yet dont even mention that the very foundations of the Hizbollah movement is one of hate.

Of course Hizbollah is hateful. And while Hizbollah’s Jewish death toll well never be close to what France achieved, it is still murder. If France cared about ending the causes of hate they would be helping Israel, now, stamp out terrorism. Imagine how much faster the Anti-Terrorist Barrier could have been built with French help!