Category: Uncategorized

Everybody else seems to be. (Trolling for traffic? Me?)

I’ve done it once before myself, but it’s apparently the topic of choice at the moment. For instance, Maureen Dowd has written a rambling, almost incomprehensible piece (I know, what’s different?) that somehow morphed from Bush-bashing to lesbianism that showed up in today’s NYT. In it, she refers to this Washington Post piece about teen girls being “partway gay.” (That stirred up a pretty long thread over at AR15.com, too, as you might imagine.) On top of that we have, oh for example: Ellen, Will and Grace, Bravo’s Boy Meets Boy and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, innumerable films, Madonna’s lesbian kisses at the Grammys, the gay marriage controversy, the “Defense of Marriage” act, and – my personal favorite – South Park episode 708: South Park is Gay. (I DARE you to watch that episode and not laugh.)

That’s just a short list off the top of my head.

Clayton Cramer is right about this: America, at least the popular culture portion of it, celebrates homosexuality rather than denigrates it.

On my way home this evening I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show, (yes, being an agnostic does not prevent me from listening to evangelical Christian radio talk shows – I’m quite secure in my lack of faith) and Hugh was discussing homosexuality and Howard Dean. At issue was Dean’s assertion (also in the Washington Post) that:

“The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.”

Uh, right Doc.

Not that I disagree with the idea that homosexuality is in some part genetic. I actually think that’s probably the case, but the bit about it not being sin because God was responsible for it I find… well “laughable” doesn’t quite cover it. The Bible (you know, the revealed Word of God?) is pretty explicit on the topic:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination”. Leviticus 18:22

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:12

(Both from the King James version.) Interestingly enough, there appears to be no similar prohibition (or penalty) for women “laying together.” At any rate, it would appear that the Christian God has a bit of a problem with at least male homosexuality, and, as a result, so do His devoted followers – understandably so. As I mentioned before, Clayton Cramer seems to have a pretty serious problem with homosexuality across the board, as he seems to favor “denigrating” it. Nor do I think this religious aversion is limited to Christians. I believe both the other Abrahamic faiths have the same or similar prohibitions, and I’ll admit ignorance when it comes to other faiths.

But there’s a major argument going on about just what constitutes homosexuality, and that argument isn’t limited to the Christians and the doctors. Even the gay community has a bit of a split over it.

The burning question is, of course, “Is homosexuality a choice?” I say no, but homosexual activity IS.

Please, put down the torches! Let me explain. There is homosexuality, and then there is homosexual activity – and there’s an important distinction between the two.

Homosexuality is, as far as I am concerned, the mental disposition (ignoring whatever cause) that makes one exclusively physically attracted to the same sex, even if the person in question never engages in a homosexual act.

Homosexual activity is sexual activity between two (or more) people of the same sex regardless of their physical attraction. Homosexual activity ranges from the physical act between a lifelong monogamous couple to homosexual gang-rape. (As Den Beste puts it, DON’T WRITE LETTERS – I’m not equating the two, I’m setting a definition. There is no assumed, implied, or stated value here.)

It is my belief that homosexuality is a relatively rare thing, but that it is, in fact, “natural” since it has been mentioned in the historical record about as far back as our written history goes. Here’s where it gets controversial, though: I think there’s most probably more than one “cause” of homosexuality. I have absolutely no doubt that some homosexuals are “born that way.” I’m a great believer in the bell curve, and find it improbable to the point of ridicule that this would not be the case. I also believe that homosexuality can be the result of or at least influenced by such environmental factors as child abuse and public acceptance of homosexual behavior. Homosexuality was, for decades, treated as a mental illness. Then, the American Psychiatric Association declared in 1973 that homosexuality “does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder.” I think they’re right, it doesn’t, necessarily. There are people still today who work to “cure” homosexuals – with varying “success,” but now people get treated for homophobia, too.

Like I said, I’m a firm believer in the bell curve, and I think, therefore that there is a broad potential for sexual behavior in the human species. Let’s face it, after self-preservation, reproduction is the most powerful urge in life. As Robert Heinlein put it, “A zygote is a gamete’s way of making another gamete.” Without assigning a moral value to it, homosexuality does nothing to accomplish that. Homosexuality would appear to be an evolutionary dead-end, but it keeps recurring in our species. Then again, so do other things detrimental to possible reproduction. This doesn’t make homosexuality or any other reproduction-preventing condition “wrong” or “immoral.” It’s just another condition of humanity.

But homosexual activity, I think, is far more common that the specific condition of homosexuality, and the amount of that activity is strongly affected by environment. Broadly: culture, but specifically the immediate environment of any population. Ancient Greece is held up as a society in which homosexual activity was not denigrated, (nor, so far as I can tell, celebrated) but accepted. As a result, homosexual activity was not uncommon. Then again, even in tightly controlled populations where it might result in severe punishment or even death, homosexual activity still occurs.

My point is that people who engage in homosexual acts do so for a wide variety of reasons. There is no simple “nature or nurture” answer. Some people engage in homosexual acts due to mental aberration that ought to be treated (and for that matter, the same holds true for some people who engage in strictly heterosexual acts.) Some people may engage in homosexual acts because they find emotional comfort in someone who happens to be of the same sex. (Anne Heche comes immediately to mind.) But overall, I think that as we come out of the womb we have place in the bell curve of human sexuality, and where we end up is strongly affected by our immediate environment (family, friends) and more subtly by our society. I think the bell curve tends us strongly towards heterosexuality because that way lays reproduction, but the pleasure circuitry that goes along with our sexual urge affects us too. If homosexuality is not strongly denigrated by the society in which you live, then as more than one wag has put it, your chances of getting lucky might be doubled.

Personally, I’m a product of the 70’s and 80’s. Male homosexuality was strongly denigrated during that period, but female homosexuality was not. That, I think, is responsible for what the Washington Post was reporting in female teen populations today – increasing social acceptance has lead to an increased incidence in the activity, even though there is probably no higher a percentage of women who identify themselves as homosexual than there was twenty years ago. Our society now largely accepts, even encourages, acts of female homosexuality (e.g.: Madonna, Britney, and Christina), and is grudgingly beginning to accept acts of male homosexuality. (You’ll note, however, that in any episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy the most the audience is going to be exposed to is a hug. Well, maybe a kiss on the cheek, but absolutely no tongue.) Is this a sign of the moral collapse of America? Well, if you’re an Evangelical Christian, I’d imagine you’re wondering if you should drop your car insurance because Rapture must be right around the corner, but no, I don’t really think so. On the other hand, the Mepham High School hazing incident(s) tell us that there are major problems to be found, and however much I disagree with Clayton Cramer on the overall topic of homosexuality, he does have a point that behavior that is acceptable in San Francisco would be considered pathology anywhere else.

But I don’t think it signals the end of America. We’ve got much bigger problems than that.

Our Collapsing Schools Dept. – This Will Make You Think…

My response after reading this was “Uh…ummm….uh…”

She makes a helluva point.

They Pry Them from Our Cold Dead Fingers

Go read. I’d really appreciate your thoughts on this one.

More on the Stupidity of Americans

From Jonathan David Morris’s latest:

What McCain-Feingold does, exactly, is it limits the freedom of speech. There’s no better way to explain it. Beyond its restriction on soft money, it prohibits the airing of issue ads — such as those sponsored by the ACLU or NRA — in the weeks before an election. So in other words, after hearing politicians tell us “the American people aren’t stupid” all these years, it turns out we are. Indeed, having watched us fall victim to cigarette-smoking cartoon characters and Super Value meals, Washington has finally decided it’s best if they simply protect us from the dissemination of ideas.

Yup. The Anointed must protect us from ourselves.

The money quote, though, is this one:

We’ve come to a point in this country where bipartisanship is seen as some grand, noble thing. It’s nothing of the sort. To suggest America’s better off when Republicans and Democrats work together ignores the fact that we’re better off when they don’t. We’re not talking about kids in a sandbox here. So what if they’re playing nicely together? They’re playing with our rights and our money.

And it’s the lack of loyal opposition that comes with bipartisanship that’s leading our country to a “two”-party tyranny.

Amen!!

Read the whole thing, and pay careful attention to the last paragraphs.

Note to Recipient: Consider Yourself Body-Slammed

Via Kim du Toit comes this outstanding rebuttal of the “violence never solves anything” position brought to us through the kind auspices of Solomonia.

Go read.

Looks Like Ohio Will Become the Next “Shall-Issue” CCW State

According to Ohioans for Concealed Carry.

Ohioans should stand by for a “certainty of more maiming and killing, accidentally or otherwise.”

Apparently Ohioans are somehow more accident-prone and bloodthirsty than residents of other states.

In related good news, the New Mexico Supreme Court has denied cert. to a challenge to its recently passed CCW law. Surprisingly, the challengers of the law stated:

(O)pponents of the law will begin to compile data on whether homicides and suicides increase because handguns are more accessible.

Opponents would “work towards a repeal if the data shows the law is detrimental in New Mexico.”

Hasn’t yet in any of the other states.

UPDATE (1/8): Say Uncle reports that Kansas could be next.

I love this quote in the story, though:

(Rep. Candy) Ruff (D-Leavenworth) said she had no desire to carry a weapon and was not a member of the NRA. She said her support was based on what she said was the constitutional right to carry a gun and protect oneself.

Right. What she said.

You Might be an Internet Gun Nut if:

You have visited a gun forum 25 times since the last time you shot a gun. Not guilty

You have more gun related bookmarks on your computer than you have fired shots from guns in the last year. Not guilty

You stay up late into the night comparing bullet or ammo prices from various web sites. Guilty

You have ever bought a gun on line. Guilty

You have a copy of Brownell’s catalog, but you spend 10 times as long finding something on their web site, because it is more convenient. Not guilty

You have shooting buddies you have never met in person. Guilty

You have guns you have never shot, but still spend most of Saturday typing on the computer about guns. Not guilty

You get your computer to print your targets that you found for free on the internet. Guilty

You can’t stop reading about guns on line, and did a little sneaking and did it at work. Guilty

You get a flyer in your mailbox from AIM that shows guns on sale, and you go directly to your computer to see if it is also on their website. Guilty. My AIM flyer comes to me AT work.

You use the FFL copies signed in blue ink given you by the gunstore to gain access to gun distributor prices on line. Not guilty

You have read all the new topics at rec.guns every day for 10 years. Not guilty. I didn’t know rec.guns existed until about 1998.

That’s six out of twelve. But I have a blog, so I guess that makes me an internet gun nut.

Remember the Police Drug Raid at Goose Step Creek H.S?

I originally covered it here.

Well, according to this story, the school principal is “stepping down.”

Stratford High School principal George McCrackin is stepping down from his job. The principal, who came under fire after a November drug raid at the Goose Creek school, said pressure following the raid prompted his decision.

McCrackin said at a Monday press conference he realizes it’s in the best interest of the Goose Creek school and its students. He has been principal at Stratford since it opened in 1983.

I somehow doubt this means he’s leaving the school system, rather they’ll find some out of the way place to put him until the furor dies down.

Besides, three lawsuits are pending. Wouldn’t do to simply have him disappear.

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

Remember back in October when the denizens of Democraticunderground.com were frothing at the mouth over the California recall election? One poster over there with the handle “janekat” wrote:

What we MUST realize in order to win – Americans are stupid and uninformed

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I’m afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 – I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm.

Yup, the Democrats believe that the majority is too stupid to be trusted with their own governance. But, you say, Democraticunderground.com represents the tattered fringe of the left, surely their opinions can be discounted as the ravings of barking moonbats?

Possibly not. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has printed a guest editorial by one Neal Starkman, who echoes the same sentiment. The piece begins:

It’s increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush’s popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president’s popularity hovers at around 50 percent — an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people’s lives now as opposed to four years ago.

What can explain his popularity?

Actually, according to this site, his current approval rating is 60%, and has never dropped below 49%.

But Mr. Starkman has an explanation for this, to him, astonishing fact:

It’s the “Stupid factor,” the S factor: Some people — sometimes through no fault of their own — are just not very bright.

It’s not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren’t the people I’m referring to. The people I’m referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They’re perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don’t have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all — far above all — they don’t think.

That’s right, folks. Half the population or more is simply too stupid to understand foreign policy, constitutional law, macroeconomics and environmentalism. They’re too stupid to to even understand cause and effect!

Obviously they’re too stupid to be trusted with DEMOCRACY.

During the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election I wrote a peice entitled An Uncomfortable Conclusion. In it I said:

With the continuing legal maneuvers in the Florida election debacle, I have been forced to a conclusion that I may have been unconsciously fending off. The Democratic party thinks we’re stupid. Not “amiable uncle Joe” stupid, but DANGEROUSLY stupid. Lead-by-the-hand-no-sharp-objects-don’t-put-that-in-your-mouth stupid. And they don’t think that just Republicans and independents are stupid, no no! They think ANYBODY not in the Democratic power elite is, by definition, a drooling idiot. A muttering moron. Pinheads barely capable of dressing ourselves.

Take, for example, the position under which the Gore election machine petitioned for a recount – that only supporters of the Democratic candidate for President lacked the skills necessary to vote properly, and that through a manual recount those erroneously marked ballots could be “properly” counted in Mr. Gore’s favor. They did this in open court and on national television, and with a straight face.

So, it is with some regret that I can no longer hold that uncomfortable conclusion at bay:

They’re right. We are.

The difference between my position and Mr. Starkman’s? I understand that the purpose of a Constitutional Republic is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That’s why there’s a Constitution that spells out what the government can and can’t do. That’s why there’s an Electoral College. That’s why there’s a Bill of Rights.

Mr. Starkman makes a strong point for the idea that the people cannot be trusted with their own governance.

Bzzzzzt! Sorry, Mr. Starkman, wrong answer – because the only conclusion that can then be drawn is that, being too stupid to govern ourselves we must submit to our more intelligent betters. As ‘janekat’ put it, the 1% to 20% of the population who are our superiors “intelligence-wise.” These are the people who understand cause and effect, who grasp foreign policy, constitutional law, macroeconomics and environmentalism. They are our rightful rulers, and we stupid people should just do what they tell us.

Yesterday Andy Duncan of Samizdata posted a most appropriate quote from Ludwig von Mises’ Bureaucracy:

It [modern socialism] is totalitarian in the strict sense of the term. It holds the individual in tight rein from the womb to the tomb. At every instant of his life the ‘comrade’ is bound to obey implicitly the orders issued by the supreme authority. The State is both his guardian and his employer. The State determines his work, his diet, and his pleasures. The State tells him what to think and what to believe in.

That’s the alternative, if you accept Mr. Starkman’s position that we can’t govern ourselves, we’re not qualified.

That’s what happens when you don’t trust The People.

(Edited to add:)

Instapundit, however, links to this John Perry Barlow post where he discusses the disagreement between the pro- and anti-Bush sides. Money quote:

Lately I have found myself too easily seduced into a belief that no one who is neither crazy nor dim-witted nor TV-psychotic nor pretending to be asleep could actually support the policies of the Bush Administration. But the Bush supporters who have arrived here are, with a few exceptions, intelligent, articulate, and more courteous in debate than many of my own cohort. This discussion is a great reminder – as if I should need one – that the other side deserves to be taken as seriously as I would have them take me.

—

If we in the anti-Bush forces continue to bray about our moral and intellectual superiority, we will almost certainly piss off the troubled folks in the middle who will decide the future of America in the next election.

See? There is hope.

UPDATE: Michele gave Mr. Starkman her “Bender Post of the Day” award. She also has some good things to say in a post on civility in political discourse.

UPDATE: 1/7 – Chris Muir weighs in:

And AlphaPatriot responds in kind, writing about the “Fuzzy Factor.”

This is Why I Read Ravenwood

Start here and work your way down. It’s all good.