Gay Marriage and Young Republicans

Meghan McCain's in the news again with her comments on gay marriage and the GOP. According to Ms. McCain, for "progressive" Republicans, the gay marriage issue is "about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside."

Read the whole thing, here. Ms. McCain argues that Ronald Reagan, in 1978, championed gay rights during a California initiative battle what would have prevented gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.

The problem for Ms. McCain, and other advocates of same-sex marriage, is that Americans do not hold discriminatory views of homosexuals. Polls repeatedly find widespread support for the extension of equal protections to gay Americans. The problem is not the extension of rights to same-sex couples per se, but the redefinition of marriage itself. And huge majorities are opposed to changing the historical conception of society's normative tradition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That's why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Interestingly, Kristen Soltis, at The Next Right, finds some empirical support for Ms. McCain's argument on gay marriage and young Republicans. But a careful look at numbers offered by Soltis, drawn from the General Social Survey, reveals that youth voters are not all that sold on the acceptablility of homosexual relations, much less gay marriage:

I recently completed research on the topic of young voters and the GOP: where the Republican Party is losing young voters, how serious the threat is to the party, and how the Republican Party should respond. And on this point, Ms. McCain has it right - the issue of gay marriage is one on which young voters and the Republican Party diverge significantly ....

Yet issues relating to homosexuality find vast differences between the young and older voters. In terms of the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is wrong, 44.3% of respondents to the General Social Survey 18-34 believe it is "never wrong" compared to 33.5% of respondents overall. Furthermore, 47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong" compared to 55.6% of respondents overall.

Eh, hello? "47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong ..."

That statistic sticks out like a sore thumb. This is 2008 data. If nearly half of those 18-34 think that homosexual intercourse is always wrong, it's not a particularly robust statement on youth support for gay rights, much less same-sex marriage. Futher, for all the talk of society moving toward more acceptance of gay lifestyles, that's got to be a troublesome statistics for the radical homosexual activists. Indeed, numbers like these explain precisely why the gay nihilists browbeat tradtionalists into submission: Radical leftists know that their agenda violates the deepest sense of social propriety, and so they must portray traditionalists as bigots and religious "extremists" to make the sale for their own licentiousness.

I just checked Google for my post from January on the radical gay of the political left: "Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations." At that entry I discussed the inaugural celebrations among gay activist groups, which included the deployment of "rimming stations" by those celebrating at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington. But note that a Google search for "rimming station gay" pulls up all kind of links to gay male sexual pornography. With all due respect to Meghan McCain, I seriously doubt these are the kind of "moderate conservative" views the GOP should be pushing. Or, at least, a look at young gay lifestyles reveals anything but a socially conservative outlook, and I'd wager Ronald Reagan would roll over in the grave at the thought of it.

Besides, as gay conservative Charles Winecoff argued recently, the gay rights agenda is really not about "inclusion" or "full acceptance." It's about social revolution:

Eight years after 9/11, the LGBT community gets its activism fix by indulging in nostalgic, anti-establishment indignation over petty domestic slights. Ganging up on an annoying little old lady carrying a cross at a Prop 8 rally satisfies the itch between workouts and White Parties. But wouldn’t it be genuinely awe inspiring to see masses of musclebound gay men taking on, say, a congregation of homophobic Islamic “thinkers” (who, BTW, love the idea of pushing gay men off cliffs to their death)? ....

Civil unions already offer gay couples the same basic legal status as married couples in several states, including California (and they’re a lot easier to get). But as a result of the gay community’s mass hissy fit to usurp marriage, the religious right has been re-ignited in its holy war against legal recognition of any gay relationships at all ....

40 years after the Stonewall Riots, it’s time for the LGBT community to reconnect with what made us rebel in the first place: the right to live not as conformist dhimmis, but as social, intellectual, and artistic pioneers. Instead of stirring up resentment trying to snatch a piece of a stale pie we don’t really need - and setting back our cause in the process - we need to keep moving forward, not “separate but equal,” but different and equal.

There's a lot to think about for the GOP in acceding to the demands of "progressive" Republicans for a wholesale cultural change that is nowhere near supported by a majority of Americans. Not only that, the youth demographic is open to political persuasion toward more conservative ideals on lifestyle and families.

There's been some talk lately of the formation of third political party, which would in effect be a splinter movement breaking away from today's GOP. So far that chatter's been associated with the Tea Party protests springing up around the country, but if the national Republican Party capitulates to the Megan McCain's and David Frums, it's not unlikely that the push for a new conservative party outside of the traditional two-party system would pick up even more steam.

**********

Related: Gay Patriot looks at the same data from Next Right, and then adds:

I don’t think the GOP need be pro-gay marriage to win the youth vote. I do think it needs [to] offer a vision of choice and opportunity to contrast the Democrats’ preference for government solutions and one-size-fits-all approaches.

That said, I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.

It's interesting that had Iowa taken the "federalist" route this last week, we would not have seen the approval of same-sex marriage in that state.

J. David Jentsch Stands Up to Animal Rights Extremists

I'm a little surprised to see this story at the Los Angeles Times, but check it out for some decent old-fashioned journalism: "UCLA professor stands up to violent animal rights activists":

As soon as he heard his car alarm blare and saw the orange glow through his bedroom window, UCLA neuroscientist J. David Jentsch knew that his fears had come true.

His 2006 Volvo, parked next to his Westside house, had been set ablaze and destroyed in an early morning attack March 7. Jentsch had become the latest victim in a series of violent incidents targeting University of California scientists who use animals in biomedical research.

"Obviously, someone who does the work I do in this environment expects that it's possible, indeed likely, that it would have happened," said Jentsch, who uses vervet monkeys in his research on treatments for schizophrenia and drug addiction. Before the attack, he had received no threats and had taken only limited precautions, including keeping his photo off the Internet.

"I've been as careful as you can be without being paranoid," he said.

After similar incidents, other UCLA scientists have become almost reclusive as security and public curiosity around them grew. Three years ago, another UCLA neuroscientist, weary of harassment and threats to his family, abandoned animal research altogether, sending an e-mail to an animal rights website that read: "You win."

But Jentsch has decided to push back.

Jentsch, an associate professor of psychology and psychiatry, has founded an organization at UCLA to voice support for research that uses animals in what he calls a humane, carefully regulated way. He is organizing a pro-research campus rally April 22, a date chosen because animal rights activists, who contend that his research involves the torture and needless killing of primates, already had scheduled their own UCLA protest that day.

"People always say: 'Don't respond. If you respond, that will give [the attackers] credibility,' " Jentsch, 37, said in a recent interview in his UCLA office. "But being silent wasn't making us feel safer. And it's a moot point if they are coming to burn your car anyway, whether you give them credibility or not."

The incidents have traumatized many professors and students on the Westwood campus, well beyond the circle of those directly affected, said Jentsch, who was not injured in the car fire.

This part's a little mind-boggling:

Two days after Jentsch's car was burned, a profanity-laced Internet message from the murky Animal Liberation Brigade took credit for the fire, as it had for past UCLA assaults.

"The things you and others like you do to feeling, sentient monkeys is so cruel and disgusting we can't believe anyone would be able to live with themselves," the message read. "David, here's a message just for you, we will come for you when you least expect it and do a lot more damage than to your property."

Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angeles-area physician and frequent spokesman for the animal rights movement, said he and fellow activists do not participate in the attacks and do not know who is behind them, although he sympathizes with the actions.

Jentsch, according to Vlasak, "is hurting and killing non-human primates every day. And if it took harming him to make him stop torturing, it is certainly morally justifiable."

Vlasak said that Jentsch's new group is a publicity stunt aimed at preserving researchers' federal funding and turning public attention from the nature of the researcher's own work, which involves addicting monkeys to methamphetamine. Vlasak and others said they want to meet Jentsch in a public debate, but the UCLA professor said he was willing to do so only with people who don't condone violence.

Jentsch (pronounced "Yench") has organized a counter organization affilliated with Britain's scientific progress group, "Pro-Test." On April 22, Jentsch will speak at a UCLA rally, "Stand up for Science, Research and the Medicines of Tomorrow." The event is scheduled for 11:30am at the UCLA campus. Click here for more information.

**********

Addendum: I just checked the archives for a previous entry on animal rights, "The Postmodern Culture of Animal Rights Activism."

It turns out that Professor John Sanbonmatsu of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in Worcester, Massachusetts, left a comment at the post. Professor Sanbonmatsu attacks my essay as "factually wrong on all counts," and he suggests that my writing is "a blogger's animus toward animal rights, based neither in logic nor reason, but simple prejudice."

Well, I beg to differ with this point of neither "logic nor reason"; and frankly, the good professor looks to be short of logic when he suggests that animal rights "is not a 'relativistic' moral position; nor are animal rights activists 'postmodernists'."

Any philosophy that elevates animals to a morally equivalent plane to that of humankind qualifies as a "postmodernist" ideological program in the general usage of postmodernism in political science (interesting related link is here). I'm not particularly interested in Sanbonmatsu's revisionist nomenclature, in any case. He can quibble with academic labels if he wishes (but don't miss the philosphically anti-modernist "about page" at the "Institute for Critical Animal Studies," which is apparently an animal rights academic thinktank.

But check Roger Scruton's identification of the animal rights program as a key element of the contemporary left's radical worldview:

Properly understood, the concept of a right—and the attendant ideas of duty, responsibility, law, and obedience—enshrines what is distinctive in the human condition. To spread the concept beyond our species is to jeopardize our dignity as moral beings, who live in judgment of one another and of themselves.

Interestingly - and highly relevant to this discussion - it turns out that Professor Sanbonmatsu did his doctoral training at UC Santa Cruz; and according to his biography, the professor's specialities are in "Political philosophy; critical theory (Marxism, feminism, ecological theory); ethics and animal rights; existentialism (especially phenomenology)."

Well, that explains a lot.

Recall that David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin, in One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy, identified UC Santa Cruz as "the worst school in America." The introduction to One Party Classroom is available here.

I'd be interested to know the membership of Professor Sanbonmatsu's dissertation committee, as well as some of faculty members who taught the graduate seminars he attended.

Perhaps I'll find out: Dr. Sanbonmatsu's e-mail is available at his Worcester faculty page, and I'll forward him this post just as a matter of professional courtesy.

Where Credit is Due: The Story of a Successful Rescue

I said last night that I'd update on the Richard Phillips rescue story when more information became available. Well, the story's now leading at Memeorandum. See, for example, Michael Shear, "An Early Military Victory for Obama," and Ann Scott Tyson's, "How SEALs Carried Out Their Mission."

But relating to Black Five's earlier piece, see Jeff Emanuel's, "The Story of a Successful Rescue (and the Obama Adminstration’s Attempt to Claim Credit)":

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four-day-and-counting standoff between a rag-tag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

On Friday, April 9, as the standoff reached the end of its third day, I called on President Obama to take action to free the American hostage from his Somali captors. I outlined three possible operational tactics that could be used to do so; number 1 was the following:

(1) 2 helos, 2 snipers each: pop the [pirates] in their heads, then drop a rescue swimmer to escort the hostage up to one of the choppers. This works best if the hostage is aware of what is happening and can help without getting in the way — say, by hopping overboard as the gunships near, to divert attention and get out of the line of fire.

(This was written before the USS Bainbridge tethered the life raft to its stern, an action which eliminated the need for helicopters.)

However, instead of taking direct, decisive action against the rag-tag group of gunmen, the Obama administration dilly-dallied, dawdled, and eschewed any decisiveness whatsoever, even in the face of enemy fire, in hopes that the situation would somehow resolve itself without violence. Thus, the administration sent a clear message to all who would threaten U.S. interests abroad that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no idea how to respond to such situations — and no real willingness to use military force to resolve them.

Any who think they weren’t watching every minute of this are guilty — at best — of greatly underestimating our enemies.

Like the crew of the Alabama, which took swift and decisive action to take back their own ship rather than wait for help from Washington that they knew could not be counted on, Captain Phillips took matters into his own hands for the second time in three days, leaping into the water to create a diversion and allowing the NSWC team to eliminate his captors. The result, of course, was the best that could possibly be expected: three pirates dead, the captain unharmed, and a fourth Somali man who had surrendered late Saturday night in custody.

See also, Red State, "Captive Captain Saves President Obama."

Obama's Post-Material Economy

I wanted to share this great Robert Samuelson essay with readers, "Obama's Economic Mirage" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama has made no secret of his vision for America's 21st-century economy. We will lead the world in "green" technologies to stop global warming. Advancing medical breakthroughs will improve our well-being, control health spending and enable us to expand insurance coverage. These investments in energy and health care, as well as education, will revive the economy and create millions of well-paying new jobs for middle-class Americans.

It's a dazzling rhetorical vista that excites the young and fits the country's mood, which blames "capitalist greed" for the economic crisis. Obama promises communal goals and a more widely shared prosperity. The trouble is that it may not work as well in practice as it does in Obama's speeches. Still, congressional Democrats press ahead to curb global warming and achieve near-universal health insurance. We should not be stampeded into far-reaching changes that have little to do with today's crisis.

What Obama proposes is a "post-material economy." He would de-emphasize the production of ever-more private goods and services, harnessing the economy to achieve broad social goals. In the process, he sets aside the standard logic of economic progress.

Since the dawn of the Industrial Age, this has been simple: produce more with less. ("Productivity," in economic jargon.) Mass markets developed for clothes, cars, computers and much more because declining costs expanded production. Living standards rose. By contrast, the logic of the "post-material economy" is just the opposite: Spend more and get less.

There's more at the link.

Related: Ari Fleischer, "Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes" (via Pundette):

Today, Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats want the "wealthy" to pay even more so there is more money for them to redistribute. The president says he wants the wealthy to pay their "fair share" ... The economic and moral problem is that when 50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them and an increasingly smaller number of taxpayers foot the bill, the spinning triangle will no longer be able to support itself. Eventually, it will spin so slowly that it falls down, especially when the economy is contracting and the number of wealthy taxpayers is in sharp decline.

The Grassroots Tea Party Revolt

Paul Krugman's always an interesting character on the political left. As I've noted a few times here, throughout the market downturn, he's been the biggest economic fearmonger in American politics (for example, see Krugman, "What Obama Must Do: A Letter to the New President"). The scale of Krugman's proposed big-government interventionism is truly breathtaking. It's thus no wonder why he's a rock star to the hardline secular collectivists of the extreme left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Krugman's latest column at the New York Times goes after the conservative tea party movement. The piece is worth a good read as an indication of how truly clueless leftists are about what's really brewing among everyday Americans today. Beyond the boilerplate attacks on conservatives as "crazy people," Krugman's conspiratorial view of the Tea Party movement is worth highlighting: " ... it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects ... "

Man, that is some kind of denialism! Krugman's "AstroTurfing" is on par with Jane Hamsher's circus performance last weekend, where she made a fool of herself claiming that Fox News was orchestrating the nationwide Tea Party revolt - and that's on top of the 12 people who showed up for Hamsher's Washington "New Way Forward" demonstration. Krugman and Hamsher are no different from the idiot left-wing activists declaring that "The typical American is not a good citizen."

I tell you what: In my experience of 25 years of political participation and scholarship in political science, I can't really recall quite the phenomenon as this buildup for the April 15th Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Rallies. Oh sure, Fox News has been cheerleading from the sidelines, but whatever influence the Fox personalities have had is nothing compared to the genuine outpouring of grassroots patriotism that we're seeing today. This is the best I've felt about conservative politics since the Democrats won power last November.

For a flavor of what I'm taking about, check out this website I found yesterday, "The New Tea Party and Revolution." The front page of the site lists hundreds of scheduled Tea Party events all around the country. I counted at least 150 and that's before I scrolled even halfway down. This is the kind of interest and spontaneity that cannot be manufactured by a few conservative cable TV shock jocks. This is the Real McCoy! It's history in the making!

According to Glenn Reynolds, who discusses the grassroots nature of the movement in an essay today at the New York Post:

These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists.

And I think this is what's so frightening to those on the political left. As William Jacobson notes in his post today:

The disparate groups involved, the great variation from location-to-location, and the sometimes disorganized nature of the protests demonstrate the genuine nature of the movement. The fact that some have lent a promotional hand doesn't take away from this. The mainstream media practically elected Obama through its over-the-top cheerleading coverage and refusal to ask hard questions. And Media Matters and other liberal organizations are extremely well funded in their efforts, far more so than the Tea Party movement. Nothing any conservative organization is doing to help the Tea Parties even comes close.

But check out the description of the events at "Michigan Taxes Too Much":

There are many reasons why millions of Americans will take to the streets on April 15....

If you want to know more about us, look to the national figures, personalities and famous people who [are] leaders and organizers of this protest. Unfortunately, you won’t find any famous, rich or recognizable people. They don’t exist. Instead you will find the “Joe, the plumbers” and the millions of no-name people who are indeed, mad as hell.

Organizers are the guy who lives around the corner and you didn’t even know his name before. They are the secretaries, computer technicians, clerks, businessmen, salesmen and any other occupation you can think of. There are also retired people who remember what this country once stood for.

Notice the speakers are not politicians. In fact, party representatives and elected officials offering to take the podium at most tea parties are being rejected. Instead, the everyday Joe’s of this world will speak. There will be no teleprompter with carefully worded speeches that don’t say anything or words chosen to be interpreted differently by different groups.

Probably the best explanation for Krugman and Hamsher's frustration is pure jealousy, even panic. Leftists were the opposition for the last eight years. They had their run at power. What's interesting to me is that today's grassroots activism is not particularly partisan. Over and over again, on blogs and message boards, I see folks saying "we are not political." Many folks confess that this is the first time they've gotten involved politically. And that has to be the most frightening thing about this for the secular collectivists on the left. If you're a Democratic big-government backer of the current administration, a real movement of real people modeling themselves on the "Spirit of 1776" is just something that's too much to believe.

I can't wait for Wednesday, April 15th!

Andrew Sullivan Throws Hissy Fit at Amazon "Adult" De-Linking

The Los Angeles Times notes, "One of these books has been removed from Amazon's sales rankings because of "adult" content; the other has not":

"American Psycho" is Bret Easton Ellis' story of a sadistic murderer. "Unfriendly Fire" is a well-reviewed empirical analysis of military policy. But it's "Unfriendly Fire" that does not have a sales rank - which means it would not show up in Amazon's bestseller lists, even if it sold more copies than the "Twilight" series. In some cases, being de-ranked also means being removed from Amazon's search results.

Unfair? Perhaps ... But boy does this ever throw Andrew Sullivan into a hissy fit!

This has to be one of the weirdest and least defensible policy changes imaginable. Mein Kampf is fine. Jackie Collins is fine. But books about gay subjects are now "adult" on Amazon and so not included on best seller lists or rankings. Sure enough, "Virtually Normal" and "Love Undetectable" have been de-listed and stripped of customer sales rankings. Jackie Collins' "Married Lovers" hasn't. My books contain discussions of Aquinas and Freud and Foucault and Burke. I'm puzzled as to why those authors are more "adult" than Collins' adulterous couplings.

Hmm, "weird" and "indefensible"? Kind of like Iowa's same-sex marriage ruling. Go figure?

"Obama has passed his first test!"

The Daily Kos clowns are ejaculating, "Obama Approved Special Forces mission to save Captain!"

Well this will make the wingnuts' heads explode!

Apparently Obama approved the Special Forces mission to save the Captain! ....

As I have said in many diaries, Obama has to give the final approval for use of Special Forces. If this mission resulted in the Captain being killed he would have been blamed by the media as well as the wingnuts. Since this mission was successful, Obama is responsible for the success as well ....

I don't care what anybody says, Obama has passed his first test!

Actually, my head's not "exploding," and it seems the lefties can't make up their minds. Either this is a good thing, or the pirates were just acting in self-defense, considering the kind of neo-imperial aggression seeking to "stop any progressive movement or any form of good self-government." Yeah. Right. In Somalia, har, har...

In any case, check out Uncle Jimbo at Black Five, "How the Rescue Happened":

The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. Iti [sic] is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

I'll update when we get more information, but I was just e-mailing Rusty Walker about exactly this issue.

Related: Flopping Aces, "Somali pirates seek revenge on French and Americans."

Captain Phillips is a Hero

Well, I'm sure most folks have heard the great news that U.S. Captain Richard Phillips has been rescued from the pirates who hijacked his container ship, the Maersk Alabama. TigerHawk rightly points out that President Barack Obama deserves kudos for "signing off on the mission." I'd add that American naval forces also deserve high praise for playing it cool while the pirated lifeboat drifted off the coast of Somalia. In waiting out Captain Phillips' captors, U.S. forces showed a patient resolve, and then decisive action, that culminated in the best possible outcome.

That said, I checked some of the links at Memeorandum to get a feel for the blogospheric buzz, and many of those on the left aren't celebrating this event for the triumph of heroism that it is. Readers should check the comments at Think Progress, where some of the visitors there are scourging the United States, and suggesting that piracy is a legitimate response to Eurupe's "nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia." One of the commenters blames the Bush administration:

We are always interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and always trying to stop any progressive movement or any form of good self-government.

Putting aside the sheer stupidy of that comment, note that a couple of the visitors at the post have linked to a piece at Crooks and Liars, "What the International Media Aren't Telling You About Somalia Pirates."

Read the whole post. Crooks and Liars links to an anti-capitalist essay at London's Independent, and then concludes with this flourish, "I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?"

Well, I wonder which principled member of our (leftist) media will point out that this is the exact same kind of logic that we saw after September 11, 2001, when leftists claimed America deserved the atttacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Indeed, some widely-supported anti-Americans suggested that the "chickens came home to roost" on 9/11.

On this day, Easter Sunday, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a show of national unity upon the safe release of Captain Richard Phillips, who's being hailed as "a hero" by his own crewmates.

Unfortunately, even amid a moment when goodness and human spirit triumphs, those on the radical left continue their endless campaign of anti-Western demonization and destruction. It's a sad commentary on the state of politics in the country today.

Requiem for the Christian Right?

Let me direct readers to a couple of articles for contemplation this Easter ...

First, Monte Kuligowski, at The American Thinker, takes issue with President Barack Obama's claim that the United States is "no longer a Christian nation," but "a nation of citizens," in "Obama's 'Christian Nation'." Second, Tracie Powell, at CQ Politics, asks, "Is Political Rebound Ahead for Christian Right?":

President Obama raised a few eyebrows back home with his choice of words in Turkey, a Muslim nation, about religion.

“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values,” the president said.

A few days before, a new report revealed that fewer Americans identify themselves as Christians. The American Religious Identification Survey said the proportion of Americans who claim to have no religion has increased to 15 percent today, from 8.2 percent in 1990.

Newsweek put a story based on the survey on its cover. Reaction from the Christian right was overwhelming. Thousands took issue with the story and some called for Editor Jon Meacham to be fired.

Meacham later wrote a second piece clarifying the original story, and emphasizing that the original piece is really about the weakening of Christian forces in partisan politics. He offers an indepth analysis about the decline of the religious right, which is further supported in a column by Kathleen Parker.

Still, I’m not ready to write an obituary for Christian conservatism just yet.

One only has to look at the response, such as in this video from groups like the National Organization for Marriage after Iowa and Vermont legalized same sex marriage and the Washington, DC council voted to recognize the unions to see how they are now shaping their message.

No, Christianity isn’t dead nor dying, neither is the Christian Right for that matter. It’s just slowing, perhaps temporarily, being replaced by a softer brand of religious expression, says David Roozin, Director of the Hartford Seminary’s Institute for Religion Research.

More progressive Christian leaders are making service, not condemnation, more in vogue.

One example of that soft side in action: a group of Christian leaders plan to converge on Washington later this month to discuss ways to end poverty around the world in 10 years.

Sounds pretty lofty, but it shows a shift in values and a shift in understanding about what makes a person moral and righteous.

Some are reconsidering separation between church and state, after seeing the movement get contaminated by secular elements such as lust of affluence and power, Roozin says: “They’ve been turned off and returned to a greater sense about the word of the Gospel and the church.”

The public has also grown weary of a harsh brand of Christianity, and view it as out of the mainstream and closer fit with conservative Republican politics, which is also out of favor at the moment.

“People are just tired of it. I think we saw that with the election of Barack Obama,” Roozin says. “And I think very definitely the harsh side of conservatism is on the wane. For better or for worse, that harsher side is connected with religion, whether it’s extreme Islam or extreme Christianity.”

But Roozin also points to the growth of Latino Catholicism in this country, and the rise of liberal or more progressive Christian leaders like Rick Warren and Joel Olsteen, who are increasing in prominence.

Warren pastors Saddleback Valley Community Church and prayed at Obama’s inauguration. Olsteen, pastor of the largest church in the U.S., Lakewood Church in Houston, incurred the wrath of Christian conservatives because he won’t outright condemn gay marriage.

Yes, with Obama’s election, religious conservatism suffered a setback. And when he, a constitutional scholar no less and a Christian to boot, said that America is not a Christian nation, that too might be seen as a step backward among conservatives.

It’s too soon to know whether Christian conservatism is fading.

With the flurry of activity regarding gay rights, it will be interesting to see if Obama and the Democratic Congress decide to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

Ask me then if the Christian Right is dead.

Also, for a very moving story of faith and redemption, see Matt Cassens' personal Easter story, "First Communion Tonight."

Here's wishing a wonderful Easter to all of my friends, my family, my students, and my readers.

Thousands Join Pittsburgh Tea Party Rally

I just had to share this beautiful picture from today's Pittsburgh Tea Party protest, via Glenn Reynolds and Memeorandum.

See also, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Several thousand jam North Shore for bailout 'tea party'."

On a related note, I'm not even going to link to the pathetic Jane Hamsher, who humiliated herself today at a "New Way Forward" copycat protest in Washington, D.C. (see video here). All the relevant links to the debate are at Memeorandum. Media Matters, it's worth noting, is attacking Fox News with "damning" new details of the network's "sponsorship" of the nationwide Tea Parties. What's funny to me about this outrage from Media Matters is that we simply do not have a non-partisan, objective press in the Unites States any longer, if we ever did. Frankly, all the power to Fox for covering the Tea Parties, and to their celebrity hosts for endorsing them. If we have media bias, it's really no different from what you'll find at the New York Times and CNN/MSNBC any day of the year. We have a Democratic administration now in the White House enabled largely by a national media establishment that showed demonstrable negativity towards the GOP ticket throughout late-2008. If Fox News is helping the conservative movement with heavy coverage and partisan cheerleading, thank God for that.

Speaking of Fox News, see the website's online report, "Organizers Give Recipes for Effective Tea Parties."

Full Metal Saturday: Kristin Cavallari

Well folks, it's been a busy week blogging the culture wars, but I'm taking time out here for a little double-duty on babe-blogging. Readers might have missed my regular midweek "Rule 5 Rescue," so I'm going double-barrel with some hot Kristin Cavallari action! Ms. Cavallari's a local Laguna Beach hottie who was the leading personality during Season 2 of Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County:

Readers will recall that Full Metal Saturday owes its origins to Robert Stacy McCain's pathbreaking post, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year." I call Robert "The Hustler," not only for his recognition as one of the hardest working bloggers in the blogosphere, but for the growing influence of his program of shameless blog whoring! Today's case in point is Michael van der Galien of PoliGazette, who's introducing a new feature at his site called "Link Mess." But I should note that Steven Givler, who was featured here last week, is also a reader of The Other McCain. Now, note something else: When my friend Carol at No Sheeples Here! expressed some reservations about "Rule 5" blogging, Robert put up an interesting post on the subject, where he noted:

Conservatives must rid themselves of the Dean Vernon Wormer mindset ("No more fun of any kind!") and instead try to put the "party" back into the Republican Party. Stop trying to be the uptight, respectable Omegas. Let's bring a hell-raising, fun-loving Delta House mentality to the task at hand ...

Well, I'll tell ya: It looks like a number of conservative bloggers have taken the hint, especially the ladies! Fausta Wertz puts out some classic Rule 5 blogging this week with a couple of entries, "Captain Underpants" (featuring a "hirsute" Tom Selleck) and "About those hairless chests ..." Fausta links to Neo-Neocon, who not only offers a lengthy analysis of "men waxing their chests," but the post sports a shot of some pretty hunky beefcake! Plus, Monique Stuart's playing both sides of the fence with some hot Katy Perry Rule 5 action! Now that's what I'm talking about! And don't miss Pundette & Pundette, who's got her weekend link-fest up today, with some hot buns in there to boot! If I'm omitting any entries from the ladies, just send me an e-mail and I'll add your post to this entry. And with that, on to the guys! I've got to get a couple of my blog buddies fired up for some Rule 5 revelry! Dana at Common Sense Political Thought might post an update his hot Helen Mirren entry, and Stogie at Saberpoint might well be afflicted by the Dean Vernor Wormer mindset! Let's also put some pressure on my friends Dave in Boca and William Jacobson. Come on guys, break loose with some babe blogging! And check out Lance Burri to see how it's done, "Of Rule #5, YouTube, and commercials indeterminate, persuasive, and unpleasant." Dude, it's getting hot in here! And don't even get me going about John Althouse Cohen! But wait! This just in: "The Hustler's" got breaking news on Lindsay Lohan: "EX-DISNEY STARLET LINDSAY LOHAN REPORTEDLY DUMPED BY LESBIAN GF SAMANTHA RONSON . . ." Okay, switching gears a bit, don't forget that a number of our good friends have no time for breast blogging. They're busy doing even more important work: Tea Party blogging! Moe Lane's got a great post on the 12 whole anti-capitalist protesters - that's right just 12 - who turned out for the left's epic-fail copycat protest in Washington, D.C., one of the "New Way Forward" demonstrations that are modeled after the conservative movement's emerging "Second American Revolution." Conservatives are getting fired up on this, of course. Check out Point of a Gun, with some coverage of Maryland's Tea Party protests. Little Miss Attila is gearing up for her events, but check out Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit with all kinds of links to Tea Party action nationwide. As always, if I've missed anyone just send me a quick note and I'll add your post here in an update. Otherwise, keep up the Rule 5 hotness!

Remembering Nick Adenhart

Today's front-page at the Los Angeles Times features this shot of Torii Hunter, left, and John Lackey paying tribute to rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart, who was killed early Thursday in a broadside collision in Fullerton, California (the photo gallery is here).

I first learned about Adenhart's death when I opened the newspaper yesterday morning. The Los Angeles Times' obituary is here: "Angels' Nick Adenhart had rekindled his early promise." Also, my friend Mark Goluskin posted on Adenhart yesterday, "Nick Adenhart, 1986-2009."

The circumstances surrounding Adenhart's death are especially sad, given that he and two of his friends were killed by an alleged drunk driver, Andrew Thomas Gallo, who has been charged by Orange County prosecutors with three counts of murder, hit and run, and drunk driving. Also killed were Courtney Stewart, 20, a beautiful young student and cheerleader at Cal State Fullerton, and Henry Pearson, Henry Pearson, "a 25-year-old law student from Manhattan Beach."

See the full story, "Charges filed in death of Angels pitcher":

As Orange County prosecutors Friday filed murder charges against an accused drunk driver, loved ones of the three young people killed -- a promising Angels pitcher, a Cal State Fullerton communications student and an aspiring sports agent -- mourned their loss.

Andrew Thomas Gallo, 22, of San Gabriel was charged with three counts of murder, hit and run and drunk driving in connection with the accident in Fullerton early Thursday.

Authorities said Gallo had a blood-alcohol content three times the legal limit of .08 when he blew through a red light. The Toyota Sienna minivan he was driving, prosecutors said, broadsided a Mitsubishi Eclipse driven by Courtney Frances Stewart, 20, killing her, Angels rookie Nick Adenhart, 22, and Henry Pearson, a 25-year-old law student from Manhattan Beach.

Jon Wilhite, 24, also of Manhattan Beach and a former catcher for the Cal State Fullerton Titans, remains hospitalized.

"This Angel and his two friends were too young to be sent to heaven," Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said at a news conference.

For Friday night's game against the Boston Red Sox, the Angels wore patches with No. 34 in memory of their teammate, who had pitched an impressive six scoreless innings hours before the fatal accident.

At Cal State Fullerton, the cheer squad, sorority sisters, professors and classmates came together to mourn Stewart, a communications student, member of the Alpha Chi Omega Sorority and former cheerleader.

Stewart was remembered as a fun-loving sweetheart with a warm smile and a recognizable laugh who made friends easily.

Classmates such as Bobby Foster, a business marketing student, poured out their grief online by posting status updates to their Facebook pages.

"Such a sweet and charismatic girl, taken away from this cold, heartless world," he wrote of Stewart. "May we all dry our crying eyes and realize she's flying with angels in the skies."

Stewart's professors said she always sat in the front row, beaming a contagious smile.

"She was so beautiful, so bright," recalled Alana Northrop, who had been Stewart's political science professor, in a memorial of comments on a Web page set up by Cal State Fullerton: "There was no stuck-up-ness, she was genuine, a very special person."

Pearson was an aspiring sports agent who had attended Mira Costa High School in Manhattan Beach with Wilhite. Both of them had played on the baseball team there.

"What a great kid," Mira Costa baseball coach Mike Neily told insidebayarea.com. Pearson, he said, was a team captain and "one of these very likable boys."

"He loved life and he was going to be a superstar at something," Neily said. "I'd always call him a young Tom Cruise."

The Angels are my team. I'm watching the Angels-Red Sox game right now on Fox. The team has a history of team tragedies. Ssee, "Angels have a long history of tragedies," and the photo gallery, "Angels tragedies." One of the most famous of these is the suicide of Donnie Moore in 1989. Moore blew a save situation in game 5 of the 1986 ALCS, giving up a home run to Boston's Dave Henderson in the top of the 9th inning. The count was 2-2, and the Angels were one strike away from advancing to the World Series. According to Moore's Wikipedia entry, "In the public perception, Moore became indelibly associated with the Angels' loss of the pennant, in much the same manner that Bill Buckner became associated with the Red Sox' subsequent loss of the World Series later that year.

Moore shot his wife, Tanya, three times on July 18, 1989. He then turned the gun on himself. His wife survived.

Self-Induced Demise of the American Superpower

I love Caroline Glick's writing, and she's in peak form in her new essay, "Surviving in a Post-American World":

Like it or not, the United States of America is no longer the world's policeman. This was the message of Barack Obama's presidential journey to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Iraq this past week.

Somewhere between apologizing for American history - both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US's nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America's missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, "Don't worry, be happy," as he leaves them to Moscow's tender mercies; humiliating Iraq's leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world's aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.

Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington.

This news is music to the ears of the American Left and their friends in Europe. Obama's supporters like billionaire George Soros couldn't be more excited at the self-induced demise of the American superpower. CNN's former (anti-)Israel bureau chief Walter Rodgers wrote ecstatically in the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday, "America's... superpower status, is being downgraded as rapidly as its economy."

Read the entire essay. The "superpower downgrading" is more a function of this particular administration than America's structural power profile.

I'll be glad when Obama's gone, in any case.

**********

UPDATE: Glick's piece is now up at the Jerusalem Post (via Memeorandum), and Dr. Sanity's got an entry on it, "The 'O' Team: Obama's Emasculation of America."

But get this, movie director Ron Howard, who has made a few fairly patriotic - if not masculine - films, is calling for an America that is a "less preeminent superpower," not driven by a "sort of militarism and this need to export, you know, democracy ..." See Newsbusters, "Ron Howard Yearns for Less Powerful America Not 'Driven by Militarism'."

Barack Obama's Overblown Self-Delusions

Publisher's Note: My friend, Rusty Walker, has accepted my invitation to write a guest essay. It is my honor to publish it here.

*****

At the G20 conference, President Barack Obama was elegant, thoughtful, and charming. He wasn’t as charming and prepared as, say, President Reagan, or, even President Bill Clinton, both of whom had been governors, the best preparation for a United States president. That said, he struck a sincere chord. This is what he does best. The culture of personality that abides in our time suits him. But, as an American president one should retain the patriotic stance of never making apologetic statements about our alleged past actions in opaque references to the prior administration. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and of course we are a world leader. President Obama barely managed to choke out that we have American exceptionalism! If Russia were in our position, the world would be speaking an East Slavic dialect, not to mention the Fundamentalist, Neo-fascist Islamics.

At home, Democrats want the government to look after us, save us, apply rules to everything in our lives, forgetting that freedom, liberty, enterprise and American innovation is what made this country great. I remember reading Lincoln (R) cautioning that the people should be careful of the government you give power to, as the same government can take your rights away, and, Reagan, rightfully, in my opinion stating, "the government IS the problem!"

I don’t disagree with some of Obama’s goals, just how to get there. We elected a very junior senator with no foreign relations experience and who never budgeted within the restraints necessary of, say, a mayor or governor. He is an Educator, and he is bringing his idealistic, academic theories to government - he never ran a business. He is reminding me of Woodrow Wilson’s naïveté combined with the socialist mindset of some of those who surrounded FDR.

On the budget, Obama and his Democratic Congress define "spend" as "Invest," and "deficit spending" on health care, energy, and education, as "infrastructure." In my view, while these are necessary over time, in the proper congressional process, all of this is rammed-through reconciliation. Such initiatives will not have the immediate effect as Obama thinks. Based on my readings about the Great Depression, and the panics on Wall Street, and listening to both sides of the congressional debates, you cannot just write huge checks address to energy, education and health care and expect to reap immediate benefits in employment, consumer spending and business.

The economists tend to agree that the stimulus package was and is necessary to boost the economy. Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve is highly qualified and holds credibility; I have less confidence in Treasury Secretary Geithner – but, both say the huge sums are necessary. Japan missed its opportunity and it cost them. But the stimulus package that was passed by the Democratic Congress contained long-lusted-for Democratic earmarks unnecessary to the economic growth. And, the line-by-line editing Obama said he would commit to is a no-show. This is as disappointing as when Clinton was elected, with votes for health care reform, and he and Hillary failed to deliver on this lofty goal. Remember this in politics and life: No one is coming to save you.

I believe Obama and his advisors put too much on the promise of “hope” and “change” as a strategy; on the economy, green jobs and enormous education funding, while quick fixes, will penalize those making over $250,000, which includes small businesses - as if we want to regress to 1907 when the government taxed the rich at 75%! We got rid of that because it clearly discouraged honest business dealings and suppressed the economy.

Also, the Democrats have an almost pathological fixation on Bush – to justify all this spending! The Bush legacy of high-deficits they keep referring to peaked in 2008 when the crisis hit and the stimulus package was proposed – written by Democrats, and agreed to by all! And up until 2007 Bush’s deficit was actually only 1% of the GDP (Obama’s will take us to dangerous 13% in 2010, and even with their most optimistic projections, an unsustainable 5% of GDP). You can’t have it both ways, complain about Bush and then pile on more deficit. Also, the Democrats in 2007-2008 were the majority - the $787 Billion stimulus and $410 Billion Omnibus Stimulus Bill, is a spending bill that is all Democratic, full of pork. According to my research, the public debt (which is a different way of looking at it, from deficit) was historically around 10%-20%, but will reach depression era 80% of GDP under Obama’s proposals.

This is the change we were promised? President Obama, with his Democratic Congress, is growing the government in our lives. I “hope,” to use his term, he knows what he is doing. I believe he thinks he is FDR (who actually ran a huge state as Governor of New York). Obama, just this last week, called for resignation of the CEO of GM & Chrysler (stocks plummeted). This isn't the Soviet Union ... yet!

President Obama is a good man, but, he is, as part of the Chicago machine, aligned with the unions who have destroyed the profit margins in the auto industry. The smaller non-union U.S. car manufacturers didn't need stimulus package and were showing a profit – in some cases actually made more than the union wages. Why? Because of what the country runs on – free enterprise. And, Obama is also forcing the production of green-energy efficient cars be produced with NO thought to consumer market demand!

Yes, Obama’s proposed doubling of the debt in five years, tripling in ten years, is causing concern abroad; China, our great creditor, is rightfully concerned. I don't think a new currency would prevail though, because the U.S. dollar, which is still strong, has more than Obama's flailing policies going for it - the US has a strong economic history, and we are still way out in front with number one in GDP (followed by Japan - also in trouble). Still, many countries with problems, including France, Great Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Iceland (bankrupt due to their own government speculative idiocy), etc, etc. etc.), would favor the U.S. dollar. Obama is NOT following bi-partisanship as he campaigned!

Obama is still riding the crest of the popularity with the "hopeful" liberals who wanted "change" and didn't care what change meant ... and so he is still predictably using his Messiah-walk-on-water according to the major-network-channels, that, along with a Democratic-majority-Congress affords him the voting power. Still, he appears to be over extending his Constitutional Executive powers in my humble opinion.

Here is a relevant quote from the book I am reading: "It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly and for the most part sincerely assured of their greatness" - Calvin Coolidge, 1927 p.46., The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes.

Changes in American Religious Identification

Gallup reports that the United States remains an overwhelmingly Christian nation, although the proportion of Americans identifying with some denomination of Christianity has been declining for decades. Check the link for the whole report, which includes time-series graphs going back to 1948. Here's the summary and conclusion:

The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. More than three-quarters of all Americans identify as Christian. And the vast majority of those who identify with any religion say they are Christian in some form or another.

Yet, the percentage of Americans who in theory could celebrate Easter this weekend as part of their religion is down significantly from where it was 50 or 60 years ago.

There are many theoretical explanations for the increase in those with no religious identity at the expense of those identifying with a Christian religion. Two social scientists at the National Opinion Research Corporation, Tom W. Smith and Seokho Kim, contemplating similar data from the General Social Survey in 2004, concluded: "In sum, an array of social forces from cohort turnover, to immigration, to reduced retention rates, indicate that the Protestant share of the population will continue to shrink and they will soon lose their majority position in American society."

The share of the population held by any religious group is based on a complex set of factors relating to internal reproduction (births), in-migration (from converts and from people moving into the country who have a particular religious identity), and out-migration (people who leave the religion and people with a particular religious identity who leave the country). In-migration from other countries in recent years may have helped boost the percentage of non-Christians in the population. In-migration from Catholic Mexico and Catholic Central American countries has also, at the same time, helped keep the percentage of Catholics as high as it is. The big shift has apparently been the out-migration of those whose parents may have identified with a specific Christian religion, but who upon growing up have become more likely to tell a survey interviewer that they have no specific religious identity.

Gallup (and other survey researchers) measure religious identity by asking Americans to name their religion. It is possible that Americans who previously would have identified themselves with the religion of their upbringing now feel freer to tell a survey interviewer that they have no religious identity.

It is important to note that basic religious identification says little about the relevance of that identify to the person's life. Identifying with a religion doesn't indicate how actively the individual practices the religion. It doesn't indicate whether the person rigorously adheres to that religion's beliefs. It simply states that the person has some connection to and some identity with a specific type of religion. Data from measures of religious intensity or commitment are needed to flesh out the portrait of the ways in which Americans' religiosity may have changed over the years.

Gallup survey data on religious identification extend back only to 1948, about a quarter of the life of the country. Obviously, this evidence speaks only to the recent history of religious identity in the United States. There is no real scientific way of putting recent survey history of religious identity into a longer time frame going back much before World War II. (Some scholars argue that, in fact, Americans were not very religious by some measures at the time of the Revolution in Colonial America.) It is thus important to keep in mind that the trends reviewed in this analysis are only part of the portrait of the ebb and flow of religion in the United States since the nation's founding well over two centuries ago.

More on Tea Parties: We The People

I know I'm a bit late getting to this "We The People" video, but I'm getting excited about the Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party rallies, so here goes:

Plus, Dan Riehl's got a post up hammering Andrew Sullivan, so there's further incentive, "Sullivan's Errant Tea Party Shot." Dan's breaks down Sullivan's dumb attack on the Tea Party movement, but this passage is the best:

Somewhere between Iraq and that either very hard, or very soft place that has become Andrew Sullivan's head, there's really only one issue that matters to him any more - gay marriage. And that's fine, really. Everyone needs a good cause.

From Gay Marriage to Polygamy

Via Pundette, don't miss Mark Steyn's key essay, "We’re in the fast lane to polygamy":

What’s my line on legalized polygamy? Oh, I pretty much said it all back in 2004, in a column for Ezra Levant’s Western Standard. Headline: “It’s Closer Than They Think.”

Well, a mere half-decade down the slippery slope and here we are, with the marrying kind of Bountiful, B.C., headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. Five years ago, proponents of same-sex marriage went into full you-cannot-be-serious eye-rolling mode when naysayers warned that polygamy would be next. As I wrote in that Western Standard piece:

“Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.”

Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. “Marriage is a union of two people, period,” she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn’t it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?

Ah, well, says Mme L’Heureux-Dubé, polygamists don’t enjoy the same societal acceptance as gays. “I don’t see a parade of polygamists on Ste-Catherine Street,” observes the great jurist, marshalling the same dazzling quality of argument she used back in her days as the Supreme Court’s most outspoken activist on gay issues. A decade ago, she and Justice Michael Kirby, Australia’s most senior gay judge, traipsed from one gay-rights confab to another like the Elizabeth Taylor and Roddy McDowall of the international judicial cocktail circuit. But perhaps, back home in Canada, her ladyship ought to expand her excursions beyond the Ste-Catherine Street gay pride march. If you check in with, ahem, certain cultural communities in Canada, you will find polygamy not just “accepted” but government funded. It was confirmed last year that in the province of Ontario thousands of polygamous men receive welfare payments for each of their wives. There are many more takers for polygamy than there ever will be for gay marriage ....

While Mme L’Heureux-Dubé’s objections may be sincere, the Government of Canada gives the distinct impression of going through the motions. Its objection to polygamy rests on the great wobbling blancmange of “Canadian values.” Polygamy is supposedly incompatible with “da Canadian value,” as M Chrétien used to call it. But surely da Canadian value is that we have no values. We value all values. To do otherwise would be profoundly un-Canadian.

There's more at the link.

I like that, "We value all values." That's perfect.

By the way, this might be a good time to review my earlier essay, "How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?"

Charles Johnson's Strange Alliance with Andrew Sullivan

Sometime back I posted on "On Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs." I noted at the post that "it turns out that yesterday Johnson basically joined the likes of Glenn Greenwald in attacking Glenn Beck for SIMPLY HYPOTHESIZING the possibility of an American anarchy ..."

Well now we have Johnson attacking the "Project 912 Glenn Beck Tea Party" as a society of "book burners." But get this: Andrew Sullivan joins in with an approving link, "A Tea Party Tantrum."

I earlier suggested "I have no personal quarrel with Johnson..." Unfortunatelty, it's hard for me to say the same thing today. Pamela Geller is in the midst of an ongoing flame war with Little Green Footballs. A recent post was titled, "Neo-Nazis Link Up With Charles Johson, Little Green Footballs Smears Beck, the GOP and Conservatives." Previously, Pamela published an essay titled, "Charles Little Green Footballs: The New Fascism ... on the Right."

Readers can check the veracity of Pamela's claims at her posts. But the meme is familiar irrespective of the particulars: Charles Johnson's mounted a long campaign against a number of neoconservative bloggers in the U.S., and that's on top of blogs such as Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal in Europe.

What's interesting to me, especially, is that Johnson still continues to attack the Obama administration collectivism, all the while aiding and abetting the left's nihilist campaign against religion and social conservatism. Strange, no? But wait! Johnson's also been busy with attemps to repudiate some previous recognition from Andrew Sullivan: "There’s nothing like a left-handed compliment from Andrew Sullivan to totally creep you out."

I've got news for you, Charles, you're just as creepy as Sullivan, and just as dangerous.