-
Generation Unwed Motherhood
June 11, 2012 | 64 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
May 1, 2012 | 0 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
April 26, 2012 | 83 comments
-
The Best Last Man Standing
February 15, 2012 | 226 comments
-
Carolina Girl
February 3, 2012 | 30 comments
Political Hay
Revenge of the Culture Wars
Like it or not, they’ll be back in 2012.
After mostly lying dormant for two elections cycle, will the culture wars make a comeback in 2012? There’s a more than even chance of it.
One reason is that marriage amendments will be on the ballot in at least a handful of states that have stonewalled the issue for years. That’s due to historic Republican gains in governorships and state legislatures around the country, often in areas where the GOP hasn’t held the reins of power in decades, even centuries.
Look for Republicans to push for marriage amendments in Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Minnesota following significant gains in each state’s legislature. In Iowa and New Hampshire, where homosexual marriage is legally recognized, straight-up marriage amendments are less probable. But GOP gains there could be a harbinger of a future reversal of same-sex marriage in both states.
In my home state of North Carolina, a marriage amendment would have passed years ago had it not been for the state’s (now deposed) Democratic leadership, which wouldn’t allow the bills out of committee. As in most states, a clear majority of Tar Heel voters support an amendment, and even many Democrats in the legislature signed on as co-sponsors of the bill in past sessions.
But there are political implications. Having the amendment on the ballot during an election year — particularly a presidential one — generates greater turnout in the Republican base. In conservative-leaning states like Indiana and North Carolina, that factor plays a major role.
Also significant in Indiana will be how Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels approaches the issue. Republicans re-captured control of the Indiana House on November 2, and a marriage amendment could be in the mix. Will Daniels, famous for his call for a “truce” on hot-button social issues, back that effort?
As if to deliver a subtle blow to Daniels’ coyness on cultural concerns, voters in Iowa showed that America’s fiscal woes haven’t diverted attention entirely from moral issues. They threw out three state Supreme Court justices who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009. To date, 30 states have adopted marriage amendments, compared to five that have legalized it either through legislation or judicial fiat. Here’s the part the Republican establishment paradoxically relishes and loathes: social issues could significantly boost the GOP’s presidential chances in 2012, as it did in 2004 and 2008. Six years ago, it significantly contributed to George W. Bush’s re-election. Two years ago, John McCain would’ve lost by an even greater margin if marriage amendments hadn’t been on the ballot.
The establishment relishes the reenergizing of the controversy it because it augments their chances of gaining power. But they loathe it because they’ve always loathed traditional conservatives, just like they loathe members of the Tea Party (and they doubly loathe the fact that the two groups mostly overlap).
Electoral history bears out the benefits that marriage amendments bring to GOP candidates. In both pro- and anti-GOP years, marriage amendments have fared better than moderate Republicans — who, according to conventional wisdom, appeal to independents more readily and are more electable.
In 2008, moderate Republican poster boy John McCain lost California and Florida hands-down, but voters in both states still passed marriage amendments handily. In 2004 and 2006, scores of Republicans (both moderate and conservative) benefited from marriage amendments on the ballot. The issue doesn’t hamper GOP candidates.
Abortion also is likely to emerge in the new session of Congress. Unlike the marriage issue, abortion has remained on conservatives’ radar during the first two years of the Obama administration due to health care reform’s expansion of taxpayer-subsidized abortion. The freshman class of the new House has been dubbed “the most pro-life” ever.
The sea change in state legislatures will likely result in action on abortion, too, even if the federal government does nothing. Republicans will push more state-level restrictions, such as parental notification laws or requiring abortionists to offer an ultrasound prior to the procedure.
Regardless, social issues will play a larger role in the 2012 election than they did this year, even if the economy worsens. The presence of marriage amendments on state ballots will make sure of it. At the federal level, the debate over abortion funding in ObamaCare will also reinvigorate pro-lifers.
Whether politicos like it or not, the culture wars aren’t fading away.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (75) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/09/revenge-of-the-culture-wars
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 11.9.10 @ 6:36AM
The Sixties Are Over. All the trash is now being taken out, and will not be recycled, but incinerated. There are a few reasons for this -- one of the most significant being that it is the conservatives who are giving birth; liberal babies are not being born, and hence will not grow up to grab the baton from their parents drooping, er, hands.
If we manage to elect a President from a normal family with a normal wife and normal children, who behaves like a normal American who was not brought up in the bush by the kangaroos, the trend will accelerate.
The one thing people want back more than anything else is NORMALITY. The 40 years in the wilderness are ending. The Sixties Are Over.
Sheila| 11.9.10 @ 11:48AM
Yes, for perhaps a bare majority of White Americans, the Sixties are over. But for the other half, and for all the Blacks, Latinos, and varied multicultural immigrants, there remains "unfinished work" and monies and rights yet to be confiscated from White American citizens. Stay tuned.
RCV| 11.9.10 @ 11:52AM
The ugly face of white racism again pops up on TAS to the silence of so-called Christians.
Doctor Right| 11.9.10 @ 3:03PM
This Christian doesn't kow-tow to your infantile cries of "racism".
So much for silence, RCV, you intellectually bankrupt, little lefty coward.
RCV| 11.10.10 @ 2:31PM
Unfortunately, there's nothing infantile about white racism, and there's nothing Christian about you.
Dennis| 11.10.10 @ 4:27PM
White racism these days is mostly confined to the Left. Democrats occupy one of the most racist organizations in America, led by our Racist-in-Chief.
VCR| 11.9.10 @ 3:37PM
Obama agrees... Why else does he sneak off to events aimed at minorities to talk about punishing their enemies? It begs the question of who the enemy is...
I know plenty of people in ethnic minorities who would agree with Appleby and Sheila as well.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 10:09PM
But America will never be a virtuous nation, and you know it-- hooking all of you up to a polygraph device would prove it
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 10:17PM
"The business of America is business"
Little more. It wouldn't be America if that wasn't the case. America was created by the Founders for commerce.
Shamus| 11.9.10 @ 7:19AM
The economy may not improve enough in two years to allow these issues to come to the fore. Obama will do everything in his power to continue his policy of impoverishment. If unemployment is above 9% in 2012, this will be the focus of the election.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 10:12PM
RCV is correct: America wants to marginalize blacks. They are at the bottom of the food-chain, and when cuts are made-- which they will be-- poor blacks will suffer most.
Dennis| 11.10.10 @ 4:29PM
Sadly, the Left already has marginalized blacks. Democrats keep them at the bottom of the food chain, inveterate racists that they are.
Merlin12| 11.9.10 @ 7:46AM
It seems to me that there may be two constituencies here. Yes, there's people who vote based on their employment status, but the constituents that vote on moral issues seem to me to also have their stuff together well enough that they still have jobs and feel economically safer.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 10:43PM
But as far as culture goes, Merlin12, America's culture has always been a mountain of puke-covered snot (topped off with diarrhea) from Fargo to Key Largo, from Bakersfield to Buffalo.
The '60s was not the cause, the sixties was the effect.
Jim Hlavac | 11.9.10 @ 9:47AM
For the first 160 years or so of the nation there was a great culture war between those who wanted slavery, and those who did not. There was then a great Civil War over the issue. And an expanded liberty was won. Though the cultural war of race did last until quite recently, and perhaps rages somewhat still.
And for about 100 years, from the 1820s to the 1920s, a great culture war was waged between men and women, as to the right to vote and own property and such by the latter. And an expanded Liberty was won. Though some think the culture war still rages on this, what with the paucity of women in Congress might attest.
And too there was and is a great culture war over liquor, which has swung back and forth, from allowance to prohibition to allowance again. And it's now fairly well settled on the side of an expanded Liberty.
And too there was a great culture war over divorce. Though once again, expanded liberty was won. After all, many of you are quite sure you are protecting marriage by outlawing, and this while on the way to court to tear asunder what God did put together, as your vows say.
In each of these culture wars laws and constitutional amendments were passed and then tossed.
Now it's the great culture war over whether gays should be included in an expanded definition of marriage, and included into society in general, beyond a continued disdain. I may be wrong, but no gay folks want to end marriage. Certainly not the ones who clamor for the license. We're all perfectly happy to let folks get married. We're for an expansion of the civil part, for which we pay taxes to maintain the registries. I'm doubtful that there are more than a few who would want to push some church into solemnizing a marriage that they don't want to do -- much like Jews don't force Catholic priests to do the honors.
And this culture war over gays might rage another few decades, just like blacks & women, and drinkers, and the divorcees had to wage their fight to expand liberty over 100 years or more. Not to deny liberty to anyone else, but to expand it to include even the most individualistic among the populace.
And so, with the patience of Job, and a turn the cheek attitude, a wish to be treated by others as we treat you, and a healthy respect for the opinions of mankind, gay people beseech you, our families, our churches, our political leaders, our courts, and our fellow taxpaying citizens, without any violence or threat beyond your fear of our continued existence, to accept the expansion of liberty to us too.
It's been 40 years since the one and only one gay riot stopped the bar raids and arrests. Perhaps we have 60 years more to go. But Liberty will be expanded.
kevin| 11.9.10 @ 10:04AM
Bravo!
Bob Miller| 11.9.10 @ 10:14AM
Demands for tolerance have evolved into demands for validation. No way we can endorse that and be true to God's law.
Jim Hlavac | 11.9.10 @ 10:37AM
And that, sir, is exactly what was said to blacks, women, drinkers and divorcees, (and adulterers too), and Jews too, for nearly 2000 years of excoriation at the hands of Good Christians, and who else? - "no way we can endorse that and be true to God's law." You make my point, thanks. See you in 60 years. Oh yah, Gallileo was told something similar, about the planets, earth and sun. So I shall alter his quote a bit, to serve the moment: "but they still exist." Good luck!
Mike P.| 11.9.10 @ 10:52AM
I'd like to marry three people, so I guess in 100 years my liberty will be expanded, too.
Roy| 11.9.10 @ 8:12PM
Yep!
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 11:06PM
"I'd like to marry three people"
Take saltpeter and a long cold shower, Mike P.
FurrowedBrow| 11.9.10 @ 11:04AM
Are you seriously criticizing Christians for stigmatizing alcoholism? What's next, criticizing us for having a problem with pederasty?
FurrowedBrow| 11.9.10 @ 11:07AM
What kind of person complains about people who disapprove of adultery?
Consummate V| 11.9.10 @ 11:16AM
As long as the Left pretends not to understand the difference between "tolerance" and "validation," the culture wars will continue. The pattern has been thus: minorities and disenfranchised groups begin by pleading for tolerance; receiving that, they demand special rights to redress past injustices. Then as they approach full equality and societal acceptance, they proclaim superiority. Voila, resentment begins anew. Advice: take the "tolerance" while good men and true still offer it.
Sheila| 11.9.10 @ 11:54AM
Mr. Hlavac, 200o years ago, those early Christians you so despise were almost all Jews, and they believed in stoning adulterers, too (now, only Muslims do that by law, but they are not White and so beyond reproach). I don't believe African Blacks stone adulterers, but they do strongly believe on clitoridectomies and the use of Albino body parts in magic spells, so I guess they also pass muster in comparison to those intolerant Christians. I realize all those odious, anti-science Christians just turned their backs on the great march of scientific progress, which is why none of those working at NASA (not all the Asians and H1B Indians there today; I mean those old, White Christians of the past) were Christians - why, even the astronauts knew better. Your grasp of history, both ancient and modern, truly astounds!
Bob Miller| 11.9.10 @ 1:52PM
In 60 years or a billion years, the truth will remain the truth, regardless.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 11:08PM
"In 60 years or a billion years, the truth will remain the truth, regardless."
Imbecilic wishful thinking.
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 4:37PM
No imbecile, Brooks. Perhaps you misunderstand. He speaks the truth. Reality doesn't change for anyone. God's truth never changes no matter the personality.
Be wise & take heed. We all need to.
FurrowedBrow| 11.9.10 @ 11:01AM
Mr. Hlavac,
A little history: The fact that all races are entitled to the same legal standing -- at one time a controversial idea -- is clearly established through Natural Law. Natural Law -- particularly in the area of offspring -- established us as one race in the face of 19th century naysayers.
With regard to homosexuality, Natural Law indicates the opposite: that societies should NOT incorporate this lifestyle into their cultures. The antisocial phenomena of neurotic promiscuity, depression, health problems, and suicidality associated with homosexuality are Natural Law-indicators that this behavior is abnormal, and should not institutionalized. (Natural Law also indicts no-fault divorce, see: Cinderella Effect, http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalyw.....abuse.pdf.)
"Because I say so" is not a compelling argument for gay marriage, no matter how melodramatically you present it.
Derek Leaberry| 11.9.10 @ 11:52AM
You are a libertarian and not a conservative. On most issues, libertarians are the enemy of conservatives.
Aaron Bernard| 11.10.10 @ 2:22AM
Ronald Reagan: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Source here.
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 4:45PM
But you left out the rest of that quote;
"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
~And THAT was in 1975. Today's Libertarian party platform is NOT conservative. They are anti-war and anti Israel and VERY militant about it.
It is the party of Ron Paul, who left it because he couldn't get elected as such. he ran as a Republican and got elected. He is now "working" with Barney Frank on defunding the military.
Reagan was very pro-Israel and very pro-military.
Wolf in sheep's clothing. Beware of Libertarians trying to claim Reagan.
JeffW| 11.9.10 @ 1:34PM
You put your argument well but it is difficult to believe when the Gay Marriage agenda pushes so hard to change the meaning of Marriage. There have been arguments to give the same rights/legal benifits under the name Civil Union but that does not seem to be good enough for the Gay Marriage agenda supporters. If your true argument is to expand liberties why deny having the same liberties under another name? Because the true agenda is to attack another Christian belief.
gary47290| 11.10.10 @ 11:16PM
Civil unions are not good enough because your side has fought them (and weaker domestic partnership laws) tooth and nail. Your hate of Gay and Lesbian people shows there is not any possible compromise, so we demand equality.
If you hadn't pushed DOMAs in 19 states which ban domestic partnership as an alternate, you might have sold us on "separate but equal", but instead, you showed your self to be simple bigots, out to Gay bash as long as you can get away with it.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 10:45PM
American's go out of their way to be tasteless
You can't blame EVERYTHING on the '60s.
Wes in MT| 11.10.10 @ 11:05AM
So Jim, mind telling how you lovingly sodomize your boyfreind?? Nice trick trying to hook the deviant behaviour wagon to the struggle for eqaulity based upon things that you cannot change, oh like your skin color.
Next on your list of "expanded liberties" will be rights for nambla members. There is nothing loving or tolerant about promoting behaviour that shortens a man's lifespan or exposes him/her to all manner of disease in a subculture that has higher incidences of drug/alcohol use and physical and emotional abuse. The fact that you have to continually demand validation speaks volumes.
Mike P.| 11.9.10 @ 10:51AM
I certainly hope we can move marriage amendments in PA, IN, and NC, and maybe NH and MN. Furthermore, I wouldn't be stunned if the Iowa marriage amendment is voted on next legislative session (although the referendum will probably not be until 2014, because it has to pass twice). Republicans now control the Iowa House comfortably and are very close to control in the Iowa Senate. There are several Democrats who signed a discharge petition to bring the amendment to the floor last session. Since there were only five such Democrats and 18 Republicans, the 23 signatories were not enough, but now there are 24 Republicans so I expect they will be enough, because although some pro-marriage Democrats lost to Republicans, others did not. Are these Democrats more likely to fall in line with Mike Gronstal (the Senate majority leader) or look at the results of the retention vote? They aren't fools.
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 11:12AM
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything..
Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." 1 Cor.6:12, 19 & 20.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.10 @ 11:59AM
Margie,
can I keep smoking my pipe and sipping a little wine "for the good of my stomach"...heh?
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 12:15PM
Like Jiminy Cricket used to say when they still regarded that type of cartoon as fit for children:
"Let your conscience be your guide."
Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 1:30PM
Margie, Ken:
Don't forget we know who wins in the end.
"Be still my soul
The waves and winds
Still know His voice
Who ruled them
While He dwelt below"
Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 11:10PM
No form of sex is wicked, Margie, just futile.
Gives people pleassure, not happiness.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.10 @ 12:05PM
CODA:
"Culture"...is begun and ended...in the home. We must not delegate it.
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 12:36PM
"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."
Ronald Reagan
Dude| 11.9.10 @ 12:13PM
Why does the Govt have any say in what constitutes a marriage, it's anti-freedom.
JeffW| 11.9.10 @ 1:36PM
Because we are a nation of laws based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 12:34PM
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
Ronald Reagan
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 12:52PM
"Together let us take up the challenge to re-awaken America's religious and moral heart, recognizing that a deep and abiding faith in God is the rock upon which this great nation was founded."
Ronald Reagan
Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 1:55PM
Margie,
"When I remember that God is just, and His justice cannot be long delayed, I fear for my country." John Adams.
Just another one of those "Deist" founders.
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 2:37PM
Greetings Al Adab,
I love that quote, and the man behind it. We've spoken on this before, but once again.. I know we both can't wait to greet these wonderful.. flawed yes. (Ok all you PC-ers?) men in Heaven. I have so many things I want to say to them, mostly many, many words of honorable thanks.
Sooner than we think the words that God has spoken to us will come to fruition:
"All these things My Hand has made, and so all these things are Mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at My word." Is. 66:2.
I do tremble at His word, as I believe the Founding Fathers (see Sheila, I said it!) did. And that is why we have this form of government.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it. His praise endures for ever!" Ps. 111:10.
Which ties into exactly the point that Ronald Reagan understood this. That's why I appreciate him so much. He, along with the Founders (Men, I know, Sheila), knew there is a God and that without including Him in our doings, both in our laws and in our personal lives.. we'd be lost.
"A Republic, if you can keep it!" ~ Ben Franklin.
There are more of us who want to keep it, than not. Thankfully.
So, what is a conservative, then? You can't have one without the other.
You can't have a lawless country.. such that Libertarianism is. (Capital L).
The libertarianism (small l) referring to liberty, yes. But not Anarchy, not lawlessness, not anything goes.
I'm with the Founding Fathers.
Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 3:40PM
True indeed MArgie,
The Libertarian error lies in their failure to recognize the Moral order of Justice and the fact that governments ignore that to their peril. Like it or not, absolutes exist and we humans pretend otherwise at great risk.
Margie| 11.9.10 @ 4:56PM
Well said as always. Al Adab. I so enjoy your posts.
Here's another excellent one by Reagan:
"Isn’t our choice really one of up or down? Down through statism, the welfare state, more and more government largesse, accompanied always by more government authority, less individual liberty and ultimately totalitarianism, always advanced as for our own good. The alternative is the dream conceived by our Founding Fathers, up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society."
While ultimate Libertarianism wants Anarchy and lawlessness in the name of liberty, true conservatism knows there are boundaries necessary for the prevention of utter chaos, thus the Rule of Law and the Constitution.
Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 5:02PM
"The question", is not as Lincoln said "whether God is on our side, but whether we are on God's side."
Remember when Joshua met the man outside Jericho. He asked whether the man was on his side or the enemies. The man replied, "No I am commander of God's army." God does not take sides, but we had better take His.
RCV| 11.10.10 @ 2:25PM
The quote is from Jefferson, not Adams, and he was speaking of American slavery.
Perusha| 11.9.10 @ 1:22PM
Ah, the culture wars, never far from the eye candy store.
Consider this---
one of the most basic assumptions buried deep in CW is that I have a body.
As in, "It's my body, and I'll choose to do with it as I please, thank you very much."
Absolutely, though, it is NOT true that "I" has a "body".
If "I" has a "body", then who has "I"? Infinite regress, here we come!
No, I is simply the body talking. You ARE the body, simply. Certainly, the "I" is a useful social FICTION, though, so don't any of "you" people who read this get offended, please.
IMHO, it is always best to stop pinching oneself---the body.
We’re back in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Hal is singing, “Daisy, Daisy----“
Life is a (daisy?) chain of dependence.
Let us enter this circular dance at the conclusion of the American election last Tuesday.
Once chain is born (again?) by one dowdy NYT columnist, who emits her tiresome and predictable resentment bile, as she closely channels the poor-me Islamists.
Many other chains arise when millions of readers absorb her words, and one by one, commentators on this site get to express their own re-actions.
And, along (came Jones) with this, here am I, providing another chain.
Where does the chain stop? It can’t!
You, as a chain on the chain gang that is human life, always---CHOOSE.
Let me entertain you with probably the greatest lesson I received from my Masters in Mathematics. Stay with me, because it is overpowering in its simplicity.
The higher math courses closely resemble the geometry class most people likely took in high school---at least the one I took in the 50’s. Lots of proofs.
So, at my average university, many of the math profs were---either fat, ugly, shy and/or otherwise “weird”. One young newbie, from USC, was totally retarded socially, and as a short and slight guy with thick glasses (He acted like Woody Woodpecker, as he quickly darted to and fro), he was quite a scene when he related with the young women in our class. Ah, Dr. C! I found out later that he was fired and landed at an even more mediocre college, because of un-PC troubles with the fairer sex!
Anyway, at the beginning of Advanced Calculus, the professor HAD to start SOMEWHERE---and, it was always some form of “The Axiom of Choice”. If any student was brave enough to ask him where THIS came from, he had to give the only possible answer---ASSUME it to be true.
In short---nobody knows, for sure!
There it is---we live in an assumed reality, with chains inside of chains, which depend on NOTHING. No thing. Study quantum mechanics, from which “truths” the technology is derived that has resulted in computers and all the other chain-inducing gadgets that we love to CHOOSE to play with.
Chain on, McDuff!
sestamibi| 11.9.10 @ 1:51PM
David, you put my former rep Chris Smith's pic in the index next to the entry for this article, but you didn't mention him in it. Why not?
don| 11.9.10 @ 1:54PM
it is touching to see the continuing faith that somehow tens of thousands of years of inter and intra generational conflict can be solved or eliminated on the single question of who won the battle of the sixties
on a more hopeful note it is very very likely that whatever the outcome of marriage amendments in other states in some 700 days gay marriage will be legal again in California
chris haynes| 11.9.10 @ 3:01PM
3000 innocent children killed, another 9-11, every day. Gretest Holocaust in history. And the Republican establishment condones it.
Remember Karl Rove and his big tent.
Kirk, Castle, Scott Brown, Guillianni, Spector, Murkowski, Schwarznegger, Crist. Holocaust promoters all. But conservative on capital gains taxes.
Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 3:38PM
It is nothing less than idolotry. The sacrifice of children to the Idol CHOICE. That god along with DIVERSITY and TOLERANCE represent the false gods of our age.
All Hail The Stupid Party!| 11.9.10 @ 4:16PM
Thank you Chris for summing up The Ruling Class of The Stupid Party so succinctly. Tokyo Rove and his "big tent" are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Tom Anderson| 11.9.10 @ 3:53PM
So long as conservatives, on the basis of religion, disparage and degrade libertarians, and other people who favor limited government on the basis of reason and principle, the proponents of limited government will loose the only important war that matters: the defense of individual rights against unlimited state power.
To defend rights on the basis of faith is to undermine their credibility to rational people and will always lose in a civil, benevolently minded society.
Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 4:07PM
To illuminate a philosophical error is not to disparage. The atheism of Objectivists is another example. If rights are not inherent in our humanity, then they are subject to abrogation by the individual. Yet, we as Conservatives, know than even the sovereign individual may not sunder those rights to any power or authority. Yet we also know that Liberty is only found in law, not the "state of nature" which is solely illusory. If it is religious to recognize rights as coming from a creator, what then do you make of Jefferson?
Roy| 11.9.10 @ 8:15PM
Actually, to pretend that a "right" exists on any other basis than faith undermines their credibility with rational people. Can you see a "right"? Can you touch it? "Rights" are unicorn farts and fairy dust.
Redstateboy| 11.9.10 @ 4:35PM
25 Million babies have been destroyed since 1972 and this is wrong.
Men marrying Men and Women marrying Woman is wrong. Who says so..??? Humanity says so.
MikeD| 11.9.10 @ 7:24PM
We can usually tell the undesirability of any act or movement by the degree of banality used by Liberals to describe it. For example: Homosexuals who engage in rather disgusting activities involving bodily orifices are now called "Gay", which brings to mind happy, lithe, dancing people having a good time. "Pro-Choice" leaves the impression of serious people carefully deciding the merits of actions before choosing one minor option or another; instead of intentionally killing a defenceless infant and sucking the remains out with a syringe before flushing the dead body down a toilet or flipping it in a trash can. Yup, that's what Liberals do; those people who truly defend these things, along with happily justifying the theft of our money to give to somebody they feel deserves it more; or blindly ignoring the law that defines the borders of our nation so they can allow more criminals to sneak in under the fence; or supporting taking more of our tax money so they can direct it to the thieves and killers at the United Nations who gleefully charge the United States with all sorts of human rights infractions.
That is Liberalism, and, as soon as anybody disagrees with them, they unleash their thugs to intimidate us at voting booths, smear our candidates by making up vile things about them, and create fraudulant votes with nary a pang of guilt. Did anybody ever wonder why EVERY disputed election involving stolen votes and breaking of laws ALWAYS involves a Democrat who ALWAYS wins in the end? What would happen if some Republican presidential candidate pulled an "Obama" and refused to release all his documents concerning his life? What would happen if George Bush had told democrats to "...get in the back of the bus", or called them our "enemies"? Oh, the hellfires that would be unleashed! Or, the ultimate: Why is it that anybody who disagrees with, or criticizes the "messiah" is called a "Racist"? Finally, why was it fine to show movies about assassinating President Bush, but, if anybody even THOUGHT about it with our "Messiah", he'd be drawn and quartered.
Liberals thrive in a climate of murder, thievery, and crime. Otherwise, they would find at least a tiny bit of remorse in their non-stop advocacy of abortion, amnesty, and redistribution. I know that any Liberal who reads this will start foaming at the mouth and scream every vile name he/she can think of he/she can hurl at me in righteous anger.
All Hail The Stupid Party!| 11.9.10 @ 8:13PM
Excellent post Mike D & don't worry. Truth will win in the end.
Bust| 11.9.10 @ 10:40PM
Very well stated MikeD. Liberals are some of the most vile disgusting people in our society. Always wanting more and more with no thought of thier contribution or lake there of. These people will only become more dangerous as thier desparation to maintain power grows. Remember the ends justify the means. It's astounding that people vote for these people, baby killing, wealth destruction, and stringing people out on poverty are all they are good for.
Olivia| 11.10.10 @ 10:23AM
What's sweet about some of the commentary responses here is that it is becoming easier and easier to spot Commie Progressives attempting to weave their magic mojo.
Appleby, you said: "....it is the conservatives who are giving birth; liberal babies are not being born, and hence will not grow up to grab the baton from their parents drooping, er, hands."
Keep in mind that budding liberals are well fed in the government's public schools/colleges, and that is America's number one cancer feeding the immorality behind the gay movement, comprehensive sex education, and abortion.
As long as conservative Tea Partiers are stupid enough to put their kids into these socialist/commie indoctrination centers called public schools - our problems will not abate.
Wes in MT| 11.10.10 @ 11:12AM
MikeD great post.
I will borrow your opening line "We can usually tell the undesirability of any act or movement by the degree of banality used by Liberals to describe it. "
Just like " The final solution" back in Hitler's Germany. Nice and clean and antiseptic, don't you think?
Jim Hlavac | 11.10.10 @ 8:07PM
The comments here surely support my contention: It will be many more years before gay people are accepted totally. We shall wait.
Some brought up "natural" law -- well, somehow, you will all figure out one day that gay folks are natural. Natural in the sense that, sure, perhaps, something went wrong with the brain wiring, but the reality is still there. We just are.
But in the past "natural" law was used quite well in keeping blacks slaves, women in chattel, and all manner of things to keep the elite in power.
I don't expect (no gay person does) anyone to just get up in the morning, and go "whew, was I wrong on that!" No, we expect that once you see the nature of gay people you'll come 'round. So many of you have already.
Some of you talk so blithely about the "gay lifestyle" -- and you are all so wrong as to not be funny. The "data" and "conclusions" and even "sureties" you give are merely the subjective take by already anti-gay organizations. Since no one has counted gays, or even can truly say where we all live, it's impossible to be so sure on any data about us. What you have is anecdote, and superstition and preconceived notions, and thus it is intellectually dishonest to state what you state as "fact." And I think you know it.
As for Nambla -- always the bugaboo brought up -- and the leap that pederasty will be next after gay "marriage" by any name -- from what I can tell from the nightly TV shows, such as Nancy Grace, Anderson Cooper, and that Jack fellow on missing kids, and also the Dateline series on catching child molesters, and oh so much more, there's plenty of "NAMGLA" (national associations for man-girl love) going on -- and no one in their right minds put such actions in with a fine marriage, or a loving relationship of any kind, between adults. If straight marriage doesn't lead to pederasty, it's doubtful gay adult legal coupling by some name will either. To put the two together when it comes to gay folks is spurious logic. I'm sure there's plenty of heterosexual pederasts drooling for a legal age of 13 or so, and yet you mention it not, nor disparage all straight people in general because of that. Your leap of fancy is just that; save it for a novel.
But, still, overall, a nice good parsing of the views on the subject out there in this nation. Which is what the great culture wars of all our history have wrought. And which always, so far, resulted in expanded liberty for adults -- for taxpayers -- for citizens. And last I looked, gay folks were within this trifecta.
Ah, but the impossible takes a little longer, as is said sometimes.
MikeD| 11.11.10 @ 1:10PM
Jim Hlavac,
This is the evil MikeD. My post is not any kind of an attack on you; but on the terminology that the Left uses to disguise their interests, plans, and actions. Call homosexuality what it is; and call abortion what it is. If it were not something they are trying to hide, then why the misleading terms?
Personally, I couldn't care less about your personal choices and activities. That's your business. But don't try to call it something 'banal' for the purpose of hiding what you do, indoctrinating youth, and forcing your own legitimacy on the rest of us.
It is not natural to be homosexual, but I do recognize that, in any so called 'bell curve' there are people at every point, including the far ends. And, I have no personal animosity for you or anybody else who engages in activities far from the curve's center. Just don't lie about it to force your values on the rest of us; and do not jam homosexual marriage down our throats. There are virtually no societal, legal, or financial arrangements prohibited to you that you cannot already take advantage of without a marriage license. There are millions of couples 'shacking up' already doing exactly that. And, to be consistent, I feel the same way about 'domestic partners' getting the same privileges as married couples. It is plain destructive for our society to weaken marriage between one man and one woman just so some guilt-ridden liberal can sooth their social conscience.
Don't hand me the same old argument about other societies that permit polygamy, polyandry, serial marriage, etc. These are relatively primitive societies and are not governed by our Constitution.
Actually, I'm more comfortable with the term "choice" as my 'poster child' for liberal duplicity since that involves a 'cover' for murder, plain and simple. Sufficient birth control exists that abortion has almost no need, other than for the wildly unusual circumstance that may arise to save the life of the mother.
Having said that I don't really care what you do in your bedroom, you need to recognize that the Left's obsession with 'Gay' marriage and abortion has nothing to do with you personally. You're just a convenient straw man for their drive to fracture our society and country. If you don't believe me, point out a few substantive things the Democrats have done for you. Just look at what they've done for Black Americans: like destruction of their families, economic poverty, affirmative action that has resulted in every Black being suspected of gaining their professional or academic success only through affirmative action. Yet they routinely get 94% of the Black vote. Hmmm...
Unless you are willing to ascribe homosexuality to genetic make-up, you have to admit that homosexual behavior is a choice. Since when does one's choice of activities place them in some sort of protected minority? You can't have it both ways: Either it is a choice, which means you are in no way any kind of discriminated minority; or it is genetically inbred, giving you so called minority status. But, then you have to realize that is an admission of abnormality that you cannot control. I happen to believe you are the same as the rest of us; your life style is a choice. That's fine; I have no interest in telling you how to live your life. Just don't force the rest of us to recognize that you're a victim.
MikeD| 11.11.10 @ 1:21PM
The 'Evil One' again. As I read over my post and your response, my first thought was that it would be useful if we could actually talk about the subject. You bring up 'wiring' and 'natural law', neither of which I mentioned. But, you also show clear thought and you write well. I'm accustomed to be screamed at and vilified as whatever name the Liberal can come up with on short notice.
The number of homosexuals in any society is normally estimated at somewhere between 1% and 2.5%. Liberal media constanty inflate that to bolster their arguments, but, as soon as they twist the facts, their total argument goes down the drain. Truth is what it is, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. I happen to think that there is sort of a 'spectrum' of sexuality, with the middle of the 'mainstream' in the center of the curve. I am very suspect of any poll that askes questions that would require the person polled to give any answer that has any reflection on their own preferences; sexual or otherwise.
My problem is the sematic gyrations Liberals, and their 'willing lackeys' in the media go through to prove their point, obfuscate the facts, and, when that fails, demonize their opponent. But there's still that old 'buggaboo' floating around out there: "Nature vs Nurture". Are people homosexual because that's the way they're made, or because that's the choice they made. Maybe the choice is the result of the genetics? Who knows.
glen| 11.11.10 @ 8:40PM
Our revenge has just begun wait untill 2012!