You might be a liberal...

As seen on Twitter:

"u might be a liberal if u have the stomach for killing the unborn, then pretend to be bothered by waterboarding"

I can't take credit for this one. (H/T to: brooksbayne by way of the Chicago News Bench.)

Military Veterans of All Ages Tend to Be More Republican

As befits his lofty position, Barack Obama had a more eventful Memorial Day than did I. I suspect the hardest part of it all was remembering to sync up the random buzzword generator with his teleprompter so that he could deliver his usual desultory remarks in response to North Korea's underground nuclear test. He managed to render a few gems such as "take action" and "blatant violation of international law"; it was as if Obama thought that Kim Jong Il was just another part of his sycophancy to be persuaded by such perfunctory nonsense.

For my part, the highlight of the weekend - besides spending time with family and friends - was coming across a report on a Gallup poll of over 130,000 adults that seemed to confirm the intuitively obvious.

Veterans are more likely to be Republican than are those of comparable ages who are not veterans. This Republican skew is at least minimally evident across all age groups, ranging from a 15-point difference in the percentage Republican between veterans and nonveterans in the 25-29 age group, to a 2-point difference in the 85+ group.

This does not entirely surprise when one considers that veterans were also noted by Gallup to be more supportive of Sen. John McCain in last year's presidential election. What is interesting is the fact that this gap seems to persist irrespective of both age and gender, although - as the poll goes on to point out - "[n]inety-one percent of those who have served in the military at some point in their lives are men."

Needless to say, Gallup was more than interested in coming up with a reason for this variance. They considered two hypotheses, the former positing that military service "socializes an individual in certain ways that in turn lead to a more Republican viewpoint." Their other theory proposed that "individuals already disproportionately Republican in orientation are more likely to join the military." By Gallup's lights, both have explanatory power depending upon the age of the veteran.

The latter explanation seems more reasonable for the younger age cohorts considered in this research. For the most part, Americans who are now aged 55 and under, as noted, volunteered to serve rather than having been drafted. Under these conditions, a reasonable hypothesis seems to be that more conservative/more Republican persons would be disproportionately represented in the ranks of volunteers, suggesting that the major reason for the observed veteran/nonveteran political difference lies in the backgrounds of those who choose to serve.

On the other hand, those who are now 56 and older were generally subject to the draft and presumably had a lot less choice in whether they served. That would be particularly true for Americans now 70 and older, among whom the majority are veterans. Here a more reasonable hypothesis may be that the socialization process that took place as part of military training and service, coupled with the impact such service has on an individual's reflection on politics and policy later in life, had a greater impact on the observed more Republican orientation among these veterans.

In the end, Gallup concluded that "both processes are at work to at least some degree across the age spectrum." Not to split hairs with Gallup, but as a veteran, I would argue that while their second explanation seems plausible, the first seems incomplete. To be sure, if you are a 20-something who would consider military service - despite the best efforts of liberal teachers/professors, pop culture, the MSM, much of established religion, liberal politicians and touchy-feely Baby Boomer parents - then yes, you probably are right-of-center in your political leanings.

But if the "socialization process" attendant to military service were an explanatory factor, then one might expect for Republican Party identification to be either uniformly high among veterans across age groups or to increase with age. The socialization theory would not account for the observed dip in GOP identification among vets between the ages of 35-59. For socialization to be a major part of the answer, one would have to conclude that it was less effective (or the effect more delayed) for some age cohorts than others.

Whatever the case, when one observes GOP affiliation among veterans by age, it is becomes evident that the distribution closely matches that seen among Republicans more generally by age, with the GOP achieving near parity with Democrats among those ages 30-44, and doing not as well with Baby Boomers and members of Generation Y (ages 18-29). All of this begs yet another question: namely, what is it about Gen X'ers - the fabled slackers of yore - that predisposes them to be slightly more likely to identify with the GOP than Boomers or Gen Y?

I'll offer one other thought. Unlike their Boomer forebears of their Gen Y siblings, Gen X'ers represent a generational cleanup crew of sorts. They are the ones who have and will continue to pay the tab - emotionally, psycho-socially and financially - for the Boom generation's self-indulgent delusions. As servicemembers fighting in their own inter-generational war, X'ers seem to be coming to a similar conclusion to that reached by vets more generally.

Hilton Checks Out

H/T to: Chris Muir of Day by Day.

"...it's harder if you're stupid."

As some of you may have noticed, I have been absent from the blogger's desk for about ten days. And with the exception of a bout with stomach flu, my time away has been most pleasant. Lately, it is more than a bit exasperating to chronicle the excesses of liberalism on a continuous basis. I pine for the "good 'ole days" (i.e.: prior to January 20, 2009) when you needed only to be concerned with a creeping liberalism. Now, progressive acts and impulses are on a full tilt rampage; these days, the job of a conservative scribe - especially one with a full-time job and a life besides - is one that never ends.

Just in the length of my absence, the Obama Left has:

- Shown its disregard for propriety and journalistic ethics by way of a (heavily) "Photoshopped" picture of the Great Himself

- Yukked it up while their Supreme Leader turned Hugo Chavez into "Soul Brother Number One"

- Jeopardized the vital work of the American intelligence community be releasing so-called "torture memos" detailing enhanced interrogation methods used by the C.I.A., while opening the door for prosecution of Bush administration officials who consulted on the enhanced interrogation policy

- Obliterated any credibility that the Department of Homeland Security had by dint of Janet Napolitano's unfortunate memos and comments. (See video here of the "money shot" portion of her interview, and here for great commentary on the Canadian border flap.)

But perhaps the most egregious events of my ten day sabbatical involve the contretemps between a beauty queen, Miss California Carrie Prejean and a gossip queen, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. As you are doubtless aware, while serving as a judge for the recent Miss USA pageant, Hilton asked Prejean her opinion of gay marriage.



The ensuing flap likely caused Prejean the Miss USA title (despite the fact that she was recapitulating exactly the opinion expressed by voters from her state last November.) Even after the pageant, the spit continued to hit the fan:





Whatever your position may be on same-sex marriage, you will have to acknowledge that the job of persuading those who might have been on the fence has been made harder by Hilton's behavior and demeanor. He took a highly nuanced issue and superimposed his own abundant baggage on it. The entire matter transmogrified from being about implied versus specified Constitutional rights to being a referendum on a flamboyant man-child who demands that Prejean negate her own opinions so that his can be validated. It appears that the whole gay marriage effort is similarly oriented towards validating homosexuals more so than any overwhelming desire on the part of gays to enter into monogamous, life-long committed relationships (as discussed elsewhere.)

However, if liberalism run amok is a threat to conservatism, the threat is nearly matched by that similarly posed to progressivism. Simply put, the Left's tendency when it is in power is to overreach, and the gay rights crowd has surely done just that. By demanding that Miss USA not be "politically incorrect" while displaying his own incorrectness by calling Prejean a "dumb bitch," Hilton - and by extension, gay marriage advocates more generally - seem to have shifted from a strategy of coaxing Americans to embrace gay marriage to attempting to bully them into doing so. Hilton's rants may be to social conservatives what Rick Santelli's Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor speech was to fiscal conservatives.

P.S.: The picture above was taken from an appearance Perez Hilton made on a Oxygen Network reality show, The Bad Girls Club. Greg, the young man in Hilton's lap is straight. Even as Hilton eschews what he calls political incorrectness, sexual harassment seems to be no problem.

What We Believe

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Alleluia! He is risen indeed!

What NBC didn't want you to see

So while commercials extolling the virtues of feminine "enhancement" (thanks Go Daddy) were O.K., the tastemasters at NBC decided that this commercial was out of line.



But they tell us there's no liberal media bias.

H/T to Flopping Aces.

Israel's Worst Enemy

This is certainly food for thought. Would that this were required viewing for the Sarah Silvermans, Al Frankens and John Stewarts of the world.

New Beginnings

This story almost got by me entirely. The Associated Press - by way of Yahoo! News - informed its readers that, in light of "rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic," California leads the nation in the number of people leaving its confines for another state.

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

The state with the next-highest net loss through migration between states was New York, which lost just over 126,000 residents.

California's loss is extremely small in a state of 38 million. And, in fact, the state's population continues to increase overall because of births and immigration, legal and illegal. But it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S.

The reasons for all of these peregrinations are explained later on in the piece:

Among other things: California's unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.

With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.

Median housing prices have nose-dived one-third from a 2006 peak, but many homes are still out of reach for middle-class families. Some small towns are on the brink of bankruptcy. Normally recession-proof Hollywood has been hit by layoffs.

I will not belabor points that have been made elsewhere, except to make the following observation: If Democratic local and state-level political leadership inexorably leads to Americans fleeing to more politically moderate or conservative environs, where will we all go when Democrats - emboldened by their executive and legislative victories - exert their malfeasant influences nationwide?

Apropos of nothing much, today was the "go live" day for a new blog that will document the malfeasance of the world's new favorite African American president. Presently, some of my favorite commentary about Barack Obama is posted at "Don't blame me... I voted for the white guy!" But come Inauguration Day (and don't forget to wear your red) and many days thereafter, we'll be keeping up more than our share of noise as we inform, opine and laugh our asses off.

Redefinitions

On the heels of yesterday's Dateline NBC interview with Pastor Rick Warren, it is appropriate to refocus our attention on the rationale for gay marriage. Distilled to its simplest form, the argument for same-sex marriage is one of human rights and equal protection under the law for gays as well as straights. As far as that reasoning goes, it is arguable that gay and lesbian partnerships are deserving of all of the legal rights that marriage confers on straight couples. Beyond the idea of legal equality, same-sex couples rightly have an interest in negating the stigma associated with homosexuality; gay marriages being seen as a fairly mundane human activity could conceivably do much to eliminate whatever remaining homophobia exists in society.

But if we can't agree on the facts surrounding gay marriage, it makes no sense for us to discuss our opinions. And it is a fact that - at least for gay men - monogamy, the sine qua non of most heterosexual marriages, is negotiable to an extent that most straight men cannot fathom. A great deal of scholarship (see here, here, here and here) has been exerted in detailing the qualitative characteristics of gay partnerships. Virtually all of it alludes to the fact that, as one group of researchers put it, "[m]ost men in closed relationships had had at least one outside sexual liaison."

Above and beyond the research output of academe lie the unfiltered thoughts of gay men themselves, as gathered from a couple of gay-oriented websites. On PlanetOut, psychotherapist Michael Shernoff, MSW cited research that suggested that "two thirds of [gay] couples are honestly nonmonogamous." He went on to discuss gradations of monogamy within gay relationships.

One type of relationship is one where both parties agree to be sexually exclusive and it's honestly negotiated as such. Another is sort of a "don't ask, don't tell," where the partners have never really talked about boundaries but have the assumption that the relationship is mostly monogamous, although occasionally one or both partners have sex outside their relationship.

Then there's modified monogamy, which means they try to be monogamous, but they want to open it up, so they do so by having three-ways, and the rule is that they both have to play with the person at the same time - neither is allowed to play with the person without the other.

Another model is the openly negotiated relationship, where the partners have discussed the options and maybe each goes on dates apart or they go to sex parties or whatever. I've also worked with "triads," where you get three people sharing a long-term committed relationship together and none of the partners is having sex or romance with anybody outside.

Shernoff went further on in defining infidelity as "breaking the rules the couple has agreed to." (Doubtless, some form of the same justification has launched a thousand menages a trois among heterosexuals.)

Clearly, there is a factor limiting gay male fidelity. My sense is that it has to do with the fact that gay males are - for all practical purposes (minus the "insert tab A into slot B" thing) - quite similar to straight males in sexual proclivity, if not overt behavior. Gay men simply (and understandably) want what every red blooded American male wants, and what their biological urges dictate: namely, a diversity of partners and a bare minimum of obligation or responsibility for consequences. Despite the ravages of two generations worth of "second wave" feminism, women are still less willing than men to oblige such frivolity. With male same-sex relationships, there is no limiting reagent; gay men are very much willing to view each other strictly as objects for sexual gratification.

For any dialogue on gay marriage to continue in a serious manner, gay males will need to be honest with themselves and the larger society about what marriage means, as the codes of practice for marriage cannot simply be "the rules that the couple has agreed to." And society will need to be just as forthright about the reality that "marriage" between gay males can indeed have a corrosive effect on heterosexual marriages in as much as it undercuts the justification for sexual fidelity on the part of male heterosexuals. To be sure, we can scarcely talk about gay marriage without having some real talk about gay divorce (i.e.: can gay partners sue for divorce on the grounds of infidelity if the partners previously "agreed" on an open relationship?)

The foregoing speaks to the problem with freshly distilled rationalizations. They tend to be much like bikinis in that what they reveal is enticing, but what they conceal is vital.

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. (Emphasis added.)

As taken from today's New York Times by op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof (pictured above) and as discussed elsewhere.

Martin Luther King, Jr (1929-1968)

"I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us. The pilot said over the public address system, 'We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night.'

"And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.

"And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

"And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!"

Requiescat in pace.

Stop Making Sense

Maybe this is all a manifestation of some April Fool's phenomenon (or just as likely, a case of newborn-induced sleep deprivation.) As of late there appear to be an increasing number of circumstances that occur beyond my abilities of comprehension. In particular, politics provides a smorgasbord of peculiar events that try both my patience and credulity.

I - much like Jackie Mason - strain to understand how a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate can sit under the pulpit of a pastor such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, and hear nothing so controversial as to cause him a moment's hesitation about claiming Wright as a spiritual mentor. (Hell, I attended Wright's church for less than two years and heard comments at least as inflammatory as those keeping YouTube ablaze virtually every Sunday; to paraphrase Mr. Mason, Barack Obama would have to be deaf or stupid not to have noticed similar commentary.)

I am also vexed as to how another Democratic presidential candidate would highlight her management skills to commend her as POTUS, even as she runs her campaign over a cliff. Hillary Clinton has made her expertise - in developing a feasible universal health care plan among other things - a centerpiece of her political resume, all the while her incompetent stewardship of the campaign's finances has caused her to be unable to pay health care premiums for staffers.

But these are yet trifles, mere hors d'oeuvres in the feast of foolishness. Much that bewilders my now baby-besotted mind emanates from beyond the ramparts of politics. My attention was captured by a fairly recent New York Times Magazine article about so-called "transmen" attending women's colleges. We are acquainted with "Rey," a scion(?) of an affluent New York suburb and a not-quite transgendered college student. Rey began his college years at Barnard, a women's college in New York City. His travails with the "very typical feminine girls" (i.e., female students not wanting to share housekeeping with a tranny), left him feeling "extremely other." After these assaults on his sensibilities, Rey now continues "hir" studies at Columbia.

Around the next corner in the gender bender House of Horrors is Thomas Beatie, who comes to us by way of The Advocate. To make a weird story short, Beatie is "transgendered, legally male, and legally married to Nancy." Beatie has also retained his, shall we say, pre-surgery "plumbing." Due to his wife's inability to conceive, Beatie has decided to put his original equipment to use. As we might imagine, the couple has endured all sorts of indignities as Beatie has attempted to conceive and carry their child.

Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns. We have only begun experiencing opposition from people who are upset by our situation. Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive...

This whole process, from trying to get pregnant to being pregnant, has been a challenge for us. The first doctor we approached was a reproductive endocrinologist. He was shocked by our situation and told me to shave my facial hair. After a $300 consultation, he reluctantly performed my initial checkups. He then required us to see the clinic's psychologist to see if we were fit to bring a child into this world and consulted with the ethics board of his hospital. A few months and a couple thousand dollars later, he told us that he would no longer treat us, saying he and his staff felt uncomfortable working with "someone like me."

Like Rey, Beatie seems genuinely upset that others won't go along with his delusion. Despite his having apparently functional female reproductive organs, Beatie describes himself as being "stable and confident being the man that I am."

As I come at all of this from the perspective of an African American male - my own gender best described by the equally correct and politically incorrect epithet, "mansman" - I find it interesting that many people (especially on the Left) accept a fluidity of gender that speaks to a penchant for pushing envelopes as opposed to drawing clear lines. I also wonder why race was never seen as so much of a sociological construct as opposed to a biological fact. Imagine if, by dint of a change in physiognomy, the power of will or some other expedient, blacks could have avoided the whole host of privations of days long past.

The truth of course is that while Americans of African descent may choose not to identify with their negritude, they cannot force society into accepting any alternate designation. (If anything, those with multiracial bona fides are likely to have blackness draped over them, fitting much like a wet jacket.) So it is with these misguided drag kings. Their attempts to mau-mau us into a stunned submission notwithstanding, their biology - the presence of distinctly female physiology, and the requirement of endocrine reinforcement of their gender "reassignment" - speaks volumes to the untenability of their suggestion that they are men, trans or otherwise.

To Liberate the Repressed

I spent the better part of last week steeling myself to help my wife deal with the death of her grandmother, who passed away after an extended bout with multiple physical ailments as well as dementia. Malinda Heaney let her light of Christian love shine for nearly 103 years, and I am a better man for having known her. As was evident at her homegoing yesterday, she inspired those she cared for to care for others out of the depths of their own souls.

As best as I am able to gather, the signal characteristic of her cohort was an appreciation for a certain modesty of manner, a singular ability to stifle thoughts, feelings or desires that might bring disrepute to oneself or one's family. Some of this plainness might be a product of life in small-town southern Minnesota, but I am persuaded that there was a generational esteem for a prudent reticence.

This gift of self-repression - the ability to silence the chattering id - is very much lost on the generations that succeeded Malinda's. Decades of the Left's efforts to erode any modicum of personal reserve have rendered us all a bit too in touch with our inner child. As progressives have seen fit to bastardize the motto of the U.S. Army Special Forces to their own purposes from De Oppresso Liber to De Represso Liber, any pretensions of unpretentiousness are seen now as either a vestigial organ to be excised or a social disease to be cured.

To our... well not shame really (lest our inflated sense of self be damaged by exposure to societal conventions), maybe to our momentary embarrassment - we can now recount recent instances when a bit of repression of ego might have been in order. Even as we attempt to decipher whether "Client 9" or his consort will have the better post-scandal career, we are confronted by news of his successor's previous infidelities. All the while - in newspapers quite literally from New York to L.A. - we are told that fidelity is not even for the birds, but best modeled by parasitic worms. For my part, I have been as of yet unable to convince Malinda's granddaughter (or her son) of the unreality of marital fidelity. And so on my behalf, and that of married men elsewhere, a dollop of repression of a good many things is in order.

Would that the progressive political class could repress their own seemingly irrepressible psyches. Sen. Barack "Houdini" Obama sought by power of speech to loose himself from the verbal baggage of his former pastor. (Apropos of not much, like Obama, I too was married at a ceremony officiated by Jeremiah Wright; I can only hope that Obama's vows took better than mine.) And while Obama attempts to hate the sin and love the sinner, he exposes the central dilemma of progressives, that of how to despise America sufficiently to maintain their liberal credentials without alienating the 49.99 percent of Americans who think that we live in a pretty decent country. Relying on hope over experience, I would recommend that Democratic politicians try to keep their "Hate America First" instincts repressed (at least until November 5th.)

Lest we be remiss, we will note on this 5th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War the clear distinction to be made between the fruit of repression and that of its fraternal twin oppression. As Iraqis attempt to emerge from the shadow of death - first at the hands of a brutal Baathist dictatorship and now by the devices of a cruel insurgency - freedom loving people give their first allegiance to the men and women who repress the weaknesses of their own flesh in order to repel the forces of entropy.

Beyond an instinctive fear of death, those who come as liberators must repress their own homesickness, loneliness, fatigue and even boredom that they might secure the blessings of liberty for those who have been thus far denied as much. And therein lies the difference. Doubtless, the yoke of oppression is best broken by the repression of fear of the oppressor. It is the avoidance of the equally necessary and inevitable conflict with dictators, tyrants and despots (an emerging specialty of the Left) that enables their evildoing.

Conversely (or perhaps similarly, I'm not sure), it was a love that passed understanding that enabled a woman frail and enfeebled by old age to repress her own preconceived notions in order to make room in her heart for a dark stranger who would try his best to love her granddaughter. As I said, I am made better by having known Malinda Heaney. Sadly, our world is made a bit worse by her absence from it. My prayer, and Malinda's as well I will presume, is that the love wherewith she cared for her family and friends may abide in us all.

Requiescat in pace.

Let the church say "Amen."

That the fourth estate has a congenital bias against and/or aversion to organized religion is largely a foregone conclusion. In their reporting on a recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey on changes in the religious affiliations of Americans, media outlets as (ostensibly) varied as the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, the Associated Press, the Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Globe, NPR, and Time all found themselves more than capable of pointing out the declines that have been seen in the numbers of self-identifying Catholics and Protestants.

The Tribune noted that "[t]he catholic Church has lost more members than any other religious group... making roughly 10 percent of all Americans former Catholics" (although it did concede that the percentage of Catholics nation-wide remained stable largely due to immigration.) Time warbled about the fact that the "fastest-growing religious group is people without any religious affiliation," although it was careful to add that most of these people are not atheists, but that "they just describe their religion as 'nothing in particular.' "

And for its part, when the AP made note of the fact that "[n]early half of American adults have left behind the faith traditions of their upbringing," it also took the step of quoting Boston College's Alan Wolfe who opined "[i]t would be wrong to view what's happening as a shift from one religious identity to a different religious identity," adding that "what we've been witnessing is a shift from a fixed identity to a fluid identity."

As is evident with others, my own life is a testament to the fluidity of religious affiliation (as discussed elsewhere.) But even I would take care that the wrong conclusions are not drawn from either the report itself or the reporting that flowed therefrom. To be sure, the fortunes of all religious denominations have not been the same over time. While the Pew research makes it clear that "each religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing members," as a whole, mainline Protestant denominations (to include my own ELCA) have suffered some of the steepest declines in overall membership.

For example, while 2.4 percent of adult Americans joined the Methodist faith from other denominations, 4.4 percent left to go elsewhere. Similar percentages are noted for Lutherans, Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Meanwhile, Evangelical churches comprise the largest (26.3 percent) and one of the fastest growing segments of Protestantism. When factoring in childhood religion as well as persons who joined and left the denomination, Pentecostals had a net gain of nearly 13 percent. Similarly, non-denominational Protestants (largely made up of independent churches with an Evangelical bent) had a 300 percent increase in membership.

For longtime observers, these trends do not surprise. Sadly, rather than tending to the spiritual longings of their flocks, many mainline religious bodies have gotten sidetracked on issues such as openly gay clergy/gay marriage and "social justice." A good bit of wisdom on the matter comes to us from the Wall Street Journal. A recent op-ed observed the following:

The Pew survey confirms what scholars have been saying for years about the winners and losers in this religious economy: Religions that demand the most of people are growing the fastest. The mainline Protestant churches -- with their less exclusionary views of salvation, looser rules for sexual conduct and sermons about social justice -- have lost membership, especially since the early 1990s. The more traditional evangelical churches keep growing.

There's a similar dynamic in the Catholic Church. Broadly, it has been losing members rapidly -- as much as a third of the native-born Catholic population. Meanwhile, it has gained members among foreign-born (mostly Hispanic) residents, who are often attracted to more conservative pastors and parishes.

While many in the media were quick to surmise that the Pew report portended a general decline in public piety, the opposite seems to be the case. To be sure, there was no meaningful increase in atheism or agnosticism, and Americans are still far more like than not to say that religion is "very important to them." What has fallen out of favor is religiosity that is divorced from reality. Denominations that navel-gaze over the rights of gays, or that do not inculcate the disciplines of faith, tend to fall on hard times sooner or later.

The Beautiful Balloon

I sense that my connection with the New York Times will always be something of a love-hate relationship (as it appears to be with much of America.) To be sure, the Times allows (forces?) us to contemplate interesting slices of life that we might not otherwise be exposed to. Among the snippets of Americana served up recently by the NYT was a review of sorts of a documentary, "Please Talk to Kids About AIDS."

The Times described the film thusly:

In it, two incredibly sweet and precocious sisters — Vineeta and Sevilla Hennessey, ages 6 and 4 — accompany their parents, the filmmakers, to the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto. They interview top AIDS experts, gay activists, condom distributors, a sex toy saleswoman, a cross-dresser playing Queen Elizabeth II and an Indian transgender hijra in a sari.

As the film unfolds, one of these moppets had the opportunity to share her own understanding of how HIV is transmitted.

At one point, Vineeta draws for the camera a picture of two people in bed. "These are condoms," she explains of the bowl beside them, "that you put in the boy’s penis, so they don’t get AIDS with a woman or with a man. A man can do it with a man if you like it."

And so, the progressive dream of childhood sexual awareness - or at least the dream of Vineeta's assuredly liberal parents - has been realized in microcosm. Long before she can elucidate the workings of her heart, brain, lungs or other vital organs, Vineeta can wax on about the workings of human genitals (and the use of condoms thereon), even as she is likely to be more curious about "Dora the Explorer" than genitalia.

Modern liberalism has long had a fairly transparent goal vis-a-vis sex: namely, the promotion of "safe" (read: consequence free) sexual intercourse by way of condom distribution, greater access to "reproductive health services" irrespective of age or parental consent, and so-called "comprehensive" (i.e., values neutral) sex education. One of the foundational concepts of the progressive sex agenda has been the notion of "protected sex."

But as we consider the idea of protected sex, we must conclude that it is a nonsensical fiction. Consider that - save some insect species - humankind is the only animal that has to protect itself in the course of normal reproduction. Compounding the inanity is the fact that, at the Left's encouragement, we willfully engage in coition with the very persons from which we must be protected. This situation does not make sense entirely because there is no sense to be made of it.

In their defense, progressives tend to analogize the use of condoms during intercourse with wearing seat belts while driving a car. By doing so, they ignore the salient fact that while the widespread use of seat belts has led to a readily observable decline in automobile fatalities, the use of condoms in and of themselves has had a negligible effect on rates of transmission of HIV or other STDs. (In fact, even with municipalities and schools handing out free condoms as if they were beads at Mardi Gras, we are in the midst of an upswing in STD cases.) Indeed, most of the observed decrease in HIV transmissions occurred prior to the advent of condom distribution programs in the 1990s, with transmission rates remaining relatively stable since 1991.

Any effect that condom distribution may have on HIV/AIDS prevalence can be easily attributed to an inherent bias on the part of condom users. Those who are willing to use prophylactics nearly every time they have sex would surely be conscientious enough to take other measures to avoid an STD. The less thoughtful who predicate their sex on intoxication or other less than ideal circumstances are more likely to copulate without even a sheath of latex as defilade.

To his credit, the author of the Times' story shared my concern that the film's young starlets may yet be too young to contemplate the mysteries of the sex act. Would that the Left exhibited similar concern about the rampant sexualization of the young, particularly young girls (as discussed elsewhere.) For now, liberals will continue to place their faith - and trust their lives - with lambskin.

Moving Daze, pt. 5

As has been discussed on multiple occasions elsewhere, things that influence interstate migration - crime rates, employment opportunities, access to high-quality education, housing prices and overall cost of living - are all tangible, palpable measures of the quality of life offered by a particular community. Generally speaking, "many if not most of these indicators are improved in areas of conservative influence."

New information comes to us to suggest that there is at least one other factor that may have an impact on both regional relocations and variances in the economic fortunes of individual states. A recent report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) indicates that thousands of Americans move from areas with high tax burdens to locales with greater economic freedom. According to the study, Americans "are voting with their feet for jobs and higher incomes - economic opportunities that are disappearing from some regions of the country while sprouting in others."

The big winners in this interstate competition for jobs and growth have generally been the Southern states (Dixie) and those in the Southwest region of the country, such as Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona. The big losers have been the traditional rustbelt regions of the Northeast and Midwest. The demoralizing symptoms of economic despair in the declining states like New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey include lost population, falling housing values, a shrinking tax base, business out-migration, capital flight, high unemployment rates, and less money for schools, roads, and aging infrastructure.

The report describes California as a "has been" state that has been ravaged by "years of redistributionist economic policies." It also labels the Northeast as "America's Economic Black Hole" based on "oppressive tax rates, mindless and meddlesome regulation, obese social welfare programs, slumping real estate markets, and a steady stampede of outward migration."

Lest we doubt, a Wall Street Journal op-ed discussing the ALEC study cites specific examples that evidence the effects of taxation on state-to-state population flows.

Politicians who think taxes don't matter might want to explain the Dakotas. North Dakota ranked second worst in out-migration last year, while South Dakota ranked in the top 10 as a destination. The two are similar in most regards, with one large difference: North Dakota has an income tax and South Dakota doesn't.

Here's another example. The only Pacific Coast state to lose migrant population in 2007 was California, which has the highest state income tax in the nation. This is the continuation of a dismal 10-year performance with nearly one and a half million Golden Staters leaving what was once the premier destination state in America.

Meanwhile, next door, Nevada was second among the states in new families -- and a big percentage of the new arrivals are Californians. Nevada has no income tax. High income Californians can buy a house in Las Vegas for the amount of money they save in three or four years by not paying California income taxes.

This hemorrhaging of people and resources is not without consequences. As we have seen in once-great cities such as Camden, New Jersey, Detroit, Michigan and Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio and in large swaths of rural America, a rampant and sustained population outflow ends up hurting those who are most in need. The ALEC report explains specifically how economically-induced migrations impact the impoverished most negatively.

Defenders of the high-tax and high-spending conditions that precipitate this fall into the economic cellar argue that big government policies and taxes on the wealthy are necessary to protect the poor and the disadvantaged. Yet when flight occurs away from an area, it is always the highest achievers and those with the most wealth, capital, and entrepreneurial drive who tend to "get out of Dodge" first, leaving the middle class, and then eventually only the poor and disadvantaged, behind. Inevitably that means fewer taxpayers and heavier tax burdens for those who remain.

To be sure, when urban areas in particular collapse under the weight of confiscatory taxation, the negative consequences fall disproportionately on those who do not have the financial wherewithal to evade the fallout.

Therefore economic liberalism places a two-phased burden on those who are subjected to it. The short-term effect of high taxes is to remove money from the most productive segments of local economies; these monies temporarily enrich government, but inevitably create measurable hardships for businesses and the public more generally. All of this is soon followed by the longer term sequelae of private sector destabilization or displacement - or most likely both. And as with other forms of progressivism (e.g., environmentalism, feminism, multiculturalism, etc.), the damage that is done to society is never acknowledged - let alone ameliorated - by those who work to bring it about in the first place.

A funny thing happened on the way to Paradise

As often happens to me in blogworld, I began with every intention of writing about one issue - in this case, composing a post on new data describing how the increased use of ethanol can actually exacerbate climate change - and ended up shifting focus entirely to another topic. (So that you won't call me a tease, read the abstracts of the research here and here, with more to come next time.) Instead, I will direct my attention to the corrosive effects of liberalism on empire.

If described a part of the "civilized" world where out-of-wedlock teen birthrates rose from 16.7 percent to 91.8 percent in 40 years, many of you would conclude that I was referring to some inner city area, perhaps Washington, D.C., West Philadelphia, Detroit or South Central Los Angeles. The parameters of such a scenario were detailed recently in an article that bemoaned the mindset behind the egregious choices that young women make in conceiving and rendering a child before it is prudent to do so.

Obviously, there are millions of sensible young girls, but for many, having a baby seems to be the logical, and even desirable, result of their teenage flings.

If it wasn't, they'd stir themselves to do something to prevent themselves getting pregnant, like taking the morning-after pill.

But they don't. Because the benefits of doing nothing to stop it are obvious.

Suddenly, they can give birth to someone who will offer unconditional love in a bleak, busy, money-grubbing world.

The [government] will offer a free home away from nagging parents. They will have independence, sexual freedom and no more humiliating exams to try to pass - because, more than likely, their education will fall by the wayside.

Nowadays, ask some girls why they want a baby so badly and they will say vaguely: "Oh, I want to fulfill myself."

Clearly for the worse, such a fate has befallen the U.K. The land of stiff-lipped stoics that withstood the hegemonic designs of both Napoleon and Hitler has succumbed to the ravages of liberalism gone wild. In her Daily Mail op-ed, Fay Weldon argues for mandatory sterilization of British teen girls by informing her readers that Britain's rate of teenage conceptions - 41.3 per 1,000 in 20005 - makes it into "a disgrace among the nations - the worst offenders in Europe." As it stands, the teen pregnancy rate in the U.K. is "twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands."

What was once the the realm of Shakespeare and Churchill is now the home of chavs and chavettes. Weldon lays much of the blame on England's destigmatization of behaviors that were once considered beyond the pale by contrasting the culturally predominant "condemnation of the sexually imprudent" - which she further describes as "a desperate attempt to stop girls from doing what came naturally until a father and a home could be provided" - with the laissez-faire attitudes of today's Britons, commenting that "pregnancy no longer holds the fear for teenagers it once did," and adding that for many "a child has actually become a kind of perverse badge of [honor]."

So to, she goes on to note that, as Lefties here in the States are wont to do, the British government "has tried everything to stop pregnancy rates rising - from school matrons to a blizzard of sex education, to free condoms and morning-after pills," all to no avail.

It seems that many of today's girls just like being pregnant, and emotionally and physically - not just practically - have more to gain than lose if they are. Sex education hasn't helped, and may indeed have harmed.

Freud's view of the psychosexual development of the child has been ignored. His opinion was that you interfere with the "latency" phase of ages nine to 12 at your peril, for fear of stopping further development.

In Freud's theory, the latency phase is when a child unconsciously denies the facts of life until he or she is ready to face them. If unpalatable facts are forced down the child's throat it's [traumatizing], and progression to sexual maturity is halted.

In other words, if you start teaching the birds and the bees too early, all that the nine, ten or 11-year-olds will do is want to experiment with what they have been taught before they have the emotional capability to deal with the fallout.

Sounding well past the point of exasperation, Weldon observes that "we know everything there is to know about preventing babies, yet still girls take risks." But it would seem that young women in Britain and elsewhere do not see out-of-wedlock conception or childbirth as risks at all, but rather as behavioral sine qua nons that are incentivized by a more than generous system of entitlements.

As much is the end state of rampant liberalism in all of its variants. By way of an atomizing multiculturalism, passivity in the face of a decades-long crime wave and an initiative-stifling welfare state, the character of a once-proud society has been reduced to cultural rubble. In the face of all the foregoing, that a young woman would do the "grown-up" with a unsuitable suitor might be only the first - if not the least - of the risks she will assume.

The Death of Innocence

I sat down at my computer with every intention of composing a follow-up to tonight's CNN Democratic Debate. I rightly pointed Firefox to CNN's webpage; in as much as web pages are comprised of information on disparate topics, I wasn't surprised CNN's site contained everything from a story about Britney Spears "resting" at a hospital, video of a police officer who lost his job after an on-duty heart attack, and another video of nude models on strike in Italy.

And then I saw this. As CNN reported it, 27 year-old China Arnold (see photo) made a jailhouse confession to a former cellmate about killing her month-old daughter by baking her in a microwave oven in August 2005.

Linda Williams testified that she developed a sexual relationship with defendant China Arnold when the two were cellmates in the Montgomery County [Ohio] jail in March.

Arnold confided in her about what happened to her baby, Wiliams said.

Arnold feared that her boyfriend believed he wasn't the child's father and that he was going to leave her, Williams told the jury.

"She said she put the baby into the microwave and started it and left the house," Williams said.

Williams said she asked Arnold how she got the child into the oven.

"She said she fit right in," Williams said.

That was the end of any thoughts I had of blogging about another boilerplate-laden debate, as the whole affair had lost any relevance it had to the real world. (Of course a world where mothers cook their children as if they are defrosting a turkey seems more surreal than real.) To be sure, Wolf Blitzer and his co-inquisitors would be unwilling to query Sens. Clinton and Obama about anything they would do to prevent another immolation of a child at the hands of her mother.

Perhaps Blitzer, et al. wouldn't bother entirely because presidents are not customarily involved in the affairs of individual citizens (although that might change, given progressives' determination to expand the vistas of the nanny state.) Or maybe any answer that "Clintbama" would provide on the subject would be too embarrassing for the Democrat enablers at CNN to countenance.

It borders on understatement to report that progressives have had a tenuous relationship with individual accountability, as they are wont to establish "rights" divorced from any commensurate responsibilities. In particular, our society has enshrined the notion of women having sovereignty over their bodies absent any accountability over whatsoever they do with those bodies, either to themselves or others. Despite her claim to have finally "found her voice," neither Hillary nor Barack have the power of rhetoric to question, let alone object to the tidal wave of relativist effluvium that has overcome our cultural levies of faith and virtue.

Nor, sadly, does a Republican Party that is all too focused on appearing tough in response to external threats to be tough-minded in speaking about the wreckage that lies strewn across the cultural landscape. The seeming inevitability of John McCain's nomination notwithstanding, grass-roots Republicans are divided and restless at present entirely because cultural conservatives - those who would speak out against a society that renders a collective shrug over the death of innocents, in or ex utero - are devoid of a credible (read consistent) voice within the party.

Now I understand why some Americans, both liberal and conservative, don't understand what all the "Super Tuesday" fuss is about.

Gentle reader, please forgive the brevity of my only post since last Sunday. I am now going upstairs to pray and weep openly for the soul of my country.

Happy 1st Anniversary!!!

As a forty-something reluctantly entering middle-age (or more accurately, entering kicking and screaming), I am acutely aware that time goes by faster as I get older. I can say for sure that the past 365 days since this blog began have been something of a blur. Not that we haven't had our eyes on what has transpired in the worlds of politics, race relations, religion, education and the culture. To the contrary, I think my sense of intellectual vertigo is akin to the feeling one has when drinking water through a fire hose; staying on top of just a portion of what has been happening in so many arenas would be enough to make anyone's head spin.

Because of the daunting challenges associated with composing and publishing a weblog of "thoughtful conservative commentary," I was not altogether sure things would get to this point, with over 200 published posts under our belt. But thanks to your patronage over the intervening months, we can say, "Mission Accomplished!" By way of expressing appreciation for your support, here are links to the Top 10 most viewed posts since the establishment of this blog (just in case you didn't get to see these "blasts from the past.") In ascending order of popularity are:

10) Why Jena Matters

9) Credible Sources

8) Too Good To Be News

7) At Least They're Being Honest About It

6) 10 More for Consensus

5) In Jesse We Trust

4) To Rehabilitate The Culture

3) Too Good No More

2) Four More Years

and the numero uno most viewed post....

1) 10 Questions for Consensus

It is with great humility and sincerity that I thank all of you who have read these and other posts so faithfully. Without your readership, it would hardly be worth the effort, so I hesitate in asking one more favor. Even as I've given you my "Top 10," I hope that I can impose on each of you do likewise. If you are so inclined, please feel free to forward this post on to 10 of your friends, irrespective of their political persuasion. I trust that they will appreciate the insights provided here as much as you have.

Thanks again for all of your support!!

As always, I am,



G

Matters of Manner and Type

Coming Home, pt. 3.5

A little bit ago, this page discussed a recent New York Times Magazine article entitled "The Evangelical Crackup," which posited that evangelical Christians - a bedrock constituency for the GOP since the 1980s - were beginning to defect from the party over a wide array of issues, to include immigration, the environment and the role of religion in politics.

At that time, it was my opinion that some of what's being seen on the part of evangelical Republicans is a function of their disillusionment with politics in general, and with GOP politicians in particular. (To be sure, there have been enough unfortunate situations as of late to disillusion both the religious and political factions within the GOP.)

Quite correctly, the NYT article pointed out that much of the Religious Right's lack of enthusiasm for politics is related to a certain fatigue with President Bush and his handling of the Iraq War more specifically. To a degree, this perception is born out by data from a recent Gallup poll that suggest that there have indeed been decreases in Republican Party identification and the President's job approval among churchgoing whites between 2004 and 2007, with whites who attend church weekly having had a seven percentage point decrease in Republican identification and an 18 percentage point drop in Bush's approval rating since 2004. (In this study, churchgoing served as a proxy for religiosity.)

Interestingly enough, the polling data also demonstrates that while white churchgoers have had a significant disaffection for the Republicans, this effect is no greater than that which has been seen among whites across the spectrum of religiosity, and that the GOP still enjoys "a significant advantage among religious whites compared with less religious whites."

All Americans have become less likely over the last three years to identify with the Republican Party, and less likely to approve of the job President Bush is doing. Highly religious Americans have followed this same pattern, but no more -- and no less -- than anyone else. This is particularly true among highly religious white Americans, who have constituted a core base for the Republican Party. Thus, the gap between religious white Americans and whites who are not religious in terms of GOP identification and Bush approval is just as large today as it was in 2004 and 2005. Highly religious white Americans remain one of the strongest pockets of support for the Republican Party in the United States. (Emphasis added.)

So while things are not entirely peaches and cream between evangelicals and the Republican Party, it is not apparent that all is lost just yet. The other fact to consider in all of this is that there is no indication whatsoever that religious conservatives will break to the Democratic Party in support of the likes of Barack or Hillary. Moreover, other Gallup polling suggests that Americans consider current GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani to have the best odds of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election; such an eventuality becomes more likely as Democratic voters have begun to consider her weaknesses.