Free Speech in Fort Worth

The atheist bus ads have finally caught the attention of the New York Times. This story has been floating around Fort Worth for a month now, which is why, I suppose some Christian groups have had time to organize a protest.

A public bus rolls by with an atheist message on its side: “Millions of people are good without God.” Seconds later, a van follows bearing a riposte: “I still love you. — God,” with another line that says, “2.1 billion Christians are good with God.”

A clash of beliefs has rattled this city ever since atheists bought ad space on four city buses to reach out to nonbelievers who might feel isolated during the Christmas season. After all, Fort Worth is a place where residents commonly ask people they have just met where they worship and many encounters end with, “Have a blessed day.”

"We want to tell people they are not alone," said Terry McDonald, the chairman of Metroplex Atheists, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, which paid for the atheist ads. "People don’t realize there are other atheists. All you hear around here is, ‘Where do you go to church?’"

I don't know where McDonald hangs out to be asked constantly about his church affiliation, but as a lifelong Fort Worth resident, I'll tell you it isn't something that comes up constantly in my conversations. Maybe that's because I'm Presbyterian and I figure your unbelief is between you and God. But the idea that atheists are "lonely" because during the celebration of Christ's birth people talk about their faith strikes me as just so much whining for nothing. Vox Populi sums up my feelings:

And thus are all the claims that their various ad campaigns are about anything but annoying Christians at Christmastime belied. Can you even imagine how upset Jews would be if Christians began running ads directly attacking Jewish beliefs during the high holidays in a similar manner? Or how ballistic Muslims would go if similarly attacked during Ramadan? Atheists constantly attempt to portray the public celebrations and positive assertions of Christian belief as some sort of attack on their non-belief, but that is nothing more than absurd and juvenile drama-queening.

I think the people complaining about the ads are giving these clowns more attention than they deserve, which is, of course, why the ads are being run on buses to get high exposure.

If you're an atheist during Christmas, suck it up. You don't have to celebrate any more than you celebrate Independence Day or New Year's. There's no Christmas police forcing you to attend Christmas Eve mass or anything. This "lonely" atheist whining is just an excuse to be obnoxious and rude.

Diversity Is More Important Than Your Child

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a website called Teaching Tolerance which is anything but. Specifically, the site is designed to give educators propaganda to promote a variety of ideas, including homosexuality, "diversity," unionization and other politically correct ideas.

Don't get me wrong; teaching children to be kind to those not in "their" groups is great. Jesus told us to be kind to each other. But do publicized pep rallies do as much good as simply teaching children to be nice to each other every day? I expect teachers to emphasize this concept daily, not needing banners to encourage kindness or showing astonishment that young children can and will play with others easily with a little encouragement. It's really not bizarre for elementary school children, for example, to easily adapt to playing with different children.

Unfortunately, Teaching Tolerance is more interested in pushing PC ideas than actually helping children learn and graduate. Take this article on single sex education.

The trend toward single-sex classes began in 2006 as part of the No Child Left Behind reforms. The Department of Education issued new rules making it easier for school districts to create them. Seven years ago, only 11 public schools offered single-sex classes. Now, the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education reports that at least 445 classrooms nationwide are segregated by gender.

Why the rush to segregate? Some educators see it as an answer to the “boy crisis.” They believe that boys struggle in school more than girls and point to lower test scores and higher dropout rates as proof. Critics of this viewpoint say the “crisis” tends to rest with boys at inner city and rural schools – areas where public schools are weak in general.

Beyond this debate, many educators simply feel that single-sex education is best for some – though not all – students. They believe parents should have the choice of putting their children in all-boy or all-girl classes.

The author goes on to declare that only "anecdotal evidence" exists in support of single sex education. But several studies give single sex education positive scores. And women's colleges have been touted for their academic excellence and opportunities for decades.

But the article links to no evidence supporting either single sex education or co-ed education. In fact, all we're left with is this:

Count me as one of the skeptics about single-sex education. I have a hunch that in ten years this we’ll look back on this as one of those “What were we thinking?” moments in school reform. But I’m willing to see where this experiment is going. And for the sake of the kids involved, I sure hope I’m wrong.

As a conservative, I champion a variety of educational approaches, knowing that children learn different ways. If one person's child excels in a co-ed environment, then, by all means, support that. But if another person's child does poorly in that environment, why should he/she be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness? Unlike the author, I think in 10 years, there will still be many supporters of single sex education because it works very well for some people. Women's colleges serve a purpose for women. Why should any child be treated differently because he/she is in elementary school?

Multiculturalism Killed 13 at Fort Hood

Ft. Hood Killer at Work in Annapolis

The Army’s hands-off approach toward the Muslim Hasan contrasts significantly with how Defense officials have handled those practicing mainstream religions.

Hasan was a medical professional serving in a sacred role administering to the most vulnerable; yet, he was proselytizing to his patients about Islam. In spite of this, he was twice promoted.

About the same time Hasan was preaching Islam to the wounded, complaints arose of alleged proselytizing by Evangelical Christians at the U.S. Air Force Academy. A major Pentagon task force was dispatched, investigated and found a "perception of religious bias." Nonetheless, nearly six years after complaints first arose at USAFA, Christian activity at the school is still closely scrutinized.

The military is more concerned with political correctness than preparedness.

Conservative Kiosk Boots from Mall

Dems can dish it out but they sure can't take it.

The bumper stickers and posters sold at "Free Market Warrior" at Concord Mills are meant to be "biting," the kiosk's owner Loren Spivack said.

At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.

Whatever your opinion, the fact is this: At the end of July, Free Market Warrior will not be allowed at Concord Mills Mall. The kiosk chain's owner shared e-mail correspondence with NewsChannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not "neutral" enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew.

Spivack, who first leased the space this spring, says the decision came as a shock to him. He says mall management seemed pleased with the kiosk just a few weeks ago.

"Nobody in that mall is selling anything from a conservative perspective. Plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective," he said. "Given that we are in America and not North Korea, we probably should have some stuff on the other side."

Nothing like supporting capitalism and diversity of thought.

Thanks to Chuck for the story.

Politically Correct Censorship

Interesting article on the problems of santizing the English language. My favorite:

My personal favorite is the use of the term “passing,” instead of calling death what it is. Why must it be labeled as a social faux pas to say an elderly person in a convalescent home recently died? After all, that’s what humans do: die. Why must we refer to death in such euphemistic terms as “passing?” Once again, it seems excessive and untruthful.

Death is uncomfortable, but pretending people don't die, but merely "pass" is ridiculous and, in a sense, dishonorable.

As a journalist, I was taught early on to use simple and direct language to describe things. Always use "said." Not "discussed," "retorted," "responded," "laughed," or any of the other hundreds of ways of saying "said." Why? Because said is the most direct and objective way of describing verbalization.

The same can be said of "dying." Let's face it, all the flowery language doesn't change the facts when a loved one dies. And, as someone with plenty of experience in this area, I can assure you that saying someone "passed" doesn't make their death less painful.

The problem with the whitewashing of our language (in an effort to spare feelings) is that it makes it less precise and less meaningful. It lumps in the simply offensive with the truly reprehensible. So, "disabled" is lumped in with "nigger." There is (and should be) a distinction between them.

This Is Retarded

Via ifeminists:
Bill Would Ban Certain Words from Statutes

A bill in the Texas Legislature would ban the words "retarded," "disabled" and "handicapped" from all state statutes and resolutions -- past and present.

Senate Bill 1395, by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), would require what it calls more "person first respectful" language.

The ARC of Texas, an advocacy group representing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, supports the bill because it says words like "retarded" are now used as slurs.

"The use of it has become so derogatory that it's turned the term into something that's hurtful and disrespectful," said Chris Rodriguez, director of chapter services.

The ARC itself has eliminated the word "retarded" from its name. For many years, the group called itself the Association for Retarded Citizens, but now calls itself the ARC...

The bill would ban the use of eight terms in all state statutes and resolutions. They are: disabled, developmentally disabled, mentally disabled, mentally ill, mentally retarded, handicapped, cripple and crippled.

It would replace those terms with these: persons with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness and persons with intellectual disabilities.

Since the Lege has ceded the argument that "retarded" is a derogatory term, we are free to use it as such.

Student Sues L.A. City College over Gay Marriage Speech

The headline's a little off-base and leads you to the wrong conclusion. The story is the latest example of tolerance on college campuses.

Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to "ask God what your grade is," the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

Remember when you were allowed to do a speech on virtually any subject in speech class (barring, of course, pornography or obscenity)? I sure do. I also remember a philosophy class called Moral Problems in which students were encouraged to take strong positions on issues and then defend them. Call it debate class, if you will.

I still remember students and others being allowed to say what they wanted in the "Free Speech Area" (there's a different probem with this, but I'll let it go for now), and you could see a wide variety of opinions on display as you walked to class.

Apparently, if you take a position that is supported by the majority in your state, you're now a fascist bastard. Hmm.

Coming to a City Near You: The Police Mommies

I guess fining people for bad manners wasn't enough. Now, a Michigan city has banned annoying people.

Ticking someone off could get you a ticket in one Michigan city. The Brighton City Council on Thursday approved an ordinance allowing police in the Livingston County community to ticket and fine anyone who is annoying in public "by word of mouth, sign or motions."

The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus of Howell reports the measure is modeled on a similar ordinance in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak.

A city attorney says there could be situations where the measure would violate freedom of speech, but that those cases will be reviewed by the city.

The ban takes effect Jan. 2.

I can think of a few people who better not go to Michigan!

Redefining Terrorism

One of the worst things about the culture we live in is the attack on words. Not just the fact that calling a handicapped person handicapped can wind you up in PC classes for five years, but the insistence by MSM not to describe Muslim Jew-hating terrorists as Muslim Jew-hating terrorists.

THE international media have already morphed the horrific slaughter in Mumbai into the murky realm of euphemism and apologetics.

Al Jazeera and The Guardian label the terrorists "gunmen"; CNN calls them "militants." Some analysts identified the underlying cause as the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Psychological guru Deepak Chopra called it the result of "collateral damage" from the US war on terrorism and the Iraq war.

But how does the especially bloodthirsty attack on Mumbai's Nariman-Chabad House fit into this puzzle palace?

The New York Times theorized that Chabad House may have been an "accidental hostage scene." The BBC initially chose to hide the Jewish character of the target by describing it as just "an office building." Al Jazeera refused to show Chabad House as the site of the carnage. Some Western media outlets unsympathetically labeled victims there as "ultra-Orthodox" or "missionaries."

Dana has a post on the too-obvious nature of the attacks and how journalists conspicuously won't call the attacks what they are: anti-semitic and anti-Western.

Object Lesson

Hateful:












Tolerant:











Evil:














Good:



















Dangerous:















Peaceful:

Blacklisting?

Most students today learn about the evils of McCarthyism and the Hollywood blacklist. The point, of course, is that taking away someone's livelihood because of their political beliefs is wrong.

So, where do all those Hollywood types, who are always telling us how Republicans want to bring back the age of McCarthyism, to defend those who supported Prop 8 in California? Seems like some want a return of the blacklist.

Other targets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.

In Film Independent's case, the board has defended the continued employment of Richard Raddon, the Mormon director of the L.A. Film Festival who donated $1,500 to support Proposition 8. Cinemark is under siege because Chief Executive Alan Stock gave $9,999 to support the same-sex marriage ban. And in a sign of a powerful ripple effect, Sundance, perhaps the American institution that has done the most to support gay filmmakers and gay cinema, is being targeted because it screens films in a Cinemark theater...

Gregg Araki, director of the critically acclaimed gay cult hit "Mysterious Skin" and an influential figure in "new queer cinema," has said he won't allow his films to be shown there, while others, such as "Milk" producers and gay activists Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, say they're going to "study in depth all the facets of our specific situation before making a decision."

Araki says Raddon should step down. "I don't think he should be forcibly removed. The bottom line is if he contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to promote tolerance and equality."

Many liberals hate it when you point out that free speech includes speech with which you disagree, and that if one actually supports free speech, it naturally means that you support others' rights to it. That means that I may not have wanted to see Brokeback Mountain or Milk, but I respect and support the right of others to do so.

This concept seems to be lost on much of the Left, who thinks that disagreement equals "hate speech" and such must be suppressed. They'll tell you that supporting traditional marriage is "hate speech" but wanting to alter marriage irrevocably is "tolerance." But I can't see anything more intolerant than telling someone that they don't have the right to support propositions with which they agree because some subsection of society has decided it's wrong.

From Jeff at Protein Wisdom:

(I)n order to make such a lynch mob palatable, the framing has to be manipulated to turn a disagreement over beliefs and public policy into something far more sinister — namely, “hate” or an abuse of civil rights.

But of course, the question of gay marriage is only a civil rights issue to most of those who support it; to most of those who support a ban on gay marriage, the issue is not one of civil rights or hatred at all, but rather one of public policy, a fidelity to the sanctity of the traditional definition of marriage, and (in some cases) a check against what they believe to be a legalized slippery slope. To others, the issue is, in fact, a religious one, insofar as it goes against the teachings of their church — but religion should only matter to marriages sanctified by a church.

The Left likes to talk in terms of "hatred" for this group or that issue, rather than support for some traditional notion of the subject. But the fact is that, while there are many homophobic people who, I'm sure, voted for Prop 8 out of hatred, there were far more who voted for Prop 8 because they believe the traditional notion of marriage--between one man and one woman--is the one they wish to support. Some may do this out of tradition. Some may do it out of a religious obligation. Some may do it because it makes the most sense to them. But regardless, it's not hateful to think traditional marriage is what we should be supporting.

On the other side, though, blacklisting is permissible as long as it only hurts certain people.

Headed to a City Near You: The Bad Manners Police

Via Lone Star Times, comes this.

Practicing bad manners by refusing to give up your Sun Metro seat to an elderly or disabled person could get you in trouble, and not just with Mom.
Starting this week, the police could become involved, too.

The City Council on Tuesday voted 7-0 to adopt a new ordinance that makes it a Class C misdemeanor for an able-bodied person younger than 65 to deny a seat to elderly or disabled passengers in specifically marked areas of each Sun Metro bus.

Violators of the new ordinance could be fined up to $500.

What about pregnant women? When I was pregnant with my oldest daughter, I took a trip to England to visit relatives and was surprised at how many people would not give up a seat for me. Amusingly, elderly women were most likely to give me their seats. But men, generally, would make it a point not to look at me, even with my protruding belly at eye level. ;)

Frankly, I think mandating good manners in this way is silly. But can't you see the incremental creep here? First elderly and disabled, then pregnant women, then the obese, then...

Framing the Debate

Everyone knows that more than a few arguments have been won because one side frames the debate in such a way as to preclude the other side's arguments. Most notably, this happens with abortion (pro-life vs. pro-choice) and gay rights (civil rights or special rights).

But over the last 20 years or so, immigration has also become one of those issues. Framed one way, illegal aliens are lawbreakers who artificially keep prices low and flood the country with criminals at worst and more people seeking taxpayer-subsidized benefits at best. Framed a different way, the undocumented immigrant is a hard worker willing to do work Americans won't do for an acceptable wage who might be fleeing poverty and/or governmental oppression.

It's funny the way a debate can be so altered by such framing that it is impossible to go back to a previous way of thought without being subjected to a variety of ad hominem attacks. For example, question the basis for declaring gay marriage a civil right and you will be called a homophobe and a bigot. Or, as illustrated in the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr.--where his early views on racism in the South were quoted nearly as often as his various extraordinary accomplishments for conservatism--academically discuss a hot button issue and you will answer for that forever.

I've noticed over the last few years that framing the debate in a liberal way has worked particularly well for them with regards to gay rights and to illegal immigration. How else to explain the silly song Illegal Alien being branded one of the worst songs ever?



I remember when "illegal alien" was the polite term. But that was before the illegal alien activists reframed the debate.

Boy Scouts Lose in Philadelphia

Philadelphia has kicked the Boy Scouts of America out of their historic home in the Beaux Arts building.

I hope depriving hundreds of children the opportunity to attend camps and programs is worth it to the city. Yet one more reason to avoid Philadelphia, along with crime and dirt.

Support the Boy Scouts of America here.

Ann Althouse has some interesting and thought-provoking commenters.

Support the Boy Scouts

According to this article, the city of Philadelphia is considering increasing the rent the Boy Scouts of America pay for their headquarters from $1 to $200,000 because of the Boy Scouts' stance on homosexual troop leaders.

Officials say that the city cannot subsidize rent for groups that engage in discrimination, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. That would force the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America to pay market-rate rent for the space it occupies in a historic city-owned building.

Robert Nix, chairman of the Fairmount Park Commission, said that the Boy Scouts were told Thursday, after five months of negotiations, that the rent would go up.

"Once we know what the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts want to do, we'll probably want to weigh in with the city about how to proceed," Nix said at a commission meeting.

Robert Jubelirer, a spokesman for the Cradle of Liberty Council, said that if the rent goes up the Boy Scouts will have to take the money from programs, with $200,000 the equivalent of "30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp." He said the Boy Scouts will ask for information on how the city arrived at $200,000 as the fair-market rent.

Give generously to the Boy Scouts.

More Toothless Lefty Attacks On Fox

When is an expletive deleted and when is it not? Well, it g****** isn't just because it's on Fox, which is the insinuation of this idiotic post.

As was pointed out in a comment:

People, there is a difference between Fox Entertainment which airs on network television, versus Fox News which airs on cable television. The FCC can and does fine networks for their definition of what is unacceptable profanity. However, they have no authority over cable networks. That’s because of the legal difference between the “public” airwaves vs. paid tv (cable). It’s also why NBC, CBS and ABC also bleeped her words. It’s also why even Air America Radio bleeped her words.

Don’t we have enough real battles to fight with this impending dictatorship without erecting our own strawmen to try to knock down?

Nah, the left doesn't have enough to keep them busy. That's why they write dumb posts, instead of trying to learn something about the law.

Editor Quits Over Irish Jokes

With political correctness run amok, an Irishman who runs a magazine in southwest England has resigned amid protests over Irish jokes he printed.

Denis Lusby, editor of the community magazine which sells about 500 copies in the Cornish villages of Blisland and Saint Breward, quit after a complaint by the head of Cornwall’s equality and diversity service, Ginny Harrison-White.
“I can understand why racism laws have been tightened up, but it has given loads of powers to people to take it to extremes,” said the 58-year-old, adding: “The Irish are the first to have a joke at themselves.”
Harrison-White wrote to local schools asking if they approved of community news being printed next to “such derogatory material.”
She said the jokes used racist language or ridicule as defined in anti-racism laws, adding that they could influence children’s attitudes. She called on schools to urge Lusby to remove the jokes.
Lusby, who moved from Northern Ireland in 1969 to get away from the sectarian violence, dismissed accusations of racism over the jokes, which typically involved people called O’Toole, Murphy and Gallagher.
He said the magazine also published jokes about people from Essex — who like the Irish have long been the butt of English humour — adding: “To be accused of racism, specifically anti-Irish, has hurt me very deeply.”

I've always thought that many of these sorts of off-color jokes are protested because there's another truth behind them. For example, many supporters of illegal immigration hate any jokes like the following:

Question: Do you know what Mexico gives welfare applicants?

Answer: A map with directions to the United States.

Many of these ethnic jokes contain references to drinking, laziness, and wife-beating. I don't know that I like such jokes, but it seems to me that if you want to ensure the attractiveness of such humor, just make a fuss over it.

Does Affirmative Action Hurt Minorities in Professions?

I was listening to Michael Medved's show yesterday while I was out running errands. The hour was devoted to a study which showed that affirmative action in law school admissions actually hurts minorities.

The study was done by Richard H. Sander, a tenured law professor at UCLA and lifelong supporter of racial preferences.

Sander's study shows that racial preferences in law school admissions result in a counterproductive mismatch between the academic abilities of black beneficiaries of racial preferences and the law schools to which these students are admitted under "affirmative action". According to Sander's research, this mismatch demonstrably results in a much higher failure rate than would otherwise be the case if the black students were admitted to law schools which more closely matched the their academic preparation and abilities.

In other words, black law school students are actually hurt by affirmative action (racial preference) policies. According to Sander, black law school students would do much better academically and professionally if racial preferences either did not play a role in their admission to law schools, or played a significantly reduced role.

The results don't particularly surprise me. Top tier schools are the most demanding academically. It's far more competitive and more difficult to succeed. Sure, the rewards from graduating from such schools are greater, but, simply put, not everyone has what it takes to graduate from these schools. I know I certainly couldn't have, and I don't think I'm a slouch.

The issue is sensitive for a number of reasons both of historical discrimination and current day competitiveness. In a misguided attempt to compensate for past discrimination, top tier schools are admitting minority candidates who aren't up to the rigors of their programs. These same candidates would most likely succeed at second tier schools, graduating and, most importantly, passing the bar.

Regardless of which law school one attends, all potential attorneys must pass the state bar to become licensed practitioners. Whether you go to Harvard or South Texas, you have to pass the same Texas State Bar Exam to practice law in Texas. This was a key argument I didn't hear made in all the argumentation about the study. It doesn't really do any good to send underqualified students to top tier schools if they can't get the education they need to perform on the only test that really matters: the bar exam. Without the bar card, it doesn't matter which school gave you that doctorate of jurisprudence.

I think it is safe to say that if minority students received better educations in public school, they would perform better by the time they were choosing law schools. For those favoring affirmative action and other remedies for discrimination, I think that is the place to focus. Whether the answer to that problem is more money (I don't think so) or more testing (many others don't think so) or something else, pushing unqualified students into schools which ill-suit their abilities isn't the answer. Creating situations in which more minorities students succeed is.

Does It Have to Be a Crime for Someone to Step Down?

I stated the other day that I thought Larry Craig should resign from the Senate because of his behavior in a bathroom stall at an airport back in June. Craig pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct for "soliciting sex" at an airport restroom.

I still stand by that contention. Whether Craig's behavior should have been a crime is a different argument than the one I've made. Indeed, others have done a great job discussing the legality of Craig's behavior. After looking at a portion of the complaint, I, too, am baffled as to whether this is criminal behavior. Disgusting? Yes. But criminal? I don't think so. As Captain Ed explained,

People cannot be convicted or even arrested for signaling prostitutes for sexual services; an explicit offer of sex in exchange for money must take place. Tapping feet, hand signals, and brushing up against the toes of a prostitute on the street aren't enough to get someone arrested. In sting operations, police have to get that explicit offer before making an arrest.

I think it was stretching it a bit to charge Craig with anything. Give him a warning so he'll stop trying to hook up at airport bathrooms. After all, it was complaints from other airport patrons that got the police involved in the first place.

But that doesn't mean I don't think Craig's behavior is disgusting and he should resign. There's a meme on the Democrat side of the aisle that "consenting" adult behavior is OK any time, any place. I (and most of society) don't agree with that. If you want a date, go to a dating service or a bar or eharmony.com. Don't do it in a public restroom where my kid might run into you. I'll admit that Craig's behavior was subtle enough that children wouldn't pick up on it, but that doesn't mean I want them exposed to it regardless.

There seems to be some argument that as long as Craig did nothing wrong criminally, we shouldn't care about his personal behavior. I disagree with that strongly. One of the things that differentiates Republicans from Democrats is that we do hold our public officials to higher standards than legalistic wordplay and hair-splitting about what constitutes sex and what doesn't. As unfair as it is that Democrats don't seem to give a damn about the behavior of their politicians as long as they don't go to jail for it, I'm proud of the fact that Republicans hold to a higher standard. Having said that, I still think Craig should resign.

UPDATE: Jesurgislac has the strangest take on why men pay for sex.

Because men are convinced that they're entitled to sex. Hartmut's comment (on the Larry Craig thread on ObWing) summarizes the problem: the belief that if a man wants sex, he's entitled to buy it. Rather than presenting himself as an equal negotiating his way to mutual pleasure, he's entitled to demand sexual pleasure from someone whose job it is to provide it to him.

Men who argue earnestly that they have to have sex in public restrooms because (there are a number of standard reasons, which boil down to: "I want to have sex with other men and this is the best way I know of finding them without actually having to admit I'm not straight" or "I want to have sex with other people a lot, and this is a fast way of finding men who also want sex" or "I like the thrill of knowing we might get caught") are, really, expressing the view that they're entitled to sex far less damagingly than men who hire prostitutes or commit sexual harassment or rape. At least men who frequent public restrooms are usually after consenting partners.

This leaves out the fact that even prostitutes consent to sex. They just consent for money. Why would some men prefer to pay someone for sex as opposed to getting all gussied up and finding a date? Because there are people who just want sex and don't want to be involved with another person. And, despite what Jes says, not everybody can find somebody. Oh, maybe if they try for years, they might find someone, but they might not want to wait years between sexual encounters.

I'm not endorsing prostitution, but it seems to me that the reason men hire prostitutes is that it is less complicated than either finding dates or dealing with a mate who might not want to do what that person wants to do. Dysfunctional? Yes, but I don't see the logic in Jes' reasoning. Doesn't everyone feel entitled to sex? At least those who decide to be sexually active?

We Only Censor Cartoons That Mock Muslims

Berkeley Breathed has an Opus cartoon that is to sensitive for newspapers to run. That's because it mocks Muslims. The syndicator sent out an alert that the cartoon might be offensive and a lot of newspapers didn't run it.

The syndicate sent out an alert about the two strips in question, according to Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago.

Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded "emotionally" to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.

There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources.

Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate's newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.

"The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers," Lago said. "I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. ... We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever."

One week earlier, Breathed ran a cartoon mocking Christians. But that didn't rate a warning, according to Lagos.

Lago said she didn't flag newspapers about that strip because she didn't think readers would misunderstand the humor.

"They're not going to take it seriously," she said.

But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended.

"I don't necessarily think it's poking fun [at Islam]," Lago said. "But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?"

Well, we certainly don't want Muslims taking cartoons seriously, do we? Thank God Christians have a sense of humor!