The internet is spying on you

From The Week
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2010, AT 10:32 AM

Every time you go online, sophisticated data miners are tracking your every move. What do they know about you?

How frequently am I followed online?

Constantly. Your computer leaves a unique digital trail every time you visit a website, post a comment on a blog, or add a photo to your Facebook wall. A growing number of companies follow that trail to assemble a profile of you and your affinities. These profiles can contain shocking levels of detail—including your age, income, shopping habits, health problems, sexual proclivities, and ZIP code—right down to the number of rooms in your house and the number of people in your family. Although trackers don’t identify their subjects by name, the data they compile is so extensive that “you can find out who an individual is without it,” says Maneesha Mithal of the Federal Trade Commission.

How does the technology work?

The GOP's rude awakening on health-care repeal

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 21, 2011

Wednesday's vote to repeal President Obama's health insurance reform law was supposed to be a crowning triumph. We heard confident GOP predictions that cowed Democrats would defect in droves, generating unstoppable momentum that forced the Senate to obey "the will of the people" and follow suit. The Democrats' biggest domestic accomplishment would be in ruins and Obama's political standing would be damaged, perhaps irreparably.

What actually happened, though, is that the Republican majority managed to win the votes of just three Democrats - all of them Blue Dogs who have been consistent opponents of the reform package anyway. In terms of actual defectors, meaning Democrats who changed sides on the issue, there were none. This is momentum?

Bill Maher on Jon Stewart's Rally

Bill Maher took on Jon Stewart for claiming during his rally that there are extremists on both the Right and the Left.

Just Libertarianism?

from Talking Points Memo

TPM Reader SW wrote in this morning cautioning that we make clear that opposing all civil rights legislation on libertarian grounds doesn't mean you don't support civil rights. I think this is far from an uncontested claim. And since the Rand Paul situation is going to be raising it to such high salience I wanted to share SW's email with you and give you my thoughts on the underlying question.

First here's SW's email.

You write that Rand Paul is "...against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and supporting abolishing the Department of Education..."

It's worth noting that Libertarians are against the Civil Rights Act, but not against civil rights. Indeed you'll find no stronger defender of civil rights of any type than libertarians. For us its a matter of approach. A different means to the same end. But the means does matter both in principal and practice. I think you understand this, but the way you characterize Paul's policy positions gave me pause.

He's not against civil rights, people with disabilities, or against educating today's youth.

Let's start the conversation by agreeing that as a technical matter, this is true. Libertarianism is a political philosophy rooted in a belief in radical limitations on state power. And I'm inclined to follow my friend Mike Lind's argument that unlike a lot of mishmash conservative claptrap libertarianism is a political philosophy I can disagree with but still recognize as internally consistent and rooted in important principles. As Mike wrote once, I simply think its assumptions and understanding of human nature are off. But this is hardly the end of the story.

Political philosophy can never be free of history. And there is no denying that similar states rights or libertarian arguments have been the arguments of choice for those who want to defend racial discrimination since avowed defenses of racial prejudice and subordination became publicly unacceptable outside some parts of the South in the early second half of the last century. That's simply a fact. In principle, it doesn't delegitimize libertarian political philosophy. But we don't live in classrooms or treatises. We live in an actual world where history and experience can't be separated from philosophy.

When he ran for President in 1964 Barry Goldwater ran on opposition to federal Civil Rights legislation on what he claimed were states rights grounds. And there's some reason to believe that for him that really was what it was about. But it is entirely clear that his political punch came from supporters in the South who wanted to keep Jim Crow in effect. Again, that's just a fact.

So that's the history.

Then there is the simple matter of priorities. To a degree the argument Paul is making is something like saying that I don't like rape or murder, I just don't believe in a police force to prevent it or a judiciary to punish the offenders. The reason we, albeit imperfectly, have equality before the law and in the society at large (in terms of public accommodations and so forth) on racial grounds in the whole of the United States is because of federal legislation that forced that to be the case. The reason we don't have white and colored drinking fountains or pools for whites only, etc. You can say you think all those things are awful and you may be telling the truth. But what are you going to do about it? The variant of libertarianism which Paul espouses, while internally consistent in theory and separate from race, has you saying, I wouldn't do anything about it -- though I'd decry it as an individual.

Folks who espouse this kind of philosophy deserve to be held to account for that fact, whatever their inner beliefs about race and equality may be.

And having said all this, I'd be remiss not to say that an awful lot of folks in the South seem to have these views and theories of the constitution that are completely divorced from history that end up bringing them to these conclusions. As one observer said in a totally different context about the Nation of Islam, they may not be looking for trouble, but they sure do seem to find it.

S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer Compares Helping Poor to Feeding Stray Animals

South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who hopes to succeed fellow Republican Mark Sanford as his state's governor, drew a comparison between government help for poor people and "feeding stray animals" – who, he noted, "breed."

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer said during a town hall meeting, as the Greenville News reported over the weekend. "You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

As the Greenville News notes, more than half of the students in South Carolina participate in a program that allows them to get their lunch for free, or at a reduced cost.

Bauer later said he wasn't saying those who receive government help "were animals or anything else."

He added that his metaphor was taken out of context, WSOCTV reports, and added that "maybe the stray animals wasn't the best metaphor."

Bauer made the comment as part of an argument that people should lose government benefits if they fail drug tests or don't attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings.

"Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits," he said. In a follow-up story, the Greenville News reports that Bauer said "he would penalize only adults and that he never advocated taking away a child's free or reduced-price lunch. His speech was about breaking the cycle of dependence on government aid, he said."

During the town hall meeting, Bauer said he "can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina." He added: "So how do you fix it? Well you say, 'Look, if you receive goods or services from the government, then you owe something back.'"

South Carolina Democrats responded harshly to the comments, and there were calls for Bauer to apologize and to drop his gubernatorial bid. Some in his own party were also critical, with Republican state Rep. Harry Cato saying Bauer "has gone overboard."

"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." - William Blake

Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. - Ernest Hemingway

Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it. - Unknown

LAPD drops ties with the Boy Scouts

from Box Turtle Bulletin
by Timothy Kincaid

In 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the US Supreme Court to defend their right to exclude members based solely on their sexual orientation. And since that time, they have insisted that all scout troops – even those in which the community, the scout leaders, and the parents wish otherwise – expel and exclude gay scouts and leaders. They also exclude atheists and agnostics.

I support their right to do so. Generally, I believe that membership based social organizations should be free to grant or deny membership based on whatever arbitrary or ridiculous reason they wish, even if it be odious and hateful. Even if I believe the policy to be ill conceived and harmful.

But they should not do so with my tax dollars.

And, increasingly, the Scouts have been discovering that the cost of their exclusionary policy is not an inconsequential one. There has been a steady stream of cities that have severed ties or revoked special privileges which the organization had enjoyed. No longer does the City Berkeley provide free berthing to the Sea Scouts. The City of San Diego revoked its $1 lease on a portion of Balboa Park, and the City of Philadelphia evicted the Scouts from a city owned building.

Of course, those who demand their right to discriminate often are outraged and indignant when they think that they are on the other side of the equation. So the Boy Scouts have sued in each of these cases, claiming that revoking their special privileges and taxpayer sponsored handouts is (you saw it coming) discrimination against them.

Yet with each passing year, they are discovering that local governments and institutions give less leeway to the Scouts. Their blind insistence on defining themselves as a religious organization free to disassociate the ungodly also puts them at conflict with establishment of religion issues.

And, frankly, more and more, their pigheadedness is seen as distasteful. Civic institutions don’t want to put gay elected officials or employees in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with a group that considers them not to be “clean” or “morally straight”. And it feels burdensome of the Scouts to put them in this position.

So this organization, once revered and considered an integral part of American youth, is increasingly give the heave-ho. And the latest to sever connections with the Scouts is the Los Angeles Police Department (Daily Breeze).

Since 1962 the Explorers, a program for youth who wish to become police officers, has been affiliated with the Boy Scouts. That will end on Friday; the Police Commission has voted to change the name of the program and cease using the Scout affiliated insurance service (the LAPD has administered the program itself for the past decade).

Commissioner Robert Saltzman, who is openly gay, said that because he cannot support the Boy Scouts, he has invested a lot of time to ensure the new youth program is “as good or – I’m confident – better than the program it replaces.”

“The Boy Scouts are clear that they discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity and religion, and the result of that is I could not be active on the Boy Scouts,” Saltzman said.

None of this is a happy resolution. The Scouts are weaker, the program is less respected, ad hoc solutions are pasted about in attempts to keep programs operating, and children are now less connected to their local governments. All the good that comes from connecting with nature, teaching values by example, efforts for self improvement and a call to selflessness has now been tainted by exclusion, discrimination, and recrimination.

All so that some ultra-religious administrators can self-righteously declare that only good god-fearing heterosexuals can be associated with their organization. Oh, and all this sadness and destruction is justified because their bigotry is “for the children”.

VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, decries Maddow, defends Cohen

by Patrick Fitzgerald

Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.

Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.

Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:

MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.

COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.

MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”

This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?

COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.

MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.

COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.

“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”

That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.

But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.

Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]

In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.

Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:

“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]

(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)

That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312

As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:

A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…

…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”

And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.

Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:

We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.

That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.

(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)

Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”

Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:

…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]

And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.

It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.

Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.

gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view

The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.

Further:

She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…

…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.

As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?

VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, decries Maddow, defends Cohen

by Patrick Fitzgerald

Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.

Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.

Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:

MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.

COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.

MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”

This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?

COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.

MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.

COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.

“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”

That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.

But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.

Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]

In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.

Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:

“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]

(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)

That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312

As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:

A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…

…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”

And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.

Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:

We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.

That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.

(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)

Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”

Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:

…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]

And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.

It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.

Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.

gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view

The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.

Further:

She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…

…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.

As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?

A culture war cease-fire

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Thursday, December 24, 2009

It is 2009's quiet story -- quiet because it's about what didn't happen, which can be as important as what did. In this highly partisan year, we did not see a sharpening of the battles over religion and culture.

Yes, we continued to fight over gay marriage, and arguments about abortion were a feature of the health-care debate. But what's more striking is that other issues -- notably economics and the role of government -- trumped culture and religion in the public square. The culture wars went into recession along with the economy.

The most important transformation occurred on the right end of politics. For now, the loudest and most activist sections of the conservative cause are not its religious voices but the mostly secular, anti-government tea party activists.

Especially revealing is the re-emergence of former House majority leader Dick Armey, a prime mover behind the tea parties and a longtime critic of the religious right. He once said that James Dobson of Focus on the Family and his allies were a "gang of thugs" and "real nasty bullies."

Armey and his supporters speak a libertarian language that contrasts sharply with the message of Christian conservatives. "When Republicans are fighting against the power of the state, we win," Armey told the New York Times recently. "When we are trying to advance it, we lose."

At the same time, President Obama has been unabashed in offering his views on religious questions. Two of the most important speeches of his first year -- his addresses at the Notre Dame graduation in May and in Oslo this month when he received the Nobel Peace Prize -- were suffused with the language of faith. At Notre Dame, the president lavishly praised the Catholic social justice tradition. In Oslo, he spoke as a Christian realist clearly conversant with the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr, the great 20th-century theologian.
ad_icon

On President Bush's faith-based initiative, Obama has made reforms but largely avoided or postponed dealing with the most controversial questions.

Even the cultural and religious conflicts that have persisted were debated at a lower volume. Going into the health-care skirmishes, both supporters and opponents of abortion rights pledged that they would not try to upset current arrangements that bar federal funding of abortion. Although they feuded bitterly over what this meant in practice, their opening positions reflected a pulling back from the brink.

The Senate compromise on abortion negotiated by Sens. Ben Nelson, Bob Casey and Barbara Boxer did not fully satisfy either camp in the abortion struggle, and there will be fallout in the new year. ("Imagine, we Democrats managed to make both sides on the abortion issue unhappy," one House member said wryly but accurately.) Nonetheless, those who expected the abortion controversy to sink health-care reform have, so far, been proved wrong.

And while gay marriage continues to roil politics at the state and local levels, this argument has now become part of the routine of American politics. Republican politicians have shown a limited appetite for nationalizing the issue, something they did eagerly before the 2004 election. Judging by the closeness of some of the referendum votes -- notably this year in Maine, where the measure lost narrowly -- support for gay marriage has grown, although its backers are still short of a majority in most places.

In the meantime, religious progressives are mobilized to a degree not seen since the civil rights years. They weighed in regularly on health care, providing energy for the compromises on abortion that would otherwise have won little organized support.

Of course, it was inevitable that cultural and religious issues would at least partially recede during a sharp economic downturn. Such matters also declined in importance during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and none more so than the previous decade's struggle over the prohibition of alcohol.

At the time, historian William E. Leuchtenburg reported, a Missouri Democrat told James Farley, one of Franklin Roosevelt's top lieutenants, that it was "ridiculous for a jobless wet Democrat to wrangle with a jobless dry Democrat over liquor when neither could afford the price of a drink."

The paradox for Obama is that if the economy continues its comeback in 2010, his overall standing will improve, but the risk of renewed conflict over religion and values will also rise. It's a trade the president will happily take, even if he would then face a much tougher test of his credentials as a cultural peacemaker.

Go Forth and Steal, Says English Priest

LONDON (Dec. 22) For some 3,500 years, the 10 Commandments have included the easy-to-follow instruction, "Thou shalt not steal." But one British Anglican priest thinks that ancient command is now out-of-touch with our recession-hit world and has suggested it be changed to something more flexible, such as: "Thou shalt not steal, unless you're short of cash."

The Rev. Tim Jones issued his new religious edict on Sunday, while addressing worshippers at the Church of St. Lawrence, in the northern English city of York. He told parishioners that poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging.

"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift," he said, as originally reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post. "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither."

The Rev. Tim Jones says the 10 Commandments could use tweaking during a recession, like maybe some stealing is acceptable for those otherwise going hungry.
Keen to make sure that independent retailers wouldn't fall victim to a holy shoplifting spree, Jones set down strict guidelines for would-be Christian criminals. "I would ask that [people] do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices," he said. "[And] I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need."

Local police condemned his sermon as sinful, telling the BBC that "shoplifting or committing other crimes should never be the solution" for people in difficult circumstances. If everyone in poverty stole from stores, the police added, "this would make the downward spiral even more rapid, both on an individual basis and on society as a whole."

U.K. storeowners -- who pay out $5 billion each year on stolen stock -- were similarly unimpressed. "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong," says Krishan Rama, a spokesman for the British Retail Consortium. "It's the job of our welfare system, which retailers support with the billions they pay each year in tax, to help vulnerable people. There are no excuses for stealing."

Jones also received a telling off from his boss -- no, not that one, but the more temporal Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way," the Archdeacon announced. "Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties."

The controversial vicar later appeared on British television to clarify his position, and claimed that he had "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." The sermon, Jones said, was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store.

Obama vs. Fox News

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says Fox is an arm of the Republican Party
 
Best opinion: Nation, Hot Air, Baltimore Sun, Crooks and Liars

The Obama administration has finally declared war on Fox News, said Ari Melber in The Nation. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television over the weekend to "blast Fox," saying that the cable news channel "often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." It's about time Democrats started treating Fox as the "hostile force" it obviously is. (watch the White House's Anita Dunn criticize Fox News)

Sure, Fox News offers viewers an alternative to the "Obama Hosannah Hours" on rival cable networks CNN and MSNBC, said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air. But that's why the "ill-advised" strategy of publicly attacking the network is bound to "backfire." The White House is just conducting what amounts to a free marketing campaign that will drive up Fox's ratings.

This isn't just an attack on Fox, said David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun. It's an attack on "press freedom" that would make Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew proud. "You have to wonder who else is on this administration's enemies list."

Please, Anita Dunn merely stated the obvious, said John Amato in Crooks and Liars, when she pointed out that Fox News is a "propanda" organ for the Republican Party. Can anyone deny that Fox spends an inordinate amount of time and effort reporting on Bill Ayers and ACORN? Obama didn't declare war on Fox—Fox declared war on him.

Obama and gay rights

President Obama renewed his vow to end "don't ask, don't tell," but some activists are getting impatient.

Gay rights advocates rally in Washington D.C. on Oct. 11, 2009.

Best opinion: NY Times, New Majority, Wash. Post

President Obama's renewal of his promise to end "don't ask, don't tell," said Sheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times, got a roar of approval from the 3,000 people at a Human Rights Campaign black-tie fundraiser on the eve of Sunday's big gay-rights rally in Washington. "But outside the room, the president's words got a chillier reception," because some activists think the president isn't moving fast enough to lift the ban on gays in the military.

There's good reason for gay-rights activists to be impatient, said Jeb Golinkin in New Majority. Gay rights is yet another case where Obama "speaks big words" but offers little action to back them up. The "real fight for change" is in the courts, where constitutional lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies are challenging California's Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban. If Obama wants to do his part, he'll have to go beyond words and spend some of his "rapidly diminishing" political capital to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Sure, the pace of progress on gay rights is slow, said Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post, but don't pin the blame on President Obama. Obama has made it clear he would sign bills repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. The huge crowd that rallied Sunday for faster action on gay rights served as a reminder that it's time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get Congress to step up and do its part.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee on Friday awarded President Obama its annual peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (The New York Times)

What the commentators said

"This is completely bizarre," said Iain Martin in The Wall Street Journal. "Traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first." With whom has Obama made peace—Hillary Clinton? (watch the Obama Nobel Peace Prize announcement; watch Obama give a statement)

What President Obama has done, said Maria Farrell in Crooked Timber, is make peace possible again. The Bush presidency created a "tidal wave of bad faith" that discouraged international cooperation. Obama has "changed how the world feels about America. He’s lifted the planet’s mood. This guy is global Prozac."

Even the president's fans must admit, said Matt Lewis in Townhall.com, that the Obama Nobel peace prize was, "at least, a bit premature." The award couldn't have been based on accomplishments—Obama has "zero"—but on "lots of 'hope' for the future."

The hope is that Obama will advance "diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe," said Jacob Heilbrunn in The Huffington Post, and he has already done that. He has improved U.S. relations with Europe and the world; focused on global warming; started talks with Iran ... "it would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize."

This kind of puts the whole Chicago Olympics rejection in perspective, said Rachel Sklar in Mediaite, "eh?" The Nobel Committee said it wasn't rewarding Obama for future achievements but trying to enhance his current diplomatic efforts. "No doubt the cries of 'USA! USA!' will be emanating from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show very soon."

Best opinion: Slate, Wash. Monthly, Sun-Sentinel

President Obama should "politely decline" his Nobel Peace Prize, said Mickey Kaus in Slate, saying he's honored but hasn't had time to accomplish his goals. He'll get "the same amount of glory," and chip away at his "narcissism problem" by showing that "he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it."

It's fair to say Obama's Nobel is premature "given his fairly brief tenure," said Steve Benen in Washington Monthly. But there's a legitimate defense for giving him the award—it is, after all, reserved for those "who've shown great leadership in advancing the cause of international peace," which Obama undeniably has. And Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is worth having—it could have "meaningful, and positive, impact," by giving him the "high ground in international settings."

Obviously, this was a symbolic message meant to repudiate "the go-it-alone, reckless cowboy mentality of George W. Bush’s administration," said Michael Mayo in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Sun-Sentinel, "and a validation of Obama’s more conciliatory approach and his overall message of hope." But "I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around a sitting U.S. president—commander-in-chief of the world’s most sophisticated military machine—winning a peace prize amidst two wars." If Obama doesn't turn down the prize, he should at least "make sure the $1.2 million prize money goes to a darn good cause (helpful advice: probably not a donation to ACORN)."