From Juan Williams - written for The Hill:

Two weeks ago at the Fox News/Wall Street Journal debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., I asked each GOP presidential candidate some pointed questions about the racial politics that will play a big role in the presidential campaign.

Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color — and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message.

- more -

From Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg News:

Here are some things you could learn about black Americans from the recent statements and insinuations of Republican presidential candidates, Republican congressmen and Republican-friendly radio personalities:

Black people have lost the desire to perform a day’s work. Black people rely on food stamps provided to them by white taxpayers. Black people, including Barack and Michelle Obama, believe that the U.S. owes them something because they are black.

- more -.

If I was a Republican, I'd vote for Dave Spence for Missouri Governor.

In. A. Heartbeat.

I admit that's a little like explaining what sort of tree I would be, if I was forced by a cosmic joke to make a choice. Okay, okay. If it comes down to it, I'll be an Oak. I don't think Paul Simon was actually advocating a literal choice when he said he'd rather be a hammer than a nail, but you can still get his point, so to speak.

I confess I like Dave Spence. His problem is he's being managed into the ground.

This was once a guy everyone said was no good at much of anything. He studied at college, but his grades were so bad the University of Missouri told him he could only have a diploma in Home Economics. He became embarrassed about it. For years, when asked, he would tell folks the degree was in economics. It was literally true. It let him focus on what he turned out to have a talent for.

That's the real story.

After he graduated, he wrangled a Small Business loan and started his own company. Three decades later, his firm is world famous. Any one of over 800 people will say "Yes sir, I sure am" when he asks if they're doing okay. That's 800 folks with jobs created by Dave Spence. That's not some Mitt Romney count-the-pluses-not-the-minuses math trick. That's 800 jobs.

It's a wonderful story. And it kind of goes like this:

Okay, folks. You got him. He got a little embarrassed over the years by his low grades, and the fact that he had a silly sounding degree. But it turns out the big bad mega-University that told him he wasn't qualified for anything else, and those who still laugh at him today, were ... and are ... a little on the dark side of the curve. He came from behind and won. Big.

The young inept guy was not inept at all. In fact he was REAL ept.

So let's all laugh.
Ha ha ha. Home Economics. And he managed to do WHAT?!?

Of course his campaign is being run by unmitigated boobs. Instead of making this into the wonder story it could be, they have gone defensive, insisting Home Economics really is the same as Economics, if you look at it while wearing the right spectacles. Besides, if you want to get technical, the college program was long ago renamed "Consumer Economics." Which makes him a Consumer Economist.

Seriously. That's what they're saying.

All of which amplifies howls of derision. I know this fellow is a Republican, but this is way too much.

Now another laugh has begun. Seems that he was being interviewed on the radio, taking phoned in comments. A few callers made disparaging remarks about President Obama's stimulus package. Remember that waste of taxpayer's money that never created a job anywhere? The socialist program gone bad?

Those callers are kind of like bloggers whose balloon thinking I don't much mind witnessing as it is popped with ... you know ... facts. But I wouldn't want to face this fellow in a debate without a lot of preparation. He uses a brutal tactic that public conservatives seldom realize is available to them. He's honest.

I've wondered how a conservative might criticize Obama in a way that did not deny little details like reality. I've thought of a few approaches, but few of them would work in the real political world. Conservatives are hammered by inconvenient truths. Obviously, the life-and-death economic crisis began before the President took office. It did get worse in his first six months, before his hasty, emergency policies could go into effect. Things are getting better. If it hadn't been for Obama's quick actions, a huge part of the United States would be standing on street corners selling apples to survive. That's a fact, Jack.

If you are a conservative, and honest, you could still make the case.
You could say the stimulus was expensive. It was
You could say that the root problems remain in place, unresolved, waiting to happen again.
They do, they are, and they might.
You could make the case for a bright conservative future.

You could try the way Dave Spence went at it.

You know, we've taken in close to four billion dollars in stimulus funds in the last three years.

It has masked the problem.

And it is over, the gravy train is over. The depression started in the first place, but the Obama administration jammed it down everybody's throat.

And it saved our bacon to tell you the truth. However, that's over.

Wow.

Everybody is calling it a gaffe. But huge doors can open for someone who acknowledges the truth, then pushes past bare facts to future implications. His approach is quick and incisive:

Government financed prosperity can't continue. It isn't sustainable. We have to move on, we have to adopt sensible policies, conservative, conservative, conservative. Onward toward heaven and Reagan.

Yeah, the approach is mistaken. And yeah, we can find good rebuttals. But this guy put a cogent case together off-the-cuff, did it without substantial factual distortion. He did it in under 20 seconds. He would be a conservative Elizabeth Warren except for one dependable part of his current life. Thank you, Lord, for that one factor.

The same white knuckle campaign staff that blew away the story of his amazing comeback is blowing this as well:
Spence Campaign Says Stimulus 'Saved Our Bacon' Clip is Out of Context.

These guys aren't trying to win. They're just trying not to lose.

Next worship service we should pray to our Redeemer for the continued health of Missouri Republican managers. And in our trembling liberal hearts, we should realize this fellow may have a very large political future if he fires just a few of them.

If I was a conservative Republican, I would vote for Dave Spence.
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

You get conflicting stories about the relationship between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. From most accounts, they were quite friendly in their time as Senators. But then, Kennedy was able to maintain odd friendships in those times. He was quite close to George Smathers of Florida, who was shunned even by other southerners after obtaining office in a virulently racist campaign against Claude Pepper. Most Senators had no particular qualms about the racism. But Smathers was an early Andrew Breitbart, having done his racial smears through photographic splicing and dicing. The prevailing conservative ethic in those days was racially primitive, but it was more advanced in some respects than it is today.

Kennedy was also on friendly terms with Joe McCarthy of I-have-in-my-hands-a-list fame. The Senator and future President did dine with more than his share of sinners and tax collectors.

The Kennedy-Nixon relationship was a bit of an oddity. Piecing together accounts puts them in a warm relationship that grew colder with time. An accumulation of small incidents led Kennedy to dismiss Nixon's eventual concession speech in the Presidential election of 1960. "He went out the way he came in," Kennedy reportedly told aides. "No class."

One such incident was a short encounter before the beginning of the first famous Kennedy-Nixon debate on September 26, 1960 in Chicago. Kennedy had simply agreed to debate. Nixon had laid out extensive conditions. As the two waited together on the set, they spoke casually to each other. Kennedy later described the scene to confidants.

At the end of the debate, as they stood on stage exchanging pleasantries, Nixon, watching photographers out of the corner of his eye, “put a stern expression on his face and started jabbing his finger into my chest, so he would look as if he were laying down the law to me about foreign policy or Communism,” Kennedy said.

I've wondered, seeing photos of the Nixon-Khrushchev kitchen debates of the year before, if Nixon was trying to get back some of the magic of that moment. "There are some instances where you may be ahead of us, for example in the development of the thrust of your rockets for the investigation of outer space," Nixon had told the Communist leader as he thrust his finger at him. But there were material advantages to freedom. "There may be some instances in which we are ahead of you -- in color television, for instance." It had boosted Nixon's popularity a bit, at least for a while. Kennedy had helped darken that glow a little with a pithy comment. Nixon might be satisfied with a lead in color televisions. Kennedy would rather have the United States ahead in missile development.

Perhaps it simply seemed to Nixon a justifiable payback for an image unfairly tarnished.

The Nixon-Kennedy finger thrust played in my mind as I looked over press photographs of the recent surprise confrontation between Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and President Obama.

Governor Brewer retains a certain popularity in Arizona for her campaign against illegal immigrants and a set of rules many of her Spanish speaking constituents experience as brutally discriminatory against all Latinos. Lots of white folks are okay with that. Obama and she have clashed in court over whether illegal immigration is a federal issue. She came out with an amazing account of two meetings with President Obama, describing him as patronizing and condescending. She had previously described the meetings as cordial. But countless conservative sites picked up "patronizing" and "condescending" as more in line with their view of the Kenyan-in-Chief.

Events since the immigration dust up have not been kind to the Governor of Arizona.

She suffers from a history of strained moments on the same color television technology once boosted by candidate Nixon. In interviews and conferences, she has lost her train of thought, with long periods of uncomfortable silence. It is as if she was sharing her television coach with Herman Cain and Rick Perry.

Her campaign against the independent leader of her state's redistricting commission, Colleen Coyle Mathis, made the Governor look a more than a little addled. When the proposed redistricting did not weigh sufficiently in favor of Republicans, Brewer got the state Senate to remove the independent commissioner for "substantial neglect of duty" and "gross misconduct." In television interviews, Governor Brewer attempted to defend the removal, but was unable to think of a single instance of misconduct or neglect of duty. A court ruled that the Governor and the Republican Senate had acted improperly and ordered that Colleen Mathis be restored. It was the latest public humiliation for Governor Brewer.

It must have been tempting to go a little rogue in recapturing the magic of previous controversies. She met President Obama at the Phoenix airport, along with two Arizona mayors. There on the tarmac, as photographers clicked, she confronted him with a written demand that they meet and discuss their disagreements. As she presented her surprise letter, she jabbed her finger at the President. Obama gave her his reason for hesitation. He did not want a repetition of the mistaken descriptions of their last meetings. He told her he was disappointed in her revised account.

There were four participants in that surprise tarmac confrontation. And dozens more saw it at a distance. Governor Brewer later described the President as “tense to say the least” as he interrupted her friendly request by turning and walking away from her in mid-sentence.

The other three participants are not accusing her of lying. The word lie is not usually bandied about by public officials, with exceptions from the likes of Joe Walsh (R-SC). So the three simply remember things differently. Two mayors shared what they saw and heard with Talking Points Memo.

Brewer's fellow Republican, Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, recalls that Brewer generated an "awkward moment" that quickly passed. He insists President Obama did not turn, did not walk away, did not stop the conversation. “There was no sense that he was running to or from anything.” The Republican mayor described the meeting as “just the four of us. Mayor Stanton and I had a decent talk with him.”

Mayor Greg Stanton, the Democratic Mayor of Phoenix, agrees with his Republican colleague. “He wasn’t tense at all. The guy’s a pro.” He further described the President. “He doesn’t get animated, but he looks you in the eye and tells you what he thinks. And I think that’s honestly what he did is he looked the governor in the eye and spoke and told her what he was really feeling.”

Reporters could not hear the conversation, but they described Governor Brewer as flustered, jabbing her finger at the President.

President Obama would not go beyond calling it “a classic example of things getting blown out of proportion.” Seems a polite way of describing the one and only account that he could be referring to.

Governor Brewer's account has expanded with time and retelling. She now describes the President as "thin skinned." She says he was so intimidating she felt threatened. That is the word she uses. Threatened.

The photo of the Governor jabbing her finger at the President brings to mind that contrived confrontation between two other public figures over half a century ago, and the description Kennedy finally came to apply to his one time friend.

"No class."

Introduction, Traditional Service, January 29, 2012
St. Mark's United Methodist Church in Florissant, MO

 In times of stress, or grief, or temptation, 
 we often do not live up to God’s plan for us. 
 
 Like Peter, we deny Jesus. 
 Jesus never denies us. 
 
 Like Thomas, we doubt 
 the resurrection and the life. 
 Jesus never doubts the value 
 that God has placed in us. 
 
 Like Saul of Tarsus, 
 we hate those whose faith is strange to us. 
 Jesus sees a deeper good waiting in our hearts. 
 
 When we rebel against 
 God’s love for all his children, 
 when we deny the value of any human soul, 
 Jesus still walks with us. 
 His healing hand reaches out. 
 Be still my soul, the Lord is on your side. 

Found on Line:
"Be Still My Soul"
Sung in Memory of the Holocaust
by Liberia, Boys Vocal Band from South London

In response to T. Paine's Do Not Invalidate the Sacrament of Marriage

To broaden the term “marriage” to include any other iterations of involved people in the ceremony is to invalidate the meaning of the word and the sacrament that the word describes.

- T. Paine, January 27, 2012

I think some readers may not appreciate the wisdom of T. Paine’s message. Just in case, I wish to ally myself with his opinion, and clarify it, lest any ambiguity remain.

I have to agree with T. Paine about the “backwardness or unenlightened thinking” of the anti-gay marriage movement. However, backward and unthinking though it be, I and T. Paine are still on board.

“The fact of the matter is that marriage was intended for procreation and the perpetuation of our species in the most stable form possible.”

I agree with T. Paine that we should not allow women over the age of 50 to marry. Like T. Paine, I think it’s perverted, almost nasty.

“To broaden the term 'marriage' to include any other iterations of involved people in the CEREMONY is to invalidate the meaning of the word.”

Right. We are mostly talking about ceremony, or rather, the protection of a word that describes a ceremony. With more words becoming endangered every day, it is time for someone to stand up and say enough! Protect words, for God’s sake. If oppression of homosexuals is the cost of our preservation efforts, then so be it. It is a small price for me to pay.

It is true that the poor embattled term “marriage” has both a secular (legal) and a scared (my God’s) meaning. We should not commit a fallacy of complex question by marrying the discussion of one with the other. The right to marry that some seek is the right to participate in a legal marriage, first and foremost. I do accept that if homosexuals want a right to participate in a marriage granted by my God, they must petition my God, not the U.S. government, for that. However, like T. Paine, I think that the right I define as My God’s, should supersede, and wholly consume, the legal question. My God’s law is paramount.

If I were a homo, my first concern, and my only concern until it is addressed, would be for legal secular marriage. Obviously, if my God prohibits homosexuality, He would prohibit marriage between homosexuals. However, I would like to note that my God would prohibit marriage between homosexuals, not just to save the endangered word, as T. Paine’s article suggests, but because my God thinks it is immoral to engage in homosexuality, and marrying a homosexual comes perilously close to violating my God’s rule.

T. Paine and I think “It should be left up to houses of faith to marry folks.” However, we both realize that this refers to my God’s marriage, not a government contract. The legal secular question is irrelevant, and a poor excuse for violating my God’s law.

I and T. Paine say:

“My [our] Catholic faith is one that can ONLY be fulfilled by the union of one woman and one man together under God. It is a matter of natural law and God's law.”

Let me paraphrase for clarity:

“Homosexuals, like natural law, are bound to my Catholic faith, just as God Himself is, and I don’t want homosexuals to marry.”

Do you hear that homosexuals? Do you hear that God? Good. I don’t want to have to tell you/You again!

John Myste also writes for his own site, where Natural Law has been successfully amended to allow Gay Marriage.

Please visit John Myste Responds

• Manifesto Joe of Texas Blues is skeptical about a study linking intelligence to liberal ideology. He uses it as a point of departure, narrating his own political development. An interesting self-analysis.

• Infidel 753 reacts to Monday's Republican debate in Tampa via hilarious video.

• The Heathen Republican parses a bit to show that Mitt Romney may actually pay a tax rate almost as high as that of his lawn care staff.

• Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot visits Intrade to find out who will definitely win the nomination. Obama seems a favorite for Democrats. The GOP is a little more volatile.

• Dave Dubya notes and critiques the analysis of the GOP race offered by Fidel Castro.

• Gwendolyn Barry with New Global Myth does a core dump of anger from the left toward Obama. Mostly about bank exploitation, middle class deterioration, military adventurism, brutality against occupiers. Lots of et cetera.

• Nancy Hanks at The Hankster listens to the SOTU, contemplates deadlock and goes split-the-difference, with a hearty pox on both houses.

• Jerry Critter at Critter's Crap finds the core difference between President Obama and his GOP critics via a pictorial illustration.

• Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame covers Alan Colmes on the latest falsehood about President Obama and Israel. Tommy explains why the lie is significant, and how it is carried without objection by mainstream media. Tommy becomes more insightful every week.

• Jack Jodell, friend of the working blogger at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST, studies the historical origins of lobbying, then suggests a new target for occupiers. Well executed.

• Max's Dad takes a look at the newest Republican imagined fantasy and finds an old movie remake. Hint: It's more gross than death panels.

• Slant Right's John Houk reports the great news of a court decision upholding a Texas law requiring women to listen to a sonogram before undergoing a legal abortion.

• James Wigderson is appalled at leftists who drowned out the State of the State speech by embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. If memory serves, the traditional GOP approved disruption is a single shout of "You lie!" Walker's audience clearly surpassed that standard.

• Kent Pittman, writing from Open Salon takes a look at debates about the ultimate purpose of capitalism. He makes it pretty interesting.

• Vincent of A wayfarer's notes explores what makes a sacred place become a sacred place. A fascinating exploration that goes from scripture to street signs.

• Rumproast's gil mann considers skeptically the idea of making atheism more attractive with godless rituals.

• PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, finds a more innocuous bill board image for atheism.

• Papamoca at Papamoka Straight Talk blows the whistle and sounds all sorts of alarms about Facebook and privacy.

• Michael J. Scott, first citizen of Mad Mike's America reports on a retired bicycle rider attacked by three teens with fatal results. Seems they attacked the wrong guy.

• Chuck Thinks Right reacts to the death and legacy of Joe Paterno.

From WFSB in Hartford, Connecticut:

EAST HAVEN, CT (WFSB) -

Hundreds of tacos were delivered to East Haven mayor Joseph Maturo's office Thursday afternoon.

The delivery was courtesy of Reform Immigration for America in protest to Maturo's statement that he "might have tacos" as way to improve relations with the city's Latino community.

Maturo made the comment just hours after four East Haven police officers were arrested by federal agents on charges they harassed and targeted Latinos in the city.

- more -

In response to Burr Deming's Gay Marriage Opponent from Missouri

Those of us of a certain age grew up in an anti-gay environment so pervasive it never occurred to anyone that it was anti-gay. Gay rights were not considered controversial then. They were not considered at all.

When the issue was eventually raised, the response of many was the equivalent of sputtering incoherence. Of course the rankest perversion should segregated from the rest of society. How could anyone challenge such a basic idea?

- Burr Deming, January 26, 2012

I have never heard an intelligent argument for restricting the rights of gays to marry. They are all fraught with named fallacies and other explanations that defy reason and common sense.

This issue, in a very few years, will become tantamount to the slavery discussion, the right of white males to suppress women’s rights discussion, to the rights to decide what color one’s skin must be in order to cast a vote in America discussion.

Those who stay with the far right and continue to embrace obvious discrimination for this reason or that, will leave documented records of shame behind.

Robert Bork opposed the Civil Rights Act denouncing it as "an unwanted intrusion on the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate." He openly declared that barbers should not lose their rights to put up “Whites Only” signs in the Aryan windows of their own establishments.

You can still make a weak argument defending Bork’s stance today, but notice, I did not say “defending Associate Supreme Court Justice Bork’s stance.”

Those who openly embrace prejudice of any kind should be careful of the footprints they leave. Some of those trails will still be there for all to see, long after the oppression of gays is no longer considered enlightened and has otherwise vanished. We will remember the horror of a backward generation. And to remind us we will have the written words of traditional conservatives, sources of pride when written, and opinions they will wish to keep in the closet, but it will be too late, once the matter is settled. The information age will carry their message forward and show it to the next the generation: the general public, potential employers, their children, and whatever on-looking God they happen to embrace.

If I am wrong, just remember this: no one was ever shamed for renouncing prejudice.

John Myste also writes for his own site, where no one is shamed for renouncing prejudice. Please visit John Myste Responds

In response to Burr Deming's Gay Marriage Opponent from Missouri

Eventually, the argument against tolerance of gays was lost. The struggle turned to gay marriage. The astonished indignation at the very idea still spawns a stream of incoherence. It's hard for opponents to get past the how-dare-you stage into any sort of cogent presentation.

- Burr Deming, January 26, 2012

It is my humble opinion that the government really should not be involved in issuing or denying marriage licenses to ANYONE. It should be left up to houses of faith to marry folks, even when some various Christian faiths have found a way to justify the marrying of homosexual couples somewhere in the scriptures or their traditions. For those good folk that don’t proclaim a faith, I suppose a civil union can be enacted just like any other legal contract would be.

My personal take on the issue is that in this day and age many folks may argue the point with pseudo-legalities and pop-culture attitudes towards the subject, but that doesn't in any way change the FACT that marriage is supposed to be a sacrament, and as such in my Catholic faith it is one that can ONLY be fulfilled by the union of one woman and one man together under God. It is a matter of natural law and God's law.

To misappropriate the term “marriage” for such non-sacramental unions only further cheapens the meaning of the word and further deteriorates our language.

People can decry my backwardness or unenlightened thinking on the topic if they wish, but the fact of the matter is that marriage was intended for procreation and the perpetuation of our species in the most stable form possible. To broaden the term “marriage” to include any other iterations of involved people in the ceremony is to invalidate the meaning of the word and the sacrament that the word describes.

T. Paine occasionally contributes to FairAndUNbalanced.com in valiant but hopeless attempts to catch up with and correct Burr Deming's various liberal errors.

Although retired from his own conservative site, he remains well known as an opinion leader in his own right.

From the Guardian:

Russian police don't take kindly to opposition protesters – even if they're 5cm high and made of plastic.

Police in the Siberian city of Barnaul have asked prosecutors to investigate the legality of a recent protest that saw dozens of small dolls – teddy bears, Lego men, South Park figurines – arranged to mimic a protest, complete with signs reading: "I'm for clean elections" and "A thief should sit in jail, not in the Kremlin".

- more -

Those of us of a certain age grew up in an anti-gay environment so pervasive it never occurred to anyone that it was anti-gay. Gay rights were not considered controversial then. They were not considered at all.

When the issue was eventually raised, the response of many was the equivalent of sputtering incoherence. Of course the rankest perversion should segregated from the rest of society. How could anyone challenge such a basic idea?

Classic conservatism, the libertarian variety, eventually turned things around. Why can't everybody leave everybody the hell alone?

Anita Bryant helped in that first step. When Dade County in Florida passed a law against discrimination on account of sexual orientation, she went ballistic. She had been a prominent public figure, but not at all political. At least not until then. She was a fairly popular singer who had become the popular spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice.

What these people really want hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before.

More than any other person in my memory, I really do believe Anita Bryant advanced the then fledgling cause of gay rights. Late night show hosts made fun of her. Dana Carvey seemed to model the Church Lady after her on Saturday Night Live. Her contribution was not within the war of ideas. It was image. Her image was that of a stern, moralistic, and vaguely repulsive individual. She turned the popular view from that of normal people who happened to be against perversion to that of a strange bunch of prissy prudes. Anita Bryant dropped from sight after time spent on her struggle for moralism contributed to the destruction of her marriage. Her supporters could not tolerate being led by a divorced woman.

Eventually, the argument against tolerance of gays was lost. The struggle turned to gay marriage. The astonished indignation at the very idea still spawns a stream of incoherence. It's hard for opponents to get past the how-dare-you stage into any sort of cogent presentation. The arguments against marriage equality, such as they are, have coalesced into variations of:

• The majority is against it.

• Tradition is against it.

• God is against it.

• Yuk!

Occasionally, we'll see a creative new argument emerge from the fertile minds of opponents of equality. One prominent traditionalist suggested that gay sex is so good, it feels so much better than anything heterosexual, that the species will disappear if gay equality is allowed.

The arguments against equalities for gays are losing their appeal. In fact, they are inherently weak enough so that a prominent legal group hired by Republicans in Congress to argue the case before the Supreme Court finally gave up and resigned from the case.

The majoritarian reasoning seemed pretty strong at first, at least to those proposing it. But it suffered from the same fate as Mitt Romney's electability argument. It was circular logic. Voters should be against gay marriage because voters are against gay marriage.

Tradition was weakened by any knowledge of history. The "thousands of years of tradition" argument had to be circumscribed a little by the realization that the tradition had included polygamy, slavery, and patriarchal dominance that was effective ownership of women by men. Advances in civil rights had also contributed to the weakening of that approach. Appeals to tradition had been exhausted by over-exercise in the defense of slavery, segregation, the denial of voting rights, and the dilution of civil rights. If it was traditional to hurt people for no other reason than tradition, then tradition had to be wrong.

Extreme religious literalists brought up Leviticus, among other passages. The argument was discredited by theocracies that went from early European inquisition to more recent Ayatollah ruled lands of the Middle East. The fact that scripture also forbade the eating of shellfish, and promoted slavery and the execution of disobedient children became almost an afterthought as religious fanaticism brought down buildings and killed people in 2001.

But, with a growing majority of Americans favoring marriage equality, we still have fading resistance.

Last year, new Congressional Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from here in Missouri, made her case against gay equality in marriage. She spoke to the Eagle Forum in Washington, DC.

Her argument was not so much in defense of any traditional definition as it was for having any definition at all. She was responding to arguments that, as far as I can tell, are not being made. "Well, think about it. That starts you down the road to opening up licensure to basically meaning that the license would mean nothing." She brought up examples.

• Polygamy
  "If you just cared about somebody, have a committed relationship, why not allow one man and two women or three women to marry? There are a lot of people in this country that support polygamy. Wny not? They’re committed to each other. Why should you care? Why not allow group marriage? There are people out there who want that."

• Incest
  "Well, is that the best policy? Why not allow an uncle to marry his niece?"

• Pedophilia
  "Why not allow a 50-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl if they love each other and they’re committed?"

• Unconstitutional Infant Drivers
  "It’s not a right in the Constitution as far as that goes either. It’s not a right of… a 3 year old to be able to drive a car."

It was not a slippery slope Rick Santorum sort of argument. Anita Bryant famously went a little beyond most folks in her slippery slope imagination. "If gays are granted rights, next we’ll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."

Representative Hartzler does not seem to be arguing a man-on-dog or nail biting eventuality, although she did include, "So pretty soon if you don’t set parameters, you don’t have any parameters at all. The license means nothing, marriage means nothing." Still, hers is more a reductio argument. If you are going to defend this, why not apply the same argument to that?

The answer seems to have been established in the public mind. Each of the eventualities she mentions presents serious issues that gay marriage does not. If you oppose allowing children to make serious adult decisions, if you see health considerations in incest, and contractual exploitation inherent in multi-partner marriage, you can oppose polygamy, incest, and pedophilia and still be for gay rights to marriage. You can favor marriage equality for gays without any self-contradiction.

Vickey Hartzler is not entirely without opposition. County Prosecuting Attorney Teresa Hensley has announced for the Democratic nomination. Her website does not mention a position on gay rights. It could be she sees more pressing national problems in joblessness and the economy. But she does have a reputation of convicting child abusers. Presumably, that would answer one of Hartzler's objections to gay marriage.

"The government has set some parameters," says Representative Vickey Hartzler. Presumably, a more rational set of parameters is on the way.

[Correction: Quotation marks placed around ... you know ... quotes]

The three most important presentations of the post-apocalyptic Newt, the Newt of the latest resurrection, presented a contrast that did not become clear until the Obama State of the Union. Newt could have taken a winning lesson from Bob Burns. Not Robert Burns the poet. Rather, Bob Burns the early radio comedian. He was known through much of his career as the Arkansas Philosopher. Bing Crosby made him famous.

Newt's two debate performances in South Carolina, the exhibition matches that brought him unexpected victory in the state, were pugnacious, in-your-face. He was spoiling for a fight, ready for challenges to his ethics, an angry ex-wife, a financial history, and political condemnation. He turned it all around, spun it, and threw it in the face of several surprised journalists and one shocked and awed Mitt Romney.

The audience went wild.

In Florida, the contrast was palpable. The new king of the hill, the front runner, the winner in the making, was calm, collected, and master of the Ali shuffle in early rounds. Rope-a-dope was the new rule as Mitt flailed angrily, stumbling over his words. Newt won two debates in South Carolina by ... well ... winning. He was victorious in one debate in Florida by not losing. He won Tampa on points. It could have been a knockout.

But there was something missing. The next day, Newt himself supplied the answer. Reuters provides the account.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, coming off one of his most subdued debate performances of the campaign, signaled on Tuesday he may skip future debates unless his supporters are given full license to clap, cheer and roar.

Yeah, that was it. CCR wasn't there. Television viewers in South Carolina hadn't needed prompting from expert commentary following each debate. The studio audience offered their own spontaneous instruction. We often take our cues from those around us, an effect put to use in countless situation comedies. What actor René Auberjonois once described sarcastically as "hilariously dysfunctional families" become palatable because of an audio signal that tells the audience what is funny.

It was largely discovered through the accidental efforts of Bob Burns on Bing Crosby's popular radio show in the mid-1940s. Bing grew tired of occasional production mistakes and the multiple daily broadcasts that were needed to fill different time zones with live radio. He looked for reliable recording mechanisms. During one pre-broadcast warmup by "the Arkansas Philosopher" Bob Burns entertained the studio audience with a few off color farm stories. Crosby ended up with some great experimental recordings that the bosses insisted not be used on air. Too racy.

So the studio sliced and diced them, much as Andrew Breitbart might today when targeting a potential smear victim. Bob Burns was spliced out, and only periods of laughter were left in. The laughter was then spliced into other recordings that were to be aired. Listeners at home were treated to the illusion of very strong audience reaction to mediocre scripting. Those at home laughed along. It must be funny. Listen to the studio audience.

In Tampa, NBC News moderator Brian Williams surprised everyone by warning the audience to keep their reactions to themselves. They pretty much obeyed the sit-on-your-hands orders. Williams must have a stronger face-to-face persona than is apparent on screen.

I have to wonder whether Newt dialed down, way down, his mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-gonna-take-it-anymore approach in adapting to the new enforced mood of blankness. The only ambient sound during the debate was that of one hand clapping. No magic moments. No volcanic eruptions. No Guns of Navarone cannon fire. Just Newt brushing off Mitt as Mitt tried to mimic fierceness. No more Mister Nice Mitt. Bare knuckles. Taking the mitts off.

The Newt strategy of calm in the storm, strength through blessed assurance, was probably the best tactic. Let Mitt swing at him until exhausted. But it would have been more exciting with a more robust audience.

Watching Obama confront Congress with accompanying cheers, ovations, and closeup reactions, it struck me that he could have been as effective with a silent audience. Or no audience.

Maybe.

The President uses that environment of audience reaction. He clearly enjoys it. The former Speaker needs it to breathe.

Newt would for sure have done better with sound and fury in the background. The audience is his group debate partner. It is his Ride of the Valkyries. It serves as a reinforcement for Republican television viewers, those preparing to vote. Man, that Newt sure takes it to Obama. Listen to the hollering from the audience.

If Newt Gingrich finds a way to replay the grand Tampa episode of Mortal Kombat, he might consider the invention that came from the off-color stories of Bob Burns on the Bing Crosby show of the 1940s.

An audience might not even be necessary. Newt might get by with just a laugh track.

It has got to be infuriating, listening to irresponsible leftists as they play the success-baiting card. Those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or who seek to pass their achievements on to their children, find themselves vilified. It is bad enough when the instigators are non-achievers. When such critics are joined by those who just plain ought to know better, it must be galling.

Mitt Romney is among those stung by unexpected criticism. But he is not the only target. Those who have earned their way to the top have an understandable counter resentment toward those who articulate class resentment. And the frequent object of that wealthy resentment is the senatorial candidate who is among the most articulate of critics.

Elizabeth Warren seems never to have a bad moment. From the beginning, she has put perfect lyrics to the rumbling music of those who perceive a radical tilt against them in what has become a harsh economic struggle. In the viral video that has defined her in the popular mind, she begins by denying to the achievers, the job creators, unshared credit for what they have built.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Then she goes further. The social contract is not simply to the benefit of those in need. It is to a future of achievement.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

The frustration has to gnaw at conservative political messengers. The public not only doesn't seem to get that the accumulation of wealth benefits everyone, that those who produce should enjoy the results of their success without the disturbance. They also do not see the ironic fact that at least some of those who carp at the engines of success are the very beneficiaries of the system, direct beneficiaries.

And Elizabeth Warren is most definitely among those who have benefited. She is a millionaire several times over. A couple of months ago, Politico itemized some of the sources of her income: A healthy Harvard salary, substantial consultant fees, investments, property income, book advances, the list goes on. She is not among the most wealthy, but she brings in more than most folks can hope for. In 2009, her income was more than half a million dollars.

So the campaign staff of her Republican opponent, incumbent Massachusetts Senator, Republican Scott Brown, are understandably perplexed. And, as Mitt Romney has famously remarked, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Brown's campaign manager expressed a bit of that feeling in an email last week. Jim Barnett was responding to questions from Boston columnist Brian McGrory. Part of his message dealt with hypocrisy:

Professor Warren has a bad habit that is not uncommon among holier than thou elitists, namely engaging in the same sort of behavior that they look down on others for.

It is a recurrent theme among conservative supporters of the incumbent. They are mystified, and a little resentful, that she is not the target of the same sort of anger she channels toward the top 1%. How can she possibly be thought to speak for the other 99%?

The responses have a constant theme:

I don’t begrudge her own personal wealth. I begrudge her hypocrisy of trying to play the demagogue against those who have achieved and who have created wealth.

- Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government

Her poll-tested campaign rhetoric simply doesn’t match reality as voters learn more about who Elizabeth Warren really is.

- Brian Walsh, National Republican Senatorial Committee

The easy dismissal of the Warren message reflects a basic assumption that seems to be held in common by conservative pundits, conservative blog writers, conservative politicians, conservative campaign managers, conservative contributors, and ... well ... conservatives. The conservative assumption is that all the Warren type rhetoric is simply window dressing. The real meaning is pure and simple class resentment bordering on an irresponsible call to war on wealth.

If a new French style revolution against the aristocracy is in the offing, albeit absent the executions, but still with Elizabeth Warren as Robespierre-in-the-making, then the hypocrisy charge is understandable.

The alternate possibility, the one unconsidered by her critics, is that the growing popular sense is at a somewhat different angle: that the chads are uniformly being counted toward the wealthy, that the playing field is tilted at a crazy imbalance, that the game itself is often rigged.

A reasonable case can be made that accelerating income disparity dates to the beginning of traceable policy changes rather than to accelerating merit of the upper part of the upper class of the uppermost of the upper income elites.

If the popular mood reflects a growing fury toward all who are wealthy, all who have pulled themselves up, all who have money in the bank and a mortgage paid, and plenty of food on the table, then the campaign against Elizabeth Warren will generate a torch and pitchfork march to her very own ornate door. She will lose any electoral contest as soon as voters learn of her own well-to-do economic status.

But if, instead, the hostility is toward what is seen as increasingly unfair rules of the road, if that anger is aimed at those who defend the unfairness, then conservative attacks against a wealthy critic of that very unfairness will fall to the ground as would the drops of a gentle spring rain as they bounce off the windows of Elizabeth Warren's spacious home.

My best guess is the second possibility. The conservative campaign against the person who may well become Senator Warren is misplaced, ineffective, and doomed.