Sex and Law: If you've been reading Boudicca's posts on the matter, you know that the next 'flash point' in the morality debate is looming over the horizon in the form of polyamory. That is, multiple marriage partners.
Is this at all surprising? By that, I mean are we surprised that sex is once again the issue that gets our collective danders up?
I think it's time to get to the very heart of the issue here and ask the questions that everyone is dancing around: Is a certain sexual morality necessary for our society to function? If so, how can society best encourage that morality? If not, why not?
Now, if your answer is 'yes,' I want you to explain why, and if your answer is 'no,' I want you to explain why not.
I really want comments on this one, because I think everyone has an opinion - unlike my more abstruse posts on Islamic monetary policy, I think people can relate to this. So, fire away!

The Chronic-WHAT?-cles of Narnia: Full credit goes to Boudicca for showing me this. The question that must be answered: is this equal to, or greater than, "more cowbell" as a brief cultural moment?

Conservatism: An interesting piece on American conservatism by Jeffrey Hart. Read it if you've got time on your hands.

McCain 2008: Although I was a big booster in 2000, I'm not entirely sold on a 2008 bid. More along the same lines here.

Remember Osirak?: David Bernstein thinks Israel and Iran do.

Sprawl: People who know me know that I really, really like land use issues. No, I don't have a vibrant social life, why do you ask?
But I bet you too will think land use is interesting after you read "Sprawl" by Robert Bruegmann! It's all about suburbs and turns upside-down the notion that they are all icky and stifling. Basically he's the anti-Kunstler.
So, city mice, country mice, and suburb mice, explain yourselves! Dense populations or miles of countryside? Or both?

Point proven: As if to prove my own point, I found myself whistling along to "Hollaback Girl" today. Argh!

Merry Christmas: It can't be said any better than this:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

A Non-Holiday Morsel:

I found a most interesting article in the Weekly Standard on the very real potential for a "slippery slope" in the definition of marriage. Stanley Kurtz discusses two Dutch cases involving a "short-cut to polygamy" in the form of polyamorous relationships. For example, a polygamous relationship can involve a man with sexual relationships with both women, but the women have no such sexual relationship with eachother, whereas a polyamorous relationship (such as the De Bruijn group Kurtz mentions) can involve a man with sexual relationships with both women, who are bisexual and have sexual relationships with eachother.

What I found most interesting is the arguments of prominent legal scholars, as well as the Unitarian Universalist Church, that just as the gay rights movement has spawned the debate on redifining marriage to include those relationships, the burgeoning bi rights movement may well use the advances in the gay marriage fight to begin pushing for polymarriages.

I offer no value judgements, just a diversion from the normal holiday offerings.

Do they know it's Christmas time at all?: I don't know if I could say it any better than this post on the future of Christianity.
So, as Christmas approaches, where do we stand on religious belief and intellect? Are they compatible? Has the highbrow culture abandoned Christianity and vice-versa?

Good Ideas From France (of all places):

Seems like a week of reversals. New York is having transit strikes and the French Parliament is doing something right for once. Chirac's government and the recording industry oppose it of course. It was passed in a late night and lightly attended session, and the upper house still has to approve it, but it seems that the lower house of France's parliament has struck a blow in favor of sensible copyright policy. Last night they voted in favor of a bill explicitly defending file sharing downloads as "private use".

The recording and film industries have been claiming for quite some time that music and films "stolen" through file sharing are largely responsible for their flagging sales and profits in recent years. I can think of a few other reasons. Across the pond in our fair (but not "fair use" apparently) land of liberty (but not if an industry lobby decides it needs a scapegoat for its own incompetence and inability to adapt to new circumstances and technologies), the tentative French step forward is countered by at least two steps backward.

My take on copy protection in the digital age is that so long as I am not a) using someone else's content for profit, b) attempting to claim authorship of someone else's work, or c) depriving someone else of their property (ie. stealing a DVD) the government has no business telling me what media I can consume, how I can consume it, or where I get it from. Of course intellectual property is an extremely complex and important area in today's world, and some legal framework is certainly required. Patents are the foundation of an economy that depends increasingly on non tangible assets. However, defaulting to ever increasing IP rights and "harmonizing upwards" is a dangerous game. As a liberal (original flavor), I feel the burden of proof lies with a government if it wants to restrict its citizens' liberty in any way.

What do you all think?

I, too, wanted to voice my disdain towards Damon's defection to the Evil Empire. I realize that he has himself and his family to look out for, and I'm going to read more about this as soon as I'm done writing this post... but seriously. He was pretty much the face of the BoSox for the past few seasons--a time when they've been getting more recognition. He's a fan favorite... well, was a fan favorite. I can already hear the boos from the first Yankees @ Sox game this coming season.

So, in disgust, I leave it at that. For now.

I hate baseball, now.

I think I'm gonna be sick.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo: I am truly upset.

Bono of the Year: Or we could let Bono run everything.

A greater commonwealth: Related to that and other posts of mine, I think the great English-speaking nations (here including India) have more in common with each other than with the rest of the globe. We have a common language - as noted, spoken more and more widely within India - a common legal culture, and a common history (for the last four hundred years, at any rate). So what does that mean?
It means that we have a rare opportunity here for a win-win-win-win situation: a greater English-speaking alliance.
For example, if we're going to have a trade deficit, wouldn't it make more sense to have it with India than China? If we're going to have a partner in our global strategic endeavors, would we rather have the U.K. or France?
Another advantage of this greater alliance is that all the nations involved - here I see US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, India - occupy key sealanes and have a history of naval expertise.
It sure beats the UN, anyway.

India in the black: On the other hand, India!

We're all broke!: America's in the red! How do we keep it up? Can we keep it up? Thoughts here.

Snow Day!:

I'm almost pleased that my holiday travel plans were interrupted because of the "significant winter weather event" currently bathing Vermont, God's Country, in a sea of snow and death ice. Staying home with nothing pressing to accomplish certainly frees up time to read and catch up on world news, and I was most certainly rewarded: Cynthia Tucker, the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Consitution op/ed pages, included some great columns. It was so refreshing to think about current issues instead of the relation between internal angles and side length in hyperbolic equilateral triangles!

**A bit of background: the Georgia legislature is in the process of approving a new way to configure child support amounts, which has ignited much talk about the rights of custodial parents, the needs of the children, and general divorce topics.

Chief Justice Leah Sears entered the media dialogue with this piece on the "devaluation of marriage" and the impact on the court systems. (registration may be required, but it's free).

I also found this column interesting in light of our recent discusions on the death penalty. A man discusses his experiences as his wife was dying of cancer and compares it to euthanasia in pets and the lethal injection for criminals facing the death penalty.
"We have mercy on pets and those who cruelly murder. But not for the Nancys."

A thought-provoking comparison, to say the least.

The Stefani Principle: I have a theory about Gwen Stefani's solo career. I think each single she's released from L.A.M.B. (I'm not spelling it out, and neither are you) is supposed to be worse than the one before it. No, I don't think it's mere accident!
When combined with non-stop airplay, we have no choice but to listen to, say, "Hollaback Girl" and think "Well, at least it's not as bad as 'Luxurious!'"
Not only that, Gwen is cashing in on a decade's worth of credibility that she built up in concert with Tony Kanal and Tom Dumont. I mean, aren't we all secretly hoping that, after fifty-odd listens, "Cool" magically begins to sound like "Don't Speak," or something?
I think this can be applied to any number of things, actually. You put your best foot forward, and if that doesn't work, it doesn't matter! Through sheer lunatic audacity, you can still succeed by putting your worst foot forward repeatedly. You've bought enough time with the best-foot thing that people think this worst-foot thing is just a holdover until your next brilliant idea falls from the sky. In fact, your second-most recent flub can be rationalized into something brilliant, extending your genius retroactively!
Is there any better example of this than the Bush Administration? After building up a mountain of 9-11 credibility, they've spent the next four years messing up absolutely everything . Of course vast majorities of the Republican Party support them anyway, despite the fact the Administration isn't even remotely conservative.
This would be like the Beatles reuniting in the late 1970s and making album after album consisting only of cover versions of ABBA! I wager it would take a while before hardcore fans admitted this wasn't a genius plan to outwit the Rolling Stones.
So, with apologies to dear Gwen (whom I would love to see fronting No Doubt again), I'm dubbing this "The Stefani Principle." I'm also wondering if anyone out there has other examples of this from their own lives. The Stefani Principle at your workplace? At your school? Elsewhere?

Why I don't like Hillary: Because of BS like this. Is she an unprincipled politician or is she a nascent fascist? Richard Cohen asks the question, albeit more delicately than me.
Memo to the Democratic Party: do not nominate this woman. Actually, wait, let me take that back. Democrats, nominate this woman. Republicans, nominate Guiliani or McCain. That should do it.

Mr. Billy Mueller: A sad day for Red Sox Nation as that professional of professionals, Bill Mueller, signs a two-year deal with the L.A. Dodgers. I realize we had no inclination to keep him around, but it's still sad to see him go. The man who delivered us from the clutches of Mariano Rivera! I wish him the best of luck in Dodger Blue with D-Lowe. You'll be missed, Billy.

The PATRIOT Act: Sen. Russ Feingold - the only man to vote against the original legislation - makes the case that the House bill to reauthorize it doesn't deserve to be passed. What do you think?

The fight over gay cowboys: Nature or nurture? No, not homosexuality, but homophobia. Wright and Kaus debate why we should (or shouldn't) want to see "Brokeback Mountain" and if having a visceral dislike for gay sex is hard-wired. Watch for the moose!
UPDATE: 'Natural' and 'unnatural' sexuality in art and cinema discussed here.

Iraq: By the time you read this, the voting in Iraq will have begun. Let us hope it goes well. For all our sakes.

Hate crime or free speech: I've been very encouraged with events in Britain these past few weeks (see here and here), it's only fair that I raise the alarm when it's warranted.
On a recent discussion on a radio program, children's author Lynette Burrows made it clear that she did not support the right of homosexual couples to adopt, regardless of Britain's new civil partnership laws.
Guess what happened next? Burrows's opinions werereported to the police. (Link via Sullivan)
Money quote:

Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic."

For what it's worth, I think Ms. Burrows's opinion is not based on sound data and may have more than a bit of bias to it. In that sense, it may even be 'wrong.' But she has the right to be wrong, and I would extend that right to her as I trust she would to me.
So. Are this and other comments like it 'hate crime', or is it free speech? Where to draw the line?

Save the Primary: My latest editorial, on the importance of the New Hampshire Primary, can be found here (under 'Opinions'.)
Shorter version: the Democrats mess with this at their own peril.

Gun rights... or wrongs?: Given that we've been talking directly about the death penalty and indirectly about the societal costs of violence in America, let's talk guns.
In a previous post, I mentioned that Canada's Liberal Party recommended a total ban on handguns within the country. Now, Canada does not have a Second Amendment, so this is all well and good. But America does have such an amendment, so the matter's a bit more complicated.
Let us assume that constitutional scholars have reached this consensus: the amendment holds out the right for each state to regulate its militia, so each state may also determine its own citizens' gun rights.
Given that, which laws do you favor in your state? For what reason? Do more guns mean less crime, or do more guns mean even more crime?

Save Tookie?

Calling all Blogsters and Blog-istas: I personally am on the fence over the Tookie Williams situation and have just read that Gov. Schwarzenegger has denied clemency. Normally, I favor the death penalty, but I find it difficult to do so once a face and personality has been attached to the name. How do you feel?

Is Mr. Williams an exceptional case? Should more states abolish the death penalty and put more money and resources into rehabilitation efforts? Is Mr. Williams truly rehabilitated? Should he be saved?

I would appreciate your thoughts on these and any other questions you see related. Please feel free to post under "Comments" or as an additional post. (I for one would like to see more than just Tacitean posting on this forum, as much as I do enjoy his interesting and thought-provoking contributions)

Happy Birthday (yesterday) to our dear fellow blogger, Prometheus!

Got some time?: If you do, and I mean, a lot of time, and the inclination to read up on classical Islamic monetary policy, go here.
In brief: Ibn Khaldun, late medieval Islamic scholar and founder of the entire field of historiography, was also something of a supply-side economist! Who knew?


Money 'graph:

F. A. Hayek (1967) attributed to David Hume the "invention" that in its positive aims government was entitled to "no power of coercion and was subject to the same general and inflexible rules which aim at an overall order by creating its negative conditions: peace, liberty, and justice." Centuries before Hume was born, however, the applicability of sharî`ah to government was a seminal concept in Islam. The claim that Islamic society was governed more by situation ethics (see, e.g., Talbi 1981) than by the Qur'an and sunnah contains some truth, but is misleading. Muslim society strayed away from these principles gradually. Initially by constraints on land distribution and expansion of taxation, later in government interference in the economy, and finally in the loss of respect for private property and individual liberty.


The thesis claims the way forward for Muslim societies is lower taxes and the minimalist, libertarian state. Some ideas really are universal!

Britain, again: The House of Lords bars testimony obtained by torture. It would do well for our own country to embrace this principle, as well. As usual, Andrew has the goods.
My sense of gratitude to our English allies can be found here.

Save the Primary: The Democratic Party is considering moving around the primary schedule to bump New Hampshire out of its top dog spot. Walter Shapiro says no.

A travesty: Remember what I said about civil liberties yesterday? Instapundit has now brought this to my attention.
The case involves a 'no-knock' raid that, to say the least, went afoul.
Here's what seems to have happened: the local PD in Prentiss, Mississippi received a drug tip and passed it along to a narcotics enforcement agency, who organize a raid on the property of one Jamie Smith.
The son of the local police chief, as an officer himself, comes along in the raid. It was a no-knock raid, so the agents didn't knock on Smith's door beforehand. They just broke in. In the course of the raid, the son of the chief saw a side door and assumed it also belonged to Smith's apartment. It was, in fact, an entrance to the apartment of Cory Maye. The son of the chief charges into Maye's bedroom, where Maye and his daughter are sleeping, whereupon a startled Maye fires at the officer and kills him.
Maye has since been convicted of capital murder and sits on Mississippi's death row.
From my perspective, Maye was acting in legitimate self-defense. Let us review the facts of the matter: Maye was not the subject of the search warrant. He was a completely innoncent bystander at the wrong place and wrong time.
So, keeping that in mind, what was he to think when a someone in paramilitary get-up broke down his door? What would anyone, roused from their sleep and their daughter to protect, think?
Here's a particular passage I find troubling:

Maye had no criminal record, and wasn't the target of the search warrant. Police initially concluded they had found no drugs in Maye's side of the duplex. Then, mysteriously, police later announced they'd found "traces" of marijuana and cocaine.



How convenient! Since the original warrant was for a drug raid, let's announce that drugs were found. Of course, they were found in the wrong apartment, which is something a mitigating circumstance. Warrants are for very specific places and times, or else they are meaningless. A PD can't raid the wrong apartment and claim the end results justify the means, especially when the end results are this suspicious.
In case you need a bit more to top you off, let me say that Maye is black and the officer his shot was white. The jury was also entirely white.

And at last, hope: While Canada considers eliminating self-defense for law-abiding citizens and the United States struggles with torture and basic civil liberties, the United Kingdom begins to right the ship.
After more than eight years in the political wilderness, the Conservative Party shows some spine under the new leadership of David Cameron.
Via Volokh, here's a Windows Media of Cameron's first session of Prime Minister's Questions as opposition leader. It's good stuff, especially if you are unfamiliar with the House of Commons and like your legislatures with some spunk.
Cameron seems to be a worthy counterweight to Tony Blair's lusty statist approach to problems. Camilla Cavendish (yes, she's British! How did you guess?) lays out the scenario here.
Money quote:

What many of us want is not more Blair, but less government. For all their differences, Mr Brown and Mr Blair share an authoritarian, interventionist instinct. And it is that — not the minutiae of who believes what on public service reform, a subject that so fascinates the media — which most worries many of us.


And this, too:

Mr Cameron instinctively seems to understand these concerns. His remark on Tuesday that “there is such a thing as society; it’s just not the same thing as the State”, was a nod to where the new faultline will be in British politics. Tony Blair’s Third Way has delivered an awful lot of State.


Can it be? A major party in the English-speaking world standing up for liberty as in the olden time? A conservative party, no less. Now if somebody would encourage the libertarian conservative wing of the Republican party (all five of them) to follow suit here in the States, we'd be getting somewhere.

Another reason to be nervous: Where's your name on the list?

And now, this: A tragedy onboard a Miami-Orlando flight. Accounts differ on what actually happened, so I cannot presume to prejudge the actions of the air marshals until there's a further investigation. More news as it warrants.

Let me take your guns: Because I'm the Liberal Party leader in Canada, of course!
Liberal (outgoing!) PM Paul Martin announced today that a sweeping ban on handguns was his answer to escalating crime and violence in Toronto and elsewhere.
If these responses are any indication, this is not a winning election strategy on Martin's part. May I also say that I don't think it's sound policy, either.

Let me take you down: Because I'm going to Strawberry Fields, of course. Boudicca has reminded us of the terrible "Humps," so I think it's important that we recall what good music is. Even more important that we do so on the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's murder. This article reminds us why we still love the Beatles, 40 years later.

If you haven't yet:

Today marks the 64th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. If you haven't yet, try to find a few moments to remember those killed in the attacks as well as those who survived.

On a lighter note:

(because frankly, my mind hurts after working with non-Euclidean geometry -- envision a world where the sum of angles in a triangle is less than 180 degrees, and "straight lines" are curved. Seriously interesting stuff if anyone wants to know more...)

I don't think I could have said it better myself. "Humps" is seriously the worst song I've heard in a while, and I am a huge fan of the cheesy "light rock" sing-your-heart-out-while-alone-in-a-car music.

Come to think of it, being one of the few people in the country who use mass transit without owning an Ipod or some other mp3 player, I am in the unique position of having a respite from the more obnoxious songs on the airwaves. It's only when I actually have to use my car that I hear that song... even more of an incentive to keep it parked and save gas money and fossil fuels!

New plan: Avoid awful music by saving the earth!

Torture, anyone?
Since John McCain's anti-torture amendment passed the senate by a sound margin, it appears that a certain administration is trying to create loopholes to allow torture to be carried out by certain agencies. What does everyone think of that?

I, personally, am against torture as a general rule. However, I do feel that in DIRE circumstances, perhaps a little "coercion" is required. If someone's life depended on information that could reliably be extracted from someone via torture, then perhaps I could let that slide. This, I'd assume, creates a slippery slope, what with different "definitions" of "dire." So, I dunno. I thought it was a pretty salient topic, and thought I'd open something of a dialogue...

English in India, further thoughts... I am curious to see if the use of English in India will have an effect of the dynamic of language studies that have been in place there for quite some time. I study with quite a few Indian students (and, from that, I know that India is a huge up-and-comer in the industrial/design/technology world), and each student has to learn three Indian languages: the language of their own state, the language of a neighboring state, and the "master" Indian language. I am curious to see if this changes at all, with English becoming more popular in India.

In mostly unrelated news (and I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, though other threads, or what-have-you), I thought I'd mention a really great site for quickly browsing headlines and accessing news sources. It's a visualization from Marumushi.com, and it's called NewsMap. You can find it here.

The Office: Long-time devotees of the British show (myself included) should recognize that the American version has come into its own. A winning line from the Christmas episode: "Happy Birthday, Jesus, sorry your party sucks."

India Rising: One of the most fascinating trends (to me) in the international sphere is the recent rise of India.
Although it's been largely overshadowed by the surge of China to the forefront of industrial nations, I think India's metamorphosis is more significant.
In the past ten years, India has finally broken the monopoly of the Congress Party and become something closer to a multiparty parliamentary system. While my outsider's eye balks at the BJP's Hindu Nationalism, the fact that more than one party can draw votes in national elections is a good thing.
The political liberalization has been matched by an economic liberalization that has given the coutnry a foothold in Internet technology.
A truly interesting post on the influence of English on India can be found here.
Money quote:

Is this change really taking place? It is hard to tell, because the first stage is largely internal, invisible. A person who has ventured onto the continuum still has full control of the original regional Indian language, and if this is the regional language you have always interacted with him (or her) in, you will both continue this practice. The breakthrough comes as you notice, for the first time, that such people understand essentially everything you say in English, in more and more contexts. They reply, in Hindi, to questions asked of others in English.

Then come the bigger and bigger chunks of English unselfconsciously inserted into your discourse. The surprise, or amusement, when you use, for example, the Shuddh Hindi word for ‘per cent’: ‘per cent’ is a numerical concept that exists in English space! The effortless English spoken with foreigners (whose English is far less fluent than theirs!), while you both continue to speak in your shared Indian language. And then one day they put you out of your misery by switching altogether into English to explain something technical. After which they go back to Hindi for casual discourse with you.

My own (limited and anecdotal) experience with this is very similar. To listen to the lilting bounce between a Hindi, Bangla, or Urdu wordset and an English wordset in regular conversation is a fun experience.
So, if this is spreading from the pan-Indian post-British elite to the middle classes, what does that mean for the future of English and the future of the "Anglosphere"?
Those thoughts are discussed in comments here.
I for one am more than willing to welcome India into a general commonwealth of English-speaking nations. Somebody has to balance against China.

"Liberalize" the military: The usual top-shelf stuff over at Volokh. The post struck a particular chord in me because Capt. Nathaniel Fick, author of One Bullet Away, was a Classics major at Dartmouth. I was a Classics major at Colgate.
The premise of Fick's argument is that when liberal arts students enlist in the military, they have just as much of an effect on it as it has on them, and their influence "liberalizes" it. That is, its principles and modus operandi become more broad-minded and open to creative thinking. I agree with this 100 percent.
The historical record is full of evidence for the success of the "liberal" approach. One of my favorites is that of Gen. John Pershing and his dealings with the Filipino rebellion at the turn of the last century. Rather than assume a predetermined set of tactics would prevail, Pershing learned as much as he could about the culture and lifestyles of the local sultans before engaging them. As a result, he knew exactly how to deal with them, and avoided much bloodshed while winning through.
Of course, no post on this matter would be complete for me - ever the Classicist - without a reference to the Roman army. When the Republic flourished, and even into the early Empire, generals were more than brute fighters. They were learned: they could deliver oratory and compose prose and poetry with equal distinction. Gaius Julius Caesar, budding tyrant he may have been, was steeped in the day's literary milieu. Only toward the end of the Empire did generals and the armed forces become the haven for barbarians and uneducated which gave it its later reputation.
The application of this to our present-day situation is clear. Although we are fighting a war - one we must win, make no doubt of it - the sense of detachment from the struggle is palpable, save for those families and friends directly affected.
So many well-meaning people, after the scandals of torture and incompetence at the top level, may continue to heap abuse on the military and call for its removal from college campuses entirely. This, if history is any guide, is a totally-wrong headed approach. This is the exact approach that has led to both the expulsion of gay linguists from the services and protests against ROTC on campus.
We need the best and the brightest in the forces and we need them always. If they remain aloof from service, and indeed remain hostile to it, how do they expect the country to be bettered for it?
I have to say that military service - particularly in the Marines - has always had a certain allure to me, although I have not (yet) served. I like the idea of serving my country, and the military is a very obvious way to do so. I like the idea of living up to the noble principles of each branch of service.We could all do worse.

The great debate: National Review's own John Derbyshire weighs in on the attractiveness of teenage girls here (about halfway down the page), setting off a lengthy debate in Sullyworld.
The most pertinent questions here - no, it's not the perkiness of Jennifer Aniston - deal with the proper display of sexuality, I think.
The Derb seems to be invoking a double-standard: it's perfectly okay for him to state as 'fact' that heterosexual men do not find women visually appealing after age 20 (this, by the way, is not the Tacitean's opinion), but, on the other hand, he has previously urged gays and lesbians to keep similiar opinions to themselves. If he admits that homosexuality is innate, Derbyshire's stance is complete hypocrisy.
I think tact and decency extend to all sexual orientations. The current cultural impulse that would have us share everything all the time is not healthy. It desensitizes us. It also hardens the heart and senses to the true aesthetic of beauty, placing shallow physical arousal above a true appreciation of beauty.
Again, in terms of pop culture, this impulse has the horrible effect of 'democratizing' standards of arousal and beauty so as to make them bland, flat, and plastic. I don't want popular opinion to tell me what I should find attractive and then produce 10 popstars and 10 actresses in that exact same mold.
Derbyshire, as a good conservative, should be counted upon to defend these sentiments, rather than offer a winking apology for his attraction tothe latest Lolita.