In his book, Intellectuals and Society, Sowell gives us many reasons to question the societal reverence accorded the "intellectual class" in America, but to my mind one stands out over the others. When the society in which the intellectual class exists routinely fails to censure individuals of that class when they are publicly and stupendously wrong about something, then there develops an environment in which the intellectual class wanders further and further out on the "fringe" of reality, thus always increasing the percentage of times they take a false position. In short, in the absence of any societal checks on intellectuals they tend to become less and less worthy of respect by non-intellectuals.

Hardly a fallacy. The numbers of Roma and Jews in Europe pre-war were roughly equal. During the Holocaust, six million Jews were murdered, and about half a million Roma. That's just over ten Jews for every gypsy killed. Poles outnumbered Jews in Europe 4 to 1 in 1939, yet the Nazis killed THREE TIMES as many Jews as Poles. And, of course, the number of Russians killed in the camps was miniscule compared to the Poles, let alone the Jews. Groups with even less claim to the Holocaust are the European elderly and the intellectuals. So no, it is definitely NOT a "fallacy" for the Jews to claim the Holocaust as no other can - which begs the question, why are there so many people like you that seek to minimize historical Jewish persecution?

Ah, Israel is definitely not a theocratic state. We did not pay for the "formation" of the nation of Israel. If any country did, it was Great Britain, the nation tasked with overseeing the transition from Ottoman empire to the modern Middle Eastern nations of today. Today whites make up less than 50% of the population of the US. I therefore find the notion that 36% of that gene pool is even Western European, let alone German. US Secs. of State are not "fixated" on Israel, but find that country very important for a variety of reasons, one of which is the fact it is the only stable democracy in the region. So, no, I don't expect Kerry to be much different...however, with Obama as a boss that's not really written in stone.

Obama signs into law Secret Service protection for himself and his family for life at taxpayer expense, protection that includes, but is certainly not limited to agents carrying automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, and then pushes for unconstitutional restrictions on the types of guns the American taxpayer can own to protect himself and his family! The hypocrisy of this president is nauseatingly unparalleled in our history as a country.

Without a single data point as evidence that any of the weapons used in mass shootings of the last two decades were purchased at gun shows, this administration uses mass shootings as their reason for going after the "gun show loophole". The federal government has no constitutional authority to require background checks prior to a gun purchase, limit the sort of gun purchased, or keep a data base of gun owners or permit holders. All these governmental actions are constitutionally reserved to "the States and to the people" (10th Amendment). And for those politicians and judges who have trouble with English, the 2nd Amendment prohibits any "infringement" upon the peoples' right to own guns of ANY sort. Where is there any room for debate?

It seems to me the "establishment" clause also says something about "the free exercise thereof". If personal "discomfort" is going to be determinative here, then what about the Christian "discomfort" with secularism? This "personal discomfort" knife cuts both ways.

That's not the assumption with homosexuals couples having sex in a long term monogamous relationship. So if you want to argue for gay marriage in those instances where gay couples are already in long term monogamous relationships, AND have adopted children, then I'll accept that as "fair", but until that becomes your argument I'm going to continue to claim you're comparing apples to oranges and missing the fundamental issue here, just like Ms. Cushman has.

Canetoad, this is a debate about whether or not to expand the present societal institution to include gay couples, right? Therefore, if, as I've argued above, this institution exists at all, on the secular level, because of the societal benefit to raising responsible citizens for the next generation of society, then that is the issue for the heterosexual community as well as for the heterosexual community. The assumption is that when heterosexual couples have sex often enough and long enough, children will generally be the result, and the state assumes the couple having children will be responsible for raising them...thus the compensation in the tax code, along with a few other "perks"...

miss what is fundamental to the discussion. As individuals homosexual couples may very well benefit society in many different ways, and as individuals homosexual couples are privey to all of the compensations society reserves for individuals who are beneficial to it. There is no bar on homosexuals entering the marketplace and being successful. All the tax deductions open to any heterosexual individual living in a monogamous relationship with another heterosexual individual outside of marriage are open to any homosexual living in a monogamous relationship with another homosexual. No heterosexual living in a long term monogamous relationship may, under current law, pass their estate on to their partner tax free, or...

I couldn't disagree with Ms. Cushman's analysis more. First of all, she doesn't seem to understand why heterosexual married couples get the meager benefits from federal and state governments that they do that homosexual couples don't. This is astounding to me, as the reason should be obvious: raising children to become the next generation of society is both physically and mentally arduous and financially challenging compared to living single or living together outside of marriage, either as a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. To open up this theory of a societal compensation for a benefit society receives to those who, as a group, are physically incapable of producing children, and largely disinterested in raising them is to...

'Cause everyone with half a brain knows it's godless and immoral to refuse to have your body irradiated with X-rays at the demand of the federal government.