Perhaps we should create a Commissar of Culture to help direct the aesthetic tastes of the vulgar citizenry? Or maybe some roving bands of volunteers who can help teach people how to appreciate the  truly finer arts?

Arts and cultural products are products like anything else, whether they're low-, middle-, or high-brow. Conservatives should applaud businesses that create successful products, regardless of whether or not the individual likes it, because they create value and fulfill a need. The idea that there is any criteria other than market success for determining the value of a product leads, ultimately, to serfdom.

VDH for this thoughts on California. Anybody who knew Hayek closely.  And Romney, if he promises to be honest about what he really thought happened during the campaign.

Hi Mollie: I was making a joke, unsuccessfully I guess! My point was that organizations can let in people of both genders on equal footing without saying that the genders are without difference. In our scout troop we would love to have more coed scouting because the Girl Scout organizations really aren't as much fun and interesting as BSA, and we wish our daughters had access to the great BSA stuff.

When I was growing up and went to a nice episcopalean church, they let in men and women on an equal basis. Did that mean my church thought there were no differences between genders? I guess I missed that.

Guys:

I can imagine that our compatriots over at dailykos are loving this debate. We are falling into a liberal trap and arguing about definitions when we should be arguing about JOBS and DEFICITs. Maybe this is one of those issues that we 'agree to disagree on' but surely there is room for SSM opposition to focus their fire on gov't structures that undermine marriage (welfare, etc.) and SSM supporters to do same. Is it just me or does it feel like we're being played?

I'm begining to sense a trend here in this argument. The anti-SSM folk generally believe that a whole raft of bad things will occcur if SSM becomes real: breakdown of the family, breakdown of religious liberty, breakdown of childrearing, breakdown of core principles of western society, etc. I think we also need to include the breakdown of the Antarctic ice shelf. :-)

Thank you Dennis for joining in and your thoughtful response. This is great reading. But I must ask one question of Dennis:

It sounds like you like libertarians when they criticize Big Government stuff you don't like, but don't like them when they criticize Big Government stuff you do like.

Please clarify and thanks!

Merina: You sound like you're arguing against giving women the vote.

Thanks, Richard for the post. I was made very uncomfortable listening to  Prager's anti-gay marriage rant as well, and kind of wondered what tent I had wandered into. When listening to the (yes) hardline supporters of traditional marriage get increasingly harsh, I can't decide which unnerves me the most: 1.) The extreme leaps of logic implicit in their argument (that by *expanding* the definition of marriage we are destroying it--huh? Wouldn't that be strengthening the idea by making it more popular?) or 2.) The foolhardiness of making a big deal out of an issue that effects only a tiny, tiny minority but has widespread support in the culture. Guys:  choose your battles, choose your hills, and quit aiming rifle at foot.

And thank you James L, who nicely tried to get Dennis to even consider the idea that expanding the concept of marriage, etc. to gay couples might be a smart move if you believe in the value of committed relationships, etc. Too bad Dennis didn't take him up on the concept.

Nice post Arthur and I agree. And from a strictly personal standpoint I am getting supremely *bored and embarassed* with this topic. Bored because this should be a non issue: the government shouldn't be involved in defining marriage in the first place, only legal abstractions like civil unions etc. for tax purposes (and the simpler and fairer the better on that). Second, much as I love my conservative colleagues, I am so embarassed by the weird leaps of logic they employ on this issue. The logic goes something like this: 1.) Marriage is the cornerstone of civilization (wait, is that really true? What about property or free markets or laws or division of labor? And what about its 40% failure rate?). 2.) Therefore anything which changes the status quo on marriage is an attack on civilization (and this from a group that doesn't oppose *divorce* for goodness' sakes which is a  much huger structural attack on marriage than anything else).

Let's move on.

Life without Rob

I haven't had a chance to listen to this week's podcast yet but finally got around to *last* week's (Pat Cadell) podcast and wanted to chime in with this idea:

* I got to hear more about Peter R's socon attitudes and James L's quasi-libertarian ideas (the censorship discussion) than previously. And while I align more with libertarians on these ideas I did sense that Peter R was more unleashed and forthcoming than usual and  I appreciated his candor; ditto with James.  It was refreshing hearing those two chat it up without the Big Dog in the room (no offense Rob). Great stuff as always!

All these responses and recos make want to go shoot this beautiful spring day in the window seat at The Bears on West San Carlos. But alas, parenthood beckons. In the meantime, here's Touchtunes' (which i think is the big internet jukesbox co.) most played songs for 2012. Sadly, I know only few of them. 

http://touchtunes.com/2012charts/

Not the Hut, I was at the one next to Blinky's Can't Say (love that name!) in Franklin Square. I think it's called Bronco's Lounge or something like that. Not much signage :-)

The sequester gambit has boomeranged on the Dems and Obama. Originally, they relied on the Repubs fighting sequestation because the Repubs were so attached to defense spending. But here's the rub: the sequester makes cuts to the defense that Obama wants to make *anyway.* So the sequester takes away the chess move they were planning on making to cut spending. And they have to endure cuts to domestic programs as well.  They can't fight defense cuts today and then make them tomorrow. They are hosed. Bring on sequester. At least we'll get domestic cuts we wouldn't get otherwise, and the defense cuts were already built into the model.

Hey yeti: I'm having trouble downloading glop and the most recent flagship podcast off itunes. it starts then stops. Is it me?