I think we can be appropriately denunciatory of Rosen's outrageous statements without indulging in homophobia. Her official bio points out that she and her partner did raise two children. Which makes her a partisan hypocrite for her comments on Ann Romney, and not a clueless bigot.If we want to get ad feminem - and Rosen being a throughly unsympathetic character I see no reason not to - we could point to her time as CEO of the RIAA, which perpetrated some really obnoxious abuses of public policy like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

 Robert Townsend's Up the Organization (New York: Knopf, 1970):

"I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization".

 This one hits my sweet spot - long term US resident and non-citizen (Australian if you're wondering).

In partial defense of Peter I think he was responding (as initially I did) to the NYT's deliberately ambiguous phrasing "voices - and contributions" - long standing liberal code words for preferential treatment for approved identity groups in the political process.  The IJ op-ed makes a separate point - that prohibiting self-expenditure on the US political process arguably unconstitutionally limits free speech privileges of lawful noncitizens. I would agree. If, for example, I had a political blog that I paid an ISP to host, that expense would be illegal.  I don't think anyone here would think that is right.

As a non-citizen resident in a free society I have to say I have no compunction about expressing political views to anyone who'll listen and therefore "contributing" a "voice" to political debate.  But I respect the fact that the law prohibits me from donating money to candidates, and that any professionally organized campaign would stop me even from volunteering for them. 

 This does cut both ways.  My wife is gluten intolerant - medically validated - and I can tell you that the advent of a mass market for gluten free foods has meant innovative companies have invested a lot of money to create a wider variety of foods that taste good to replace the things she had to cut out of her diet.  Her quality of life is better as a result. Five years ago gluten free pasta was utterly inedible.  Now it's a reasonable substitute, taste-wise, for dried pasta.  Ditto for breads, which are only getting better because there's an increasingly large and discerning customer base. 

We can't ignore the "positive externality" of a mass market that helps cater to people with specific nutritional needs - even if most of that market are consuming a lifestyle.  I would think of gluten free food for 99% of its buyers as a "vanity" purchase like designer clothes - they may not ACTUALLY make you more attractive, but if they make you FEEL better, who's harmed?

 If I were to hazard a guess I would say the surge is working.