Do you have any evidence that Kinsey was a quack? Apart from Reisman that is…

I tend to see him as an explorer. He was (in recent timeline) the first to bother asking, instead of speculating. He tabulated the data, instead of merely writing a moralistic ersion of the way the World should be. This, in 1948, was a major breakthrough (as was, his scale; as a way of conceptualizing sexuality). His interviewing techniques were radical for the day, but are now the standard approach.

Knowing — at least — that America is “to the East” is a big help to those that follow.

It is also fascinating that his estimate of 4% of the male population… has been (largely) confirmed time and time again.

Good guess? Or was he on to something?

I refuse to answer allegations of international drug smuggling, on the grounds that I am too frickin fabulous.

That’s why I mentioned the First was — apparently — needed to clarify how those noble sentiments may be achieved.

Amendments always refer back to something. Kind of like, well, durh 🙂

And ah-ha! I see you too have been to the Judith Reisman School of Writing, but not yet graduated.

In the final few classes it will be revealed that the simple putting of “?” on the end of an outrageous lie makes it… a question, not slander.

“The question needs to be answered. Is Boo, in fact, really an international drug-runner? So far she has never given a straight answer to that question, and as a concerned parent I have a right to know.”

BTW — and not unrelated — has anyone ever read the Constitution of the former Soviet Union? As a promise note, it was magnificent. Chock full of all sorts of wonderful verbage about freedom, liberty and rights.

Discuss: “But not worth the paper it was written on because?” (50 words or less)

The First, apparently, was needed to help spell that out in the U.S.”

You’re thinking of the Preamble to the Constitution, not the First Amednment. I think.

Point being, nobody in the US has to worry about anyone taking away our sacred right to anti-gay speech.

BTW, did you know that Dr. Throckmorton once shot a man just to watch him die? It’s true. And by “it’s true” I mean “it’s false.” It’s a lie. A horrible, filthy, non-Constitutionally-protected lie.

Boo

The First, apparently, was needed to help spell that out in the U.S.

I’m not sure many Swedes would disagree with the opening statement. They plainly have a different idea of what is needed to insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty.

Slandering an individual is against the law (and not covered by the First, I might add). The Swedish Parliament also passed a law against slandering groups of people. Someone making similar comments about, say, Pentecostals would find themselves similarly situated.

For those amused by all things hypocritical… you may already know that Green was defended by dear old Fred Phelps. Then Phelps slandered the Swedish Royal Family in his typically crude manner. (do not click here or here if you get the vapors over rude words).

Green’s response?… outrage.

Speaking to The Local, Green has told of his distress that the website is using his name in this way:

Green said that he has contacted newspapers in the United States to distance himself from the comments on the website. He added that he is surprised that authorities in the United States have not intervened. “This harms Christianity,” he said.

(emphasis mine)

Did you get that — Green wants the authorities to curtail the comments made by Phelps about the Swedish Royals… Yeah, a real icon for unlimited free speech.

Hence, there may be some wisdom in a law that bans all such slander. I fear it would not be equally and evenly enforced, but Sweden would probably make as good an effort as is possible.

And remind me again how free speech relates to the Federal obscenity laws?

(Sweden also leaves both the U.S. and Australia for dead on freedom of the press.)

Boo