From the Archives: Crimes Against Nature Law Allows Virginia Police To Target Gays (2001)

This article, based upon survey research I did with Rasmussen Research for Virginians for Justice (later Equality Virginia), was originally published in the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia, on February 9, 2001.  It preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the United States, including Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute (Section 18.2-361 of the Virginia Code).

Crimes Against Nature Law Allows Virginia Police To Target Gays

Richard E. Sincere, Jr.

CHARLOTTESVILLE - When Republicans discuss the proper role of government, most agree that it should be low-cost, limited in scope, and nonintrusive in the lives of citizens.

Rank-and-file Republican voters, for the most part, stand by the words of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

"I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Do Virginia’s Republicans live up to this Goldwaterite ideal? Not always, but the impulse remains. Evidence for this is found in a recent poll from an unlikely source on an unlikely topic.

On Jan. 16 and 18, Rasmussen Research, an independent polling organization, conducted a statewide survey to determine knowledge and attitudes about Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature statute. This statute forbids certain intimate sexual activity, even in private and even for married couples. To be blunt, the law prohibits oral sex for any Virginian, whether they are gay or straight, married or single.

The law is enforced selectively. It is used to target gay men in public places who discuss having sex. It is used as a fallback when prosecutors cannot prove that a sexual assault has taken place, so the alleged perpetrator is accused and convicted of consensual sodomy instead.

And it is used as a pretext to deny child custody to gay or lesbian parents - for example, in the case of Richmonder Sharon Bottoms, which achieved nationwide infamy when the government forcibly took her son, Tyler, from her because she is a lesbian.

The Rasmussen Research poll found that, across the board, Virginians want the CAN law repealed. Large majorities in almost every conceivable category say they want to see the law eliminated, that they want their legislators to vote for repeal, and that legislators who support repeal will not be adversely affected at the ballot box.

This is true for Democrats, Republicans, and independents; it is true for men and women; it is true for whites and African-Americans.

In this random survey, Republicans showed clear consistency in their view that government should stay out of the private lives of citizens.

Virginia State Capitol in Richmond

Asked "Should it be against the law for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sex in the state of Virginia?" 67.4 percent of Republicans answered "no," compared to 71.1 percent overall.

Asked "Should it be against the law for a married couple to have oral sex in the privacy of their own home?" 78.9 percent of Republicans answered "no" (81.7 percent overall).

Asked "Currently, according to Virginia law, it is illegal for consenting adults to have oral sex in the state of Virginia; a proposal has been made to eliminate the Virginia law; should the Virginia law be eliminated?" 61.4 percent of Republicans answered "yes" (65.2 percent overall).

Now, some members of the General Assembly say privately that they would support the repeal of the CAN law, but that they would have hell to pay on Election Day if they did. This is simply not true.

Survey participants were asked:

"Suppose your representative in the House of Delegates or the State Senate voted to eliminate the Virginia law. Would that make you more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for them, or would it have no impact on your vote?" Overall, 82.9 percent of Virginians said that they would either be more likely to vote for that representative, or it would have no impact on their vote; 83.5 percent of Republicans answered the same way, as did 77.5 percent of Democrats.

In other words, state legislators who vote to repeal the Crimes Against Nature law will have little or nothing to worry about in their re-election bids. The fear they cite is a red herring.

Republicans are part of a broad "leave us alone" coalition that wants the government to stop breathing down our necks. As speaker of the House of Delegates Vance Wilkins told The Washington Post, "It’s simply a matter of individual liberty versus not having the government be a nanny." We don’t trust the government to run our businesses, and we certainly don’t trust it to run our sex lives.

The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on in Virginia.

RICHARD SINCERE serves on the national committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Does political affiliation affect our views of product and service brands?

How does political affiliation affect our perceptions of various brand-name products and services? Does ideology change the way we view brands? Or does it make no difference at all?

This is one of the questions explored by the market research firm YouGov in its annual Brand Index for 2013, which surveys consumers about their attitudes toward a wide range of brand names from Aflac and Amazon.com to V8 and Victoria's Secret.

Explaining the overall rankings, Lucia Moses wrote in Adweek:

Buoyed by strong sales of its e-readers and expansion of its free-shipping service, Amazon topped the list of best-perceived brands of 2013, as measured by YouGov's BrandIndex. Rounding out the top 5 were Ford, Subway, History Channel and Lowe's. Last year also was a good one for financial institutions, which began to earn consumers' forgiveness for their role in the economic meltdown: Four of the five best-improved brands in 2013 were banks.

In addition to its overall rankings, YouGov provides a breakdown of results by industry (e.g., airlines, hotels, and insurance) and by several demographic groups (LGBT, parents, Millennials, minorities).

YouGov explains its methodology like this:

These brands were rated using YouGov BrandIndex’s Buzz score which asks respondents, "If you've heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?"

The Buzz Rankings chart shows the brands with the highest average Buzz scores between January and December 2013. Scores are representative of this segment.

All Buzz scores listed have been rounded to a single decimal place, however, we have used additional precision to assign ranks.

In answering that primary question, for instance, the top brand for LGBT survey respondents was YouTube -- perhaps unduly weighted by followers of Tyler Oakley and  Davey Wavey.  For both African-Americans and Hispanic respondents, the top brand was Walgreen's. Parents' top brand was the same as the country as a whole, Amazon.com, while for Millennials the top choice was Google.

YouGov's Brand Index divides Americans up into three political affiliation categories: Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

Intriguingly, the three groups only have one brand in common among their top five rankings: Subway, which was the 2012 overall winner in consumer perceptions.

Here are the top five for each of the three political categories:

Source:  BrandIndex.com

It's noteworthy that the Republicans' scoring of Fox News at 42.1 blows away any competitors in any categories. (Top-ranked Amazon.com had an overall score of 30.6.)  At the same time, Fox News doesn't even show up in the top five of the "networks" category, where the History Channel tops out the category at 26.4. (Neither CNN nor MSNBC shows up in the national top five, for what it's worth.)  Republicans and independents also like the History Channel, at 31.9 and 27.8, respectively, although that network is not included in the Democrats' top five.

Republicans also like Chick-Fil-A, giving it a score of 31.8 and a rank of 5.  The same quick service restaurant (QSR) is ranked fifth overall in that category, but with a nationwide score of only 11.9,

Democrats and independents both like Amazon.com, ranking it first, but the online retailer does not turn up in the Republicans' top five.

Similarly, Republicans and independents like Ford, both ranking it second, but the car manufacturer fails to show up in the Democrats' top five.

There is no separate breakdown for Libertarians' top brands.  Perhaps the sample size was too small.  It would be interesting to learn whether libertarian views of providers of products and services differs from those of conservatives and liberals.

Survey Says? Bloggers Shape Opinion

The second of two (so far) annual surveys by the Society for New Communications Research has found that professional journalists have a stronger, more positive opinion about social media that both leads those journalists to use social media as a tool to disseminate information and also to rely on social media -- including Facebook and Twitter, for example, but also blogs -- as sources of information.

The survey was conducted by Jen McClure, the founder and president of the Society for New Communications Research (also CMO and director of community development for Redwood Collaborative Media), and Don Middleberg, CEO of Middleberg Communications. The survey included 341 journalists from around the world, with 54 percent from the United States. Among the survey's findings:

* Nearly 70 percent of journalists are using social networking sites, a 28% increase since the [previous] 2008 study

* 48 percent are using Twitter or other microblogging sites and tools, a 25% increase since 2008

* 66 percent are using blogs

* 48 percent are using online video

* 25 percent are using podcasts

* More than 90 percent of journalists agree that new media and communications tools and technologies are enhancing journalism to some extent

The most intriguing finding (to me, at least) was this:

Nearly 80 percent of respondents agreed that new media and communications technologies allow them to report with greater accuracy, and 80 percent of journalists believe that bloggers have become important opinion shapers in the 21st century and many are increasingly incorporating citizen-generated media into their reporting.

Paolina Milana, executive vice president for Marketing/Editorial Operations/Media Relations at Marketwire, a corporate sponsor of the study, said:

Social media is immediate, it is accessible, and it has irrevocably changed the relationship between makers, reporters and consumers of news. The more that all journalistic participants understand each other's needs, how they use various media channels at their disposal, and how they want to work with PR professionals, the better the entire communication process will be.

H/T Joe Ciarallo



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

A Sense of Priorities?

From a news release distributed by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, noting that the post-election protests in Iran had dominated the news early last week before the Mark Sanford story and the death of Michael Jackson began to fill the headlines and airwaves:

From the time it was announced Jackson had died through the end of the day Friday—a little more than 28 hours—60% of the news coverage studied across 55 different news outlets was devoted to Jackson’s death. And that does not include the broadcast network prime time specials devoted to the singer’s demise—two of them for two hours Thursday night and one for a single—the extra hours of morning news and more.

All media sectors covered Jackson heavily, but it was cable news channels that led the way. Fully 93% of cable coverage studied on the Thursday and Friday following his death was about the King of Pop. On the front pages of Friday morning newspapers, 37% of their coverage was Jackson-related compared to 55% of the leading online coverage.

If anyone needed proof of how much the media culture has changed it might be this. When Elvis Presley died in 1977, CBS News was criticized for choosing not to lead its newscast with it.

By comparison, the story about legislation that will most seriously affect the daily lives of American citizens was virtually ignored:

Breaking late in the week, Friday, the House passage of historic legislation to impose limits on global warming received relatively marginal coverage, roughly 2%.

I'm not sure if this misplaced sense of priorities reflects more badly on the news media or on news consumers, the American people.

H/T: TVNewser.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

You Say Potato, I Say Tomato

Hot off the press: Men and women have different opinions of what they find attractive in a potential (opposite-sex) mate.

Dustin Wood of Wake Forest University and Claudia Chloe Brumbaugh of Queens College wrote a paper for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology based on interviews with 4,000 subjects who used a 10-point scale to rate the attractiveness of men and women in photographs they were shown.

United Press International distills their findings:

Most men agree on which women are hot, but some women can find a man attractive while others don't, U.S. researchers found....

Men's judgments of women's attractiveness were based primarily on physical features and they rated highly those who looked thin and seductive. Most of the men in the study also rated photographs of women who looked confident as more attractive.

The study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that as a group, the women rating men showed some preference for thin, muscular subjects, but disagreed on how attractive many men in the study were. Some women gave high attractiveness ratings to the men, while other women said they were not attractive at all.

If UPI isn't clear enough, here's the abstract from volume 96, issue 6 of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (June 2009):

In this article the authors illustrate how revealed preferences (i.e., preferences inferred through an individual’s differential attraction to multiple targets) can be used to investigate the nature of mate preferences. The authors describe how revealed preferences can be estimated and how the reliability of these estimates can be established. Revealed preference estimates were used to explore the level of consensus in judgments of who is and is not attractive and whether revealed preferences are systematically related to self-reported mate preferences and personality traits. Revealed preference estimates were created for over 4,000 participants by examining their attraction to 98 photographs. Participants of both genders showed substantial consensus in judgments of whom they found attractive and unattractive, although men showed higher consensus than women. Revealed preference estimates also showed relationships with corresponding self-rated preferences and with other dispositional characteristics such as personality traits and age. Although the findings demonstrate the existence of meaningful individual differences in preferences, they also indicate an important role for consensual preferences in mate selection processes.

That clarifying summation should make it easier to talk about it at the bar tonight, as you're comparing comely lads and lasses with your friends.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Call for Philip Morris!

I hope that, when I write about tobacco issues, people understand that I am a lifelong non-smoker. Perhaps, because I grew up in a smoking household (both of my parents were smokers), I have an unusual tolerance for those who use tobacco products in my presence. My libertarian instincts, however, play a major role in my belief that the government should not increase its regulations over tobacco sale and use and leave it to individuals to decide whether to partake and leave it to private businesses whether to allow tobacco smoking on their property.

It seems that my instincts are also held by a majority of Americans, who believe the government has overreached in turning over regulation of tobacco to the Food & Drug Administration and virtually prohibiting the advertising of tobacco products. (Is it any surprise that this new regime was supported by the largest tobacco producer, Philip Morris, since control of its market share will now be secure against encroachments by smaller players in the industry?)

According to UPI, a Gallup Poll shows that a majority of Americans say they disapprove of the new laws -- signed today by President Barack Obama in a Rose Garden ceremony -- that expand regulations over tobacco:

By 52 percent to 46 percent, more respondents said they don't like the idea of government having greater authority over tobacco products, a Gallup Poll released Monday indicated. Congress last week passed such a measure last week. [sic]

The poll indicated 69 percent of smokers said they disapproved, while 28 percent said they favored the broader government oversight. Views among non-smokers were closer, with 50 percent indicating approval and 48 percent indicating disapproval, the poll said.

CQ Politics summarized the results of the poll, which was conducted last week, like this:

The strongest opposition - 60 percent to 36 percent - comes from those with a high school education or less. College graduates favor the legislation by 56 percent to 43 percent.

Republicans oppose the move by 62 percent to 37 percent and independents by 51 percent to 46 percent, while Democrats favor it 54 percent to 45 percent.

Only 17 percent of those surveyed would support a smoking ban.

One has to wonder whether those 17 percent also favor the death and destruction that inevitably would follow tobacco Prohibition. Organized crime is already involved in tobacco smuggling for the purpose of avoiding taxes. A ban would provide new opportunities for drug cartels and enrich mobsters and corrupt police officers around the world.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Around the Blogosphere

Coinciding with his hosting of representatives of the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, and Republican Party on his daily radio chat show on WINA-AM, Rob Schilling has posted a poll on The Schilling Show Blog asking:

With which political party philosophy do you most closely align?

Located on the right sidebar, the poll offers four choices -- the three parties mentioned above, plus the Democratic Party.

Over on Virginia Virtucon, Riley has uncovered a proposed piece of legislation sponsored by Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York (along with ten cosponsors) in the House and by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (and zero cosponsors) in the other chamber. The bill would incorporate "breastfeeding" into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a federally-protected civil right. It also includes quality control of breast pumps as a civil rights matter.

As Jack Paar might say, "I kid you not!" You can look up the bills on Thomas for proof: H.R. 2819 and S. 1244.

Norm Leahy asks at Tertium Quids whether charter schools could be the "big idea" that propels Bob McDonnell into the Governor's Mansion. Virginia has one of the weakest, most burdensome, and least expansive charter schools law in the country, so improving that situation would be a big boost for parents who want to choose better schools for their children, reducing bureaucratic red tape, and improving competition (and thus quality of output) in the government school system. Norm writes:

Could charters be the Big Idea? Possibly. If so, then we may be in for a campaign that actually engages in a wide-ranging debate on education reform -- a debate that Virginia has avoided for far too long.

At the Daily Beast, former President George W. Bush has a tribute to his father, former President George H.W. Bush, on the occasion of the latter's 85th birthday. (The tribute does not require any skydiving.) Bush 43 says about Bush 41:

I've lived with being "George Bush's son" all my life. Growing up, I probably didn't want to be like him. Today it's ironic that much of my career parallels his. He went to Yale. I went to Yale. He was a Navy pilot. I flew F-102s in the Texas Air National Guard. Now that I'm in political life, I like to say I've inherited half of his friends and all of his enemies. Of course, there will be some who will prejudge me, but that's OK: I don't expect to get all of the votes anyway. Being George Bush's son is a tremendous plus....

My dad and I continue to have an honest relationship, very straightforward. I considered him a mentor, not only as a young lad but also as an adult. And he's still a mentor today. I occasionally talk to him about policy matters. He has great judgment. I'm George Bush's son—and I think the world of him.

Warning: Many of the posted comments underneath the article are snarky and rude.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

DADT: Let's Look at the Polling Data

The current issue of C-VILLE Weekly carries a letter from Frederick W. Kahler of Earlysville, who identifies himself as a World War II veteran and Navy pilot.

Mr. Kahler writes:

Cathy Harding: In response to your “Read this First” in the March 17-23 issue, I pose the following, regarding your endorsement of Congressman “MORON’”s campaign to repeal DADT: What branch of the military did “MORON” serve in? What branch of the military did you serve in? Did you ever poll the military to ascertain their feelings about serving side by side with “gays”?

You talk about straining the military as if the repeal of DADT would greatly improve the morale of the “straights” serving.

I’ve got news for you: NO WAY!

Ignoring his undignified references to Representative Jim Moran (D-VA8), who does plenty to undignify himself, let's go directly to the question he poses to C-VILLE's editor about polling the military to find out their attitudes about serving with openly gay comrades.

As a matter of fact, there have already been polls done to find precisely the information that Mr. Kahler desires.

In December 2006, the respected polling organization, Zogby International, surveyed troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. One of its findings was that 73% of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gay men. It further found:

Of those in combat units, 21% said they know for certain that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, slightly less than for those in combat support units (25%) and combat service support units (22%). One in five troops (20%) in other units said they know for certain someone is gay or lesbian in their unit. Overall, nearly half (45%) say there are people in their unit they suspect are gay or lesbian, but they don't know for sure. Slightly more than half (52%) say they have received training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment in the past three years. But 40% say they have not received this type of training, which is mandated by Defense Department policy.

Moreover, Zogby said:

Some troops believe the integration of openly gay and lesbian service members in the military could undermine cohesion, but those who know at least one gay peer are less likely to believe it would negatively impact morale. Of those who know a gay or lesbian peer, 27% said it has a negative impact on the morale of their unit. By contrast, among those who do not know of a gay or lesbian person in their unit, or are unsure of their presence, 58% said it would have a negative impact on their unit.

Prominent supporters of "don't ask, don't tell" have expressed concerns about privacy in the shower, Dr. Belkin said, but nearly three out of four troops said in the Zogby poll that they usually or almost always take showers privately [and] only 8% say they usually or almost always take showers in group stalls.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania reported these findings in its 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey:

* 50% of junior enlisted personnel say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 16% in 1992
* 29% of military personnel believe open service is an issue of equal rights.
* Service members surveyed “believe sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance,” Annenberg reported.
* Only 16% of believed lesbian and gay service members were “bad for morale,” while just 12% thought allowing gays to serve openly would be “bad for teamwork.”

If these surveys of active service members are insufficient to satisfy Mr. Kahler's curiosity, perhaps the views of retired military and naval officers would pique his interest.

According to an article at PageOneQ headlined "Admirals, generals call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal,"

A coalition of retired military generals and admirals has released a joint call to repeal 10 USC 654, better known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in order to allow gay and lesbian members of the military to serve openly, without fear of losing one's military career. Over 12,000 people have been discharged under the policy since its inception in 1993.

Among the 104 signatories is retired Admiral Charles Larson, former Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and a supporter of "Don't Ask" when it was signed by President Clinton. At the time, he thought that "Don't Ask" was a good step towards lifting a temporary blanket ban on gays in the military. Larson later saw how "Don't Ask" was being used for "witch hunts," depriving the military of talented individuals, and after working with gay people and speaking at length with his lesbian daughter, he now supports an end to the ban altogether.

"I think the time has come to find a way to let talented, young, patriotic Americans who want to serve their country serve," Larson said, "and let's enforce high standards of personal and human behavior for everyone."

(For the skeptical reader, that article includes a list of the names of all the signatories to the statement calling for DADT repeal. The story was also reported by the Associated Press.)

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) argues that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is unkind to taxpayers while it is unfair to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines:

* The Pentagon has spent over $200 million taxpayer dollars to replace service men and women discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since 1993, according to a 2005 GAO report.
* A 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission Report found that the total cost of implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2003 was at least $363.8 million.

Given that information, it is no wonder that the general public, in multiple surveys spread over several years, has become increasingly opposed to excluding patriotic gay Americans from serving in the armed forces.

For example, a Fox News poll in August 2003 discovered that "64% of those polled support allowing gays to serve openly." In another example, a July 2008 poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found:

• 75% of Americans think homosexuals who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military
• 22% of Americans think homosexuals who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should not be allowed to serve in the military
• 3% had no opinion

Some people might be surprised by these findings. That's why it's useful to do research and to check the data against preconceptions.

Read my blog on Kindle!

2012 GOP Presidential Poll

As the nation enters the Obama-Pelosi-Reid years, a small group of political activists has its eyes on the next presidential election cycle. Since the campaign for 2012 begins today, I am interested in your views on will win the Republican presidential nomination four years from now.

This little poll is obviously not scientific (those types of polls won't be published for at least several days), but it will give a snapshot of the views of readers of this blog (and others who may find it on other web sites) about what to expect in 2012.

Comments welcome, of course.






Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

'I Am Not a Vegetarian,' Says Candidate

In most parts of the country, politicians have sex scandals. Look at Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney, whose trouser-snake escapades have torpedoed his chances of re-election. Tap your toe toward Senator Larry Craig and see how he responds. Offer to be Congressman Vito Fossella's designated driver.

In Montana, however, sex habits are not as salient as eating habits. Whoever would have anticipated a candidate releasing an official statement affirming that he's a carnivore? Yet here it is, as reported in the Billings Gazette:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Roy Brown this week accused Democrats of spreading a false rumor that he is a vegetarian in this meat-loving state.

"I am not and have never been a vegetarian," Brown said.

"I am disgusted by the baseless allegation that I am a vegetarian and that my personal eating habits should somehow be construed as opposed to the economic interests of Montana's livestock industry."

Brown did say that he and his family temporarily cut back on their consumption of meat and dairy products 25 years ago when they were caring for a dying loved one who couldn't eat those products.

The Gazette's Charles Johnson traced the unfounded rumors of Brown's preference for vegetables to an email from one of the candidate's neighbors.

Brown was responding to an undated e-mail sent by his Billings neighbor, Pat Etchart, to Dennis McDonald, chairman of the Montana Democratic Party and a Melville cattle rancher.

McDonald, in turn, forwarded Etchart's e-mail to some cattle ranchers Friday and asked: "What do you make of this?"

The letter also has been send to agricultural publications and blogs.

In the e-mail, Etchart said that when the Browns moved next door in Billings, Roy Brown invited her husband and her to their house to get acquainted.

"In the course of conversation, he told us that he and his wife are vegetarians," Etchart wrote. "At the time, I thought nothing of it, but as Roy now makes the rounds and campaigns for governor, I have a concern. Would it not be a problem, in a state where cattle ranching is such a vital industry, to have a governor who does not eat meat?

"What caused me to think about this is that I told my brother-in-law, a rancher who usually votes Republican, about it. And he said that he could never vote for a vegetarian, because it's against his economic interest."

Reached in Billings, Etchart, a Democrat, confirmed that she sent McDonald the e-mail.

Brown's dining habits may not make a difference in the long run. The latest poll shows incumbent Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer has a 33-point lead over his Republican opponent. According to the Flathead Beacon:

Schweitzer was picked by 60 percent of likely Montana voters to Brown's 27 percent, in a survey released Friday by Montana State University-Billings. Libertarian Stan Jones captured 4 percent, and 8 percent were undecided.

The poll does not break down demographically to indicate who Montana vegans favor.

This Just In: Water Is Wet

People magazine will reveal on its web site tomorrow that American Idol's most famous runner-up, Clay Aiken, is gay.

The shock and surprise with which this news is being met is... well, it isn't.

Reuters reports:

After years of dodging questions, former "American Idol" singer Clay Aiken will acknowledge he is a gay man in an interview with People magazine set to run on its Web site Wednesday, according to media reports.

Celebrity site Perezhilton.com on Tuesday published a photo of the cover of People magazine's upcoming issue on which Aiken cradles his new son, Parker Foster Aiken, in his arms.

The caption reads "Yes, I'm Gay," and underneath is a quote from Aiken on his decision to come out of the closet that says: "I cannot raise a child to lie or to hide things."

An unscientific poll on Popeater.com (which seems to be affiliated with AOL) finds that 96 percent of nearly 186,000 people surveyed are not surprised by the news Clay Aiken is gay; 4 percent (probably people who live in an abandoned coal mine in Alberta) expressed surprise.

A parallel poll indicates that 91 percent of over 151,000 persons surveyed are more surprised that Lindsay Lohan has admitted to being a lesbian, with 9 percent being more surprised about Aiken. (Most of those 9 percent have been searching the web for salacious home video of Lohan and her girlfriend, Samantha Ronson.)

Isn't news supposed to be, well, new?

Fold the Tents Now

A definitive survey has predicted who will be the winner of the U.S. presidential election this year, so we might as well pack it up and go home. Why bother with the campaign, the conventions, and the commercials if the decision has already been made?

Here are the details of the impeccably scientific survey:

Minor league teams in six cities handed out bobbleheads of the two Presidential candidates during special promotions last week, with each fan choosing either a Barack Obama or John McCain model, each of which represented a Presidential vote. (In 2004, the same promotion predicted a narrow GW Bush victory). And when the dust had cleared on Monday, one candidate emerged with a clean sweep of all venues. So please nod your head comically and whistle Hail to the Chief for ...

Barack Obama.

If presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama wins the election in November, he will look back at the Goldklang Group’s “Bobblection 2008” as his springboard to the White House. Obama finished a clean sweep taking the Fort Myers vote on Monday night, to complete a six-city blanking of John McCain. Obama garnered 54.4% of the vote (500 bobbleheads), while McCain notched 45.6% of the vote (419 bobbleheads). The six cities represent the homes of Goldklang Group teams.

The junior United States Senator from Illinois started strong at Hammond Stadium and never looked back. The first 10 voters marked their ballot for Obama. McCain tried to rally late, but came up short for the sixth straight day. Four years ago, George Bush defeated John Kerry 53% to 47% in Fort Myers. The tally was nearly identical to the final national percentages.

"Barack the Bobblehead": Does that have the same resonance as, say, "The Great Communicator" or "The Rail Splitter"?

(Source: Deadspin.com)

Go, Pat, Go!

As you might expect, I am not one who usually encourages Pat Robertson in any of his projects or activities, but I found a reason to cheer him on.

According to John McCaslin's "Inside the Beltway" column in today's Washington Times:

That unusual TV ad aired of late featuring an unlikely pairing of outspoken preachers - conservative Pat Robertson and liberal Al Sharpton - has left a bad taste in the mouths of the left, who obviously don't like mixing with the right.

Results of a new national study of 305 Democrats, Republicans and independents reveal that Democrats are less supportive of immediate government action on global warming after viewing the ad featuring Mr. Robertson and Mr. Sharpton.

The study was conducted by HCD Research and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion to obtain Americans' views on the ad about climate change.

Unfortunately, a look at the complete results of the survey reveals that the shift among Democrats is not very significant.

Still, any shift is better than none at all. Go, Pat, go!

Brownlee vs. Cuccinelli

Various news sources are predicting that, tomorrow, former U.S. Attorney John Brownlee will announce his plans to run for Virginia Attorney General in 2009, setting up a contest with state Senator Ken Cuccinelli of Fairfax County.

Brownlee sent out a press release regarding a news conference at which he will reveal his intentions. The biggest clue that he will, in fact, be running is that the news release was printed on "Brownlee for Attorney General" letterhead.

Just for fun, here is a preference poll for this race:

Whom do you support for the Republican nomination for Virginia Attorney General? 1) John Brownlee 2) Ken Cuccinelli View Results Make your own poll

You might see versions of this poll on other blogs belonging to The Jeffersoniad, a collective of Virginia bloggers.

Don't Forget to Vote!

Tomorrow is primary day in Virginia, for both Democrats and Republicans. There are six candidates on the ballot for each party. Polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Avoid lines by going to your regular polling place in the mid-morning and mid-afternoon periods. (Busy times are 6:00 to 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.)

So don't forget to vote, no matter who you might support.

Also, don't forget to vote in my poll (see sidebar to your left): "Who should John McCain choose as his vice presidential running mate?" So far there have been 42 participants in the poll, which closes just before midnight on Thursday, February 14. Indicate your choice now and I'll report the final results on Friday morning.

Blogs Attract Gay Readers

A survey by Harris Interactive shows that gay and lesbian Internet users visit blogs more often than their straight counterparts by a ratio of about 3 to 1. The same demographic niche seems to be more inclined to use social networking sites like MySpace.

According to a report from The Advocate,

More than one in three LGBT Web users, 36 percent, report visiting their favorite personal blogs daily, compared with 19 percent of straight people, according to a national survey by Harris Interactive.

LGBT online users also visit networking Web sites like Myspace and Friendster more than their straight counterparts, according to the Harris survey.

Twenty-seven percent of LGBT adults in the country who are online said they visit the video-sharing site YouTube.com, compared with 22 percent of heterosexuals. Twenty percent were more likely to visit Craigslist.org, compared with 13 percent of heterosexuals.

The national survey of 2,451 adults over 18 in the United States, conducted Nov. 13-20, 2006, showed that gays spend more overall time online than straight people.

There certainly are a lot of popular blogs that have appeal for gay and lesbian readers. One thinks of Perez Hilton's celebrity gossip blog, Andrew Sullivan's pioneering blog on social and political issues (which, under its title "The Daily Dish," was early on excerpted weekly in The Washington Times), the sometimes controversial Gay Patriot, the alternative views found at the Independent Gay Forum, the arts criticism of Tim Hulsey, and even, for amusement, Black Velvet Bruce Li. There are many more, of course, and I don't wish to discourage visits to other blogs of interest. (Law professor Dale Carpenter listed a number of gay conservative and libertarian blogs in his syndicated column about a year ago.)

In commenting on the Harris Interactive findings, Bob Witeck -- whose consulting firm does research on consumer trends in the gay and lesbian market -- noted:

"Gays and lesbians have shown their need to build and maintain an early and major presence on the Web that translates directly into significant market opportunities. Social networks also appear to be second nature for the gay and lesbian consumer."

It may be worth speculating whether, because of the "outsider" status of most gay men and lesbians -- a part of, but always apart from, the larger society -- they are "early adopters" of new communications technology. I know that I was using AOL as early as 1993 and quickly adapted to the rapidly growing opportunities of the web, at least as a research tool and as a way of keeping in touch with friends and colleagues through email. The Internet has also been a vital element in the capacity of gay youth to overcome the sense of isolation that earlier generations felt. It has been, in many instances, a genuine lifeline for gay and lesbian adolescents, especially those who live far from urban centers and the vibrant gay communities found there.

As with other fashions and fads -- not to say either the Internet or blogging are fads -- and social trends that are initiated in gay enclaves, it will not be long before straight people catch up. By that time, the LGBT folks will be on to something new.