The Bible Belt...defined

BG, I've known many businessmen who were absolutely convinced that what they were doing benefitted mankind, they were excited about it and that's the main reason they did it, the money was incidental to that objective. In fact I think most people who start and run their own businesses are like that, their purpose and passion is to provide the best product or service to their customers, not to make a lot of money. And, like most journalists, I don't think you understand what "profit" means. It's not a dirty word. In fact, without profit there wouldn't be any economic growth or any new jobs created. Just out of curiousity, where do you think most profit goes?

BG, I saw a study on it that I'll try to look up. In very simple terms the people who sought status tended to be more liberal, the people who sought wealth tended to be conservative. Plays into a lot of stereotypes, but think about what you said earlier; "Isn't it the case that an awful lot of people WOULD be doing what they had a real passion for, IF they actually had the time and money?" I've always thought that those who seek wealth are really seeking independence, but I can see an argument that they are seeking status, hence the blurring of my argument.

The value judgements, we've discussed.

OK, I think I'm understanding. So maybe we shouldn't place value judgment on Do-ers or Be-ers.

I frankly don't understand people who are "passionate" about typical standard profit-driven yawn "it's a living" office work. I DO understand plenty of non-conventional jobs that the performers are "passionate" about -- actors, movie directors, writers, artists of all kinds, people doing typical office work but for some cause they're devoted to; also people who work with animals, children (teaching?), the injured, the handicapped, etc. All that makes sense to me.

What doesn't, is someone (who isn't turned on by math, the beauty of it all, or the competition of the deal) who just LOVES the idea of MAKING A KILLING merely because he happened to organize (for example) flipping some real estate, or buying and selling wheat futures, or some other derivative financial instrument. It's just doing the business of business. Making a profit off of profit. And business, itself, by definition, is the problem, the annoyance, the thing to be avoided. So, I'm sure there are people out there who have that passion, but I just don't "get" what they're on about.

Further, I might add some value judgment. If that dude is a "Be" person in the sense that all he ever wanted was to "Be" the man who makes lots and lots of money and he's doing it at the expense of social wellbeing in general, then isn't he somehow rather materialistic, crass, and selfish? I would say so, yes. If he's doing it to give money to a cause he deems worthy, them maybe ... but how many are thinking, "Gosh, I can really underwrite the Humane Society if I just BILK MORE INVESTORS WITH THIS JUNK BOND"?

You forgot, "I think therefore I am. But I like Sinatra's version better anyway.

You're also missing a big point here - many people do the thing they're passionate about as their main work, not as their leisure activity. And in fact many people possess the ability to be passionate about their work whatever it is. Those are the real DO people. (And I've never been one of them in case you're interested.)

And I don't necessarily think there's any need for a value judgment about who is better as long as the person is honest about what he is. And that's where, I think, this discussion started - politicians who pretend to be DO people when they are actually BE people. For example, pretending to devote their life to some cause when what they're really devoting their life to is getting re-elected.

Kansas? Utah?

I'm in the Bible Belt in South Carolina but hopefully many people here are like me. Less government is better government. Less regulation is better unless it's hitting me in the pocket book as well. One case where I'll agree to that is the new seat belt law for South Carolina. All the people getting killed here or a lot of them are not wearing their seat belts and getting thrown from their vehicles and dying. It's a waste and only takes a few seconds to buckle up. Everybody else pays via higher insurance as a result.

Lol, if I was one of the original Bill of Rights people back in the 1800's, I would have tried to add a right to a high contact lapdance if both dancer and customer agree. No 6" rule, no 6 ft rule, no other stupid rules that seem to keep popping up all over this country. Maybe I would have even attempted to throw in a right to go topless as long as you aren't considered obese or in a private setting where more formal attire is required.

Is best strip club city based on the number of strip clubs?

That pretty much sums it up on the Bible Belt!

Now, there was a club in Huntsville, AL where I got a little bit of stroking, but I think it was out of the norm since I was one of only two customers. The Huntsville clubs aren't bad for the bargain, but "contact" is considered pretty low.

I wonder how the Bible Belt purists ever let the Memphis clubs get so out of hand???

Outside of a few cities, the Midwest is about as bad, but without nearly as many Jesus Saves signs.

chandler: Is the Midwest really so bad? Four of the Top 10 rated clubs are in the Midwest....FC, Silver Bullet Bar, Industrial Strip, and Scarlett's. I have only been to 2 of the 4 and they are pretty good. Perhaps a failure of the TUSCL rating system?

David: I'm comparing vast areas of the Midwest to the swath that Shadowcat complains about in the South. Michigan and Illinois are big states. Outside of Detroit, Flint and Lansing, there's practically nothing with good contact. Same goes for Illinois outside of East St. Louis, with a couple of possible exceptions. Wisconsin, nothing I've heard about. There are a lot of places, including cities of some size, where you'd have to drive hours to get to a decent club.

As for TUSCL's ratings, they aren't very useful for comparing clubs from different regions, and I don't think they should be expected to be. I don't consider it a failure of the rating system. More a matter of taking the Top 10 and Top 40 rankings a bit too seriously.

There are plenty of places that allow little contact that aren't in any Bible Belt. And there are plenty of places within so-called Bible Belts that do allow lots of contact. But we've discussed this before. Apparently blaming religion for restrictions on strip clubs makes some of you feel better, even when it isn't true.

FONDL: Why impugn other posters' motives? I don't think there can be much doubt that piousness, if not religion per se, plays a leading role in restricting strip clubs in the areas we're talking about. But we've mostly been talking about geography, not making a big deal out of the religion angle.

Chandler, have you ever noticed that you never see a post like this: "Here I am again stuck in the heart of liberalism and there isn't a decent strip club in town. Why can't these so-called liberals leave us alone to enjoy our hobby." If just once I read something like that then maybe I wouldn't feel obliged to object everytime someone blames religion for restrictions on strip clubs.

As I've pointed out many many times before, liberal areas like Boston or Washington, DC, are just as likely to be restrictive about strip clubs as are conservative areas. But somehow nobody here ever seems to complain about that. I call that a double standard. And I'm going to point it out every time it happens. It's my nature to do so.

FONDL, I've said it about Ann Arbor, and I've seen many others say it about Boston, so it beats me how you've missed it. I assume people who live in the Bible Belt complain about their region, not Boston, because Boston's not where they look for strip clubs.

I think South Carolina and Tennessee (until a little while ago) had some pretty smackin' dirty strip clubs, and they're considered "Southern" and therefore part of the Bible Belt by some people.

I had always heard that the Bible Belt was the central portion of the USA, stretching from Kansas through Arkansas to Tennessee and maybe as far as the Appalachians, with spread to the North and South of that zone depending on how liberal you were with your definition. I've heard that Iowa is in the BB, for example, or North Louisiana.

But this thread seems to be equating olde-tyme Dixie with the Bible Belt. I don't think that's accurate to the use of the term "Bible Belt" from ethnography, though it might be to popular current usage, I don't know. I have also heard of the Jello Belt (basically, heavily Mormon / LDS enclaves, like southern Utah), and lands Behind the Magnolia Curtain (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia). All are considered "repressive" socially. Texas, as well, often gets included in the Bible Belt, but if it's part of a geographical "belt" across the middle of our country, I can't imagine how, it's on the southern border!

Boston is considered repressive socially because of its Puritan heritage, despite its consistently left-wing politics. San Francisco would be the opposite: left-wing and socially liberal.

Urban centers tend to be more socially liberal, simply because the larger quantity of people per square mile, the more likely a given individual (and therefore, a group of them) will encounter someone strange and different from himself, and the more likely (a related phenomenon) the two will have to learn to tolerate one another in regular daily commerce. For this reason, though most of Ontario is quite socially "conservative," nevertheless Toronto is a haven for gays, lesbians, and flower-power style political movements.

Book Guy, forgive me if you're joking, but you seem to be taking the "belt" metaphor more literally than it's ever intended. It simply means a region, not necessarily a centrally located strip.

Also, left-wing politics often do result in socially repressive measures. I don't know enough about Boston to say to what degree it's that or a Puritan strain that's behind the strip club restrictions. I can say that in many college towns, it's mainly left-wing feminists and do-gooders who keep strip clubs out in order to "protect" young women from being "exploited".

I'm not so sure liberal vs. conservative politics have much to do with attitudes towards strip clubs. Let's assume, for now, that Democratic = Liberal and Republican = Conservative (that could be up for debate, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.) I'm a native Hoosier -- Indiana is traditionally a staunchly Republican state. In presidential election years, they typically are the first state to declare the Republican candidate the winner -- and a Democrat hasn't carried the state in a presidential election since LBJ in 1964. Yet, Indiana is home to at least three somewhat liberal clubs -- and some of the most popular clubs amoung TUSCL members. (Brad's Brass Flamingo, Hip Hugger, and Industrial Strip.)

I know this is somewhat off topic from the original question, but I guess my point is that even the good 'ole NASCAR boys from Kokomo, who would never vote for Hillary Clinton in a million years, have no problem with strip clubs.

Sometimes, efforts to restrict clubs can be pretty easily traced to either leftist or religious right groups. Sometimes, it's a more diverse collection of neighborhood groups, etc. What's harder to identify is the kind of political climate that allows good clubs to operate. It's usually more urban, but there's no apparent common thread in the area's political leanings.

"left-wing politics often do result in socially repressive measures. I don't know enough about Boston to say to what degree it's that or a Puritan strain that's behind the strip club restrictions. I can say that in many college towns, it's mainly left-wing feminists and do-gooders who keep strip clubs out in order to "protect" young women from being "exploited"."

Agreed. Very much, the upper-tier college towns are places where do-good-ers prevent strip clubs from getting a foot-hold. In many states, the lower-class school (traditionally an african-american institution which then got integrated; or, the tech school in a state that also has a "professional" college) has strip clubs and the other doesn't. Michigan, for example, has very little stripping in Ann Arbor but a lot in East Lansing, Kalamazoo, etc. It's no surprise the do-good-ers do a bad job of extending their helping hand to those who might ACTUALLY be in need, for example members of ethnic minorities, poor people who have to attend school on a piece-meal while-working basis, returning students, and other groups. Usually the politically correct are that way because their upper-middle-class leisure allows them to be. When you have to work for a living, lots of prissy rules about "phallogocentrism" and other PC theories go out the window pretty quick.

Oh, and "belt" ... I thought it WAS direct reference to middle-ness. Learn sumpin' new every day. So Texas is part of the Bible Belt after all? Hmm.

I've always heard the Bible Belt as some kind of referal to the southern states and the implied concept that there are a lot of people here who strictly follow the Bible. I have jokingly called the Bible Belt as the region where there is a church on every street corner. That actually seems true in many places. I guess using that reasoning, the college I went to would have to be called the Alcohol Belt. There was a bar on every corner near campus. I believe I heard around 26 bars dotted the area around campus. This was when it was legal to buy beer at 18 years of age and you could easily buy it younger if you tried.

The following comes from Wikipedia, and fairly closely matches my recollection of the definition froma Siciology or some other 'ology class I remeber from undergrad time thirty+ years ago.

"The term "Bible Belt" was coined by the American journalist and social commentator H.L. Mencken in the early 1920s.

In particular, in the United States it is an idiom[1] for the region where the Southern Baptist Convention denomination is strongest (though many other denominations, such as the Church of Christ and Assemblies of God can be found there as well), usually meaning the South and nearby areas.

Much of the Bible Belt consists of the American South. Ironically, this region was originally colonized not for purposes of establishing a religious haven (as was the case in the Puritan colonies of New England), but for economic reasons - specifically, for the growing of cash crops such as tobacco, cotton, rice, and indigo. During the colonial period (1607-1776), the South was a stronghold of the Anglican church. Its transition into a conservative Protestant Bible Belt occurred gradually over the next century, as a series of religious revival movements, many associated with the Baptist denomination, gained great popularity in the region.

Thus, the region is usually contrasted with mainstream Protestants and liberal Catholics of the northeast, the religiously diverse Midwest, the Mormon Corridor in Utah and southern Idaho, and the relatively secular western United States, where the percentage of non-religious people is the highest in the nation, reaching its maximum in the northwestern state of Washington at 27%, compared to the Bible belt state of Alabama, at only 6%.Although exact boundaries do not exist, it is generally considered to cover much of the area stretching from Texas in the southwest, northwest to Kansas, north to most of Missouri, northeast to Virginia, and southeast to northern Florida.

The following states are usually considered to be, wholly or partly, included in the "Bible Belt":

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
West Virginia"


My own thought is that much of the Bible Belt also tends to be "less government is good government" which may explain why you'll find some great clubs in the Belt and lousy ones outside the belt.

I liken the presence of raunchy clubs in the Bible Belt to the duality of the spiritual and sensual that coexist in Baptist and Pentacostal services, southern gothic cultural figures like Faulkner, and so many musicians, like Elvis and Little Richard. Protestantism in the North is about reserve; in the South, it's about excess.

kneelmm - sounds pretty much like all of the states south of the Mason Dixon Line.

FONDL - I tend to agree with you about not blaming church groups on on strip clubs. I'd say for most part, it's these "Citizen for Values" or "Citizens for Decency") groups that are dogging our lifestyles.

Citizens for forcing our values on you regardless of the fact that we live in a liberal democracy ...

So what about Kansas and Oklahoma. Some of the most conservative Bible-thumpers come from there. They aren't in the official "Bible Belt"? I'm disappointed. And New Orleans is supposedly officially Bible-Belt-buckled? Sin City itself?

Citizens for forcing our values on you regardless of the fact that we live in a liberal democracy ...

So what about Kansas and Oklahoma. Some of the most conservative Bible-thumpers come from there. They aren't in the official "Bible Belt"? I'm disappointed. And New Orleans is supposedly officially Bible-Belt-buckled? Sin City itself?

That was my definition and was ment to show an area that I consider devoid of any good strip clubs. Utah is by far the worst. Back in the early 70's, I remember seeing an off duty flight attendent in a T-shirt with the caption " Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may be in Utah." That applies to southern Idaho also. Although it is a bit more liberal now, the Church still runs the state. I have flown in and out of the Salt Lake City airport more times than most of the residents. Back then you couldn't get an alcoholic drink at the airport.You had to be a member of a private club. A "Jack Morman" and those clean cut Morman boys had to go to Wells NV to lose their virginity. On high school graduation night, in southern CA I went to a party. My date was a Morman. Before the night was over we did the traditional FUCK thing but I am going to stop here. I am getting way off topic.

BG, I've asked this before, exactly how is it that they "force" their values on you?

AN ... true, they don't actually use force. A better term would be, "impose." They impose their values on unwilling others only in the sense that their agenda gets written into law and therefore people such as myself, who do not necessarily subscribe to that particular group's version of what is "right" or "wrong" in a strip club, nevertheless must abide by that group's version, even if we aren't members of their group.

I don't mean to try to claim that they're somehow "requiring" that I agree with them; only, that the laws and regulations (as moderated by zealous religious groups, for example) do require that my behavior agree with what they want my behavior to be. This eliminates my choice, despite my other behavior's demonstrable failure to impact THEIR choices. Therefore, it's a contravention of the usual understanding of civil liberties and the foundations of post-Enlightenment democracy: that a society has the right to limit a given individual's choices only in so far as it is preserving another given individual's right to choice; or, to put it differently, that I can choose to do what I want to do only in so far as my choices do not impact any other person's right to choose similarly for himself or herself.

So, no, they don't "force values." I did mis-speak (mis-write?) and you are correct to question that usage. Rather, their agenda includes laws which would require me to behave in concert with their religious ("moral"?) values even though I am not a member of their religion and have not been asked about my moral values.

kneelmm gave best definition of Bible Belt. Yet, several other posters are correct in citing examples of repressive/lo mileage clubs outside BB. SHADOWCAT- Good SLC story. I read 1 column whereby Captain made PA announcement- "Folks, we'll be landing soon in Salt Lake City, you can set your watches back 50 years". He got some "unpaid vacation" for that.

EVERY society, including the post enlightenment liberal democracies of the west "imposes" some moral code on all citicens individual choices for the good of the social fabric as a whole. This is done both through social norms and laws and always has been. If you really want to understand what the first laws were they were really just codified customs or religious practices, not necessarily made to protect an individual or their rights, but to protect the society as a whole by circumscribing the actions of individuals.

minnow: glad you liked the story. After 40 years, I have a lot of them. Someday you and I and Trogangreg will meet up in ATL. The Dakotas are not much better. 30+ years ago I flew into BIS to meet up with my aunt and her boy friend, to drive to my grandmothers funeral. I could have stayed at her house but that sounded too boring. Instead stayed at the Marriott. They had a great breakfast special but a cup of coffee costs more than the breakfast. Big news of that day was that 2 hookers from Mandan SD had come into town and gotten busted. Now who would associate Mandan SD, as the hooker capital of the U.S.?

Well, AN, if you agree with the Bible-thumpers whose agenda includes closing down strip clubs even though I and a lot of other TUSCL-ers really would rather that those clubs not be closed down, then why are you here at TUSCL? It seems to me, that if ever there were an occasion in the history of mankind when religious customs (as transmogrified into the first laws, you are right to delineate) and social norms were ever to be superceded by something more philosophically careful and "right," the USA would be the place and time. If not now, when? Well, we're losing it now.

BG, I'm not necessarily in agreement, although as you and others know I do often have a bit more sympathy for their arguments than others here. I want to be able to go to strip clubs and buy porn and drink booze and smoke cigars, but I understand that many people wish to discourage those behaviors for a variety of reasons that usually come back to societal health, even if the conviction that a healthy society has to have a moral grounding based on religion, even a particular religion, plays into that. If as a society we decide that it is better to make booze hard to get, or cigar smoking is stigmatized, or porn is behind the counter and strip clubs are banished to more industrial zones away from where people live, I understand that. We are a cooperative species. We've survived and thrived for the last 50,000ish years by evolving the social structure that defines our cooperation. People who deride genetic science as un-natural and dangerous seem to have absolutely no qualms about experimenting with our social structures that have evolved over thousands of years to make us the most dominant species on the planet. They seem to feel that while evolution creates the physical characteristics the social nature of our species was somehow designed by a comittee, and that we can come up with a better plan by having smart people hash it out and come to the newer "right" solution. Propose genetically engineering the "right" kind of person and see where that gets you. To me there is very little difference between nature or evolution selecting for the most workable physical characteristics in a species and the right social cooperation. Communism failed because it was a society designed by people to solve all the problems in the "right" way. The problem was that the people who designed it weren't nearly as smart as they thought. They ignored human nature, and when human nature bit back they decided to suppress it and design a new communist man. How's that for hubris, design a new man to fit your society. In the end these social experiments usually just end up killing a lot of the old kind of men rather than creating a new one before they collapse under the competition with a more adaptable evolved (in the strict sense) which is open to change through more natural means than a central committee of smart people doing what they deem "right" for the sheep they manage.

OK, so this is a long way around to my point. Who decides what is "right"? Indeed Plato asked the question 2000ish years ago and we still don't seem to have wrapped our minds around it yet. The philosopher king is a great idea, very efficient. I'd contend that it worked well for a bit of time in the Pax Romana, if you leave out a few pesky mad emperors and the fact that maintaining power often took a more prominent role than governing among some others. The kingship model gradually evolved into a central authority with great power and a degree of local autonomy until you had the tradition our founders grew up with. The king, they reasoned, served the people, not the other way around. So why a king? Indeed, why have a permanent authority. Take the parliamentary tradition and expand on it so that the government was permanently answerable to the people, and while it was the job of the government to exercise a certain discretion and leadership, strictly circumscribed by enumerated powers, it was the people who ran the country and decided in the end. So if the majority makes the "wrong" decision (and again, who decides) and the government corrects that decision, aren't we getting back to the government deciding it needs a new citizenry?

Look at abortion. I'm personally agnostic by the way. I think (like most people IMO) it should be legal and available, but some reasonable restrictions should be in place. So the supreme court decided that the American people were wrong and that abortion was a constitutional right. So that settled it, right? Instead of a gradual evolution, which was happening in most states, to legal but controlled abortion we've been arguing about what is supposed to be now settled law for nearly 40 years. The same will happen again if gay marriage is pushed on a society that is not ready for it, or unwilling to make it a new social norm. Changes of this magnitude in the social fabric must come from the bottom up, with enough time for the society to shape and absorb the new changes, and the changes will not be accepted until the society does so on its own either by evolution or by leadership.

Well, we agree more than we disagree, we're just at each others' throats because it's verbal and invigorating! :)

I'd say I see a simple sea-change. Others imposing their religion on me. I want a secular society, and I want to know why we aren't EMBARRASSED and APPALLED by a national candidate who talks about his religious convictions, rather than (as a voting public) further swayed to support him or her.

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and people often refer to the area as PA's Bible Belt. (I once read a political commentary of the state which described it as Philadelpia and Pittsburgh surrounded by rural Georgia.) Funny thing though - some counties have no strip clubs, others have some great ones. It's clearly more a case of local politics than of religious influence.

AN, great post! I agree 100%.

BG, all politicians talk about their religious convictions, as do you. They just don't all call it that.

Disagree: if I say "I reject religious convictions" and you suggest this rejection is, in itself, a religious conviction, then you're simply begging the question "what is a religious conviction." It's poisoning the well of discourse by denying me my position on the basis of semantic sleight of hand. I reject ALL religion as a foundation for political choices in the USA (though I'm painfully aware that, as pointed out, laws developed largely out of religious traditions, and that many current practices are essentially someone's religion in a different wrapper, and that in fact many public choices in "moral" questions are heavily based on religious assumptions). I simply think now is the time. We haven't done it before, but if we don't stand up for it now, we'll never have the chance again.

And the fact that all politicians do it, doesn't make it right for them to do so. :) Of course. I'm sorry that "all politicians talk about their religious convictions" (because it's quite clear they do so in the full awareness that it is politically effective, garners them votes, tends to make them more approvable to the constituency), since it implies that the voters need them to have those outmoded superstitions just to be effective in office.

Where else in the world do we require outmoded superstitions for effectiveness? Cancer research? Gutter cleaning? Sidewalk maintenance? Automobile manufacture? Physiological studies into the circulation of the blood? Rapid-fire banter on sports-night talk-shows about whether or not the WNBA is worth watching? None of them. Only in the public sphere, where, I would argue, a great deal of damage can be done by "faith based initiatives." Just try that out on preventing traffic accidents. "Oh Lord, forgive the trespassers ... while I speed ..."

BG, I'm going to call a quick BS on you and save the rest for later. You want to reject religion as a basis for political choices. OK, how? Is there a religious test where religious people are banned from office? Is every religious person guilty until proven innocent of basing their choices on religion? Since political choices include voting does that mean all religious people are banned from voting? You keep bring it up as some sort of offense against your freedom that people choose to decide what to do in a manner you disapprove of. I say again, and a bit more bluntly (but with no malice) tough shit. Grow up. How exactly is your idea of banning religion from public discourse any different from banning "reactionary" opinions that do not advance the cause of scientific socialism? And again, why do you get to decide your opinion is more valid? And again, as noted in my long post above, why do you assume that tradition and religion, which have evolved over thousands of years as a social consensus, have nothing to offer to public discourse?

On another topic, FONDL, I finally checked out McDoogals. Pretty cool place. Next month is Wagon Wheel/Players Club.

AN, glad you liked it, I was a regular there for a time until the girl I most liked quit and became a hairdresser. I especially like the tip crawl. I've never been to WW, I never was willing to put up the high entrance fee. But from reading the reviews I'm sure i'd like it. Lwet me know how it goes. I'd also be curious to know your impressions of Gentlemen's Gold Club which is only a couple blocks away from WW. If you go, say hello to Kimberly for me - she's the best dancer I've ever seen, a 10 in every respect.

BG asks, "Where else in the world do we require outmoded superstitions for effectiveness?" How about environmentalism? Very little of current beliefs are based on science, it's almost all based on blind faith and projections of assumptions. Yet it's taught as fact in our schools and accepted as such by mainstream media. It's become today's politically correct religion - mother earth. Isn't that what Paganism was all about?

FONDL: "Very little of current beliefs are based on science, it's almost all based on blind faith and projections of assumptions." According to YOUR co-religionists ... :)

Even though this thread is already long enough I will say that I stay in the Bible belt region. Southwest GA near the Albama line. There are clubs with contact in this region but they can't be full nude or if they are nude then they can't sell alcohol. You have to take your pick. I choose to have contact & drink my beer. I could look at a nude woman on tv if that is what I wanted.

Book Guy, I'm not going to debate beliefs with you anymore. You have your beliefs and I have mine and we'll never agree, plus no one else here is interested. Just let me say that my basic beliefs have changed rather dramatically over the past 10 years because I came realize that my old beliefs weren't working for me, they weren't helping me get to where I wanted to go. I think you're in that same situation. But you'd rather be right than be happy.

Nice passive aggression there. I'm glad to see you've decided I'm right. :)

BG, since it looks like we've decided to drop it all I'll just do a summary instead of my planned encyclopedic post, although I really was looking forward to you addressing my last post to you.

There are many on the left whose politics are based on imaginary scenarios that don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. These are based on the same thing as religion, pure faith that it MUST be true since it seems right according to their world view. It could not be otherwise. I won't get into the particulars, but if you insist I suggest we take the resulting discussion offline. I can and have pointed out how these fantasies have absolutely no basis in fact and how they crumble under the slightest scrutiny. They however will not be dissuaded. I understand there are some on the right who feel the bible must be believed, every word, literally. I know also how the media and the left love to portray them as somehow the heart of the conservative movement, as if they constitute a majority. They do not. The nutroots on the left however are clearly driving the campaign bus even if they aren't in the majority, to the detriment of both the Democrats and the country. Now, you want the people who base their politics on religion banned (or you want religion banned from politics, same thing really). I'd personally love to see those nuts on the left like Rosie et al shut up too. Tell me how. Their opinions are even worse than religious ones since at least religion usually has a moderating influence and has a long history of operating in society.

OK, AN, I think I'm getting your point. (I'm glad we can be civil.) I do see something quite interesting you're pointing out -- that the Bible-thumpers, though portrayed as the central driving force of the right wing in US politics, actually are a fringe group; whereas the "nutroots on the left" actually ARE the central driving force of the left wing in US politics.

I might be persuaded to believe that. Hmm. Of course, it all depends on perspective. When I was fired from a government job for failing to attend the proper (Christian Protestant Evangelical etc.) church services IN OUR STATE OFFICE BUILDING I wasn't experiencing something out of the ordinary for Mississippi. So, my perspective is of course colored by that experience. You, out in wherever-you-are (California, IIRC?) have a different context, coming from the opposite direction.

I'll quibble with one or two things. "The media" is a term that nowadays just has to include not only CNN, but also Fox. I do recognize a liberalist slant in CNN coverage; but I think America's news outlets (TV and print) are pretty much a full spectrum, with nutjobs from both sides running things here and there. You're frustrated with inaccurate portrayals of the right in some LIBERALIST media, and I don't blame you, but I'd suggest that these portrayals make up half, or less than half, of the media consumed in the USA these days.

I don't have statistics. I don't use TV news, in fact. I prefer outsider coverage -- what does the BBC, or Agence France, or Al Jazeera say?

"Now, you want the people who base their politics on religion banned (or you want religion banned from politics, same thing really)."

With this I almost utterly agree. I don't actually want "people who base their politics on religion" to be banned -- I want THEIR POLITICS to be based on something other than religion. So, it's not the "same thing" as banning religion from politics, the way you word it. But I definitely DO want religion banned from politics. And I know darn well it's utterly impossible. But it's a wonderful dream, ain't it? :)

"I'd personally love to see those nuts on the left like Rosie et al shut up too. Tell me how. Their opinions are even worse than religious ones since at least religion usually has a moderating influence and has a long history of operating in society."

Yeah, that nut and a lot like her are just pandering for a sound bite. I tend not to think of Hollywood celebrities, or the politically correct movements (people who attempt to mandate vegetarianism, for example; WTF!!?? like they think that this law will stand!!??) as part of legitimate politics. I'm, again, like you, painfully aware that these idiots DO change minds, influence voters, give people a misconception of what is "true" about certain scientific ideas.

But. I agree with them, and disagree with you, on several specific notions which I would call "scientific" and I would call opposition to them "religious." 1. Homosexuality, I think, is strictly genetic, cannot be changed, and deserves to be treated as a normal part of the human experience rather than a problem, a condition, or an aberration. 2. Global warming is happening. Rapidly. Dangerously. Time to work to stop it, in manners that might damage our economy, even endanger livelihoods and lives of Americans. Not sure how, I don't know the specifics. But I'm willing to sacrifice, and I'm sorry plenty of others still want their SUVs etc. 3. Religion is on the upswing. Way too up. Since about 1920 (date?), we've had a successfully secular society. We're abandoning that because of supposed "grass roots" movements which are, in reality, carefully orchestrated mass-marketing appeals. Falwell, Swaggart, Graham -- they might have "had the spirit" but they couldn't have done it without radio and TV. The Mormons (lunatics!) are nothing but a business pyramid scheme wrapped up in Mephibosheth hide.

And something we can totally agree on: government is way out of control. I think the "Goldwater revolution" was a great idea, though I don't like some of the packaging that came with it. If current right-wing American leaders were actually adherents to SMALLER government, I'd be right in there with them. But for me they're not. You can guess what aspects of life I'm tired of them being BIGGER about -- my bedroom, my strip-clubbing experiences, my homosexual friends' bedrooms and married lives (or lack of opportunity there-for).

OK, so that's what I think. I think you and I think similarly on a lot of things, but we forget and get started on these smaller points that just nit-pick one another and then one of us (me usually) gets rancorous and then the other can't read the tone and then everyone's pissed off. Gotta learn to stop that, I do. 'Cause anyone who goes to strip clubs is likely, in my books, to have better sense about (true) Liberalism (in the "libertarian" sense, but also the "civil liberties" sense) which is what I want for this country. The USA that Franklin and Hamilton envisioned, not the one which Cal Coolidge was forced to try to create, nor the one which devolved to the disaster of LBJ's disorganized approach to Vietnam. I worry we're making the same mistakes.

Oh, BTW, I just pulled out of joining up as a "semi volunteer" school teacher. I'm in again, out again, with that outfit. I could do it for a year or two as a "quasi certified" junior high and high school teacher. The reason I bring it up, is that I had thought to do it "in order to be more proud to be an American." I dearly would love the chance to "contribute" something, rather than merely be a freeloader. The military kept rejecting me (asthma, also their stupidity), many business organizations like for me to do grunt work (because they can never get enough smart people to do the stupid tasks, since so many of the lower-level stupid people these days are REALLY so stupid as to be unable to do the stupid tasks) which isn't fulfilling my potential at all, and I don't really "like" entrepreneurship. Where's my niche? What COULD I do to help America out? Well, I thought teaching might be it -- low pay, high work, contributes to the future, seems like a valid niche.

But then I found out about the corrupt organizations that I have to swear fealty to, the manners in which my labor goes to supporting the status quo rather than supporting the students, etc. "First God made idiots; that was for practice; then God made school boards." Mark Twain (I think -- and perhaps the greatest use of semi-colons in the English language)

Cheers. Glad we can be buddies again. Sorry I got ... strident. :(

BG, just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. To be brief, I owe you a long post since you've laid out a lot of very specific points, and now that the weekend is here I may get around to it. But as for the brief point, I never consider our exchanges as anything other than civil. When I criticize arguments I am in no way saying you are a bad person, only that I disagree. Odd that that is a novel concept now.

Yes, odd that it is. :(

But thanks for your quick reply. :)

Book Guy, I'm still trying to figure out if you are two different people, depending on the time of day or something. You submit a very lengthy post with which I disagree almost completely, then AN weighs in and you submit another lengthy post like your last one with which I agree almost completely. What gives?

Anyway I thought I'd add a couple of things to what you've said. First, I agree that the conservative movement is made up of lots of people other than just the religious right - I've been trying to make that point here for a long time. In fact I personally fit loosely into the conservative sub-category of those who favor a return to state and local rights, which is what most conservatives used to stand for. That view doesn't seem to be represented by either party anymore, much to my disappointment. And it's the only workable answer to your contention, again with which I agree, that our federal government is out of control.

Second, I also agree that global warming is an extremely serious issue. What I don't agree with is the unfounded assumption that man's activities are the main cause, or that changing behaviors at the margin such as buying cars with better gas mileage would have any significant impact. SUVs are not the cause of global warming. And I especially take exception with people like Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and wealthy Hollywood types who each individually probably consume 20 times the energy and other resources as the average American, yet feel justified in telling the rest of us how to live. In my view they are a major part of the problem because their kind of posturing further politicizes this serious issue and makes meaningful discussion almost impossible. What we need is open discussion that considers all points of view, not just the politically-correct ones. IMO there's probably little we can do to change the outlook for global warming, we need to accept and prepare for it.

And what does all this have to do with strippers? IMO, more government = more restrictions on strip clubs; less government = fewer restrictions and more personal freedoms. Open discussion is good for strip clubs; political corretness, whether imposed by the right or the left, is censurship. Big government is the enemy of personal freedoms; anyone who favors big government is voting against things like strip clubs.

I also think the liberal leaning of the media is more insidious than you represent it to be. For example they practically all accept that big government is good, they just have different views of of what that government ought to favor. But nowhere do I read or hear anyone questioning whether our problems could better be solved at the state or local levels, or whether government is the sector wich should be addressing them at all. That's what a truly conservative media would do.

I know a lot of people here don't think political and economic discussions belong on TUSCL. But both politics and economics have a direct impact on strip clubs, whether we like it or not.

"Book Guy, I'm still trying to figure out if you are two different people, depending on the time of day or something. You submit a very lengthy post with which I disagree almost completely, then AN weighs in and you submit another lengthy post like your last one with which I agree almost completely. What gives? " Heh, I'm just not ever bothering to be really careful about my posts here, that's what gives. I guess it's a bit irresponsible of me, but in the long run making sure I'm consistent, and have thoroughly thought and and presented my arguments, on a strip club list, isn't a high priority in my life. I end up contradicting myself? Wuddever. I think we're all about in the same boat here at the boards.

I agree on a lot of what you say, FONDL. I'm not so much a states-rights advocate, as a federal-rights opponent. I wouldn't leave it up to the state in Jackson, for example -- they'd impose Christianity as a legally mandated state religion. I do think global warming is caused largely by human error (industrialization, carbon, greenhouse, etc.) though I also agree with you that SUV-reduction is not the solution (shooting at a B-17 with a spit-ball) and that the politically-correct hollywood types should shut up if they're going to run giant airplane trips and gas-guzzling mansions.

My biggest disagreement with you is about the liberal media. I and my family are four generations of print newsmen, one way or another. We know how the news is made. And it just don't work that way. Sure, there are editorial decisions in the info-tainment universe which end up spraying PC-ism right and left, but I don't consider that the news media. News content is about content, not spin, and it's VERY hard to spin if you're on the front line reporting just the facts ma'am. I guess, maybe, I'm an intelligent news consumer. I certainly recognize that a large portion of the USA is NOT intelligent about their news consumption, buying face-value that Fox is "fair and balanced" merely because they SAY it's "fair and balanced" (for example) or, equally idiotic, buying that CNN is the best and therefore only necessary resource merely because ... well ... they had transmitters in Baghdad a long time ago. Mass media of that sort currently is run by large conglomerates, not by do-gooders. It's in the conglomerates' best interests to suck up to the de-taxifying on the Right, but they don't tend to. So I don't think the news is made that way.

Yup, small government is better for strip clubs. Definitely. Probably better for a lot of things. There are facets of life where I want a really really big government -- military protection, for example; and the National Guard for crises and natural disasters -- but mostly taxes go to waste, and therefore I don't volunteer for more taxes. But in Sweden and Germany taxes DON'T go to waste; in Japan education-tax actually EDUCATES the citizens; in Holland their citizenry deliberately eschews cars in favor of bikes and trains because they LIKE taking small steps to share in combating global warming. I want a system like those for us here. We deserve just as good. Why are we so inept at implementing it?

Well, in NOLa we re-elected Congressman Jefferson (now obviously on his way out because of corruption) despite pending indictments; and Mayor Nagin (now obviously well beyond a nervous breakdown) despite his clear ability to drop a ball strapped to his fists. Democracy doesn't always work. And I'm starting to think it's not even the best of a whole bunch of other systems, either.

BG, you seem to be a fan of conspiracies, here's mine for you.

I believe that there is a group of intellectual ultra-liberals who don't believe in democracy and are trying to undermine it. They think the world should be run by a select group of elite intellectuals (and guess who selects them.) And since they correctly see a free-market economy as a critical element of democracy, one of their key strategies has been to try to destroy our economy.

During earlier periods they focused on trade unions as the vehicle for this destruction. This strategy worked very well in much of Europe but has been less effective here, crippling the auto industry but little else. As a result about 30 or so years ago they switched tactics and chose a new vehicle - the environment.

They have been very successful in infiltering 3 key sectors of our society: the educational establishment, the news media, and government bureaucracy (who really run the government and all it's programs because while elected officials come and go, bureaucrats are forever.) These three groups are doing everything they can to convince the rest of us that we must adopt draconian measures to save the planet. Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence to support this view and that if adopted these draconian measures will destroy our economy. Which is after all their goal.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a clean environment. I think the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act have both been very beneficial (aside from the fact that they casued the stag-flation of the 80s, which is how we chose to pay for them.) And Superfund has been an absolute disaster. I'd even like to see some further progress, such as controls on deisel engines (if anyone can ever get up the courage to take on the truck lobby.)

But the whole global warming thing is going way too far. If we enact measures beyond what other countries such as China adopt, the rest of our namufacturing will move offshore and our economy will go into a tail spin. Our society as we know it will collapse. Which is after all the objective.

The we won't have to worry about strip clubs, none of us will be able to afford it. And they'll all be run my some bureaucrat anyway so we won't care.

BG, the long awaited (or dreaded) post. I'll just note that I actually do take a lot of pride in having, and on occasion having the ability to articulate a fully thought out, studied, philosophically sound world view. I've though long and hard about a lot of these things and so I do tend to put a lot of detail and care into these posts. If you raise serious points I feel, not necessarily obligated, but at least inclined to treat your post seriously and reply with some care.

"OK, AN, I think I'm getting your point. (I'm glad we can be civil.) I do see something quite interesting you're pointing out -- that the Bible-thumpers, though portrayed as the central driving force of the right wing in US politics, actually are a fringe group; whereas the "nutroots on the left" actually ARE the central driving force of the left wing in US politics."

As evidence I'll just note that the leading Republican contender for the nomination (I know, it's early) is a pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay libertarian conservative. Imagine a pro-war, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage Democrat running for the nomination on the left. I think the Democrats are being pulled further to the left as the campaign continues. I'l also note that whatever one wishes to damn Bush for, he is NOT a conservative in the Reagan mold. He is probably the most liberal Republican president since Nixon. As an aside it has always amazed me how the two most liberal Republican presidents are the most vilified. But then the left despised Reagan too.

"I'll quibble with one or two things. "The media" is a term that nowadays just has to include not only CNN, but also Fox. I do recognize a liberalist slant in CNN coverage; but I think America's news outlets (TV and print) are pretty much a full spectrum, with nutjobs from both sides running things here and there. You're frustrated with inaccurate portrayals of the right in some LIBERALIST media, and I don't blame you, but I'd suggest that these portrayals make up half, or less than half, of the media consumed in the USA these days."

I'll see your quibble and raise you. When I say "the media" I mean the mainstream old-line media. This is the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, and CBS news, etc. There was a day when these literally controlled the national discussion, and while I agree that is no longer true they are still where most, as in the vast majority of people, still get their news. Fox and CNN can force coverage on some things, not on others. The MSM (mainstream media) is still overwhelmingly liberal. There are no shortage of studies and books on the subject so I'll not dwell, but I will address something from one of your later posts with FONDL.

"My biggest disagreement with you is about the liberal media. I and my family are four generations of print newsmen, one way or another. We know how the news is made. And it just don't work that way. Sure, there are editorial decisions in the info-tainment universe which end up spraying PC-ism right and left, but I don't consider that the news media. News content is about content, not spin, and it's VERY hard to spin if you're on the front line reporting just the facts ma'am."

I've always had, and I believe I've discussed here a theory about be something-do something people. I think some professions tend to attract people of a certain philosophical bent and temperament. For quite a while the media has attracted, IMHO, people who want to speak "truth to power". To put it simply a lot of people in the media see it as their job to point out flaws in society and government so they can be fixed. The fact that the fixes always seem to involve more government control or spending is part of the meme of the crusading reporter. I've never thought that the "liberal MSM" is made up of a lot of people sitting around planning how to spin the news, it's made up of a lot of people who are liberal and really don't understand the opposing side of a lot of arguments. The bias is more in what they choose to cover, and then there is the "balance" we get from a lot of the media now. They will simply report side A said X and side B said Y. They won't mention that what side B said is just plain flat out wrong, that would be bias.

"But. I agree with them, and disagree with you, on several specific notions which I would call "scientific" and I would call opposition to them "religious." 1. Homosexuality, I think, is strictly genetic, cannot be changed, and deserves to be treated as a normal part of the human experience rather than a problem, a condition, or an aberration."

BG, that homosexuality may be partially, or even predominantly genetic I'll agree. That it is strictly genetic is I think to fall into the trap so many people do of an either/or, in addition to getting way ahead of the science. The rest of your logic does not follow. Breast cancer has a strong genetic component in many cases, yet few would argue that it should be treated as anything other than a problem. I tend to believe that like most things that have a genetic component (which I agree there seems to be an indication homosexuality does) in some people it is unavoidable, in others it may never surface depending on socialization. A person may be genetically predisposed to be a diabetic (type II, the adult onset kind), but by living a healthy life may never get the disease while others will be diabetic (type I) all their lives. This is not to say that homosexuality is a disease, but if it turns out that it is wholly genetic we will be right back to where we started, society will have to decide if it is a problem and should be "cured", or if it is to be accepted as a normal part of life. I would say that most Americans if presented with evidence that homosexuality were genetic would tend to be more tolerant. Others might want a cure. As for the social context I'll add that homosexuality is not a new thing. Every society has at some point come to tolerate a certain level, even while it publicly discourages it. Perhaps that is the best evidence that society is gradually "dealing with" homosexuality the old fashioned way, by evolving a new social standard. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the whole idea of homosexuality as an identity (as in I'm a homosexual like I'm asian or black) is a very new phenomenon. Homosexuality used to be something you did, not who you were.

"2. Global warming is happening. Rapidly. Dangerously. Time to work to stop it, in manners that might damage our economy, even endanger livelihoods and lives of Americans. Not sure how, I don't know the specifics. But I'm willing to sacrifice, and I'm sorry plenty of others still want their SUVs etc."

Global warming, if you mean by that the global temperatures have been rising, is happening. Since we are just in the last 150 years coming out of a cold period (the little ice age) that followed a warm period (the medieval warm period) I'm less inclined to jump to the conclusion that it is because humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.015% to 0.028%. I also don't think it is particularly dangerous since if the most dire predictions come true we'll be about where we were temperature wise around 1200 AD. There is a lot to debate here, and I'm not inclined to get into it now, but lets say I agree with FONDL that environmentalism has become a religion. http://www.crichton-official.com/speeche…

As my parting shot on that if you really want to piss off a global warming proponent ask the following question. What is the correct temperature for the Earth, and how did we scientifically determine that?

FONDL, I agree that there is a definite effort to use the crisis of the day, be it health care, global warming, or whatever, to increase the control that a group of elites with the "right" answers can exercise through the force of government, but I tend to think it's because they are stupid rather than evil. Like all the elites they think everything would work better if everyone put them in charge. I think they believe this, shall we say, religiously, that they are the saviors of mankind. Each "crisis" is to them yet more evidence that mankind and society are faulty and that they must fix things.

AN, great post. Thanks for taking the time. I rarely read anything that long here but I always read yours.

As for your last point, I agree that it's because they're stupid not evil. I was being facetious, I'm not much of a fan of conspiracy theories. But I do wonder how else to explain the religious fervor with which liberal envoronmentalists pursue the idea of shutting down the US economy in the name of global warming. I fail to understand how the environment benefits from moving manufacturing from the US, where environmental regulations are fairly stringent, to some third world country where there are no environmental regs. Can they really be that stupid?

I especially liked your discussion of homosexuality. I agree completely. I would also add that just because there is some genetic disposition to homosexuality (or anything else) doesn't mean that society should accdept any behavior in the name of that genetic disposition. There's a huge difference between genetic disposition and behavior - just because I have a desire to do something doesn't make it OK for me to do it. I've known several homosexuals who had happy heterosexual marriages.

I also agree 100% with your comments on the liberal media. I don't think the bias is intentional. They just don't know any different they don't understand the conservative arguments at all and make no effort to do so. Probably because everyone they know agrees with them so where's the bias?

Funny that you raised the "do something-be somebody" issue again because I was just thinking about it the other day. It occurred to me that people who view themselves as having a career are more likely to be "be-somebodies" while poeple who view themselves as having a job are more likely to want to "do something." I think this concept of everyone needing a career has created a lot of problems in our country.

AN: Thanks for your points. I'm glad we've gotten to the clear bottom of things -- and I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you've said. :) Just thought I'd let you know, I've read and considered.

The biggest weakness to my point about the news media would have been, that I was talking about "how media is made" but you were talking about "how media is consumed." You might have hit my argument right at the core merely by pointing out, it's beside the point whether or not the story-writers are left or right, all that matters is what people in the USA choose to watch. Paris Hilton in jail? Geez ...

I'm still unclear on the Do-versus-Be categories. I think of myself as wishing to aid in a good cause, and hoping in the long term to lead people toward a better tomorrow as they, and we, and the experts, figure out what would be better. But all I can get hired to do is typing and filing, for some reason really well-educated competent capable effective office workers aren't wanted any more? So, does that make me a Do or a Be?

Book Guy, here's my take on do vs. be. I think we all want to be somebody, but we may have very different views of what that means to us - some people want to be famous or wealthy, others want to be viewed with respect or admired for some quality or other. That's normal.

The key issue is whether or not you are also involved in doing something for which you have a passion, something that takes precedence over what you may want to be. It's not enough to think about it, you have to take action, otherwise it's just a dream. So if you are actively involved in some passion or other, something which is the major reason you get up in the morning, and it doesn't much matter what it is, then you are a do-something person. Otherwise you're a be-somebody. Which is what most of us are. Unless you have no ambition whatever, then you're neither.

OK, I get it. So basically, if I have the time / leisure to pursue my "legitimate" dreams -- not the ones that are vaguely just "be rich and famous" but instead are "these are the things I JUST HAVE TO DO" -- then I'm a "Do" person. And this is somehow more laudable than being a "Be" person. Is that correct, so far?

If that is correct, then, I'm also interested in, whether one or the other ("Be" versus "Do") is better. It seems that the person who is actively pursuing dreams that are somehow non-crass (like, he loves painting, and doesn't care whether he sells a lot of his canvasses, but he still paints all the time) is a "better" person, a more "honest" or "less materialistic" one? Right? I don't mean to judge -- people who work hard all day have a difficult lot, and I do everything I can to avoid it! :).

So, given (A) that I "get" your distinction between Be and Do; and (B) that having the leisure to be a Be-person is a great position to be in, in life, I just want to make one question / assertion.

Isn't it the case that an awful lot of people WOULD be doing what they had a real passion for, IF they actually had the time and money? I, for one, spend a lot of time trying to find the time to do the things I care about. (I guess I should get off the dang internet boards. But they're actually related ... mildly.) I have a VERY HARD TIME finding leisure when I'm working a "regular" job -- seems I've accidentally ended up in industries that expect a lot of "commitment" and demonstration of "love of the field" and offer very little reward financially (which would translate into leisure time, because then the laundry etc. would be done by someone else).

Anyway, I don't mean to whine about my own outcast state. I'm just making the point, that maybe there's a bit of a class struggle in there. People who are great writers of fiction, but have to write bad press releases that are full of false enthusiasm about new types of rubber molding all day, may never get the "chance" (emotionally, as well as chronologically and temporally) to indulge their passion. Not all passions are lucrative.

Your thoughts? And, did I get Do versus Be correct? And, here's an old T-shirt I used to have back in high school:

To do is to be: Socrates
To be is to do: Kant
Do be do be do: Sinatra

:)