well, children, let me tell you a story....

Once upon a time (all the way back in 1992) a conservative little man ran for President with his own money and won nearly 19% of the popular vote. That would be, if you do the math, about 7 times more votes than Mr Ralph did as a percentage and nearly 17 million more actual votes cast.

I know it's difficult to remember history and all that stuff, especially when there's baseless rhetoric to hurl in every direction, but let's try just a little.

Little Jonah was 34 when this war started and is 38 now. Luckily, the US army takes people up to 41. So let's talk about putting one's money where one's mouth is. Enlist. Go get shot at. Hell, they'll probably make you an officer.

Goddamnit Chickenhawks piss me the fuck off.

in 1995, ten years into a 13 year career, Australian Rugby leaguer Ian Roberts came out of the closet. He had actually been somewhat known in gay circles (like all those semi-closeted gay Republican staffers in DC) but by 1995 he was ina committed relationship and didn't feel like guarding his privacy as much.

The reaction was generally pretty accepting. Lots of Aussie rugby players -- not a group particularly well known for their progressive attitudes -- pretty much said "whatever." Major commentators supported him and said it was important not to live a lie, etc. End of story.

Recently he was in Superman Returns (he's an aspiring actor).

I think some of the doomsday scenarios might be a little too convenient. Everyone says "It's not me, but other guys will really have a problem with it." NBA players were neither surprised nor outraged by Marv Albert's bisexual threesomes. I bet they could handle it. I suspect one or two stars would come out and publically support the gay player like Pee Wee Reese did for Jackie Robinson.

My fantasy would be that Shawne Merriman would come out of the closet right now. I'd love to see how many offensive players would risk pissing him off by making comments. It seems the last thing you want to do is make him angry. It'd be like poking a bear with a stick.

In short, the antislavery movement was led, first in England, and then in New England, and later more broadly in the northern United States, by persons who would be regarded today as "fundamentalist Christian conservatives." No word yet on whether they were watching Fox News in 1746

First of all, the abolitionist movement was led first and foremost by Quakers, who hardly fit the stereotype or the reality of today's fundamentalists.

Wilberforce, this movie notwithstanding, is important mostly because he was in Parliament, something that was impossible for nonconformists (ie, Protestants not in the Established Anglican Church) before 1829.

One way which Wilberforce was like today's fundamentalists was his incredibly self-centric view of the world. According to Hochschild's considered opinion -- to which I give great weight -- Wilberforce was mostly interested in saving his own soul. He supported abolitionism because he thought it would get him into heaven, not because of any sense that he should be helping others. Contemporaries mused that he cared so little for the enslaved that if he thought maintaining slavery would save his soul, he would have pursued that with equal fervor.

Finally, Elephantman, maybe you should be asking the fundamentalists and their stooges who have taken over my once proud GOP to acknowledge that most of the progressive causes in this country from helping the working poor (Dorothy Day) to insuring civil rights (MLK), have come out of the Christian left. It is the Jerry Falwells of this world who want us to equate right with Christian.