You can't be a conservative -- as I understand the term -- and advocate radical change. Those who advocate (a) the overthrow of national leadership, (b) the re-writing of the Bible to fit their own ideological views, and (c) the treatment of those with different political views as "enemies of the state" are not conservative -- they're radicals.

In fact, the closest analogy I can come up with is the French Revolution, where even words and dates were deemed enemies of the new ideology, and religion was rewritten to reflect the new understandings of "reason." When the revolutionaries elevated their own ideological "brilliance" over the learnings of tradition, they set off a dystopian nightmare -- the reign of terror.

Conservativism as a political position was, in many ways, born as a contrast to the French Revolution. England's Edmund Burke, seeing what was happening on the continent, wrote his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," outlining the differences between the Revolution's radicalism and what he saw as a more correct method of government -- slow, measured change based on an understanding and respect for tradition. That philosophy served as a basis for 200 years of conservative thought -- it is in many ways the cornerstone of conservativism.

The "conservatives" on the radical right wing would make Mr. Burke turn over in his grave. They are on the wrong side of history, but they are also the exact opposite of conservative. They are modern day Robespierres and Marats.

This is really two questions:

1. Should a teenager be allowed to sail the globe?

2. Should a teenager sail the globe?

The answer to the first is...sure. Not to be crass, but there are a lot of people on this solar moon we're all spinnin' around on. If she wants to take some crazy risk...hey, knock yourself out. Risk-taking is one of the great attributes of our species, and it's not like we're going to run out of people any time soon. It's your life -- risk it how you like.

The answer to the second is...only if you're nuts. I mean, look, it's your life -- and if you want to end it at 16 floating in a tin can somewhere in the South Pacific, be my guest -- but it ain't what you might call a "good idea."

American democracy depends on debate -- the idea that one party presents a position, the other points out its own position, and the two sides work together to find the right decision. It's the best way -- the people leading themselves through intelligent, zealous, and sometimes even partisan debate. It's not always pretty -- but it reaches a good solution most of the time, as long as the parties are putting forth good faith, reasoned views that can be resolved through reasonable discusion and debate.

But...when one side's "position" can be boiled down to "whatever you said -- I poop on it!," the whole concept fails. What is this congressman supposed to take from this? That people who don't support him are crass? He already knows some people didn't vote for him -- and he knows that some people are completely crass. So there's no message here except "I poop on your views!"

And, of course, we have to mention that democracy in a large nation depends on mass communication. Democracy fails if, instead of reporting about the ideas put forward, the media reports things like "Republicans say new ideas worthy of pooping on." If the poop is the story, the media has failed. ("Later, is Obama a poopie head? We'll report, you'll decide.")

It's the failure of the Republican Party -- yes. But at the core, it's also the failure of little-r republicanism. Little-r republicanism and democracy takes a strong, intelligent populace; I increasingly think that we are not a good enough people to make it work.

I keep hearing about a conservative victory -- or even, as CNN put it, the GOP "scoring big." Man, that liberal media is a trip, isn't it?

The GOP won two elections:

1. An election where the Republican ran as a moderate. In Virginia, McDonnell was an "O" logo away from telling us about his boyhood in Hawaii.

2. An election where the Republican ran as a moderate AND his incumbent opponent was as honest as you might expect of any New Jersey businessman in a legitimate profession.

Meanwhile, the GOP lost an election in a staunchly conservative area because they went with "out of district partisan ideologue" over "local woman who cares about and reflects the views of the local people." Position of story on CNN? Well...

Lessons learned (reality version): Americans like reasonable moderates, don't like crooks, prefer people who reflect their views over outside ideologues who try to move in and force a set of "values" on them.

Lessons learned ("liberal" media version): The Republican Party is BACK!!! Sarah Palin! Rush Limbaugh! Glenn Beck! Democrats cower! Barack Obama already losing 2012 election!

What a joke. What a failure.

I'm not for bad science, of course -- and this seems closer to a publicity stunt than anything that might be called true science (at least at this stage). But that being said -- hasn't this debate always been based on anecdote and bad science? Have we ever had anything other than "studies" that turn out to be misleading or even deliberately false, and "facts" that turn out to be urban legends?

We need research in this area (which I tend to think will show that human beings are both (a) inherently sexual and (b) in no way screwed-up by viewing more or different sexual practices). We don't need bad research -- yeah, that's true. But we do need research -- and until we have some, I don't think we really know anything.