When I lived in Oregon, I remember reading in the Portland Oregonian newspaper that there are three counties in eastern Oregon (Baker, Malheur & Harney counties) where you could stick every human being on the planet and they would have more room per square foot than the people of Hong Kong. If true, we have a lot of open spaces in this country. N.B. These were early 1990's numbers.

If you took everyone in the world and put them in Texas, you'd have, more or less, the population density of London.

And Harry would still be worried that we couldn't produce enough food.

I bought Derbyshire's book on the Riemann Hypothesis, and it convinced me the guy should stay away from politics completely. He writes terrific pop math, and real lousy politics.

I don't know what he thinks he gains by admitting he's a homophobe and a racist, then assuring us he's only a "mild" and "tolerant" homophobe and racist. This mealy-mouthed semi-confession only shows how he's hopelessly out of touch with the real world.

The blunt fact is that there's nothing mild about Derbyshire's homophobia and racism. He despises homosexuals and blacks, and not "mildly" or "tolerantly". I don't like Andrew Sullivan's ugly personal campaign against Derbyshire, but Sullivan is right on the substance. Why does NRO allows Derbyshire to stain their web site? He only adds evidence to the left's insistence that conservatives are bigots.

Why does one "admit" being a homophobe?

Orrin:

You're dodging the racism admission, which I understand. Even in the blogosphere, outright white racism is not usually defended. (Okay, some paleocons would defend it.)

I don't know why an admission of irrational fear of homosexuals should be defended, either. But Derbyshire WILL get more defenders on this one.

Again, why does NRO want an admitted racist and homophobe on their web site? To prove liberals are right about conservatives?

Casey:

One problem is that neither homophobe nor racist really mean what I assume it is you believe he is, or I am. (I don't really read the site much, but what has he said that is racist?). One needn't fear homosexuals in order to fear the effects of the mainstreaming of homosexuality on the culture. Similarly, you needn't be a racist (or sexist or whatever) in order to vindicate Western culture, but you do need to recognize that it's laregly the creation of white men. Further, you don't have to view one racial group or another as inferior/superior in order to believe that racial characteristics go further than appearance.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/250

Orrin:

Today in the Corner Derbyshire is up to his usual tricks (bad term, maybe). He's accusing Bush of supporting homosexuality. Of course, just about everybody except himself supports homosexuality in Derbyshire's view. I'm sure his paranoid distaste for homosexuals has become a major embarrassment at NRO.

Another gem occurred when, in a classic case of projection, Derbyshire announced that many millions of Republicans seriously dislike black people, and no GOP candidate above county level could be elected without racist votes. Powerline destroyed this argument point-by-point.

My guess is that Derbyshire is aiming for martyrdom. Sooner or later National Review will give him the heave-ho, so he can retreat to wacky paleocon sites and complain about how unfair the neocons were to him.

I guess I've a bleaker view of mankind than you--I don't think the rise to dominance of the GOP in the South is just about values, but about racial animus too. That 8% of the white vote for the black candidate in Mississippi means something.

Powerline was able to point to polling data that showed whites and Republicans were significantly less likely to hold racist attitudes than other ethnic and political groups. Maybe they're just more careful, but I doubt it. Whites and Repubs have been pounded so long for being racist, they've decided it's not worth the hassle to actually BE racist. Except Derbyshire, who proudly proclaims his racism. Only he's "mild" and "tolerant" about it.

Derbyshire's assertion that no Republican could get elected to anything more than county office anywhere in the country without white racist votes is absurd on its face. He's simply projecting his own racism onto many millions of people who don't share his dislike for black people.

He's also embarrassing NRO, and one day he'll get his desired firing.

Well, he's just being silly there--in most Red States outside the South blacks are few and far between.

I like a lot of his columns myself and he is a fine writer.

I can't say I've read much by him that shows evidence of outright bigotry.

The one thing about him that does irritate me is his constant whining about illegal immigrants when he was one himself and one from a rich First World country instead of a dirt poor nation like Mexico.

I like his writing and Calvin Coolidge, in particular, is very good until it falls apart in the end. He is, as he points out from time to time, part of a mixed race marriage, with mixed race children. Nobody takes this seriously, of course, because, as he also says, in the US race means black or non-black.

As for the homosexuality, my problem isn't so much any one thing he says, as that he keeps returning to it and seems to care so much.

"Racist" and "homophobic" are nowadays basically contentless terms of abuse for whatever annoys Jesse Jackson and/or the Human Rights Campaign. Thinking sodomy is medically unwise, beating Matthew Shepard to death, it's all the same thing, sure. Thinking most cops are just trying to do their jobs and should get some benefit of the doubt from the law-abiding, firebombing black churches, pretty much the same thing, you betcha.

99% of Americans are at least mildly and tolerantly racist and homophobic, although most of them aren't sufficiently into courting martyrdom (or being provocative) to label themselves as such.

Why do I get worried over statements that 99% of Americans are...whatever? Anyway, I guess I'm in the beleaguered 1%. I just don't CARE that much about race and homosexuality. These are not critical issues to me - or much of any issues at all.

Oh sure, I get upset over racial discrimination against any ethnic group. But I really don't have feverish nightmares about these issues.

I get the feeling that Derbyshire does. Okay, maybe he doesn't literally have nightmares over race and homosexuality.

But as David Cohen points out, he seems to "care" a lot about these issues, which is a delicate way of saying he has strong prejudices against blacks and homosexuals. The fact that he admits to these prejudices doesn't make them any prettier. His constant harping on these subjects, as David mentions, also indicates that he's hardly "mild" and "tolerant" in his biases.