Muni WiFi shoud fail for the sake of free speech. It's always boggled my mind to see the amount of support on/. for muni WiFi. With the general (and healthy) distrust of government in this forum, why should we desire to ask a government to own and operate a primary channel of the public's communication? Do you really want mayors and governors loyal to the Bush administration to have significant say in who has access to look inside your internet connection?
Why does muni wireless have to mean the government runs and controls it? Just because a governmental body provides the infrastructure it doesn't mean they have to control it. A good example of where government built the infrastructure but allowed whoever to offer services using it is in northeastern Utah. There several communities got together and created a Broadband Utopia. They built it but allow anyone to offer services using it. Though wired I see no reason wireless couldn't be added.
Earlier this year I spent six weeks in South Africa setting up computers in disadvantaged schools.
Good for you. I support and have done charity work, but don't take my money and hand it out to others. Let me donate the money I get to anyone I want to give it to.
Why should you be thrilled to pay for roads you don't actually use?
You shouldn't pay, road building and maintenance should be paid for by a tax on fuel.
Why should you be thrilled to pay for welfare? Because otherwise you'd have higher crime and you'd have to step over starving people in the streets.
I prefer letting Civil Society help those who need help, let me decide for myself what type of entity I want to donate the money I work to earn to give to. With few exceptions civil society has a better track record than government does, and those groups who aren't effective won't be around long, people won't want to donate to ineffective groups. The Shriners civil society built the Shriner's Hospital not the government. Danny Thomas founded St. Jude Children's Research Hospital If you're concerned about crime, two things can help. One, get rid of all of the victimless crime laws on the books. Prohibition didn't work and neither is the War on Drugs. If people are willing to except the risks they should be able to work as prostitutes. By getting rid of these "crimes" the prison population will be cut in half. Secondly by reducing taxes people will have more money to both spend and invest and both of these will create more jobs.
I get tired of this "everyone for themselves" attitude. It's a fallacy. Nobody who espouses it has ever actually lived in a place where everyone had to do everything for themselves.
Guessing from your statement, I guess you can't survive on your own. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can't. Growing up you could have dropped me in the Everglades and I could have survived there on my own without help. Of course I may of died on my own years later, but I'd prefer to die alone anyway. What do you think people did throughout history without technology?
I don't know what the choice(s) are where I live but my sister can pick anyone out of six companies to pick up her trash. She pays the government one price then each owner can decide who will pick up their trash.
We really don't want to make the same mistake Europe did with landline phones. The US left it to the private sector (that is, the Bell system)
No the US didn't leave leave the landline phones to be built by the private sector. Not only did government give the telcos monopolies but they also gave them money to build it.
Why is it that they can accomplish this (and their economy, while certainly growing in the last few years has been a small one to be sure) and the same smaller-zed cities in both Canada and the United States cannot?
Is it taxpayer financed? If so there's your answer, even those without a computer are made to pay.
Is coming along with nary a hitch, as far as I can tell. They started late last year, have a good chunk of the city up and running under it already, and should be done with the whole project by the end of the year. I don't have any real-world experience with it (I live in St. Paul), but I haven't heard anything but good about it, so far.
I didn't know Minneapolis had WiFi. I'll have to check it out, I live about 10 minutes by bike from downtown.
The zoning thing will eventually resolve itself for most people. But I am curious about where you plan to store maybe 100KwHr of electricity as a reserve against a week of cloudy weather.
You shouldn't really need a battery bank large enough for a week's supply of power, two, three days at most. For anything over that, any tyme period that's longer have a backup generator. It can be fueled with either alcohol or biodiesel. Of course it'd have to be sited either in the open or somewhere with good ventilation.
It would be nice to have free wifi, and maybe this could work as a low quality service for those who can't afford anything better, but for the moment, I can only see this happening through increased taxation, and probably only in the richer neighbourhoods.
While I support municipal I oppose taxes paying for it. Either have users pay or have advertising pay for it. Those who can't otherwise afford it can view ads and get a set speed. Then for those who can afford it they can pay to get faster speeds without ads. A potential problem is will there be enough customers placing ads.
Maybe a street could pool together some money to pay for local wifi
Now this I can go with as long as it's voluntary. Private people can setup their own grid network with neighbors.
but I'd much rather spend those millions to benefit a school and get educational software into Florida's failing schools. Or hell, open an entire new school so kids don't have to wake up an hour earlier to be bussed half way across the city. There are just so many way this money could be used better.
Yeap, schools need the funding. The thing is is schools in Florida were promised funding. That's what the lottery was billed as, educational funding. However all the state did was take money that was going to schools away. I was in college when the lottery was being debated, I was in student government then and we were asked to support the lottery. However after reading the bill authorizing it I decided not to support it. One section particularly got my attention, where it said if any part of the law authorizing the lottery was found unconstitutional all of the money would go to general revenue. Reading that I knew the lottery was never about funding education, all it was was another tax, abet voluntary.
I do not think WiFi is the solution for rual access. It seems to me that it costs no more money to run fiber than to run power an phone lines.
You don't need landlines for WiFi any more than you need a really long cord for your cellphone. While it may not be feasible in many locations in some locations towers with repeaters, like for cellphones, can be erected then they can be powered via PVs.
a general inability to understand that every government project has negative unintended consequences all out of proportion to what it as to accomplish...
They aren't meant to go on forever, just to keep people farming through the rough times so that they'll be there when we need them. Theoretically they will stop when we no-longer need the reserve capacity.
Ah but farm subsidies will keep on going, and probably get larger. Large agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, the US's largest private equity firm, get billions of dollars in subsidies and they'll never give them up.
Civilian helicopters today are, pretty much, the same as 50 years ago -- because nobody needs them, since the costs of roads are extracted at gunpoint anyway...
And airports aren't extracted at gunpoint?
The examples of electricity and phone service are not really examples. Government's involvement makes those services worse, than they ought to be
You mean better don't you? Because of the Rural Electrification Administration many people who would otherwise never have been able to get electricity were able to get it. And because it's widely available in the US the country has benefited tremendously from it. Look at all of the things in buildings, as well as the buildings themselves, which use electricity. All of them are made by people. The computers, lights, phones, TVs, and so on.
About the only thing negative I have to say about the REA is that without it more people might be using more solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources. Even then though the REA did help with that some. The REA installed thousands of wind generators.
And another argument for you. The subsidy, that dwellers of large cities pay occupants of small villages to have all these services, encourages "urban sprawl". There is a strong argument, that it really hurts the Earth...
Which is why more people should be encouraged to move out of the cities into rural communities. Somewhere where even if they don't farm they can still have their own garden and grow some of their food. I'm kind of stuck between the city and rural life myself. I love art galleries, going to concerts, museums, and watching plays among other things. However I also love to be able to get up, pick a few things from my garden then go out hiking. Not being wealthy I can't afford both. However if I could live maybe an hour from the city and still get broadband, without any latency, that would be great. Once or twice a week I could go into the city and be able to make a living.
If people on the poor side of town think of a good way to utilize this infrastructure, then they can raise some capital and buy some property where there is infrastructure.
If land values are high enough so that capital costs would be prohibitive, they could raise capital to pay a power company to give them service. If the costs are too high, well, then the idea was not productive enough, and society would be poorer overall if it was carried out.
They're poor, how are they supposed be able to afford to pay for infrastructure?
And don't change the argument, within cities, DSL is available in even the poorest areas. The poor in the US are still relatively affluent, and it is still very profitable for infrastructure companies to cover them.
DSL is not available everywhere even in cities. My sister lives within distance to get DSL but the cabling to her house is old and can't handle DSL. Hell she's been thinking of getting a generator because the powerlines fail frequently. She has lost power for most of the day before.
The electrical grid only works well now because the government granted natural monopolies and pored money into it. Chief amount them in the US was the Rural Electrification Administration, which was part of FDR's New Deal.
Personally, I prefer to buy my own equipment to renting it. If you get cable television, and need a cable box, the cable company will rent it you for 5-10 dollars per month, that's $60-$120 per year, on the other hand, if you get cable internet, you will need to pay $60 once for a cable modem that will last for years, and will likely be useful even if you switch companies.
My first cable modem lasted about a year before it had to be replaced. I called tech support and they stepped me through some tests before deciding it needed to be replaced. The following day someone came by with a new modem and after looking at the old one he said the new one was faster, then he offered to optimize it. Normally I prefer to buy not rent but in this case renting cost me less. It's been a couple of years now though and I've been thinking of buying one.
Thanks for the links. I've been opposed to Bush's tax cuts since he proposed them, and especially opposed to the blooming deficit, but now I have to do some research to do on this curve, the cuts, and the tax receipts.
Personally I'd get rid of all personal income tax at the federal level. The only income tax at the federal level I'd have is one on corporations. Stockholders want limited liability they pay for it.
We had some oil, but needed more, so we went to the Middle East.
Actually the US gets doesn't get as much oil from the Middle East as many think. Of the top 4 suppliers of oil Canada is the biggest supplier, Mexico is second, Saudi Arabia is third, with Venezuela fourth. Here's a list of the 15 top suppliers the US gets oil from. Three are Middle Eastern and another 5 in Africa. However because oil is traded on a world market the US feels anything that affects the world supply of oil.
Probably late 19th century? I've read opinion pieces (obviously not historical fact, but interesting nonetheless) that point to the civil war as the first blatant, widespread instance of a president stepping way outside the constitution
The first instance of the president of the United States of America I know, or recall, of is Andrew Jackson, president from 1828 to 1837. When he forced the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, he was sued in the US Supreme Court. With the court, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled he was acting illegally. Jackson then said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
I think it would be over the course of the first half of the 20th century when we went from an isolationist,
The USA wasn't really so isolationist in the early part of the 20th century as it's made out to be. The USA was involved in Banana Republics, called that to protect both United Fruit and Standard Fruit, banana suppliers in Latin America. Then Teddie Roosevelt pushed to have the Panama Canal built.
BS!!! The USA was founded as secular nation. You can even is it in the country's two most important documents. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson only wrote "God" once, where he wrote "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". "Lord appears nowhere in it. In the Constitution of the USA "God" never appears and "Lord" is only used once, where they wrote the date it was signed: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names." TJ even wrote that religion was a private matter and that's where it should stay. Fact is is many of the early settlers came to America to escape persecution. Some then started persecuting the "Others" themselves. So at least some of the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the government couldn't persecute others or used to do so.
"Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state."
He cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.
What he believes and what he will do doesn't have to be the same thing. I don't approve of abortion but I leave it up to the person pregnant as to whether she has one or not. Here's Ron Paul positions on LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered, issues. He opposed two amendments that would have prevented homosexual couples from adoption. Efforts to classify marriage as a union between a man and a woman he opposes. This is what he said of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for homosexuls in the military:
""I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
It doesn't exactly look like he opposes homosexuality, homosexuals, or homosexual acts.
Slashdot Mirror
Muni WiFi shoud fail for the sake of free speech. It's always boggled my mind to see the amount of support on /. for muni WiFi. With the general (and healthy) distrust of government in this forum, why should we desire to ask a government to own and operate a primary channel of the public's communication? Do you really want mayors and governors loyal to the Bush administration to have significant say in who has access to look inside your internet connection?
Why does muni wireless have to mean the government runs and controls it? Just because a governmental body provides the infrastructure it doesn't mean they have to control it. A good example of where government built the infrastructure but allowed whoever to offer services using it is in northeastern Utah. There several communities got together and created a Broadband Utopia. They built it but allow anyone to offer services using it. Though wired I see no reason wireless couldn't be added.
FalconEarlier this year I spent six weeks in South Africa setting up computers in disadvantaged schools.
Good for you. I support and have done charity work, but don't take my money and hand it out to others. Let me donate the money I get to anyone I want to give it to.
FalconWhy should you be thrilled to pay for roads you don't actually use?
You shouldn't pay, road building and maintenance should be paid for by a tax on fuel.
Why should you be thrilled to pay for welfare? Because otherwise you'd have higher crime and you'd have to step over starving people in the streets.
I prefer letting Civil Society help those who need help, let me decide for myself what type of entity I want to donate the money I work to earn to give to. With few exceptions civil society has a better track record than government does, and those groups who aren't effective won't be around long, people won't want to donate to ineffective groups. The Shriners civil society built the Shriner's Hospital not the government. Danny Thomas founded St. Jude Children's Research Hospital If you're concerned about crime, two things can help. One, get rid of all of the victimless crime laws on the books. Prohibition didn't work and neither is the War on Drugs. If people are willing to except the risks they should be able to work as prostitutes. By getting rid of these "crimes" the prison population will be cut in half. Secondly by reducing taxes people will have more money to both spend and invest and both of these will create more jobs.
I get tired of this "everyone for themselves" attitude. It's a fallacy. Nobody who espouses it has ever actually lived in a place where everyone had to do everything for themselves.
Guessing from your statement, I guess you can't survive on your own. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can't. Growing up you could have dropped me in the Everglades and I could have survived there on my own without help. Of course I may of died on my own years later, but I'd prefer to die alone anyway. What do you think people did throughout history without technology?
FalconIn my neighborhood we have 1 trash choice
I don't know what the choice(s) are where I live but my sister can pick anyone out of six companies to pick up her trash. She pays the government one price then each owner can decide who will pick up their trash.
FalconWe really don't want to make the same mistake Europe did with landline phones. The US left it to the private sector (that is, the Bell system)
No the US didn't leave leave the landline phones to be built by the private sector. Not only did government give the telcos monopolies but they also gave them money to build it.
FalconWhy is it that they can accomplish this (and their economy, while certainly growing in the last few years has been a small one to be sure) and the same smaller-zed cities in both Canada and the United States cannot?
Is it taxpayer financed? If so there's your answer, even those without a computer are made to pay.
FalconIs coming along with nary a hitch, as far as I can tell. They started late last year, have a good chunk of the city up and running under it already, and should be done with the whole project by the end of the year. I don't have any real-world experience with it (I live in St. Paul), but I haven't heard anything but good about it, so far.
I didn't know Minneapolis had WiFi. I'll have to check it out, I live about 10 minutes by bike from downtown.
FalconThe zoning thing will eventually resolve itself for most people. But I am curious about where you plan to store maybe 100KwHr of electricity as a reserve against a week of cloudy weather.
You shouldn't really need a battery bank large enough for a week's supply of power, two, three days at most. For anything over that, any tyme period that's longer have a backup generator. It can be fueled with either alcohol or biodiesel. Of course it'd have to be sited either in the open or somewhere with good ventilation.
FalconIt would be nice to have free wifi, and maybe this could work as a low quality service for those who can't afford anything better, but for the moment, I can only see this happening through increased taxation, and probably only in the richer neighbourhoods.
While I support municipal I oppose taxes paying for it. Either have users pay or have advertising pay for it. Those who can't otherwise afford it can view ads and get a set speed. Then for those who can afford it they can pay to get faster speeds without ads. A potential problem is will there be enough customers placing ads.
Maybe a street could pool together some money to pay for local wifi
Now this I can go with as long as it's voluntary. Private people can setup their own grid network with neighbors.
FalconIf you had municipal wifi in place you could use the network to enable the kids to learn without the need for expensive classrooms.
That may work for some, but others need a classroom setting.
Falconbut I'd much rather spend those millions to benefit a school and get educational software into Florida's failing schools. Or hell, open an entire new school so kids don't have to wake up an hour earlier to be bussed half way across the city. There are just so many way this money could be used better.
Yeap, schools need the funding. The thing is is schools in Florida were promised funding. That's what the lottery was billed as, educational funding. However all the state did was take money that was going to schools away. I was in college when the lottery was being debated, I was in student government then and we were asked to support the lottery. However after reading the bill authorizing it I decided not to support it. One section particularly got my attention, where it said if any part of the law authorizing the lottery was found unconstitutional all of the money would go to general revenue. Reading that I knew the lottery was never about funding education, all it was was another tax, abet voluntary.
FalconI do not think WiFi is the solution for rual access. It seems to me that it costs no more money to run fiber than to run power an phone lines.
You don't need landlines for WiFi any more than you need a really long cord for your cellphone. While it may not be feasible in many locations in some locations towers with repeaters, like for cellphones, can be erected then they can be powered via PVs.
Falocna general inability to understand that every government project has negative unintended consequences all out of proportion to what it as to accomplish...
And other than pollution, what negative came out of the Rural Electrification Adminitration?
They aren't meant to go on forever, just to keep people farming through the rough times so that they'll be there when we need them. Theoretically they will stop when we no-longer need the reserve capacity.
Ah but farm subsidies will keep on going, and probably get larger. Large agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, the US's largest private equity firm, get billions of dollars in subsidies and they'll never give them up.
FalconCivilian helicopters today are, pretty much, the same as 50 years ago -- because nobody needs them, since the costs of roads are extracted at gunpoint anyway...
And airports aren't extracted at gunpoint?
The examples of electricity and phone service are not really examples. Government's involvement makes those services worse, than they ought to be
You mean better don't you? Because of the Rural Electrification Administration many people who would otherwise never have been able to get electricity were able to get it. And because it's widely available in the US the country has benefited tremendously from it. Look at all of the things in buildings, as well as the buildings themselves, which use electricity. All of them are made by people. The computers, lights, phones, TVs, and so on.
About the only thing negative I have to say about the REA is that without it more people might be using more solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources. Even then though the REA did help with that some. The REA installed thousands of wind generators.
And another argument for you. The subsidy, that dwellers of large cities pay occupants of small villages to have all these services, encourages "urban sprawl". There is a strong argument, that it really hurts the Earth...
Which is why more people should be encouraged to move out of the cities into rural communities. Somewhere where even if they don't farm they can still have their own garden and grow some of their food. I'm kind of stuck between the city and rural life myself. I love art galleries, going to concerts, museums, and watching plays among other things. However I also love to be able to get up, pick a few things from my garden then go out hiking. Not being wealthy I can't afford both. However if I could live maybe an hour from the city and still get broadband, without any latency, that would be great. Once or twice a week I could go into the city and be able to make a living.
FalconIf people on the poor side of town think of a good way to utilize this infrastructure, then they can raise some capital and buy some property where there is infrastructure.
If land values are high enough so that capital costs would be prohibitive, they could raise capital to pay a power company to give them service. If the costs are too high, well, then the idea was not productive enough, and society would be poorer overall if it was carried out.
They're poor, how are they supposed be able to afford to pay for infrastructure?
And don't change the argument, within cities, DSL is available in even the poorest areas. The poor in the US are still relatively affluent, and it is still very profitable for infrastructure companies to cover them.
DSL is not available everywhere even in cities. My sister lives within distance to get DSL but the cabling to her house is old and can't handle DSL. Hell she's been thinking of getting a generator because the powerlines fail frequently. She has lost power for most of the day before.
Falconwell without government.
The electrical grid only works well now because the government granted natural monopolies and pored money into it. Chief amount them in the US was the Rural Electrification Administration, which was part of FDR's New Deal.
FalconPersonally, I prefer to buy my own equipment to renting it. If you get cable television, and need a cable box, the cable company will rent it you for 5-10 dollars per month, that's $60-$120 per year, on the other hand, if you get cable internet, you will need to pay $60 once for a cable modem that will last for years, and will likely be useful even if you switch companies.
My first cable modem lasted about a year before it had to be replaced. I called tech support and they stepped me through some tests before deciding it needed to be replaced. The following day someone came by with a new modem and after looking at the old one he said the new one was faster, then he offered to optimize it. Normally I prefer to buy not rent but in this case renting cost me less. It's been a couple of years now though and I've been thinking of buying one.
FalconThanks for the links. I've been opposed to Bush's tax cuts since he proposed them, and especially opposed to the blooming deficit, but now I have to do some research to do on this curve, the cuts, and the tax receipts.
Personally I'd get rid of all personal income tax at the federal level. The only income tax at the federal level I'd have is one on corporations. Stockholders want limited liability they pay for it.
FalconWe had some oil, but needed more, so we went to the Middle East.
Actually the US gets doesn't get as much oil from the Middle East as many think. Of the top 4 suppliers of oil Canada is the biggest supplier, Mexico is second, Saudi Arabia is third, with Venezuela fourth. Here's a list of the 15 top suppliers the US gets oil from. Three are Middle Eastern and another 5 in Africa. However because oil is traded on a world market the US feels anything that affects the world supply of oil.
FalconProbably late 19th century? I've read opinion pieces (obviously not historical fact, but interesting nonetheless) that point to the civil war as the first blatant, widespread instance of a president stepping way outside the constitution
The first instance of the president of the United States of America I know, or recall, of is Andrew Jackson, president from 1828 to 1837. When he forced the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, he was sued in the US Supreme Court. With the court, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled he was acting illegally. Jackson then said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
I think it would be over the course of the first half of the 20th century when we went from an isolationist,
The USA wasn't really so isolationist in the early part of the 20th century as it's made out to be. The USA was involved in Banana Republics, called that to protect both United Fruit and Standard Fruit, banana suppliers in Latin America. Then Teddie Roosevelt pushed to have the Panama Canal built.
Falcon1. From 1907 to 1913
Panama Canal from the early 1900s to 1914 when the canal opened.
2. From 1920 to 1940
United States occupation of Nicaragua from 1909 to 1933
3. From 1954 to 1959
Second Indochina War, also called the Vietnam War, from 1954 to 1975.
From 1976 to 1982
From 1984 to 1988
Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975 from 1975 to 1999.
Then anyone could challenge any law at any time? Is that what you are asking for?
Not just yes, but Hell Yes!!!
Falconour country was founded as a Christian country
BS!!! The USA was founded as secular nation. You can even is it in the country's two most important documents. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson only wrote "God" once, where he wrote "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". "Lord appears nowhere in it. In the Constitution of the USA "God" never appears and "Lord" is only used once, where they wrote the date it was signed: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names." TJ even wrote that religion was a private matter and that's where it should stay. Fact is is many of the early settlers came to America to escape persecution. Some then started persecuting the "Others" themselves. So at least some of the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the government couldn't persecute others or used to do so.
"Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state."
FalconHe cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.
What he believes and what he will do doesn't have to be the same thing. I don't approve of abortion but I leave it up to the person pregnant as to whether she has one or not. Here's Ron Paul positions on LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered, issues. He opposed two amendments that would have prevented homosexual couples from adoption. Efforts to classify marriage as a union between a man and a woman he opposes. This is what he said of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for homosexuls in the military:
""I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
It doesn't exactly look like he opposes homosexuality, homosexuals, or homosexual acts.
Falcon