Poll: Just 48% Cite U.S. Independence as Top Reason for 4th of July Holiday. Here are the poll results from Zogby:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1137

Should this be a cause for concern? In some ways, yes.

Freedom isn't free. Some people may dismiss that saying as a feel-good slogan, but it is the absolute truth. Much blood and sacrifice was required to bring about American freedom, which was born 230 years ago today. And much more blood and sacrifice has been given since then in order to preserve it. In fact, our military continues to fight and sacrifice for our freedom, as they fight our enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other place where the need for fighting arises. People need to be aware of the price we have paid, and the prices we still need to pay, for our freedom.

This day, known as Independence Day, is as good a day as any to celebrate the fruits of our freedom, as well as to pause and remember those who have fought and died for it. Of course, this is not the only day of the year that Americans should be aware of this. I thank God every day for the freedom we enjoy in this country.

Of course, many people take American freedom for granted. This is understandable, since most Americans don't need to think about the alternatives, and are free to simply go about their daily lives. The ability to do this is one of the things that makes this country great. While many people in other countries around the world can only dream of living in freedom, most Americans are simply used to it. This speaks volumes about the enormity of the accomplishments of those who have fought for our freedom.

There is only one part of the Zogby article that troubles me:

When it comes to celebrating America’s independence, there is a huge division down party lines, the poll shows. Sixty-five percent of Republicans say they use the Fourth for that purpose, while just 30% of Democrats say the same. Almost half (48%) of independents agree.

I must ask: why, oh why, is there a whomping 35-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to this? It seems that many Democrats hold the concept of patriotism in contempt. And they wonder why American voters do not trust them on matters of national security.

Study: Men assume sexual interest when there may be none. I came across this slightly male-bashing article in MSN's Health & Fitness website:

http://health.msn.com/centers/mensexualhealth/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100137643>1=8357

It starts like this:

Turns out men don't have to be living on Mars and women on Venus for communication problems to muck up dealings between the sexes.

Even when they're seated across a table from each other in a first-time, five-minute conversation, a man tends to sexualize a woman and incorrectly assume sexual interest on her part, new research finds.

(Gasp!). Those horrible men. This "new research" doesn't really tell me anything new. Speaking as a man, I can tell you that sometimes when an attractive woman is being friendly, a man can mistake it for a sexual come-on. It's in a man's nature.

Now, ladies, don't fly off the handle. I am not excusing any type of immoral or ungentlemanly male behavior. The article says that this research was conducted to find ways to curb sexual harrassment and date rape. Both of those things (provided that any incident in question is a clear case of either) are inexcusable.

But there are differences between the sexes, regardless of the liberal media's claims to the contrary. Men and women are made differently, and we perceive things differently. Men and women are meant to serve different purposes, especially as parents.

Am I saying that men are superior to women, or vice versa? Of course not. But differences between the sexes exist for a reason. If there were no emotional or psychological differences between the sexes, the human race would either never reproduce, or it would overreproduce.

Here's more from the article:

"We wanted to see if basically the macho-type guy was the only one who did this," said Levesque, adding the study showed that wasn't the case. "That variable -- the socialization to be 'macho' -- doesn't make a difference," he said.

Reporting in the new issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly, the researchers said that when a man meets a woman for the first time and they converse briefly, he's much likelier than she is to rate himself -- and her -- higher on sexual traits such as flirtatiousness. And he's more likely to think she's interested in him sexually, when she may not be.

Again, this is natural, not a result of socialization. When a man meets an attractive woman, he is going to respond to the attraction internally, and he may try to imagine what type of partner she would be. This is the reason men have been courting women throughout written history and, I assume, before that as well. It's where babies end up coming from. Are men going to make mistakes about whether or not certain women are attracted to them? Sure. Mistakes have always been a part of human nature as well. Keep in mind that this theory about natural male (not macho) behavior causing harrassment and date rape was already a foregone conclusion of the researchers before this study was conducted. As far as I can see, the study offers no proof that such offenses are natural results of natural maleness. Some people are simply intent on portraying male feelings and behaviors as being sexist and harmful.

Here is a piece from the article that makes me say "Duh!":

Men rated their women partners higher in sexuality than the women rated the men, said Levesque, who did the research while at the University of Connecticut. "It wasn't that men over-sexualized women only when there was chemistry," he explained. "Their ratings in terms of sexiness did not have a lot to do with whether she was extroverted, agreeable, or whether she behaved in particularly friendly ways."

"If he found her to be physically attractive, he would tend to rate her as sexier," he said, adding that other studies have found the same over-sexualization effect and that men give physically attractive women higher marks for sexiness.

No kidding! They needed to conduct research to figure that out? These people need to get out more. Here's another brilliant observation from Professor Levesque:

Levesque doesn't know why all the men in the study seemed to over-sexualize women, but he speculated that "it's got to be something about socialization, that men are being taught in some way to view women as sexual objects."

Nah! Do you think? Could these men be watching MTV? Or cable TV in general? Or TV in general, for that matter? Do you think they might read magazines? Do you think they might be exposed to pornography, which is so much easier to access now than it was decades ago? The men who participated in this study were aged 18 to 22. Their generation has been exposed to a life-long barrage of sexual imagery in the media. Many of them were probably exposed to public school sex-ed classes as well, and were probably given free condoms to play with.

Here is a more interesting quote from another prof:

The study findings are no surprise to Charles Hill, a professor of psychology at Whittier College, in California. He said the two chemical routes to sexual arousal help explain the study findings.

Testosterone, a hormone that both men and women produce, helps arouse both genders sexually, Hill said. But so does the hormone oxytocin, also in both genders. "Oxytocin promotes infant-mother bonding and women have a boost of it when ovulating, pregnant or lactating," he said. "But it also promotes emotional bonding to people in general," he said. "It may help explain why in the study that men rated women as sexy based on attractiveness, whereas women's rating of sexuality was correlated not only with attractiveness but also personality. There was an emotional component to how they rated" the men.

Not that the "emotional component" in women is news to me, but I'm glad it was mentioned. Men only need to see an attractive woman for their interest to be aroused; female-to-male attraction is a bit harder to understand. Again, it comes down to natural differences between the sexes.

Here's more from Professor Levesque:

For women, Levesque said, the best advice "may be understanding that more often than not he is going to be thinking in sexual terms. You may walk away thinking the conversation went well or not and he may still be thinking in those [sexual attraction] terms."

He may still be thinking in those terms! How dare he! So, would that mean that the conversation did not go well?

Here's more from the professor:

For men, he said: "Don't think every women you meet is attracted to you." This caveat especially holds true for men who think of themselves as sexy or sexual. "Men [in the study] who thought of themselves as sexy also tended to think of their partners as sexy and as interested in them." That may not be the case, however.

Logical enough. However, remember what was said earlier about female-to-male attraction being different? Here is my belief: women tend to be attracted to men who are confident. A man who assumes every woman is attracted to him may be overconfident, and may possess an arrogance that turns women off. But it seems to me that if a man believes that women in general tend to find him attractive, he is found attractive by many women. It's called confidence, and as long as a man does not possess an excess amount of it, many women are likely to be attracted to him. There is nothing wrong with a man being a man, contrary to politically correct belief. In fact, too many men these days seem feminized, which is probably a result of radical feminism, and what Christina Hoff Sommers calls the war against boys.

If anyone reading this happens to be a radical feminist, do yourself a favor: scroll up to the beginning of this post and re-read the fourth paragraph. It may save you from bursting a blood vessel.