Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
They Call Her Sarahcuda, Then They Give Her Nice Soft Pillows and Some Tea
The relaunch of brand Sarah Palin (TM) begins with a no-holds-barred interview with Hugh Hewitt. Says Jim Geraghty, "This is the Sarah Palin who had gotten conservatives fired up like little else a month ago."
How'd Hewitt find her? Here were his questions.
Governor, your candidacy has ignited extreme hostility, even some hatred on the left and in some parts of the media. Are you surprised? And what do you attribute this reaction to?
Governor, the Gibson and the Couric interview struck many as sort of pop quizzes designed to embarrass you as opposed to interviews. Do you share that opinion?
Have you followed the attacks on you, say, via Drudge or the blogs? Some of them are just made up and out of left field, others are just mocking. Do you follow those?
Governor, you mentioned the people who are struggling right now. Have you and your husband, Todd, ever faced tough economic times where you had to sit around a kitchen table and make tough choices?
Governor, when you say things are tight right now, is that simply because of Todd being off not working? Or is it because of extraordinary demands on the fiscal resources of the Palin family? What’s the situation there?
Governor, let’s turn to a couple of issues that the MSM’s not going to pick up. You’re pro-life, and how much of the virulent opposition to you on the left do you attribute to your pro-life position, and maybe even to the birth of, your decision, your and Todd’s decision to have Trig?
Do you think the mainstream media and the left understands your religious faith, Governor Palin?
Governor, let’s close with some foreign affairs. It is reported that you had an Israeli flag in your governor’s office. You wore an Israeli flag pin occasionally. One, is that true? And two, why your support for Israel?
Have you and Todd heard from your son? And how is it on your nerves having your son deployed?
So, all Palin needs to score a Thursday knockout is for Gwen Ifill to ask questions like that. Let's go and check how she opened the 2004 debates.
Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq, especially having to do with the administration's handling.
Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on the ground, or we've never had enough troops on the ground.
Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved -- of a report that you requested that you received a week ago that showed there was no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein?
If you want to start your watch, it's 49 and a half hours before Gwen Ifill is accused of sexism and bias against moose-hunters.
BakedPenguin|9.30.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Wow, Hugh's throwing some hardballs there. The Mets are gonna call him up to their bullpen anytime now.
|9.30.08 @ 9:18PM|#
If you want to start your watch, it's 49 and a half hours
before Gwen Ifill is accused of sexism and bias against
moose-hunters.
It should be noted that the original charges of sexism and bias,
when the left practically screamed for Palin to "get back in the
kitchen!", were warranted.
I share the current skepticism about the validity of the new
charges, though.
|9.30.08 @ 9:19PM|#
The lack of "experience", as in simply adding up the number of
years she's held various government offices, doesn't bother
me.
The fact that this woman apparently doesn't know much of anything
about what's going on in the world scares the hell out of me.
Though part of me wonders if, from a libertarian perspective,
perhaps she'd be a better-than-average President simply because she
doesn't have that "big vision" thing that drives most Presidents.
Obama has his conviction that the Presidency is the font of all
inspiration, McCain has his national greatness through
government-greater-than-ourselves. Even Bush has his apocalyptic
ideas about "ridding the world of evil". Palin has no big evil
motivating ideology like that that I can tell. She just seems to
float with the current.
Then again, I suppose you could say that of George Bush circa 2000,
too, and look how that turned out.
Kolohe|9.30.08 @ 9:28PM|#
"Gov. Palin, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Kolohe|9.30.08 @ 9:29PM|#
That joke is old enough to vote in the coming election (first air date Nov 1, 1990). I can't believe it's reality now.
|9.30.08 @ 9:45PM|#
Since Gwen Ifill is black, I won't be surprised if she's accused of asking tough questions of Palin out of "racial solidarity" with Obama.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Since Gwen Ifill is black, I won't be surprised if she's accused of asking tough questions of Palin out of "racial solidarity" with Obama.
Bingo. That will be the spin.
|9.30.08 @ 10:02PM|#
Its easy to see her as one of the "Flandereses" out of 'The
Simpsons'.
Todd!
Rod!
Maude!
Guys and Gals!
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:08PM|#
I'm really starting to hate the very notion of vice presidents.
Just on a purely visceral level. They don't much matter (except
that they do, you know, if someone kicks it, but that's never
polite to say aloud, and isn't actuarially all that likely) and so
they are a ripe pick for pandering and/or "filling in" for some
silly notion of ticket balance.
So we're left with a drug warrior and a foreign policy retard. How
nice for us, if one of the assholes on the front line dies and/or
is bumped off.
I'd personally rather the thing be uncluttered by this sort of
crap. I kinda liked the original system where POTUS and VPOTUS were
the winner and the runner-up. Or absent that, at least have them
run separately, instead of packaged as a ticket.
Seitz|9.30.08 @ 10:15PM|#
So, all Palin needs to score a Thursday knockout is for Gwen
Ifill to ask questions like that
Are you sure? I mean, did you see her answers?
It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally
represented in the position of vice presidency
Umm, no, it's not. Frito Pendejo would not make a good Vice
President.
Seitz|9.30.08 @ 10:15PM|#
Umm, no, it's not. Frito Pendejo would not make a good Vice
President.
At least not for another 500 years or so.
SIV|9.30.08 @ 10:19PM|#
Regardless of what you think of Sarah Palin can anyone say she wouldn't be a much better President than third in line Nancy Pelosi?
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Regardless of what you think of Sarah Palin can anyone say
she wouldn't be a much better President than third in line Nancy
Pelosi?
In a crunch, I certainly would take Pelosi over Palin. I'd much
rather have neither, but that's really not up to me, is it?
BDB|9.30.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Pelosi. I don't want someone who thinks the rapture is near and we will all be sheltered in Alaska when the End Times come to have her finger on that big red button.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 10:23PM|#
I do really hate Speaker Botox, though. Really. So that says a LOT. I feel dirty after saying that.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:25PM|#
Funny thing, of course, is if the GOP wanted to play this stupid
identity politics charade, they could have picked way more
accomplished GOP chicks to take second fiddle. Like Olympia Snowe,
or Elizabeth Dole, or...well, anyone else.
People who a conscientious person could envision being better than
Pelosi. Which isn't exactly the highest fucking bar, now, is
it?
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:28PM|#
I'd take Condi Rice over Pelosi.
Ditto, but only just. I tend to twitch when thinking about her
[lying us into war/approving torture/torching our diplomatic
credibility] ways.
I like a malignant intelligence (that could theoretically be
reasoned/bargained with) over a malignant idiot (who cannot).
BDB|9.30.08 @ 10:28PM|#
If you knew anything about Speaker Botox's father, it wouldn't be "just barely". He was a Democrat Spiro Agnew.
|9.30.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Among GOP women, Christie Todd Whitman is by far the most intelligent - although she has been sullied by the Bush administration too.
Ben|9.30.08 @ 10:31PM|#
At least Palin might listen to advisors. With Pelosi as Pres I think she would be so power mad that no one could stop her. She would be like the elven queen in the first Lord of the Rings movie when she tries to convince Frodo to give the ring to her.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:34PM|#
At least Palin might listen to advisors. With Pelosi as Pres
I think she would be so power mad that no one could stop her. She
would be like the elven queen in the first Lord of the Rings movie
when she tries to convince Frodo to give the ring to
her.
And your basis for this is...?
alan|9.30.08 @ 10:34PM|#
Governor, the Gibson and the Couric interview struck many as
sort of pop quizzes designed to embarrass you as opposed to
interviews. Do you share that opinion?
The Gibson interview was the definition of a fair interview. Why
should a politician who wants a position to high office have an
easier time of it than a masters candidate during the oral portion
of an examination?
As for Couric, the woman is just too damn good looking for me to
have anything resembling a balanced judgment on so I'll have to
pass.
alan|9.30.08 @ 10:37PM|#
shrike | September 30, 2008, 10:31pm | #
Among GOP women, Christie Todd Whitman is by far the most
intelligent - although she has been sullied by the Bush
administration too.
I don't know, there is something about Whitman that makes me want
her to burn in hell, but maybe it is time to reassess her career.
Perhaps I'm being a little too harsh.
Ben|9.30.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Elemenope--My basis for this is years of observing Nancy Pelosi
in Congress.
Admittedly I have no basis for the Sarah Palin speculation, but I'd
like to believe that the majority of people in this country are not
power hungry monsters of the Pelosi/Hillary Clinton variety.
Although we are speaking of politicians here so maybe all of them
are.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 10:42PM|#
"She would be like the elven queen in the first Lord of the
Rings movie when she tries to convince Frodo to give the ring to
her."
Philistine! Galadriel could have taken the Ring, but she *chose*
not to. I bet you're one of those folks who read the book only
*once.*
Kolohe|9.30.08 @ 10:44PM|#
If you knew anything about Speaker Botox's father, it
wouldn't be "just barely". He was a Democrat Spiro Agnew
Here's a Gore Vidal / Harry Turtledove story for you:
What if her father *was* Spiro Agnew?
I'd take Libby Dole over Palin any day.
I have a viceral hatered for Sen (Mrs.) Dole that most people have
for Hillary Clinton.
Like Clinton, she got her senate seat largely because of her
husband (to be fair, she ain't a carpetbagger being a native
daughter)
She robbed the Red Cross blind.
And I will never forgive her for being the DoT Sec who championed
the federalism workaround to get the drinking age nationalized to
21. She more than anyone represents that Republicans, even at the
time of Reagan, are only for the govt getting off your back when it
suits them
BDB|9.30.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Ben is correct on her assessment of Pelosi.
Her father was Tommy D'Alesandro, the mob boss Mayor
of Baltimore. He was basically Tony Soprano, except he held
"elective" (I use that term loosely) office.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 10:45PM|#
Ok, let's try that again.
Her father was Tommy D'Alesandro, the mob boss Mayor
of Baltimore. He was basically Tony Soprano, except he held
"elective" (I use that term loosely) office.
Orange Line Special|9.30.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Boy howdy, those sure are some lightweight questions!
Say, does everyone remember the look on BHO's face when Dave
"Pitbull" Weigel called him on some
of his lies?
And, I'm sure we all remember how shocked McCain was when Weigel
asked him this
question.
Everyone does remember that, right?
|9.30.08 @ 10:52PM|#
I bet you're one of those folks who read the book only
*once.*
I'll do you one better: I haven't read them at all. I gave The
Hobbit a run, but it was boring...and in a recurring pattern,
fell asleep at the movies (yes, all three of them).
Perhaps I need more sleep buuuut there is certainly a strong
correlation there.
alan|9.30.08 @ 10:55PM|#
And I will never forgive her for being the DoT Sec who
championed the federalism workaround to get the drinking age
nationalized to 21. She more than anyone represents that
Republicans, even at the time of Reagan, are only for the govt
getting off your back when it suits them.
Same here, good man. If you didn't write that I would have had to.
My older siblings were legal at eighteen but I had the misfortune
of turning eighteen at the tail end of the Reagan Administration.
Sure I had a fake ID, and even before that in high school I would
tip college students a twenty to go into the ABC stores for me, but
just on the sake of principle I would like to cast her demon soul
into the darkest depths of Mordor. Plus she owes me personally for
those tips and ID's, likely several hundred bucks in all.
Back in the eighties, what was it about political hack wives?
Tipper Gore, Liddy Dole, that one who wrote lesbian soft core, err,
Lynne Cheney, they were the enemy as far as any politically aware
teenager was concerned.
Orange Line Special|9.30.08 @ 10:55PM|#
CORRECTION: After reviewing my notes, I realize
now that Dave Weigel didn't ask those questions, and in fact has
almost never asked anyone a slightly discomforting question.
However, he did ask LarrySinclair a question that wasn't a complete
puffball, and LarrySinclair is a Beltway Insider who could easily
end Weigel's career. Thus, that was an extremely gutsy move on Dave
"Pitbull" Weigel's part.
|9.30.08 @ 10:55PM|#
OLS, from your site:
Hernandez was previously Director of the Office for Mexicans
Living Abroad until there was apparently some sort of
falling out involving him or someone else.
Wow, Chris, now that's some quality reporting. "apparently a
falling out involving [Hernandez]" OR "someone else"?
Really? Those are your top-notch reporting skillz?
SIV|9.30.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Christine Todd Whitman is like a female Lincoln Chafee or Jim Jeffords. She wouldn't be a Republican in any State that knew what one was.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Philistine! Galadriel could have taken the Ring, but she
*chose* not to. I bet you're one of those folks who read the book
only *once.*
You fucking win, Max. I'm not sure what, but you win.
Ben is correct on her assessment of Pelosi.
Her father was Tommy D'Alesandro, the mob boss Mayor of Baltimore.
He was basically Tony Soprano, except he held "elective" (I use
that term loosely) office.
I'm terribly sorry, but I refuse to visit the sins of the father
upon the child. She is not "the mob boss mayor of
Balitmore". I do not subscribe the a theory of corruption of the
blood. I'm kind of surprised that you do.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 10:57PM|#
"I'll do you one better: I haven't read them at all. I gave The
Hobbit a run, but it was boring...and in a recurring pattern, fell
asleep at the movies (yes, all three of them)."
Hmmm . . . I've heard that people like you existed, but until now
I've never encountered any. Just kidding.
Now, I don't want to scare any of the H&R posters who are fans
of Tolkien, but he was a lifelong Catholic (his mother was a
convert). Not only that, but after becoming Catholic, I found that
many parts of Tolkien's works were, shall we say, evocative.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Christine Todd Whitman is like a female Lincoln Chafee or
Jim Jeffords. She wouldn't be a Republican in any State that knew
what one was.
Jeez, man, you really go for the soft sell.
What you note is a *feature* not a *bug*. In case you haven't been
paying attention lately, doctrinaire [any party you care to name]
members have been fucking up shit since forever. I'll take a brain
over a true believer. Nietzsche had some choice words on the
subject.
|9.30.08 @ 10:57PM|#
oh, and another gem from OLS:
I'll leave checking the other statistics to you the
reader
But then you go on and cite a statistic anyway! Where'd you pull
that stat from? Ex Recto?
Orange Line Special|9.30.08 @ 10:58PM|#
CORRECTION: I'm sorry to have to post a
correction to my previous correction, but it turns out that
LarrySinclair - the only person that Weigel has ever asked even a
slightly discomforting question of - actually has no power
whatsoever, inside or outside the Beltway.
I apologize for the confusion, especially to Dave "Pitbull"
Weigel.
SIV|9.30.08 @ 10:58PM|#
David Weigel | September 30, 2008, 10:53pm | #
Hey everybody! I'm in the tank for Obama!
Obviously a fake poster
The REAL DW doesn't have to advertise his partisan advocacy, he
lives it.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:00PM|#
"You fucking win, Max. I'm not sure what, but you win."
A lifetime subscription to Nerds Monthly. And you can't have my
copy, ha!
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Apparently Kathleen Parker (National Review), David Frum (former
Bush speechwriter), and Peggy Noonan (Reagan speechwriter) are all
in the tank for Obama, too, since they dare question Palin's
readiness to be Vice President.
Damn liberal media!
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 11:02PM|#
Now, I don't want to scare any of the H&R posters who
are fans of Tolkien, but he was a lifelong Catholic (his mother was
a convert). Not only that, but after becoming Catholic, I found
that many parts of Tolkien's works were, shall we say,
evocative.
I find it hard to understand his works (esp. The
Simarillion) *without* knowing he was a Catholic. It is the
lens that puts it all into place.
Ditto anything written by Chesterton.
Not that his Catholicity didn't also cause some silliness. His
historic falling out with C. S. Lewis (another potent Christian
mind; The Screwtape Letters should be required reading in
school, not only for the insight into human nature, but also the
insight into the believing mind) was over the vagaries of whether
Catholicism or Anglicanism were the best exemplars of Christianity.
Some stupid shit to break up a relationship over, IMO, but then
again I've never belonged to an exclusive club like that, so what
do I know.
OO===D|9.30.08 @ 11:03PM|#
"I apologize for the confusion, especially to Dave "Pitbull"
Weigel."
LEAVE DAVID ALONE!!! LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!
But seriously David, are you unable to look at yourself
objectively? Everyone else does. Sad, that.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Anglicanism and Catholicism are so similar I fail to see how anyone could get upset about that.
|9.30.08 @ 11:03PM|#
I'm just sayin', political corruption can run in
families.
I'd certainly say that, while not corruption, Nancy Pelosi taking
boatloads of cash from unions while forcing all of her staff at her
vineyards, restaurant and hotel to be nonunion is at least one of
those "things that make you go 'hmmm'".
OO===D|9.30.08 @ 11:04PM|#
"Not that his Catholicity didn't also cause some
silliness."
Were you a catholic David? Did the priests bad touch you? It would
explain a lot.
Orange Line Special|9.30.08 @ 11:06PM|#
The Angry Optimist:
1. The post you're referring to (first link above) mentions several
statistics. I show how BHO is lying about one, and I leave checking
the others to anyone else who's interested. All I need is to show
he's lying about one statistic to show that BHO is lying. The other
statistics aren't tied to the first one. Thus, there's no conflict
whatsoever.
2. The "falling out" I mentioned has no material impact on anything
else on that page, and was only mentioned in passing. Reporters do
that all the time.
That said, here's an example of
something that Reason's contributors and commentators would
need to undergo testosterone therapy for a few years before
attempting.
Weigel should stick with LarrySinclair.
OO===D|9.30.08 @ 11:08PM|#
"I'd certainly say that, while not corruption, Nancy Pelosi
taking boatloads of cash from unions while forcing all of her staff
at her vineyards, restaurant and hotel to be nonunion is at least
one of those "things that make you go 'hmmm'".
She has no other option. If she doesn't screw over her employees,
he grandkids -- you remember them; they were there when she became
Speaker -- won't be able to afford the bail out. Anybody have a
copy of her Speaker's acceptance speech?
OO===D CI===OO|9.30.08 @ 11:09PM|#
"Anglicanism and Catholicism are so similar I fail to see how
anyone could get upset about that."
No argument here.
|9.30.08 @ 11:09PM|#
Christine Todd Whitman is like a female Lincoln Chafee or
Jim Jeffords. She wouldn't be a Republican in any State that knew
what one was.
Translation - Whitman is not a lunatic fundie aborto-freak who
appeals to Southern backwoods hicks - never mind that she is the
only GOP woman who could take on Hillary Clinton in a real
conservation.
Plus - she REALLY took on the mantle of a maverick when she wrote
that book - 'Its my Party too'
You keep on digging that electoral hole you're working on. The rest
of the country is catching on.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:12PM|#
" His historic falling out with C. S. Lewis . . . over the
vagaries of whether Catholicism or Anglicanism were the best
exemplars of Christianity. Some stupid shit to break up a
relationship over, IMO, but then again I've never belonged to an
exclusive club like that, so what do I know."
On a completely unrelated subject, can you believe how Barr and his
crypto-Republicans have hijacked the Libertarian Party? How can
anyone fail to realize that Barr and his supporters are not true
Libertarians, and they all deserve to be excomm - I mean,
denounced.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:13PM|#
MM--
That's about the extent of it between Catholicism and Anglicanism.
Well, even narrower.
|9.30.08 @ 11:14PM|#
How can anyone fail to realize that Barr and his supporters
are not true Libertarians, and they all deserve to be excomm - I
mean, denounced.
*zing* - 'bout time someone said it better than I was.
From now on, when some "LP Debate Club" loser shows up, I'm posting
as Torquemada.
alan|9.30.08 @ 11:15PM|#
Whitman is not a lunatic fundie aborto-freak who appeals to
Southern backwoods hicks
Browse the DailyKos much? Seriously, get that shit out of your
system for your own good. Your brain will thank you later.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:16PM|#
SIV, Shirke, and OLS all together is like some horrible toxic mixture of DailyKos, RedState, and Free Republic.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:16PM|#
Oh, if William R showed up we could ad Lewrockwell.com in there too! *shudders at the thought*
|9.30.08 @ 11:21PM|#
BDB - yikes! And just imagine if we got one of those gol-durned Objectivists in here or somethin'...
alan|9.30.08 @ 11:21PM|#
Oh, if William R showed up we could ad Lewrockwell.com in
there too! *shudders at the thought*
I don't know William R, and I would also agree there are some
strands of thought over there that deserve a heap or two of
criticism, but still, Anthony Gregory at the very least is one cool
motherfucker no matter how you slice it.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:23PM|#
Incidentally, I don't know the ins and outs of the Tolkien-Lewis
relationship. I know that Tolkien got Lewis to switch from
atheism/agnosticism to Christianity.
The differences between Anglicans and Catholics was narrower in
those days - this was before Bishop Spong and other Anglican
foolishness. By the standards of today, the two communions were
close, but the Anglicans subsequently drifted off into la-la
land.
The Weigelmeter|9.30.08 @ 11:24PM|#
"The site has its moments, but it lapses into loonyland too
often."
Shit in. Shit out.
alan|9.30.08 @ 11:24PM|#
BDB - yikes! And just imagine if we got one of those
gol-durned Objectivists in here or somethin'...
What ever happened to Randian (I think the name may have been)? New
nick? Split in a huff? Oh, and Cesar too. He had the funniest
posts.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:25PM|#
By the standards of today, the two communions were close, but the Anglicans subsequently drifted off into la-la land.
Yeah, the Anglicans have decided to let their bishops be openly
gay, while the Catholics have kept their bishops in the closet.
|9.30.08 @ 11:25PM|#
but still, Anthony Gregory at the very least is one cool
motherfucker no matter how you slice it.
I know! That's why it bugs the hell out of me that he's over
there.
Objectivists>Paleotarians
Ha...I was being self-deprecating with the Objectivist thing,
BDB...I forgot that you might not have really known me as
"Ayn_Randian".
|9.30.08 @ 11:26PM|#
What ever happened to Randian
oh hell...now I have no idea if alan is kidding or not.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:29PM|#
If it makes you feel better, Roman Catholics>any denomination of evangelicals. At least the former has good music and architecture.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:30PM|#
BDB,
Its the proclivity of American bishops to cover up priestly
misconduct, and their (not unrelated) promotion of heresy in the
U.S. church, which is the problem.
alan|9.30.08 @ 11:30PM|#
TAO -- I wasn't absolutely sure, but I have almost assumed that to be the case ;) Funny, how you can know someone by their style of writing.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:31PM|#
"At least the former has good music and architecture."
If you're in the right parish, yes. I hope you never have occasion
to get disillusioned by walking into one of the "modern"
liturgies.
Care to Address This, Weigel?|9.30.08 @ 11:31PM|#
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645
VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book Focuses on
blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'
Posted: September 30, 2008
8:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The moderator of Thursday's vice presidential debate between
Democrat Sen. Joe Biden and GOP Gov. Sarah Palin is writing a book,
to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of
office, to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama
and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are
"forging a bold new path to political power."
Gwen Ifill, of the Public Broadcasting Service program called
"Washington Week," is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which she
argues the "Black political structure" of the civil rights movement
is giving way to men and women who have benefited from those
struggles over racial equality.
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a
comment about her book project, and whether its success would be
expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously
for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During an earlier debate event she moderated, when Democrat John
Edwards attacked Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton, the
vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take
more than 30 seconds."
"Well, that's all you've got," she told him.
Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her
answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney."
She explains that wasn't her intent.
But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler
said he got after Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech
at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis this
year.
The complaints cited Ifill's "dismissive" look during her report on
Palin's speech. According to Getler, some complaints also said she
wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on Palin.
At that time she said, "I assume there will always be critics and
just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy."
Ifill, who also works with PBS' "NewsHour," is making preparations
to moderate this week's debate between the two candidates for vice
president, and told BlackAmericaWeb.com that she thinks debates
"are the best opportunity most voters have to see the candidates
speaking to issues."
She said she is concerned only about getting straight answers from
candidates.
"You do your best to get candidates to answer your question. But I
also trust the viewers to understand when questions are not
answered and reach their own conclusions," Ifill told
BlackAmericaWeb.
"Four years ago, when neither John Edwards nor Dick Cheney proved
capable of answering a question about the domestic epidemic of AIDS
among African-American women, viewers flooded me with reaction,"
she said.
She said she will make her own decisions about what questions to
ask, and "the big questions matter."
In the Amazon.com promotion for her book, Ifill is described as
"drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama,
former Secretary of State Colin Powell…" and others.
In an online video promoting her book, she is enthusiastic about
"taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it."
It focuses on four people, "one of them Barack Obama of course,"
she said.
"They are changing our politics and changing our nation," she
said.
On Amazon.com, Ifill is praised for her "incisive, detailed
profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory booker,
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur
Davis of Alabama."
"Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history," the
review says.
She told AP about her views on Obama, "I still don't know if he'll
be a good president." She also describes how she met him at the
2004 Democratic convention, and since then has interviewed Obama
and his family.
She also boasted by the time of the debate, "I'll be a complete
expert on both" Palin and Biden.
The debate will be held at Washington University in St. Louis,
which has posted information about the evening's events
online.
Ifill's profile there describes her as a longtime correspondent and
moderator for national news programs and includes her service as
moderator of the 2004 debate between Edwards and Cheney.
However, there's no mention of her upcoming book. Nor does the
website for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is
organizing the meetings of the candidates, mention her book.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:32PM|#
MM--
I haven't. But I did date a southern baptist girl in college and
had to sit through one of their services. Painful. I hate hate hate
*hate* "praise" music.
|9.30.08 @ 11:35PM|#
Oh good, WND.
Well, now you have an excuse for when she fucks up the "Please
state your full name" section of the test.
|9.30.08 @ 11:37PM|#
BDB - I hear you on that. I had never been to a church service
that had PowerPoint before. There was even a workbook where I was
supposed to like, fill out answers!
I was all like "Where are the robes? I need some candelabras!"
alan|9.30.08 @ 11:39PM|#
So, what are you worried about with Ifill? If she appears partisan Thursday that counts in Palin's favor, and if the Republican has half the mettle that Republican's claim she'll flex through Ifill questions like Neo through a hail of gunfire and look even more marvelous for it. You should thank of it as a golden opportunity but somehow I don't think you quite see it that way, right?
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:40PM|#
BDB,
There's a lot of that praise music stuff in the parishes of the
Latin tradition - ironic, considering that the word "Latin" tends
to conjure up images of Palestrina and Mozart. Many bishops -
including in America - only want to allow the "happy clappy" praise
stuff to the exclusion of the more solemn Latin liturgy. The Pope
has issued guidelines
allowing a wider use of the old Latin-language liturgy in the Latin
church, so we'll see how this plays out.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:42PM|#
The Byzantine Catholics (of whom I am one) have resisted the happy-clappy stuff. Their liturgy is totally awesome.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 11:42PM|#
The differences between Anglicans and Catholics was narrower
in those days - this was before Bishop Spong and other Anglican
foolishness. By the standards of today, the two communions were
close, but the Anglicans subsequently drifted off into la-la
land.
So true on the "nary a space of air between them" back then. But as
for hatin' on Spong, I cannot join. Surely there was some silliness
to his take, but like Duns Scotus, Luther, Kierkegaard, and
Tillich, he keeps some orthodox fuckers on their toes. I love
anyone who does that. Without heretics, religion lapses into
complacent idiocy. Much like liberty must be refreshed by the blood
of patriots, perhaps the same can be said of the church and
heretics.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 11:45PM|#
Gwen Ifill, of the Public Broadcasting Service program
called "Washington Week," is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which
she argues the "Black political structure" of the civil rights
movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from
those struggles over racial equality.
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a
comment about her book project, and whether its success would be
expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously
for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During an earlier debate event she moderated, when Democrat John
Edwards attacked Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton, the
vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take
more than 30 seconds."
Wow, BDB. It's like you type and then, like, twenty minutes
later...
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:47PM|#
Elemenope-
If they lose, they blame ACORN as the bogeyman. You heard it form
me, first.
BDB|9.30.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Isn't a Byzantine Catholic an follower of the Eastern Orthodox
Church?
I'm not up on this stuff.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Elemenope,
Spong started off one of his books by going through the Christian
Creed and explaining why he disbelieved in every part of it.
Think of a member of the Libertarian Party executive committee
publishing a book in which he explained why he disagrees with each
and every part of the Libertarian platform, and why socialism is
the wave of the future. Wouldn't such a person be more comfortable
in the Republican or Democratic party? If he didn't want to resign,
shouldn't he be kicked out? Unless Libertarians have actually
stopped caring about their principles, and think socialism is just
one item on a menu of options.
Likewise with Spong - by keeping him, Anglicans are saying that
Christian orthodoxy is just one item on a menu of options, with
other valid options - like atheism/agnossticism - being equally
valid.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Objectivists > Paleotarians
As much as it might hurt TAO's self respect, I hold to that
inequality as well. Say what you will about Objectivism, but at
least it's an ethos...
(TBL has been coming up *a lot* lately)
On the other hand, paleotarianism, so far as I can tell, is just a
collection of cranky old white men who have either got theirs and
fuck everyone else, or would have but for the action of secret
crypto-communist kids. "If it hadn't been for you kids, I would
have gotten away with creating a miserable libertopian hell!"
|9.30.08 @ 11:51PM|#
On the now-defunct SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists), I once
wrote that the "Rockwellians true colors look suspiciously like the
top of the Duke boys' car"
I was a smartass 19-year-old, but I didn't realize my
prescience.
/modesty and humility.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:52PM|#
BDB,
There are Christians in the Byzantine tradition who are with the
Pope, and some who aren't. It's kind of a long story,
|9.30.08 @ 11:52PM|#
As much as it might hurt TAO's self respect
Nah man. I've always thought that, rather than this being a
Koch/Rothbard split that it was always a Rand/Rothbard split.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Mad Max --
If you are referring to his narrow tome Why Christianity Must
Either Change or Die (pretty punchy; you don't see that much
these days), then he didn't actually come out against the Nicene
creed. He just unpacked it in the modern context and explained why
he thought the wording doesn't much jive with even how most
orthodox Christians that have thought for, like, two minutes think
about God. I thought on that point he was clearly right, whether or
not one goes on to embrace his suggested "edits". (he *is* a
heretic, after all.)
And much like Tillich (who was accused of being a closet Atheist) I
think it unfair to deprive a person like Spong of the label they
consider to best represent their belief *despite their apparent or
actual heterodoxy*. It wasn't like he was a layman with some quirky
ideas. The man was a bishop and a fairly learned guy, who spoke out
only after much consideration. There is much to criticize in the
nitty-gritty of his specific scholarship on some issues, but I
don't think it fair to just pigeonhole him as a closet
agnostic.
Mad Max|9.30.08 @ 11:56PM|#
"The man was a bishop and a fairly learned guy, who spoke out
only after much consideration."
So was Nestorius. So were the bishops who covered up the sex
scandals.
But it's none of my business who the *Anglicans* have in their
leadership:)
alan|9.30.08 @ 11:56PM|#
Isn't every a little guilty of this kind of thinking?
"If it hadn't been for you kids, I would have gotten away with
creating a miserable libertopian hell!"
As for me: if it wasn't for the WOD and culturally antiquated
anti-prostitution laws driving up the price, I could snort coke off
of a hooker's ass every night.
So, what gets in the way of your utopia?
Care to Address This, Weigel?|9.30.08 @ 11:58PM|#
"She told AP about her views on Obama, "I still don't know if
he'll be a good president."
he'll = he will
Clear bias.
Elemenope|9.30.08 @ 11:59PM|#
But it's none of my business who the *Anglicans* have in
their leadership:)
Me either, being a dirty Atheist myself. I'm just saying I don't
begrudge people the labels they choose for themselves. No True
Scotsman and all that.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:00AM|#
And to add my usual cheap shot - Marx spent years in the British Library doing research before publishing *Das Kapital.* Should he have been rewarded for his scholarly labors and hard sincerity by being made an Anglican bishop?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:02AM|#
The True Scotsman defense tends to be invoked by atheists when I mention the various atheist mass-murderers of the 20th century. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. couldn't possibly have been atheists, because *true* atheists are rational and don't commit mass murder!
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:04AM|#
But these various killers certainly *claimed* to be atheists. And who are we to challenge their self-definition?
|10.1.08 @ 12:06AM|#
And who are we to challenge their
self-definition?
well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck...
People's secret intentions aside, they manifest themselves to us
outwardly through their actions.
I am not, however, saying that Mao and Stalin and all those folks
*weren't* atheists. They certainly were. Just refuting the general
notion that we should just "let" people label themselves without
challenge.
Else labels have no meaning.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Religion isn't the problem, it's human irrationality that causes
people like Mao and Stalin.
That's where I fall out with most atheists. I don't think the world
would be free of mass-murderers/dictators wars etc if there were no
religion.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 12:10AM|#
Or, if you prefer, "evil" instead of irrationality but I think one is related to the other somewhat.
TallDave|10.1.08 @ 12:11AM|#
Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a
link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
Does offering Bin Laden asylum count as a link?
TallDave|10.1.08 @ 12:14AM|#
Religion isn't the problem, it's human irrationality that
causes people like Mao and Stalin.
No, Stalin's action were perfectly rational given his goals. He
wanted to achieve power by tricking people into thinking he was
helping the common man, and he succeeded in becoming a very
powerful man.
What Stalin lacked was morality, not rationality. The two often
conflict.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 12:15AM|#
That's where I fall out with most atheists. I don't think
the world would be free of mass-murderers/dictators wars etc if
there were no religion.
I haven't met many atheists who do believe that.
I am not, however, saying that Mao and Stalin and all those
folks *weren't* atheists. They certainly were. Just refuting the
general notion that we should just "let" people label themselves
without challenge.
The problem I see is that on matters of belief, the only
*compelling* sufficient evidence one way or another remains locked
up in a person's head.
Certainly actions and outward indications may cause a person to
doubt the *sincerity* of a label, but nevertheless the possibility
of its inward reality remains.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 12:16AM|#
TallDave-
I swear. You, Christopher Hitchens, Dick Cheney, and the blood
relatives of Dick Cheney are the like the only ones who still think
the Iraq War was a swell idea.
People made up their minds three years ago. Let it go.
|10.1.08 @ 12:18AM|#
I have difficulty thinking of a woman governor, senator, or
congressional rep I'd consider less qualified than Sarah Palin to
be president.
Pat Shroeder would make a better president than Sarah Palin.
Janet Napolitano. Olympia Snowe. Jeanne Shaheen.
Margaret Heckler would be a better president than Sarah Palin, and
I'm pretty sure she's dead.
Nancy Pelosi? Elizabeth Dole? Are you kidding me?
|10.1.08 @ 12:19AM|#
Jeanne Schmitt.
There, I thought of one. Sarah Palin would be a better president
than Jeanne Schmitt. Probably.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 12:22AM|#
And to add my usual cheap shot - Marx spent years in the
British Library doing research before publishing *Das Kapital.*
Should he have been rewarded for his scholarly labors and hard
sincerity by being made an Anglican bishop?
After having read (volume one) of Das Kapital, I unreservedly say
yes. It is quite a comprehensive history of capitalism that in
itself is insightful *and is still taught to historians and
economists* for good reason.
That the guy who write that also wrote a pollyannaish political
*ideology* (which is distinct from both history and philosophy)
that has (indirectly) led to millions of deaths does not bear *at
all* on the perspicacity of his earlier and ultimately more
important work.
|10.1.08 @ 12:23AM|#
I dunno, joe, my home-town gal Marcy Kaptur has never dazzled me
with her brains.
This is the lady who thought Ben Bernanke was the former CEO of
Goldman-Sachs.
Kolohe|10.1.08 @ 12:28AM|#
I have difficulty thinking of a woman governor, senator, or
congressional rep I'd consider less qualified than Sarah Palin to
be president.
Here's one more: Cynthia McKinney
Amakudari|10.1.08 @ 12:32AM|#
My very important contribution to the religious discussion:
Spong was a student resident at my college's local Episcopalian
church, as was my good friend (far different years, of course).
Student residents were two guys who lived in the church and kept
homeless people out at night. Sometimes they dug graves, too. My
friend's roommate at the time was a guy in an interracial gay
relationship. Coming from a conservative family, the black guy told
his parents he was dating a black girl instead of a portly white
guy. Throughout the year, my friend walked in on a lot of sex and
shame, pretty much a microcosm of the Chapel of the Cross in
general.
The environment really enables bizarre religious views. But hey,
the church was a helluva place to get piss-drunk.
|10.1.08 @ 12:33AM|#
Maxine Waters. Remember her? She who threatened to nationalize the oil industry?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Should he have been rewarded for his scholarly labors and
hard sincerity by being made an Anglican bishop?
On second reading, I realized that I read the above in the
following way:
Should he have been rewarded for his scholarly labors and hard
sincerity by being made an Anglican bishop taken
seriously?
And so the non sequitor that follows re: Marx's work should be read
in that spirit.
/facepalm
alan|10.1.08 @ 12:42AM|#
Bev Perdue, running for governor of my state. Tell me she isn't
the biggest candyass you have seen this side of John Edwards.
http://www.bevperdue.com/ajax/u2b_video.asp?videoID=hW_YehCe_dw
alan|10.1.08 @ 12:43AM|#
see if url tag works:
http://www.bevperdue.com/ajax/u2b_video.asp?videoID=hW_YehCe_dw
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|10.1.08 @ 12:44AM|#
I have difficulty thinking of a woman governor, senator, or
congressional rep I'd consider less qualified than Sarah Palin to
be president.
You allow me to cross out "governor, senator, or congressional rep"
and I can find a few:
Paris Hilton. Liza Minelli. Some dead people. Zoe from Sesame
Street.
Hell, any female muppet, except Miss Piggy.
|10.1.08 @ 1:16AM|#
Hell, any female muppet, except Miss Piggy.
Dude, no way. Janice is totally qualified.
Seitz|10.1.08 @ 2:17AM|#
Janet Napolitano
At this point, I'd much rather have Johnette
Napolitano than Palin.
David|10.1.08 @ 2:42AM|#
You can throw out the bias accusation countdown clock. Michelle
Malkin has already started calling Ifill biased.
Why? Because Ifill wrote a book entitled "Breakthrough: Politics
and Race in the Age of Obama."
(Full disclosure: I loves me some Gwen Ifill.)
Syd|10.1.08 @ 3:02AM|#
I see the Republican whine has begun, that this debate is so
unfair, the moderator is one of those mean MSM liberals,
and poor, poor, Sarah Palin is going to have to face all these
trick questions that no soccer mom should be expected to
answer.
Do you know the conditions of the debate? The two VP candidates
know the questions in advance. They are both working out their
answers as we speak. This debate is being organized to level the
playing field, and if Sarah Palin still can't cut it, she doesn't
belong on the stage.
Oh, and I think she'll do okay. Joe Biden is such a marvelous
debater that his campaigns die out of the starting block. Two
campaigns, two delegates. It's not exactly Cicero she's running
against.
|10.1.08 @ 5:34AM|#
"Michelle Malkin has already started calling Ifill biased.
Why? Because Ifill wrote a book entitled "Breakthrough: Politics
and Race in the Age of Obama.""
Yeah, what a kook. Like writing a book about black politicians,
promoting Barack Obama's candidacy as a politcal template for black
politicians in modern America, somehow makes you biased or
something? Pa-leeze.
Jesus Christ. I stopped by this website not exactly expecting to
find the MSNBC/DailyKos crowd milling around. So much for reason.
And libertarianism. Keep sucking Barack Obama's knob for him -- God
knows "free markets and free minds" are what he's all about.
Fuck.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 7:58AM|#
Since the McCain campaign apparently thinks, "Name one newspaper
or magazine you have ever read" is a "gotcha" question, I think we
can assume that they will view every possible question at the
debate as a "gotcha" question.
Palin is either an idiot who can't name a single newspaper or
magazine, or her nerves are so shot that she was frozen into a
stunned total mind-blank by Katie Couric.
It's also pathetic to see all the GOP apologists running around
saying that since Palin is a governor she uses a clipping service,
and that's why she can't name a single newspaper or magazine. What
about the first 40 years of her life when she wasn't a
governor?
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 8:04AM|#
Jesus Christ. I stopped by this website not exactly
expecting to find the MSNBC/DailyKos crowd milling around. So much
for reason. And libertarianism. Keep sucking Barack Obama's knob
for him -- God knows "free markets and free minds" are what he's
all about.
If 50% of the Kos criticism of Bush and the GOP has been based on
opposition to the administration's policies in the War on Terror,
and 50% of the Kos criticism of Bush and the GOP has been based on
economic progressivism, that means that half the time, the
Kos criticism has been absolutely correct and perfectly congruent
with the principles of libertarianism.
Palin has unreservedly endorsed McCain's unreserved endorsement of
Bush's security policies. That means I have no problem pissing all
over her if she fucks up on the stump or in interviews.
Obama might be a "progressive" asshole, but the first and most
important thing anyone here can do for free minds - and
free markets, in the long run - is take a dump on McCain and Palin
whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:11AM|#
"Sometimes they dug graves, too."
It seems Spong is still at it - this time helping to dig the
Episcopelian Church's grave.
But I can't believe you had gay people in the Episcopal Church.
That problem should have been solved by allowing married
priests.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 8:18AM|#
But I can't believe you had gay people in the Episcopal
Church. That problem should have been solved by allowing married
priests.
I have difficulty conceiving of gay people, in any capacity, as a
"problem" to be solved. Though I know we're coming from different
places here, so you'll have to forgive my indignation
somewhat.
On the other point, however, I would ask, how do you stand on
extending the availability of the sacrament of marriage to Catholic
priests? I've heard lots of lay opinions from Catholics on this
one, and conservative or liberal, they tend to be all over the map.
Where do you come down?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:29AM|#
LMNOP,
Priests *can't* get married. But in some circumstances, married men
can be ordained priests. Not in the Latin Church, but in (say) the
Byzantine-rite Churches. My own priest is married. In other words,
it's OK for you to be married at the time of your ordination, but
once you're ordained you can't marry. Different traditions, equally
valid. "In my father's house there are many mansions" (John
14:2).
This is a matter for what you might call the "legislative
discretion" of the Church. I see no call for any of the different
Churches within the broader Catholic Church (Latin, Melkite,
Ukrainian, etc., etc.) to abandon their distinctive traditions on
married priests.
Bishops and monks can *never* be married in any part of the Church,
which seems fine with me.
|10.1.08 @ 8:29AM|#
Her father was Tommy D'Alesandro, the mob boss [and] Mayor
of Baltimore. He was basically Tony Soprano, except he held
"elective" (I use that term loosely) office.
There was no reason to strike through mob boss. Being a mob boss
and mayor are not mutually exclusive.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:36AM|#
Here is an old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on chastity in the priesthood. It has dated references to early-twentieth-century conditions, but still sums up the distinctions fairly well. The author is clearly a Latin Catholic, but he has some discussion of non-Latin traditions in the Church.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:37AM|#
From the article:
"Turning now to the Oriental [Eastern] Churches in communion with
the Holy See, we may note that as a general principle married
clerics are not ineligible for the subdiaconate, diaconate, and
priesthood. As in the Russian Church they must either be married in
accordance with the canons (i.e. not to a widow, etc.), or else as
a preliminary to ordination they are asked whether they will
promise to observe chastity. The full recognition of the right of
the Oriental clergy to retain their wives will be found in the
Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Etsi pastoralis", 26 May, 1742. . .
."
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 8:40AM|#
One time I was fake Radley Balko, but only because he was letting there be fake Dave W.'s.
|10.1.08 @ 8:43AM|#
Of course, McKinney and Harris.
OK, this isn't looking so bad.
But Kolohe, if the dumbest thing Sarah Palin does is the next two
weeks is to mix up the bios of two prominent financial bigwigs,
John McCain will turn cartwheels.
Sarah Palin makes Maxine Waters look like John Adams.
Seitz, you know I've got a soft spot for any woman who croons
"Joooooooeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy..."
|10.1.08 @ 8:44AM|#
That problem should have been solved by allowing married
priests
WTF is your problem, Max? Gay people are a "problem"? Maybe you are
misunderstanding the "people" part of "gay people". As in: we are
all people.
Why do homos freak some people out so much?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:44AM|#
From the decree
Presbyterorum Ordinis issued in 1965 by the Second Vatican
Council:
"16. (Celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift). Perfect
and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven,
commended by Christ the Lord(33) and through the course of time as
well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a
praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church
to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It
is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and
a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world.(34) Indeed,
it is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is
apparent from the practice of the early Church(35) and from the
traditions of the Eastern Churches. where, besides those who with
all the bishops, by a gift of grace, choose to observe celibacy,
there are also married priests of highest merit. This holy synod,
while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to
alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in
the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have
received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy
vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend
themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them."
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:47AM|#
Now, Epi, I was addressing a criticism against priestly
celibacy.
Let's not get all stereotype-ey. I didn't say human beings were
"problems." I am sure you agree that particular kinds of human
*behavior* can be problems. We probably agree that socialism is a
problem. Would it then be fair to say the you believe "socialist
people are a problem?"
|10.1.08 @ 8:50AM|#
Max, what's wrong with a gay priest? Assuming he stays celibate, what is the problem?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 8:52AM|#
Ask the Church officials who used to think it wasn't a problem to ordain "non-practicing" gay people. They, too, didn't think there was anything wrong with gay priests. Several million dollars in damages later, the Church has been obliged to reconsider its attitude. Most gay people don't commit these sorts of crimes, but those who do can land the Church in a whole shitload of trouble. It's a precautionary principle.
|10.1.08 @ 8:53AM|#
People are fallible, Max. James Joyce visited prostitutes while in seminary school. Oops--that's OK, right? Because they were female prostitutes?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 8:54AM|#
Would it then be fair to say the you believe "socialist
people are a problem?"
No. And isn't it a badge of cultural propaganda with Christians
that "you hate the sin but not the sinner"?
Or am I misremembering. I get confused when people act differently
than they claim. (Shades of the earlier argument about letting
people be what the call themselves. :)
|10.1.08 @ 8:55AM|#
Max, if you are going to conflate pedophiles with gay dudes, we are going to have a problem here.
|10.1.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Has anyone here been listening to Michael Savage lately?? Wow, he's a laugh a minute! Losing his mind, now at a rapid clip. If you want to giggle for awhile while listening to a person rail against the puppets of the oligarchy and then transtition on a dime to the history of the cranberry market, tune in.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Ask the Church officials who used to think it wasn't a
problem to ordain "non-practicing" gay people. They, too, didn't
think there was anything wrong with gay priests. Several million
dollars in damages later, the Church has been obliged to reconsider
its attitude. Most gay people don't commit these sorts of crimes,
but those who do can land the Church in a whole shitload of
trouble. It's a precautionary principle.
I think the problem here was more the lies within lies.
The gay priests were expected to lie and say they weren't gay. The
church establishment knew they were gay, but lied and told people
they weren't. Because of these lies, priests were put in positions
where they could abuse their trust. When they did abuse their
trust, more lies were piled on top of the original lies in order to
"protect the Church".
To know if there is really a problem with ordaining gay priests,
we'd have to compare the experience of a church that
openly ordained gay men who made no pretense at celibacy.
Then we'd get to see if homosexuality was the problem, or if the
problem was the cauldron of lies, hypocrisy, and mental illness
surrounding the Catholic tradition of the celibate priesthood.
|10.1.08 @ 9:02AM|#
The priest who gave me first communion and confirmed me is now a happily married man. He was a damn good priest, and it's a bloody shame they cast him aside like that.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Regrettably, the Church has the task of dealing with a situation
as it is, not as some would like it to be. Whatever you can say
about gay people in the abstract, many concrete, actual gay people
got ordained to the priesthood and then committed vile crimes. It
would be nice if God would be kind enough to explain to authorities
in advance which gay candidates can keep their vows and which ones
can't, but if God doesn't choose to reveal this, then some kind of
precautionary principle is called for.
Speaking of socialism, I would like to see the socialists removed
from the priesthood (and the episcopate) considering some of the
damage caused by socialist priests in (say) Latin America. The
Church has already made a start at this - naturally resulting in
criticism of the Church's repressive, punitive attitude.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 9:06AM|#
"The gay priests were expected to lie and say they weren't
gay."
No, they were expected to say they weren't *practicing* gays. That
was under the old, laxer standard.
|10.1.08 @ 9:06AM|#
To know if there is really a problem with ordaining gay
priests
Fluffy, you are dangerously close to implying that being gay is the
same as being a pedophile.
actual gay people got ordained to the priesthood and then
committed vile crimes
But Max is already there. Do I have to explain to you the
difference between "I like to fuck adult males" and "I like to fuck
children"?
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Theorem:
The amount of bitching about the media done by Freepers and other
assorted wingnuts who spam H&R, the farther behind in the polls
John McCain is.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:09AM|#
You gotta love how they're preemptively screaming "media bias"
though. I don't think I've ever seen that done BEFORE the debate
even happens.
Jesus, if John McCain had a problem with it he could have asked for
a different moderator.
Four years ago the moonbats were the whiners. Now it's the
wingnuts.
|10.1.08 @ 9:11AM|#
Hate socialism, but love the socialist?
Translation: Hate theft, but love the thief.
Alternate translation: Hate parasitism, but love the parasite.
|10.1.08 @ 9:12AM|#
Epi,
Of course that's exactly what he's suggesting. There's nothing
wrong with the Catholic Church that can't be blamed on gay people.
He's just a bigot. He can couch in it all the bullshit he wants,
but that's all it boils down too.
He's already drug out his bullshit "all atheists are mass
murderers" line above.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Speaking of socialism, I would like to see the socialists
removed from the priesthood (and the episcopate) considering some
of the damage caused by socialist priests in (say) Latin
America.
Guess you're gonna have to start with Jesus.
Man, that joke works for christian socialists *and* Hispanics. How
fucked up is *that*?
|10.1.08 @ 9:16AM|#
He's already drug out his bullshit "all atheists are mass
murderers" line above.
I just got here. I haven't had the privilege of viewing
that yet.
Guess you're gonna have to start with Jesus.
A common nickname in Spain for people named Jesus is "Nacho". Now
you know.
|10.1.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Mad Max-
The church has historically been very supportive of socialism.
Today? I don't know of too many prelates calling for the
elimination of the income tax. Do you?
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:17AM|#
Yeah, I have a feeling were it not for abortion and homosexuality, about 95% of Catholics would still be Democrats.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:18AM|#
Theorem:
The amount of bitching about the media done by Freepers and other
assorted wingnuts who spam H&R, the farther behind in the polls
John McCain is.
I think your hypothesis accidentally reverses the dependent and
independent variables. It is more likely, as a causal hypothesis,
that:
"The further behind in the polls John McCain is, the greater amount
of bitching about the media done by Freepers and other assorted
wingnuts who spam H&R"
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Today? I don't know of too many prelates calling for the
elimination of the income tax. Do you?
You clearly don't live in Bolivia. Your loss, I guess. ;)
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Yeah, it's been a long time since I took a math or hard sciences
class, Elemenope. Thanks.
BTW, I failed Algebra in 10th grade because my teacher was a biased
liberal.
|10.1.08 @ 9:21AM|#
Elemenope, Epi, Mad Max-
Where in the 4 gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality?
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:22AM|#
LM, I think the condemnation comes from Paul.
The Old Testament, too, but that condemns the eating of pork and
mixing of fabrics among other things so I don't know if that
counts.
|10.1.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Where in the 4 gospels does Jesus condemn
homosexuality?
I don't know, mike. I'm a mass murdering atheist who, much like the
demons on Supernatural, burns when struck with holy water
and can't enter a church. If I tried to read the bible I'd probably
get diarrhea. Really bad.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Fun question for Mad Max:
The Catholic Church doesn't believe alcohol in moderation is
sinful. What about marijuana in moderation, if the laws of a given
country allowed it?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 9:26AM|#
I could probably fill several volumes with what I did *not* say.
I did not say that all the problems of the Catholic Church could be
blamed on gay people. I did not say that all atheists are mass
murderers. Of course, if such an interpretation of my views helps
you make sense of your world, far be it from me to deny you the
consolations of such a naive faith.
Making Jesus into a Socialist is also a stretch.
|10.1.08 @ 9:27AM|#
I did not say that all the problems of the Catholic Church
could be blamed on gay people
Well, Mel Gibson, you did imply that gay = pedophile. Are you going
to continue with that?
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Fluffy, you are dangerously close to implying that being gay
is the same as being a pedophile.
I left that distinction to one side, because the Church has also
faced criticism and lawsuits for "abuse" involving teenage males
over the age of 16. So to put the best possible face on Max's
points, I had to address the aspect of the scandal that had to do
with plain old gay sex.
Although I would also contend that the atmosphere of deception
created by the Church made it easier for pedophiles to flourish,
too. Not to mention the fact that in a social milieu without a lot
of poverty or powerlessness to make the priesthood attractive, the
celibacy requirement pretty much guarantees that the people who
sign up to be priests will be those with a truly profound calling
to it [a small group at any point in history] and severe, severe
neurotics with screwed-up sexual identities [i.e. most priests you
might meet]. With that applicant pool, you're going to get some
real fuckuppery so the scandal should be no surprise.
|10.1.08 @ 9:31AM|#
BoB-
Yes, Paul does, but my question is limited to the thoughts and
words of Jesus. It is a question that every Christian needs to
answer or at least Christians who claim that Jesus did not approve
of homosexuality.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Given the cultural mores of his day (esp. among Jews) It is probably safe to assume Jesus did not approve of homosexuality, even if he never said so.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 9:32AM|#
"The church has historically been very supportive of
socialism."
Some wacky priests and prelates have been very supportive of some
variant of socialism. The Church as a whole? Not so much. Pope John
Paul II explained the Church's teaching in "Centisimus Annus," a
portion of which is here:
". . . the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in
nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an
element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of
the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the
socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the
good of the individual can be realized without reference to his
free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he
exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a
series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as
the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very
subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken
conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law,
which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an
opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of
something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning
a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social
machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more
difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders
progress towards the building up of an authentic human
community."
BakedPenguin|10.1.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Mad Max still thinks that the worst thing about what's gone on
in the Catholic church these past few years is that there was a
cover up.
Here's a pointer, Max - the only ones who care about adult gay
priests having consensual sex with other adults are repressed
homophobes such as yourself. The outside world doesn't give a shit.
The Episcopalians now even ordain them.
The problems with priests raping children was not limited to
priests raping young boys, they raped young girls, too. For the
majority of the planet, and the vast majority of sane people, this
was the much worse crime. That's right! As hard as it is
for you to believe, a bunch of perverts using positions of power to
rape small children is viewed with more anger and disgust than
consensual gay relations being covered up by prelates.
|10.1.08 @ 9:37AM|#
Although I would also contend that the atmosphere of
deception created by the Church made it easier for pedophiles to
flourish, too
That's an understatement. Having a job description of "no marriage,
total community trust, and close working with young boys" is
basically a neon sign. You couldn't invent a better job to attract
pedophiles. However, the "no marriage" part would also attract a
lot of gay guys as well, and it's important not to conflate
them.
|10.1.08 @ 9:38AM|#
To Mad Max, and to Ratzinger and Law and the like, a gay affair
by a priest is a "horrible crime" in a way that a heterosexual
affair is not.
Hence, the reasoning: gay priests are more dangerous than straight
priests, because they are more likely to commit horrible crimes,
while the straight ones will only commit small ones.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 9:39AM|#
"Well, Mel Gibson, you did imply that gay = pedophile. Are you
going to continue with that?"
No, I did not. I talked about the difficulty of telling in advance
which gay candidates would observe their priestly vows and which
ones wouldn't. Guess wrong, and the errant priest is cited on
H&R as further evidence of the wickedness of Catholic
teachings.
Most organizations (except public schools, I might add) can be
mulcted for large sums of money for an employee's sexual acitivies
with minors. As Fluffy says, minors are those under 18 - if you
want to use the term pedophilia feel free, although in the strict
technical sense, that's inaccurate for (say) 16 year olds.
|10.1.08 @ 9:40AM|#
OK, now here's something to be mad about.
EAGLE EYE co-writers working on a BLADE RUNNER sequel?
COCKSUCKERS
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Where in the 4 gospels does Jesus condemn
homosexuality?
He doesn't. But he probably would have, seeing as how all Jewish
authorities at the time (even the [gasp] liberal ones) did. People
forget just how little he strayed from the orthodox interpretations
of the time.
There is some (mostly linguistic) question as to whether what Paul
was explicitly condemning was homosexuality (as opposed to some
religious priestly behavior in some of the surrounding popular
religions).
None of this, BTW, is to me a reasonable excuse to be a bigoted
ass. If Jesus said "hate the darkies", I don't think I would give
racist Christians a pass. At that time and in that place, society
was constructed differently than it is now. Notably, culture was
not a respecter of "persons" or their freedoms; those concepts the
way we use them today would not really develop for another ten to
fourteen centuries. Christians are notorious for pimping
hermeneutic readings of the text when they come across absurdities,
and yet failing to do so when to refrain would allow them to hold
on to their favorite prejudices.
As for the Bolivia thing, it was a joke playing on the fact that
many South American Catholics are also Socialists. The Income Tax
is neither here nor there on socialism (I know on this you
disagree, but there it is.)
Making Jesus into a Socialist is also a stretch.
The Franciscans called. They would like to slap you upside the
head. And then invite you to re-read the Acts of the Apostles.
|10.1.08 @ 9:41AM|#
Having a job description of "no marriage, total community
trust, and close working with young boys" is basically a neon sign.
You couldn't invent a better job to attract pedophiles.
Add in the fact that most pedophiles were themselves molested
themselves and loathe their own sexuality, and the celebacy
requirement - the promise of being able to live in a sexless world
- makes the priesthood even more attractive.
The problem is, there is no such thing as a sexless world.
|10.1.08 @ 9:41AM|#
Epi-
The answer is that the gospels do not have any homosexual
condemnations. My point is, obviously, that if ole JC did not feel
the need to condemn homosexuality or homosexual activity, then why
should any christian invest the irrational emotion and energy that
so many Falwells have and Robertsons continue to do?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:42AM|#
OK, now here's something to be mad about.
EAGLE EYE co-writers working on a BLADE RUNNER sequel?
COCKSUCKERS
Blade Runner already had a sequel of sorts. It was called
Soldier. A decent enough movie in its own right, the
writers made clear that they intended it to be the same "universe"
as the Blade Runner universe.
|10.1.08 @ 9:42AM|#
if ole JC did not feel the need to condemn homosexuality or
homosexual activity, then why should any christian invest the
irrational emotion and energy that so many Falwells have and
Robertsons continue to do?
Because when you pick someone's pocket, it's always easier when you
distract them first.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:43AM|#
My point is, obviously, that if ole JC did not feel the need
to condemn homosexuality or homosexual activity, then why should
any christian invest the irrational emotion and energy that so many
Falwells have and Robertsons continue to do?
Because bigots are insecure douchebags. This is not rocket science,
you know.
|10.1.08 @ 9:44AM|#
EAGLE EYE co-writers working on a BLADE RUNNER
sequel?
HAHAHAHA, no Ridley Scott (and he won't do it), no problem. Who
cares? Let them fail.
|10.1.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Elemenope-
1. I thought you were joking but I had to ask.
2. 9:40-I agree. I think we are both making the hypocrisy point.
However, IMO, the vast lot of christians think that Jesus actually
condemned homosexuality and homosexual activity.
|10.1.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Paul was living in the Roman Empire, and came out of a Romanized
officialdom. In Roman society, a little recreational horseplay with
the boys was considered normal, not even adultery, really.
He was calling b.s. on that. Cheating with boys is still cheating
on your wife. Knock that crap off. Don't make me stop this car.
|10.1.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Elemenope,
Are you trying to make excuses for cocksuckers?
Bladerunner isn't perfect, and it's not even a half-way good
adaptation of the book, but leave it the fuck alone. Those Jeter
novelization sequels were bad enough. (Although it could have been
worse, at least Jeter was a friend of PKD and not some Alan Dean
Foster-level hack they dug up.)
|10.1.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Add in the fact that most pedophiles were themselves
molested themselves
I will just take this moment to recommend the ultra-creepy
documentary Chicken Hawk
for a look inside the minds of NAMBLA members. It's almost
impossible to get (I have extraordinary sources) but if you can,
check it out.
BakedPenguin|10.1.08 @ 9:47AM|#
They generally don't mind going beyond the Gospels for instruction, especially when it fits their preconceptions.
|10.1.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Are you trying to make excuses for cocksuckers?
Wait, are we back on the priesthood? Ba dum bum.
I'll just start the Hail Marys now.
NotThatDavid|10.1.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Blade Runner already had a sequel of sorts. It was called
Soldier. A decent enough movie in its own right, the writers made
clear that they intended it to be the same "universe" as the Blade
Runner universe.
There's a difference between "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we
mentioned Tannhauser Gate" - Hell, even Gunbuster did that
- and "We're making Blade Runner 2: Electric
Boogaloo."
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 9:51AM|#
I could probably write several additional volumes of disclaimers
about what I did not say, but let's take them in turn.
"As hard as it is for you to believe, a bunch of perverts using
positions of power to rape small children is viewed with more anger
and disgust than consensual gay relations being covered up by
prelates."
It was the child-rape which many bishops and others covered up.
That was the scandal to which I referred. "Consensual gay
relations" among adults are (from the scandal point of view) a
different issue the child-rape stuff. I *hope* it's the adult
"relationships" which you are describing as consensual and as no
big deal. I wish I were as reckless as you are in imputing opinions
to others, so that I could pillory your views on that
subject.
The rapes of girls were, of course, as bad as the rapes of boys.
They were less numerous, for some reason which is probably a total
coincidence.
"To Mad Max, and to Ratzinger and Law and the like, a gay affair by
a priest is a 'horrible crime' in a way that a heterosexual affair
is not."
How are you defining "affair"? Are you referring to sex with minors
or not? Incidentally, excellent use of guilt by association - Joe
McCarthy would be proud.
It might interest you to know that the struggle against
*heterosexual* sex scandals has been a big deal for reformist popes
even in the homophobic Middle Ages. Popes urged parishioners to
boycott priests who were keeping adult women as concubines.
Criminal procedure was reformed so that judges could more easily go
after these offenders.
But don't allow facts to get in the way of a good hate, it would
only slow you up.
|10.1.08 @ 9:51AM|#
In Roman society, a little recreational horseplay with the
boys was considered normal, not even adultery, really.
Incorrect. Rome was very prudish. Kissing your wife in public was
scandalous. You are thinking of the Greeks.
You can't go by the antics of people like Caligula. They were
nearly gods. The common people were very different.
|10.1.08 @ 9:53AM|#
The rapes of girls were, of course, as bad as the rapes of
boys. They were less numerous, for some reason which is probably a
total coincidence.
And you just can't stop with the implications. Incredible.
|10.1.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Blade Runner 2: Electric Boogaloo
You know, the main characters in Breakin' 2 were Ozone and Turbo.
They've already got good robot names!
[nerd]
Um, actually... the synthetic persons known as "replicants" in
Bladerunner are actually androids. {snort, snort]
[/nerd]
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 9:54AM|#
However, IMO, the vast lot of christians think that Jesus
actually condemned homosexuality and homosexual
activity.
You are probably right about that. Christians (unlike, say, Muslims
and Jews) are notoriously under-informed as a group as to what
their holy text actually says. Funnily, Catholics (who have taken
education somewhat seriously) are better on this than most, but not
by much. It clearly hasn't helped on this issue.
On the other hand, if you are willing to make the awesome
mind-bending leap into the "Jesus is LORD" mindset, then all of the
LORD's purported judgment calls become by transitivity *Jesus's
judgment calls*. And Leviticus is (slightly) clearer on
homosexuality. Though, it is significant that in the relevant
passages, the LORD (or his ever helpful human scribes) used the
Hebrew word for ritual uncleanliness rather than the word for sin.
Funny that.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:55AM|#
The LORD condemned a lot of things in Leviticus that modern Christians have no problem doing.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 9:56AM|#
I mean when is the last time you heard Robertson (or the Pope or whoever) condemn wearing mixed fabrics or building a house without rails on it's roof?
|10.1.08 @ 9:58AM|#
BDB,
Their dodge for that is that Jesus let them out from under all that
when they no longer had to mutilate their penises. But the cudgels
they want to wield in the culture wars are "moral laws" that always
apply.
|10.1.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Mad Max,
Are you referring to sex with minors or not? Of course
not. Who uses the word "affair" to refer to child rape?
Incidentally, excellent use of guilt by association - Joe
McCarthy would be proud. Nah, for McCarthy to approve, I would
have had associate people whose opinions are meaningfully different
- for example, imputing Law and Ratzinger's beliefs to all
Catholics, or all Christians, the way McCarthy imputed Stalin's
beliefs to all Democrats. Lumping together three people who
actually share a set of beliefs on an issue doesn't even come
close.
BakedPenguin|10.1.08 @ 10:00AM|#
It was the child-rape which many bishops and others covered
up. That was the scandal to which I referred.
Previous comments had led me to believe you viewed the gay, adult
priests having affairs as comparable - or worse - than the
molestation / rape. I apologize for that.
|10.1.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Episiarch,
Incorrect. Rome was very prudish. Kissing your wife in public
was scandalous. You are thinking of the Greeks.
You can't go by the antics of people like Caligula. They were
nearly gods. The common people were very different.
Ah, but Paul was 1) a major official in the Romanized world, 2)
living the Hellenized eastern part of the empire and 3) writing
mainly to people also in the Hellenized eastern part of the
empire.
True enough, though, that I was overbroad by saying "Roman society"
as a whole.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:01AM|#
I am, by the way, not aware of any evidence that Cardinal Law regarded gay "affairs" as horrible crimes. The Cardinal certainly thought those affairs were worth covering up, and the offenders deserving of at most a slap on the wrist. If he saw these acts as horrible crimes, why did he treat them so leniently?
BDB|10.1.08 @ 10:02AM|#
MM, if you were a Catholic in, say, Holland where pot is legal, would it be a sin to smoke it?
|10.1.08 @ 10:05AM|#
The Cardinal certainly thought those affairs were worth
covering up, and the offenders deserving of at most a slap on the
wrist. Which is exactly how he treated child molestors, too.
That's sort of the problem.
If he saw these acts as horrible crimes, why did he treat them
so leniently? Same reasone that he was so lenient with child
molestors - becasue he was more concerned with public scandal than
the crimes themselves, and because he dodged his responsibility by
hiding behind the mantra "all things are possible through God,"
hoping the priests in question would just pray their problems
away.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:06AM|#
BDB,
That's a good question, and I will violate H&R protocol by
saying I don't have an immediate, glib answer. Maybe you could do
some research on your own?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:07AM|#
The LORD condemned a lot of things in Leviticus that modern
Christians have no problem doing.
That's why I mentioned earlier the awesome power of hermeneutics to
make allowed those things modern Christians want to do for
convenience's sake while still maintaining convenient prejudices by
which they may vent their repressed sexual frustrations. Without a
goat for Azazel, they would be lost I tell you!
What really gets me is that if some parts of 'Teh Buybull' should
be taken metaphorically, why is it not the part that talks about
God or Jesus' divinity? Maybe God is a metaphor...? "O blasphemer!"
Yeah, yeah, I know. Naughty.
NotThatDavid|10.1.08 @ 10:08AM|#
SugarFree:
I will readily concede to your superior knowledge of the
Breakin' franchise.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:09AM|#
joe,
So it seems that Cardinal Law (a) regarded so-called "gay affairs"
as "horrible crimes," but (b) he did not *treat* them as crimes, in
order to avoid scandal. What, concretely, did the good Cardinal do
to indicate his view that these things were "horrible
crimes"?
If a CEO regards, say, embezzlement as a horrible crime, but
whenever he catches an employee doing it he gives that employee a
slap on the wrist and lets the employee continue at his job, under
would you believe anyone who told you that the CEO regarded
embezzlement as a horrible crime?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:09AM|#
MM, if you were a Catholic in, say, Holland where pot is
legal, would it be a sin to smoke it?
"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the
face of all the earth..." Etc. Yadda yadda yadda.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 10:09AM|#
I'll google it sometime. It'd just be interesting to see if they say it is how they would justify it being sinful were it legal, while alcohol is a-ok.
|10.1.08 @ 10:10AM|#
She would be like the elven queen in the first Lord of the
Rings movie when she tries to convince Frodo to give the ring to
her.
Did you even watch the movie? She didn't try to convince him to
give her the ring - he was begging her to take it off his
hands.
The Gibson interview was the definition of a fair
interview.
Except for the signature moment, when he misquoted her, hounded her
over her answer, and refused to acknowledge it, of course.
About half of Hewitt's questions strike me as not bad. The one
about the Couric and Gibson interviews, for example, is a trap for
her - she can't complain about the interviews, so she has to go on
record saying they were fine.
The one about making hard decisions over the kitchen table - none
of the other three candidates could plausibly answer yes to
that.
The one about the Israeli flag and pin - her answer to that is
likely to be pretty revealing.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Not as fun as trying to get a baptist explain to you how exactly the "wine" was Welch's when Welch's wasn't invented until the 1800s, though.
junior|10.1.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Gwen Ifil - "Governer, I hear you speak in tongues. Can you demonstrate?"
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:12AM|#
joe, your premise - that Cardinal law regarded "gay affairs" as "horrible crimes" - is essential to your attempt to link the Pope (and myself) to Law. Unless you can sustain your point, I'm afraid you and Senator McCarthy will have to think of some other line of attack.
|10.1.08 @ 10:12AM|#
I was an altar boy from 9 to 14. I was exposed to many priests. If any of them had ideas, they sure did not act on them.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 10:15AM|#
The rapes of girls were, of course, as bad as the rapes of
boys. They were less numerous, for some reason which is probably a
total coincidence.
Come on, Max. The sort of adult-child social interactions that
priests would engage in, which would create opportunities for
abuse, were heavily weighted towards boys.
And the ones that weren't were generally segregated by sex, and
priests supervised boys, while nuns and female laity supervised
girls.
So I assume that by "total coincidence" you meant to say,
"institutional design".
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Care to Address This, Weigel? | September 30, 2008, 11:58pm
| #
"She told AP about her views on Obama, "I still don't know if he'll
be a good president."
he'll = he will
Clear bias.
Notice how selective this analysis is.
There is a phrase preceding "he'll" that substantially modifies the
word: "don't know."
The neat things about this phrase is that it does two things at
once. It helps the sentence express doubt about both Obama's
potential future performance. But it introduces an ambiguity as
well. What it doesn't do is restrict the listener sufficiently to
prevent them from interpreting it as was done above.
"I still don't know if he'll be president"
"I still don't know if he'll be good"
Two thoughts to express get mushed together and you get
"I still don't know if he'll be a good president."
Of course, a grammatical trick could have restricted the
interpretation to remove some of the ambiguity...
"I still don't know if "he'd" be a good president."
This would emphasize the hypothetical aspect of the future
presidency. People speaking often produce sentences without using
all of the tools to reduce ambiguity available to them.
Since the listener plays a big role in what the message means, not
using those tricks leaves room for misinterpretation.
The interpretation of the message says as much about the
listener/reader as it does about the sender of the message.
|10.1.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Gerry Callahan (WEEI 850 AM Boston) disciples affectionately refer to Cardinal Law as "Bernie the Pimp".
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:19AM|#
I'll google it sometime. It'd just be interesting to see if
they say it is how they would justify it being sinful were it
legal, while alcohol is a-ok.
...
Smoking weed is a sin?!?
IIRC, the actual Catholic position on intoxicants of all kinds is
quite close to the Buddhist position. Consumption of intoxicants
*for the sake of intoxication* (that is, to dull or remove
consciousness of reality) is a sin, because it is a form of
disrespecting creation. On the other hand, enjoying, in moderation,
intoxicating substances in order to facilitate happiness that is
rooted in something more wholesome (love of life, family, friends,
or whatever) is absolutely fine.
|10.1.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Unless you can sustain your point, I'm afraid you and
Senator McCarthy will have to think of some other line of
attack.
Who is McCarthy? Me?
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:21AM|#
libertymike | October 1, 2008, 10:12am | #
I was an altar boy from 9 to 14. I was exposed to many priests. If
any of them had ideas, they sure did not act on them.
Isn't that what people are complaining about...priests exposing
themselves to kids...
=\;^)
Nice word choice.
|10.1.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Consumption of intoxicants *for the sake of intoxication*
(that is, to dull or remove consciousness of reality) is a sin,
because it is a form of disrespecting creation
What about cocaine? It enhances consciousness of
reality.
Not that I give a shit. Thank God I'm an athiest.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:23AM|#
This would emphasize the hypothetical aspect of the future
presidency. People speaking often produce sentences without using
all of the tools to reduce ambiguity available to them.
Most people, when speaking, are not in the habit of doing so for
the benefit of assholes nitpicking their every word to exploit
linguistic ambiguities.
Besides, the Grelling-Nelson and Quine paradoxes guarantee that it
is literally (!) impossible to remove all ambiguity from languages
that contain real referents.
(To be clear[!], I don't mean you, NM, I mean the people you are
talking about as the hypothetical "listener". You're not an
asshole, or at least not the bad kind.)
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:25AM|#
What about cocaine? It enhances consciousness of
reality.
At least that is the sales pitch.
Since "reality" is never experienced directly, but is filtered
through the electro-chemical reactions of your brain, altering
those electro-chemical reactions one way or another may shift your
perception of reality, but that shift will never move you closer or
farther away from reality.
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:27AM|#
lmnop,
You're not an asshole, or at least not the bad kind.
Beautifully ambiguous compliment/insult.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Not to spin this conversation completely out of control, but I
have to ask, Mad Max:
Is Buddhism a "mansion in My Father's house" in the sense of the
passage from John you quoted earlier?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Since "reality" is never experienced directly, but is
filtered through the electro-chemical reactions of your brain,
altering those electro-chemical reactions one way or another may
shift your perception of reality, but that shift will never move
you closer or farther away from reality.
I quibble with your last clause. If there is an objective external
referent causing those electro-chemical reactions, and those ECRs
are used by the brain to construct a working model of external
reality that is true by correspondence, then some shifts in that
data matrix could bring it objectively closer to (or further away
from) the goal of absolute map/territory parity.
Who knows if cocaine does that. Let's ask Epi! ;)
Beautifully ambiguous compliment/insult.
Well, thank you. For the record, it was meant as a compliment.
|10.1.08 @ 10:32AM|#
I will readily concede to your superior knowledge of the
Breakin' franchise.
It my gift, my curse.
|10.1.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Who knows if cocaine does that.
It mostly makes you yappy. It would be like turning most of us up
to 11.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Fluffy,
Let's start with the context of this thread - as if my Papism
wasn't bad enough, some commenters have been making up ridiculous
positions and imputing them to me - "I can't *believe* you would
admit to shooting Bambi's mother!" That sort of thing. In this
vein, I was replying to the idea that I thought statutory rape of
boys was worse than statutory rape of girls. There was more of the
former than the latter in the sex scandals.
"And the ones that weren't were generally segregated by sex, and
priests supervised boys, while nuns and female laity supervised
girls."
Hmmm . . . so it seems there's a greater risk of priests molesting
boys than girls. If only there were some institutional mechanism by
which the Church could mitigate the former risk, since that is a
greater danger in the practical everyday life of a parish.
Let me think . . . let me think . . . maybe the Church could -
belatedly, to be sure - take steps during seminary training to weed
out candidates with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, like with
this instruction.
Now, this may seem crazy, but an organizatin might not want male
employees, who have constant access to boys, to be subject to
deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Nah - perish the thought! That's just sheer bigotry. Just like it
wold be sheer bigotry for me to be relieved that my daughter's
drama teacher was a gay man, rather than
this guy. I'm sure my daughter would be just as safe with a
heterosexual teacher as with a gay one - to say otherwise would be
prejudice.
Remember all those scandals with gay scoutmasters because the Boy
Scouts forced gay scoutmasters to hide their true identity? It
would be far better for the Boy Scouts to allow openly gay men go
on camping trips with their charges than to worry about some kind
of abuse.
|10.1.08 @ 10:37AM|#
It mostly makes you yappy. It would be like turning most of
us up to 11.
Maybe for you, Nigel. I get more intense, but not talky.
Who knows if cocaine does that. Let's ask Epi! ;)
For me, it just focuses everything more tightly. And I feel really
fucking groovy.
|10.1.08 @ 10:37AM|#
That's a good question, and I will violate H&R protocol
by saying I don't have an immediate, glib answer.
BOO!
;-)
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:38AM|#
If there is an objective external referent causing those
electro-chemical reactions
There is, or we can assume so for our discussion.
and those ECRs are used by the brain to construct a working
model of external reality that is true by
correspondence,
Ah...truth. This is where we run into problems. How are we
determining what the "true" nature of that ECR is? Since no
intelligence experiences that ECR directly, determining a valid
frame for identifying truth becomes the crux of the problem.
then some shifts in that data matrix could bring it objectively
closer to (or further away from) the goal of absolute map/territory
parity.
I disagree.
|10.1.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Now, this may seem crazy, but an organizatin might not want
male employees, who have constant access to boys, to be subject to
deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Holy fucking shit. You just will not stop.
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:41AM|#
lmnop
Who knows if cocaine does that. Let's ask Epi! ;)
Are you suggesting that Epi's reality is the valid standard we
should use to determine truth?
Scary.
=/;^)
|10.1.08 @ 10:42AM|#
So it seems that Cardinal Law (a) regarded so-called "gay affairs" as "horrible crimes," but (b) he did not *treat* them as crimes, He DID treat them as crimes. He treated them exactly the same way he treated accusations of child rape - quietly shuttling the diddling priest around when complaints arose. That's how Bernard Cardinal Law treated horrible crimes.
|10.1.08 @ 10:44AM|#
A true McCarthyite would take two groups who have little in
common except being hated by the McCarthyite (like, say, gay men
and pedophiles, or Democrats and Bolsheviks) and work to blur the
line between them, in order to impute the horribleness of the worse
grup onto the innocent group.
You know, like you've done throughout the threat, Mad Max.
|10.1.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Epi, those despicable fags have ruined his precious church, the one that never ever did anything bad ever until they sashayed into the picture... and there's no doubt they are a creation of the sexual revolution, birth control, abortion and a secret cabal of atheist murderers.
|10.1.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Are you suggesting that Epi's reality is the valid standard
we should use to determine truth?
"You know what dude, hear me out for a second, okay? Now
technically, that stain did appear to me. Also I am familiar with
carpentry and I don't know who my father is. So, am I the messiah?
I don't know, I could be, I'm not ruling it out."
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Now, this may seem crazy, but an organization might not want
male employees, who have constant access to boys, to be subject to
deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Nah - perish the thought! That's just sheer bigotry.
Yes, it is. A professor of mine brought this into sharp focus for
our political theory class when the conversation wondered into the
(then breaking) story of pedophilia in the priesthood. As a
homosexual and as a Catholic, he pointed out conflicting feelings
on the issue (and the relative futility of winnowing an already
withering and dying priesthood of a proportionally overrepresented
population), but ultimately said by way of a point:
"If I like guys, I want me a *man*! What would I do with a boy?
That's gross."
In other words, it's as ridiculous to expect that a homosexual man
wouldn't want a mature adult as a sex partner as a heterosexual man
wouldn't. It is an *entirely different psychosexual phenomenon* to
prefer young'uns to mature adults, and so far as common sense (and
statistics) suggest(s), is entirely unrelated to the gender sexual
preference of the person at issue.
|10.1.08 @ 10:50AM|#
and there's no doubt they are a creation of the sexual
revolution, birth control, abortion and a secret cabal of atheist
murderers
KHAAAAAAAAAAN
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I disagree.
Fair enough.
How are we determining what the "true" nature of that ECR is?
Since no intelligence experiences that ECR directly, determining a
valid frame for identifying truth becomes the crux of the
problem.
I didn't say we were in a position to *know* whether a particular
change in the input matrix would bring us closer to or further away
from true correspondence with reality. All I was saying is that it
is reasonable to postulate that from some exterior
epistemologically privileged frame there would be an absolute
movement either towards or away from parity with the assumed extant
reality.
Are you suggesting that Epi's reality is the valid standard we
should use to determine truth?
Perish the notion.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:56AM|#
"He DID treat them as crimes."
joe, I'm sorry, but not even your Catholic training can help you
spin your way out of this one. Your McCarthyite slur against the
Pope (and me) was that, *like Cardinal Law,* we regarded gay
affairs as "horrible crimes." CEOs who think certain conduct is a
horrible crime don't cover up that conduct and slap it on the
wrist.
Now that you haven't been able to sustain your accusation, you
struggle like mad to blow smoke. The fact is, you claimed Cardinal
Law regarded gay affairs as horrible crimes, then you were forced
to admit the Cardinal covered up these crimes and treated them with
great leniency. You insist there's perfect consistency between
these two claims.
Under no other circumstance would you attempt to square the circle
like that, or let anyone else do so.
A CEO who covers up embezzlement by his employees, and inflicts
derisory punishment, does *not* regard embezzlement as a horrible
crime. Similarly with Law and "gay affairs."
I will be amused to see you try to wriggle your way out of this
one, but the fact is that your guilt-by-association attack misfired
serioiusly and you're hoping nobody will notice.
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 10:57AM|#
from some exterior epistemologically privileged frame there
would be an absolute movement either towards or away from parity
with the assumed extant reality
While I don't doubt the existence of the extant reality, I question
the concept of this privileged frame. The reality is bound to the
perception too tightly to pull them apart meaningfully. The quantum
measurement problem looms large.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Since "reality" is never experienced directly, but is
filtered through the electro-chemical reactions of your brain,
altering those electro-chemical reactions one way or another may
shift your perception of reality, but that shift will never move
you closer or farther away from reality.
I have to quibble with this, too. Ultimately, the difference
between someone with 20/20 vision and someone with terrible vision
is realized in the brain. The physical flaw may be in the apparatus
of the eye, but the actual perception is done by the brain. So if
you can't get closer to or farther away from reality, Mr. Magoo
sees just as well as Legolas.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 10:58AM|#
"Epi, those despicable fags have ruined his precious church, the
one that never ever did anything bad ever until they sashayed into
the picture"
My generic response to this kind of thing is "OMG, I can't believe
you think Hitler is a nice guy!" or maybe "OMG, I can't believe you
admitted that you shot Bambi's mother!"
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 11:00AM|#
BTW, is there some kind of award out there for the H&R
thread that goes farthest off topic?
I think we may have a new champeen here.
|10.1.08 @ 11:01AM|#
NM, I have to ask - have you read you some Robert Anton Wilson in your day? Because your radical skepticism @10:38 am is vintage Wilson.
Dagny T.|10.1.08 @ 11:01AM|#
a look inside the minds of NAMBLA members.
I was so disgusted the first time I heard someone bring up this
group in the context of a 'to have or not to have' gay rights
discussion. It's like saying, because there are such things as
ecoterrorists, vegetarians should be subject to unfavorable tax
situations. Wildcard, bitches!
I think I'll suggest that the Seattle Public Library obtain a copy
of this documentary. I feel like I haven't challenged censorship
enough this month.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:03AM|#
The content of joe's McCarthyite slur, specifically, was
"To Mad Max, and to Ratzinger and Law and the like, a gay affair by
a priest is a 'horrible crime' in a way that a heterosexual affair
is not."
Without the premise that Cardinal law regarded a gay affair by a
priest as a horrible crime, the whole accusation collapses.
|10.1.08 @ 11:03AM|#
My generic response to this kind of thing is "OMG, I can't
believe you think Hitler is a nice guy!" or maybe "OMG, I can't
believe you admitted that you shot Bambi's mother!"
Max, you have repeatedly conflated gay with pedophile, denied it,
and then do it again. I want to see you type these words:
"gays and pedophiles are two different things".
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 11:04AM|#
RC Dean,
I have.
But my skepticism is more Pynchonesque than Wilsonesque...or
perhaps PK Dick-ish.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Of course, there is also the problem that the Church - during
the repressive medieval era that the Pope and I supposedly want to
restore - the Church (during its reformist phases) gave *great*
attention to heterosexual affairs by priests, even to the extent of
updating criminal procedure so that such offenses could more easily
be detected.
Thus, all joe's assertions are flawed.
|10.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#
This has nothing to do with dick sucking, but isn't the allegation Ifill is publishing a book about Obama a bit hard to swallow? Sounds like faux news to me. Is there no end to the shit right-wingers will make up to maintain their accusation of a liberal media? What's next - Obama recieved money from Fannie Mae? He doesn't look like the other presidents on our money?
|10.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Radical skepticism? Ha! If you accept the existence of anything besides yourself, you aren't a radical skeptic.
|10.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Neu,
In case you haven't read it, "The Electric
Ant" may be the best example of PKD's toying with corrosive
skepticism.
Spoilers, people.
Just Plain Brian|10.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#
I was an altar boy from 9 to 14. I was exposed to many priests. If any of them had ideas, they sure did not act on them.
To quote Adam Corolla,
Jimmy Kimmel told me he confronted his priest growing up... angry that he WASN'T molested. He wanted to know why... "Am I not hot enough???" "Am I not cute enough???"
|10.1.08 @ 11:10AM|#
I think I'll suggest that the Seattle Public Library obtain
a copy of this documentary. I feel like I haven't challenged
censorship enough this month.
You better gird your loins if you want to pull that move,
sweetheart. Very disturbing film. There's a scene where they film
one of the NAMBLA guys talking to some young boys outside a
convenience store. His desire is palpable. It's nuts.
|10.1.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Mad Max,
Man, I've really got you flailing.
CEOs who think certain conduct is a horrible crime don't cover
up that conduct and slap it on the wrist. They do if they're
implicated, and more concerned about avoiding trouble than justice.
Many a buddy has decided to help bury the body when his best
friends shows up at 1 AM covered in blood.
Now that you haven't been able to sustain your accusation
You wish. You're simply arguing that because Law deciced to cover
up crimes instead of prosecute them, he didn't think they were
crimes. But then, he went on to describe as "horrible crimes" some
of the very acts he helped to cover up - cover up, in exactly the
same way he covered up consensual gay adult affairs.
He treated them exactly the same, so you'll have to forgive me if
your desperate attempt to insist that his feelings about them were
very different.
|10.1.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Jimmy Kimmel told me he confronted his priest growing up...
angry that he WASN'T molested. He wanted to know why... "Am I not
hot enough???" "Am I not cute enough???"
...and Mr. Garrison.
"That's funny...you kiss just like my dad."
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Epi,
You see what you want to see.
I've repeatedly said that not all gay people molest boys. I also
said that, if the Church makes a bad guess about whether candidate
A will act on his impulses where boys (especially adolescent boys)
are concerned, then there could be big trouble, and H&R will
fill up with comments about how it was the Church's doctrines which
encouraged the priest to act as he did.
Maybe it might not be a good idea to put them in a position of
trust with (as Fluffy explained) more exposure to boys than to
girls.
I suppose I should pre-emptively disclaim all sorts of views here.
For one thing, I don't think that the "gay issue" is the only thing
the Church is dealing with. It's one issue, however, in which the
world gets the Church coming and going. If she ordains gay men on
the grounds that "most of them won't mess up," then that won't
matter once the ones who *do* mess up get exposed. But if the
Church tries to head off such a problem, then it's
heteronormativity, homophobia, and shooting Bambi's mother.
NotThatDavid|10.1.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Now, this may seem crazy, but an organizatin might not want
male employees, who have constant access to boys, to be subject to
deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Does it also follow that they don't want female employees who have
constant access to boys to be subject to deep-seated heterosexual
tendencies? Because someone should probably let the elementary
schools know.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 11:15AM|#
The reality is bound to the perception too tightly to pull
them apart meaningfully. The quantum measurement problem looms
large.
While I also believe that reality is tightly bound to
phenomenological perceptions, I think there is good reason to
believe that the quantum measurement problem is a red herring in
most epistemological contexts. (All those not concerned with
reality at the quantum level, which is pretty much all of the
frames in which humans can meaningfully participate).
|10.1.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Of course, there is also the problem that the Church -
during the repressive medieval era that the Pope and I supposedly
want to restore - the Church (during its reformist phases) gave
*great* attention to heterosexual affairs by priests, even to the
extent of updating criminal procedure so that such offenses could
more easily be detected.
Had anybody argued that you, Ratzinger, and Law wanted to
criminalize heterosexual affairs, DAMN that would be a good
rebuttal.
But sadly for you, I've said exactly the opposite - as you so
helpfully quote:
"To Mad Max, and to Ratzinger and Law and the like, a gay
affair by a priest is a 'horrible crime' in a way that a
heterosexual affair is not."
Dagny T.|10.1.08 @ 11:17AM|#
You better gird your loins if you want to pull that move,
sweetheart. Very disturbing film.
I figure being female makes it safer.
And what's that Videodrome quote about how it's better to
have the creepy stuff on a screen than in real life? (Can't look it
up or I'll miss my bus...)
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:18AM|#
joe, I'm afraid that we have different ideas about Cardinal
Law's credibility. You think he's honest and trustworthy, and when
- after getting caught in a cover-up - he claims that he regards
the crimes he helped cover up as "horrible," you believe him. I, on
the other hand, see no reason to believe his protestations after
getting caught, preferring to go by his actions before he got
caught.
Maybe you have a greater trust in the guy than I do, considering
his high clerical position. Or former position - whatever.
|10.1.08 @ 11:19AM|#
I've repeatedly said that not all gay people molest
boys
GOD DAMN IT. People who molest boys are pedophiles, not gay. They
are not a subset, they are a separate set. Conflation is bad,
mm'kay?
|10.1.08 @ 11:20AM|#
I've repeatedly said that not all gay people molest
boys. I've repeatedly said that not all Jews drink the blood
of gentile children.
I also said that, if the Church makes a bad guess about whether
candidate A will act on his impulses where boys I also said
that, if a school makes a bad decision on whether candidate A will
act on his impulses where gentile children are concerned.
You think this is helping? You are mad.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 11:20AM|#
You better gird your loins if you want to pull that move,
sweetheart. Very disturbing film. There's a scene where they film
one of the NAMBLA guys talking to some young boys outside a
convenience store. His desire is palpable. It's nuts.
Normally I don't pimp Law & Order:SVU, but last
night's episode was apropos to this part of the discussion. Dual
questions: if you have an overwhelming desire to sexually abuse
children, but don't wish to do it, exactly where do you go for
help? What acts of penance would a potential pedophile have to
commit for a society to accept their existence as a member of that
society?
The answers in the episode were *scary*, and not in the normal
"we're law and order so let's find the most fucked up way possible
to twist the episode" scary.
|10.1.08 @ 11:21AM|#
And what's that Videodrome quote about how it's better to
have the creepy stuff on a screen than in real life? (Can't look it
up or I'll miss my bus...)
"Why do it for real? It's easier and safer to fake it."
"Because it has something...that you don't have, Max. It has a
philosophy, and that is what makes it dangerous."
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:21AM|#
joe, Law was "implicated" in the affair because he covered it
up, he didn't cover it up because he was implicated.
He covered up the crimes because he didn't regard them as
horrible.
|10.1.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Man, talk about flailing.
joe, I'm afraid that we have different ideas about Cardinal
Law's credibility. You think he's honest and trustworthy... by
repeatedly accusing him of covering up crimes, I'm attesting to his
honesty.
By saying someone is covering up a crime, I'm saying he's unaware
of that crime. Which, I guess, is why people cover things up.
Because they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
Sure. That makes sense. By noting that Law covered up crimes, I'm
attesting to what an honest guy he was, who didn't realize that
what he and the priests he protected were doing was wrong.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:24AM|#
"I've repeatedly said that not all Jews drink the blood of
gentile children."
Wait, joe, are you saying that sexual molestation of boys in the
Catholic church is a myth, like the blood libel about Jews?
That's such a relief! I had bought into the idea that some priests
were molesting boys. Thank God that's just a total lie on the order
of the blood libel. Now I won't have to feel so embarrassed about
the Church.
|10.1.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Maybe you have a greater trust in the guy than I do,
considering his high clerical position. Or former position -
whatever.
Actually, he's still a cardinal, and was given jurisdiction over a
major cathedral in Rome.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:27AM|#
"By noting that Law covered up crimes, I'm attesting to what an
honest guy he was"
You said that Law regarded these crimes as horrible. You
"supported" your assertion by quoting Law himself: "he went on to
describe as 'horrible crimes' some of the very acts he helped to
cover up," etc.
Since Law *said* the crimes were horrible, according to your
reasoning, then he must actually think it! After all, why would he
lie?
|10.1.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Wait, joe, are you saying that sexual molestation of boys in
the Catholic church is a myth, like the blood libel about
Jews?
No, I'm pointing out the internal illogic of your argument, and
demonstrating that the very tightly-bounded exceptions you point to
as evidence for your thesis (that you aren't a homophobe who
equates homosexuality with pedophilia) actually proves the
opposite.
You're playing dumb, because you're losing the argument.
|10.1.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Wait, joe, are you saying that sexual molestation of boys in
the Catholic church is a myth, like the blood libel about
Jews?
No, I'm saying that the connection between homosexuality and
pedophilia is a myth, very, very much like the blood libel about
the Jews.
I don't think you actually failed to understand this for a second,
but it's probably a good idea to make it explicit so you can't bob
around as much.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:32AM|#
So first you claim that Law believes the crimes he covered up
were horrible because after getting caught he *called* them
horrible, belying his own actions.
Then you said that the Church has a laxer standard for heterosexual
affairs than for homosexual affairs - again citing Law. I don't see
how Law could have gotten *any* laxer with heterosexual
affairs.
Then you conflate me with the authors of the blood libel, and
conflate the blood libel (which is false) with the (all too true)
reports of priests molesting boys. You're either insulting Jews, or
covering up for Catholics.
I don't think you're *playing* dumb.
|10.1.08 @ 11:34AM|#
So first you claim that Law believes the crimes he covered
up were horrible because after getting caught he *called* them
horrible, belying his own actions.
Your entire argument is preposterous. People cover up horrible shit
all the time...because exposing them will fuck your shit up. Why
don't you read Radley's story on the House of Death from yesterday
for a perfect example?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:39AM|#
The (mostly male) victims of the scandals are (mostly)
adolescent at the time of the crimes.
Naturally, I didn't say that the pedophilia problem would be cured
by weeding out the gay candidates, because pedophiles are a
different category. I suppose it's necessary to say this because I
again have to deny holding the straw-man position that
gay=pedophile.
You know, of course, that pedophilia isn't the problem when you're
dealign with sex with adolescents, right? I mean, you *did* know
this, right? You just hope the readers of your posts won't know
it.
Weeding out the candidates who might be inclined to have sex with
*adolescents* is a reasonable goal, and you've conflated that with
weeding out pedophiles (a much nastier population). Then you equate
that with the blood libel which, I remind you, is false, unlike the
actual crimes of priestly molestation.
I think you are actually aware of these distinctions, but again,
you hope the readers aren't.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 11:41AM|#
I've repeatedly said that not all gay people molest boys. I
also said that, if the Church makes a bad guess about whether
candidate A will act on his impulses where boys (especially
adolescent boys) are concerned, then there could be big trouble,
and H&R will fill up with comments about how it was the
Church's doctrines which encouraged the priest to act as he
did.
Wow, I thought you were just being given a hard time, but now I see
that I was wrong.
You do, in fact, think that gays and pedophiles are one and the
same.
Your argument appears to be: pedophiles are a type of gay person,
and if you hire several gay people, you're taking a chance that one
of them will give in to his desires and rape a boy.
That's literally your argument, and we weren't misunderstanding it
after all.
Does it also follow that they don't want female employees who
have constant access to boys to be subject to deep-seated
heterosexual tendencies? Because someone should probably let the
elementary schools know.
He can't really answer this, because to him pedophiles are a "type"
of homosexuals, a "percentage" of them - but pedophiles are
not a "type" of heterosexual. Even though they, you know,
are.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Sigh, Epi, the accusation was that *like Cardinal Law,* the Pope (and I) thought gay affairs were worse than straiht ones.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Do I need to remind anyone that pedophiles are those who have
sex with prepubescent children? This goes beyond gay or straight as
such. Fortunately, this population, while it sadly has
representatives in the priest population, is much less than the
number who are involved with adolescents.
I've already linked to the story of the (male) drama teacher who
committed statutory rape against his adolescent (female) students.
It would have been nice for your purposes if I'd said - "no big
deal, at least he isn't gay." But I didn't. But that won't stop you
from claiming I did.
|10.1.08 @ 11:48AM|#
So first you claim that Law believes the crimes he covered
up were horrible because after getting caught he *called* them
horrible, belying his own actions.
They don't belie his actions. The deliberateness of the coverup
establishes knowledge of guilt, just as it does when a defendant
tries the insanity defense. Your acts prove that knew it was
wrong.
Then you conflate me with the authors of the blood libel, and
conflate the blood libel (which is false) with the (all too true)
reports of priests molesting boys.
Nope. I'll explain it again - and thank you so much for giving me
the chance, because you keep trying to wiggle away from the central
argument, and I like it better when you're pinned down with
it.
I'm not conflating the blood libel with the accusations that
priests molested boys. I'm conflating the blood libel with the
controversial point, the one Episiarch and I have been beating you
around over - the libel that gay men are child molesters.
You've claimed, repeatedly, and defended when called on it, that
homosexual men - period, full stop, unmodified "homosexual men" -
are likely to molest children.
That's bullshit. That's a libel based on bigotry against an out
group, little different from the blood libel about the Jews. You
need to stop pushing that swill.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"Does it also follow that they don't want female employees who
have constant access to boys to be subject to deep-seated
heterosexual tendencies?"
Not if they're going to develop the type of bonding relationship
that these girls developed with their abusive drama teacher.
Again, this is one of those no-I-didn't-shoot-Bambi's-mother things
- anyone willing to believe it in the first place won't believe my
denials.
|10.1.08 @ 11:51AM|#
You know, of course, that pedophilia isn't the problem when
you're dealign with sex with adolescents, right? I mean, you *did*
know this, right? You just hope the readers of your posts won't
know it.
Do you know what the problem is? NAMBLA types like boys
who are right on the edge of pubescence. Using a word like
"adolescent" just confuses the issue.
You still have not definitely stated that you believe pedophiles
and gays are completely separate categories.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:54AM|#
"You've claimed, repeatedly, and defended when called on it,
that homosexual men - period, full stop, unmodified 'homosexual
men' - are likely to molest children."
No, joe, I've said that it's not worth the risk putting them in
positions of trust over male adolescents. Maybe if the legal system
were more lenient - maybe if the hierarchy in the U.S. was more
trustworthy - if, if, if, then maybe it would be worth the risk.
Maybe. In the real world, it would be a bad idea, and calling
people names won't change reality.
Again, if you could find a statement of mine that heterosexual men
should be given positions of trust over teenage girls even after
numerous scandals in that particular institution, then you could
reproach me with inconsinstency. Right now, the only libeller is
yourself.
|10.1.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Weeding out the candidates who might be inclined to have sex
with *adolescents* is a reasonable goal, and you've conflated that
with weeding out pedophiles (a much nastier population).
No, YOU'VE conflated it with weeding out homosexual men. I've
simply called you on your bigotry, and pointed out that "gay" and
"pedophile" are two different things.
And just to clear something up, "straw man" does not refer to
accurately restating someone's argument in a less flattering
manner.
You wrote Now, this may seem crazy, but an organizatin might
not want male employees, who have constant access to boys, to be
subject to deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
And you wrote:
Remember all those scandals with gay scoutmasters because the
Boy Scouts forced gay scoutmasters to hide their true identity? It
would be far better for the Boy Scouts to allow openly gay men go
on camping trips with their charges than to worry about some kind
of abuse.
Don't be a worm, Max. You've repeatedly conflated gay men with
child molesters throughout the thread. If you're going go make an
argument, stand by it, or renounce it.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 11:55AM|#
"You still have not definitely stated that you believe
pedophiles and gays are completely separate categories."
Yes I have - I've disavowed the straw-man position you've
described.
Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 11:57AM|#
is a red herring in most epistemological contexts. (All
those not concerned with reality at the quantum level, which is
pretty much all of the frames in which humans can meaningfully
participate).
In the context of this discussion, however, we are talking about
altering chemical reactions, which is getting pretty close to the
quantum level, imho. How cocaine binds with sensory receptors to
alter their function changes the quantum properties of the sensing.
If those sensors are impacted by the quantum level, then the
perception by the intelligence is certainly going to be impacted.
So, the alteration is happening at a level where the quantum
measurement issue looms large.
Drug use is an example of the human meaningfully participating in
quantum level manipulations.
No?
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 11:59AM|#
No, joe, I've said that it's not worth the risk putting them
in positions of trust over male adolescents.
But that would mean that we can't let heterosexual men be priests,
either, because that would put them into a position of trust over
female adolescents.
"But Fluffy, you talked about how the Church has put structures in
place to limit the possibility of heterosexual abuse taking
place!"
Yes, I did. So put structures in place so homosexual abuse can't
take place either.
"That's impossible!"
No it isn't.
|10.1.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Yes I have - I've disavowed the straw-man position you've
described.
Bullshit. You disavow in one sentence and then in the next, you
make the same allusion once again. You dodge faster than Rickety
Cricket up a fire escape.
|10.1.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Do I need to remind anyone that pedophiles are those who
have sex with prepubescent children? This goes beyond gay or
straight as such.
And therefore
maybe the Church could - belatedly, to be sure - take steps
during seminary training to weed out candidates with deep-seated
homosexual tendencies.
But no, you aren't arguing that gay men are child molesters.
Heavens no! Why, you've even allowed that "not all gay men
will molest boys." Just that it's common enough that the whole
corhort of gay males need to be excluded to prevent boys from being
molested.
But I'm creating a straw man. Sure.
|10.1.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Yes I have - I've disavowed the straw-man position you've
described.
Take my neighbor, Willie. He's doesn't steal hub caps. He doesn't
smoke crack. He doesn't have 5 kids with 4 different women. He's
one of the good ones.
Don't ever accuse me of saying they're ALL bad.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:06PM|#
joe,
You raised the issue of pedophilia by calling me "a homophobe who
equates homosexuality with pedophilia."
"I've simply called you on your bigotry, and pointed out that 'gay'
and 'pedophile' are two different things."
Which would have been a knock-down argument if I'd said that "gay"
and "pedophile" were equivalent. As I said above, the kind of
person who would believe that won't believe my denials, any more
than a believer in the blood libel would believe the denials of a
Jew. So there let it remain.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Let's try this analogy:
"I'm not saying *all* white people are bad, I'm just saying that,
in the interest of public policy, we should discriminate against
them via racial preferences."
Of course, I'm sure you would reject such a bigoted view, wouldn't
you?
Just Plain Brian|10.1.08 @ 12:09PM|#
"Which would have been a knock-down argument if I'd said that "gay" and "pedophile" were equivalent."
"No, joe, I've said that it's not worth the risk putting them in positions of trust over male adolescents"
If "gay" and "pedophile" aren't equivalent, what's the "risk" you
speak of?
|10.1.08 @ 12:11PM|#
You raised the issue of pedophilia
I raised the issue of pedophilia?
What are you, kidding me? Do you want me to find some more of your
quotes talking about pedophilia and equating it with
homosexuality?
Who do you think you're fooling?
People don't believe your denials, because you keep immediately
contradicting them by talking about what a great threat gay men
pose to boys.
We're not going to "let it remain." That you've slurred gay men as
child molesters dozens of times on this thread is not a matter of
opinion. You have, and your denials are absurd.
|10.1.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Max, when did you stop beating your wife?
This is essentially your argument regarding homosexuals.
|10.1.08 @ 12:14PM|#
If there was a severe shortage of heterosexual priests, the
presence of a large body of heterosexuals in the priesthood was
important for the church's mission, and the church was granting
them favorable status on those grounds, a comparison to affirmative
action - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the charge that
white people are dangerous - would have some bearing to this
discussion.
But since none of those things are true, you're just shouting "hey
look over there" and trying to gin up sympathy for yourself by
attributing a locally-unpopular position to me.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:19PM|#
For the benefit of everyone except joe (who already knows this
and pretends not to, here's Wikipedia's definition:
"As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder
in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent
children"
As joe also knows, and as I've been blamed for pointing out, most
of the scandals involve post-pubescent victims.
I didn't use the word pedophilia.
Yes, just as some people want to discriminate against white people
in the interests of social justice, I think the Church should (as
far as the priesthood is concerned) discriminate against gay men.
That's because, statistically, gay men are more likely to molest
adolescent males.
I also believe the election laws should discriminate against those
under 18.
joe is aware of these distinctions, but of course he hopes that
nobody else is.
And despite *his* denials, joe did indeed rely on Cardinal Law's
word on a key issue - and no amount of denial will erase *that*
fact.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:21PM|#
No, joe, you're trying to define the parameters of acceptable
and unacceptable discrimination.
Discrimination against gay people is intrinsically evil. Nothing
could possibly justify it. Anyone who advocates it is a
blood-libeller.
Discrimination against whites is just social justice.
|10.1.08 @ 12:30PM|#
I'd try to change the subject, too, if I were you.
Look, everybody, joe supports affirmative action! And progressive
income taxes! And Social Security! Can we talk about that
instead?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:30PM|#
"If . . . the presence of a large body of heterosexuals in the
priesthood was important for the church's mission"
The Church says it's important - see link above. The Church gets to
define her mission, not joe.
Poor joe - impaled on the horns of his self-created dilemma. He has
trouble defending the proposition that some discrimination is good
and other discrimination is bad - the same position others hold,
albeith with good-faith disagreement on which is good and which is
bad. It's difficult to use rational argument to show that
"discrimination against whites can be good under the right
circumstances, discrimination against gays isn't." Best to simply
insult, as bigots, both the supporters of the former and the
opponents of the latter.
|10.1.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Yes, just as some people want to discriminate against white
people in the interests of social justice, I think the Church
should (as far as the priesthood is concerned) discriminate against
gay men. That's because, statistically, gay men are more likely to
molest adolescent males.
Prebutted at 12:14:
joe | October 1, 2008, 12:14pm | #
If there was a severe shortage of heterosexual priests, the
presence of a large body of heterosexuals in the priesthood was
important for the church's mission, and the church was granting
them favorable status on those grounds, a comparison to affirmative
action - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the charge that
white people are dangerous - would have some bearing to this
discussion.
When the "discrimination" in question is based on the presumption
that the group being discriminated against is dangerour or
inferior, and that discriminating against them is necessary to keep
them from harming people, that's not a social-justice argument.
It's a self-defense argument.
|10.1.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I didn't use the word pedophilia.
No, just "boys" and "Boy Scouts."
Now you're trying to walk it back.
|10.1.08 @ 12:38PM|#
The Church says it's important - see link above.
You aren't, and it's you that I'm thrashing here. You're arguing
from the position that gay men are a threat to molest boys - not an
"advance the mission" argument, but a "defense against the bad
people" argument.
Poor joe - impaled on the horns of his self-created
dilemma. Oh yeah, poor joe. I'm really in for it now.
Heh.
He has trouble defending the proposition that some
discrimination is good and other discrimination is bad Ah,
that must be why I've twice articulate a position you haven't been
able to even attempt to rebut.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Correction: The opponents of the former and the supporters of
the latter.
I think that invoking the blood libel, and packing in the insults,
is a good way to draw attention away from the merits of one's own
argument.
I prefer to address the merits.
It comes down to this (setting joe's bogus claims about Cardinals
and pedophilia) - joe disagrees with the Church's decision to
discriminate against gays in admission to the priesthood. The
decision was not taken in a vacuum - it was taken after
considerable experimentation with the idea of ordaining gay people
who were supposedly nonpracticing.
Unlike other kinds of discrimination - like against whites - joe
thinks that even discussing the merits of discriminating against
gays is out of line. Anyone who defends such discrimination is as
bigoted as . . . as an *opponent* of affirmative action.
Sorry, joe, by your own standards affirmative action is relevant,
since you've admitted that favoring heterosexuals might be
important if "the presence of a large body of heterosexuals in the
priesthood [is] important for the church's mission." The Church
thinks that is true, but joe disagrees.
Just as with the discussion of affirmative action, we have to
discuss actual reality - for, as you would yourself say about
affirmative action, to adopt a pure antidiscrimination position
withour regard to *context* and *nuance* could bring wrong
results.
So let's discuss the merits of affirmative action for heterosexuals
in the priesthood - why the Church supports it and why joe opposes
it.
The Church supports it out of principle and sad experience, and the
need to deal with the real world. Suffering under no such
constraints, joe has the luxury of screaming "blood libel!"
|10.1.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Lemme guess - "Well, you know, having gay men molesting altar
boys isn't very good for the mission, you know. And how dare you
say that I think gay men molest boys?"
Which is precisely the same thing as saying that heterosexual role
models are important for children. Precisely. Why must you be such
a hypocrite, joe? You really are hoisted on your own petard.
|10.1.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Oh, Maaaaa-aaaaax!
9:51 October 1
It was the child-rape which many bishops and others covered up.
That was the scandal to which I referred.
Now how DARE we say you were talking about gay men molesting
children? How DARE we?
At long last, joe, have you no shame?!?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Joe, the Church and the Boy Scouts can probably survive under
your withering criticism. I'm sure that the Boy Scouts are just
evil, and I'm evil by association for daring to defend them.
"You defended the Boy Scouts, you, you, villain! You are a blood
libeller!"
I can see how someone can intelligently and consistently come to
the conclusion that discrimination against whites is good and
discrimination against gays is bad. I don't see how that person
can't have a certain degree of humility before denouncing people
with other ideas of good and bad discrimination.
Your moral outrage is classic - avoid the nuances, avoid the
possibility that reasonable people (like the authorities in the
Church and the Boy Scouts) can disagree with you and still be
honest. No, anyone with a different idea about acceptable types of
discrimination is eeevvilll.
Are the Church and the Boy scouts blood-libellers? Are *they* vile
bigots, worms writing helplessly under your forensic
examination?
Do they even know you exist?
|10.1.08 @ 12:49PM|#
So let's discuss the merits of affirmative action for
heterosexuals in the priesthood - why the Church supports it and
why joe opposes it.
I suppose we could start to discuss the merits of affirmative
action for heterosexuals in the priesthood. We haven't so far -
we've been discussing the policy of banning them because of the
alleged threat they pose as child molesters.
I haven't ventured an opinion on the idea of affirmative action for
straight applicants to seminaries - that is, the idea that they
should be actively sought out in order to reduce a demographic
imbalance that harms the church's mission. I've been considering
the argument Fluffy is now running away from - the charge that
homosexuals need to be banned becasue they pose a danger of
molesting children.
Which, once again, has no bearing whatsoever on the arguments for
or against affirmative action, which are utterly unrelated to any
supposed threat posed by white individuals.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Joe's not the only person in this thread arguing with you, Max,
so your deflection to affirmative action is a dodge.
I'm just waiting for your response to me re:
No, joe, I've said that it's not worth the risk putting them in
positions of trust over male adolescents.
But that would mean that we can't let heterosexual men be priests,
either, because that would put them into a position of trust over
female adolescents.
"But Fluffy, you talked about how the Church has put structures in
place to limit the possibility of heterosexual abuse taking
place!"
Yes, I did. So put structures in place so homosexual abuse can't
take place either.
"That's impossible!"
No it isn't.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 12:52PM|#
I've been considering the argument Fluffy is now running
away from - the charge that homosexuals need to be banned becasue
they pose a danger of molesting children.
WTF are you talking about?
|10.1.08 @ 12:53PM|#
I think that invoking the blood libel, and packing in the
insults, is a good way to draw attention away from the merits of
one's own argument.
I prefer to address the merits.
Apparently not, since the argument I made was that discriminating
against homosexuals because of fears they will molest children is
equivalent to discriminating against Jewish people because of fears
they will make matzo bread out of the blood of Christians.
You've yet to address the merits of that argument, that your fear
is rooted in irrational prejudice. You've simoply dressed up as a
martyr because someone dared to make it.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:54PM|#
"So put structures in place so homosexual abuse can't take place
either."
What did you have in mind?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:56PM|#
"Apparently not, since the argument I made was that
discriminating against homosexuals because of fears they will
molest children is equivalent to discriminating against Jewish
people because of fears they will make matzo bread out of the blood
of Christians."
Let me pin you down on this.
- Do you think that Jews have ever baked Christian blood into
matzo?
-Do you think that gay priests have ever molested children (by
which I mean minors, i.e., those under 18, another point where you
feign ignorance).
|10.1.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Sorry, Fluffy, I meant Mad Max. the argument Mad Max is now
running away from.
Hey, Max, when you write Your moral outrage is classic - avoid
the nuances, do you mean nuances such as the difference
between seeking demographic parity (ie, not proclaiming any group
to be inferior or dangerous) and seeking to protect children
against a supposed threat from a minority group (ie, proclaiming
gay men to be likely to molest children)? Is that the kind of
"avoiding the nuance" you mean?
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 12:57PM|#
I have no more called myself a martyr than I have called you a hypocrite. Defensive much?
|10.1.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Are the Church and the Boy scouts blood-libellers? No,
they are LIKE blood libellers, pointing to untrue slanders against
a despised minority group to justify their pre-existing hostility
to members of that group.
Are *they* vile bigots, worms writing helplessly under your
forensic examination? Yep.
Do they even know you exist? Well, the Boy Scouts have
probably forgotten about me, but I keep getting the envelopes from
St. Margaret's Parish. I even filled one the other day.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Incidentally, joe, you *still* haven't provided evidence, beyond Cardinal Law's own words, that he actually believes gay affairs are serious crimes to a greater extent than straight affairs.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:01PM|#
The Church and the Boy Scouts are *like* blood libellers? And you still send money to one of these organizatios? What would the ADL say about such behavior on your part, joe?
PC|10.1.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Care to Address This, Weigel? | September 30, 2008, 11:58pm | #
"She told AP about her views on Obama, "I still don't know if he'll be a good president."
he'll = he will
Clear bias.
That was misheard, Newsmax has reported that the conversation
really went like this while fistbumping during a Rev Wright
sermon:
"I still don't know if Hill be a good president."
That's when Michelle started going off on "why'd he".
Mad Max Translator|10.1.08 @ 1:05PM|#
"How dare you, joe! How dare you read between the lines of my constant bigoted innuendo! How. Dare. You."
Xmas|10.1.08 @ 1:05PM|#
WTF is going on in this thread?
Max, you know you're conflating two things there with the under 18
statement.
But let's run with this line of thought. How out of average is the
priest to the above-the-age-of-consent altarboy ratio in comparison
to the teacher to above-the-age-of-consent student. If you read
Fark, there's a whole bunch of that teacher-student lovin' going
on.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 1:05PM|#
holy cow, this conversation went far afield.
The grass is greener here.
I'm just waiting for your response to me
Fuck, I'm still waiting for his response to whether or not Buddhism
is one of the many mansions in God's house. Stop hoggin' the
action, joe!
Drug use is an example of the human meaningfully participating
in quantum level manipulations.
No?
No. It's a textbook compositional fallacy; each neuron's
interaction with neurotransmitters and pharmaceuticals *might* (the
scale upon which meaningful quantum interference occurs is usually
smaller than at the level of large molecules and *way* smaller than
at the level of individual cells) participate in some quantum
effects, but it wouldn't follow that the resulting synthetic map
generated by the brain resulting from the resulting alterations due
to drugs is underwritten by *those* effects, as opposed to some
others (like, for example, the chemical reactive properties of said
compounds which tend to dominate *if not obliterate* smaller scale
quantum effects).
1. An atom is invisible to the naked eye
2. A human is made of atoms
3. Therefore a human is invisible to the naked eye
See the fallacy? Usually macro-effects (or different
above-the-quantum-level effects) tend to dominate the
phenomenological map on anything relevant to human beings *even if*
some of the total effects have root in some quantum weirdness.
|10.1.08 @ 1:07PM|#
I think we can all agree that there is a profound difference betwwen father sodomizing a seven year old after a first communion prep class and father pinching the rear end of a sixteen year old parish youth counsellor at the annual parish youth outing at the lake.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:08PM|#
joe,
Would it be acceptable for someone to say that gay-rights leaders
are vile bigots who are like blood-libellers?
Or would you call that person a bigot?
|10.1.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Do you think that Jews have ever baked Christian blood into
matzo?
No. Almost certainly not. Perhaps there was some Jeffrey Dahmer
psycho back in history, but close enough to say simply "No."
Do you think that gay priests have ever molested children
I'm going to stop you there, since this is the argument we're
actually having.
"Ever" is, of course, a dodge, since people (as my last answer
suggests) do all kinds of crazy stuff at the extreme margins. So,
to the same degree as above, it's close enough to say simply
"No."
And while I don't think for second you don't understand this next
point, I'm going to write it anyway, to make you look bad: I
understand the difference between pedophiles and people who have
sex with older teenagers just fine. It is your repeated charges
that homosexual priests molest children - was the child-rape
which many bishops and others covered up. That was the scandal to
which I referred. - that I am hitting you on. And as long as
you keep making that assertion, I'm going to keep calling you on it
- even if you are careful to deny that you are making it before and
after you actually do.
|10.1.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I have no more called myself a martyr than I have called you
a hypocrite.
No, you've just whined like a fan belt about how mean I'm
being.
|10.1.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Mad Max | October 1, 2008, 1:01pm | #
The Church and the Boy Scouts are *like* blood libellers? And you
still send money to one of these organizatios? What would the ADL
say about such behavior on your part, joe?
Probably that a lot of people disagree with individual tenets of
thier faith. Did you imagine this to be a compelling point?
|10.1.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Mad Max,
Would it be acceptable for someone to say that gay-rights
leaders are vile bigots who are like blood-libellers?
Or would you call that person a bigot?
That depends on what any particular gay-rights leader, or gay-right
organization, was saying.
Again, did you imagine this to be a compelling argument?
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 1:16PM|#
"So put structures in place so homosexual abuse can't take
place either."
What did you have in mind?
If you read the case histories in the litigation, really simple and
stupidly obvious stuff like, "No overnight trips involving hotel
stays can be supervised by only a single adult" and "Rotate
personnel who directly interact with children and young people
instead of having one man run all those programs for decades at a
time" and "Deal with complaints and accusations transparently" and
"Don't transfer people accused of abuse to different parishes
without telling anyone" and so forth.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"'Ever' is, of course, a dodge, since people (as my last answer
suggests) do all kinds of crazy stuff at the extreme margins. So,
to the same degree as above, it's close enough to say simply
'No.'"
Whoa.
So gay priests only molest children in the sense that Jews bake
Christian blood into matzo.
At least you're consistent.
As to the definition of "child," I meant underage person, but of
course I'm not a credible witness as to my own beliefs (unlike
Cardinal Law, whose assertions about his own beliefs you take at
face value). So let's consider the possibilities:
(a) I used the word "child" to refer to that minority of cases
where the victims were prepubescent. I had not intention of even
alluding to the (all too numerous) cases of abuse of post-pubescent
children, because they're not really "children," and then in
pursuance of a wicked cover-up, I then redefined "child" to mean
those who are underage.
(b) I used the word "child" to refer to those who are underage -
that means under 18 - because the scandal tended in most cases to
involve molestation of those who are in their
teens/post-pubescent.
(c) I used to word "child" to mean "son or daughter of," as in
"George W. Bush is the son of George Herbert Walker Bush."
"you've just whined like a fan belt about how mean I'm
being."
No, I've turned your meanness against you by pinning you down on
the following topics:
-You are now on record as saying that the Church and the Boy Scouts
are vile bigots who are like blood-libellers.
-You are now on record as saying that abuse of children by gay
priests is as false as Jewish ritual murder.
If you hadn't let yourself get provoked into these outbursts, you
would not have painted yourself into a corner in this way.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Hint, (b) in the list above is the correct answer - I used "child" to mean underage person.
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"That depends on what any particular gay-rights leader, or
gay-right organization"
No, I didn't say *a* leader or organization, I said "gay rights
leaders." Try to keep up. Would it be bigotry to say gay rights
leaders were vile etc.?
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 1:28PM|#
By the way, Max, part of what is offensive about your statements
is precisely the "lesson" you are drawing from the scandal.
The Church abuse scandal was the result of a decades-long pattern
of acceptance of abuse, and concealment of abuse, by the hierarchy.
I would actually go so far as to say that the hierarchy regarded
the abuse as proverbial - jokes about priests and altar
boys have been around for centuries, and I think the hierarchy's
response shows that they regarded the abuse as just part of the
"to-be-expected".
But rather than have the lesson of the scandal be that the Church
needs to take the basic management steps necessary to make sure its
employees don't abuse people - and rather than have the lesson of
the scandal be that your hierarchy shouldn't shelter and protect
abusers by burying evidence of their misdeeds - you want the lesson
to be, "Told ya that ya can't have no fags around."
Mad Max|10.1.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Fluffy,
The Church has in fact taken basic management steps, as documented,
for instance, in *Reason.*
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 1:31PM|#
You are now on record as saying that the Church and the Boy
Scouts are vile bigots who are like blood-libellers.
Well, after all, the Church is in fact made up of bigots.
And who do you think invented the blood libel, after all?
Hmmmmm...who could it have been....hmmmmm....I know! It was
atheists! No, no, wait - Buddhists! Oops, I meant Hindus!
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 1:35PM|#
The Church has in fact taken basic management steps, as
documented, for instance, in *Reason.*
If so, then it has no need to ban homosexuals from the
priesthood.
No more than the police department has to ban homosexuals as its
only possible hope of preventing the rape of boys by male cops, or
hospitals need to ban homosexuals as their only possible hope of
preventing the rape of boy patients by male doctors and nurses, or
schools need to ban homosexuals to prevent the rape of boys by male
teachers, etc.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Fluffy wins @ 1:35 pm. MM, it's nobody's fault but your own. You
let joe badger you into an indefensible position, and then Fluffy
made the decapitation strike.
Can we now get back the more interesting part of this discussion,
before Boy Scouts became blood libelists and homosexuals became
pedophiles?
(Though, to be honest, I've always been sorta creeped out by
paramilitary organizations for children. So, Boy Scouts == creepy.
Not like, Blood Libel creepy, but still.)
|10.1.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Mad Max, Joe et al-
Let's be fair. First, Joe, to argue that "it is close enough to
say, no", to Mad Max's question is itself a dodge. If there were
children molested, who molested them? According to your logic, if
they were molested, it was just heterosexual priests that did the
molesting.
Second, Joe, although I do not agree with Mad Max's take on things,
I must give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he is a gay
hater. You have accused me of being a racist because I have told
the truth about Lincoln and his terror. Because one rightfully
condemns Lincoln, his war of terror, his deliberate plan of total
war (killing civilians), the jailing of opponents, his corruption
and his love of socialism, does not make one a racist. It also does
not mean one has a "confederacy fetish" as you put it.
Likewise, because one acknowledges that, given the disproportionate
percentage of gays in the priesthood, that there must have been
some gay priests who molested children, does not make one a gay
hater.
|10.1.08 @ 1:51PM|#
So gay priests only molest children in the sense that Jews
bake Christian blood into matzo.
Right. Not at all. Pedophile priests molest children. Gay -
meaning, sexually attracted to adults of one's own sex - priests
don't molest children. If they molested children, it would mean
they aren't gay, but pedophiles.
As to the definition of "child," I meant underage person,
Sure you did. I mean, "child rape" is most commonly used to refer
to a situation when an adult has sex with a 17-year-old.
but of course I'm not a credible witness as to my own
beliefs No, you're not, at least not on this thread. You've
simply been caught making, then renouncing, then making, then
renouncing the argument that gay men molest children too many
times.
(unlike Cardinal Law, whose assertions about his own beliefs
you take at face value). Still ignoring the oft-made point
that active participation in a cover-up demonstrates a knowledge of
guilt? That's probably for the best, since there really isn't
anything you can come back with.
Oh, and the answer is (d), you used the word child because you
wanted to accuse gay men of being child molesters - of engaing in
child rape (your term) - because you wanted to conflate sex with
older teenagers with child molestation. As your invokation of Boy
Scouts going on camping trips demonstrates pretty clearly.
-You are now on record as saying that the Church and the Boy
Scouts are vile bigots who are like blood-libellers.
-You are now on record as saying that abuse of children by gay
priests is as false as Jewish ritual murder.
Yup. The individuals in the church, like you, who proclaim that gay
men pose the threat of molesting children are vile bigots. You are
a vile bigot. I'm not sure that an institution can be called a
bigot per se, but the individuals establishing its doctrines about
homosexuality and the priesthood are bigots.
And yup, no gay priest (taking into account the absurb outlier
point) has ever molested an actual child, because gay - meaning
attracted to adults of the same sex - and pedophiliac - meaning
attracted to children - are mutually exclusive categories.
Want me to say it again? Oh wait, I just did. And if this is a
corner, Cornwallis should have been lucky enough to find himself in
such a corner.
Gilbert Martin|10.1.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Gwen Ifill is in the tank for Obama.
She has a fawning book coming out about him.
The Republicans should never have agreed to accept her as a
moderator for any debate.
|10.1.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Would it be bigotry to say gay rights leaders were vile
etc.?
Well then, certainly, it would be. To assert that they are "vile,
etc." would be bigotry, in the sense that it attributes positions
to some group of people (ie, those gay rights leaders who aren't
vile, and haven't argued any bigotted points) based purely on their
membership in a group. That's pretty much the text-book definition
of bigotry - to believe all the members of a certain group do or
are vile things, based purely on their membership in that
group.
|10.1.08 @ 2:00PM|#
libertymike,
If there were children molested, who molested them? According
to your logic, if they were molested, it was just heterosexual
priests that did the molesting. No no, pedophiles. Not
heterosexuals. Not homosexuals. Pedophiles.
You have accused me of being a racist because I have told the
truth about Lincoln and his terror. Actually, I accused you of
being a racist for asking the question "Why do cities with black
mayors always go down the tubes?" It had nothing to do with your
confederacy fetish.
|10.1.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Joe-
Would one be a bigot to proclaim that all KKK members are vile
bigots based purely on their membership in the Klan?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 2:04PM|#
The Republicans should never have agreed to accept her as a
moderator for any debate.
If the rest of your comment is true, (and personally, I think it's
just silly), this just makes this whole thing the GOP's fuck
up.
Don't know about you, but fuck ups don't inspire much confidence in
the people who make them. Do they?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 2:06PM|#
joe, hold on a second. You're saying these is no differential by
type between a person who prefers to molest children of their own
gender as opposed to children of opposite genders?
That strikes me as...well, silly. There are gay pedophiles and
hetero pedophiles, just there are gay people who like adults and
heteros who like adults.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Would one be a bigot to proclaim that all KKK members are
vile bigots based purely on their membership in the
Klan?
I'm gonna be "that guy" and point out it is not beyond the pale of
reason that some people join(ed) the KKK not because they gave a
shit about race, but rather because
1. they wanted to indulge in sociopathy and use their membership as
a convenient cover
2. want to be in an exclusive club and that's the one they got an
invite for
3. think they look really cool in sheets
4. are simply idiots who joined because their friend/older sibling
told them to
|10.1.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Joe-
You have called me a racist for voicing anti-Lincolnian reality.
Yes, you also called me a racist relative to a question that I
posed concerning big city black mayors. My question was not the
question you cite, but, why have so many big cities with black
mayors become disasters. Detroit under Coleman YOung was a
disaster. New York city undewr David Dinkins was a disaster.
Chicago under Harold Washington was a disaster. I made the further
point that these black big city mayors tended to make race an issue
and spread the gospel of group politics and, worse, group identity.
I did not ask why do cities with black mayors always go down the
tubes.
Likewise, asking the question why is there a disproportionate
percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood is not homophobic.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Gwen Ifill is in the tank for Obama.
She has a fawning book coming out about him.
The Republicans should never have agreed to accept her as a
moderator for any debate.
Wait a second - I thought Gwen Ifill was Condi Rice's not-so-secret
lesbian lover.
Wouldn't her love affair with a prominent Republican official kind
of counterbalance the fact that she wrote a book about Obama?
|10.1.08 @ 3:59PM|#
LMNOP,
You're saying these is no differential by type between a person
who prefers to molest children of their own gender as opposed to
children of opposite genders?
I'm saying that the terms "gay" and "heterosexual" would not
accurately describe such people.
libertymike,
Since you missed it, I'll answer your question again: you have the
chronology and causation backwards. Cities that become disasters -
like Detroit in the 70s, for example - experience white flight
(since the white population is wealthier overall), making it more
likely that they will elect a black mayor.
Detroit was not, in fact, experiencing strong growth and declining
crime when Coleman Young was elected. Nor was NYC when Dinkins was
elected, nor Chicago when Harold Washington was elected, nor
Washington DC when Marion Barry was elected.
In fact, crime rates in NYC began to turn around under Harold
Washington, and no Rudi Guiliani, as many assume.
|10.1.08 @ 4:05PM|#
LMNOP,
Imagine that the police catch two serial killers. One ate his
victims raw, while ther other pan seared them with garlic and
butter.
I suppose you could refer to the first fellow as a raw food devotee
and the latter as a cook, but really, they're both better described
as cannibals.
Fluffy|10.1.08 @ 4:28PM|#
We need a fresh Sarah Palin thread, because CBS did their daily
"release another embarrassing Katie Couric interview clip" thing,
and apparently Palin has no idea who Hamas is.
Palin just lost Jeffrey Goldberg, who has thrown up his hands at
trying to defend this ticket any longer. And if the GOP has lost
the doughy pantload, they've lost everyone.
|10.1.08 @ 5:39PM|#
I'm a pot-smoking, bisexual Catholic anarchist that believes in Jesus Christ. Just thought I'd throw that into this wild and crazy mix!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245