Robert Stacy McCain’s Latest Excuse

US News • Views: 8,434

David Weigel lets Robert Stacy McCain talk: Robert Stacy McCain Responds to Gawker, Defends Palin Collaborator Lynn Vincent.

Of course he tosses out some insults; that’s his modus operandi when called out on his racist friends and statements.

But we also get yet another attempted explanation for his ugly comment about interracial marriage:

McCain admitted that he has made himself “vulnerable to guilt by association smears” because he’ll “send an email without thinking” about what’s in it. For a long time, he was not allowed to talk about the rumors that dogged his Washington Times career. “I spent years biting my tongue while this stuff went viral over the Internet,” said McCain. “I’ve just learned to live with a bad reputation.” On the interracial couples story: “I know lots of interracial couples. They’re attributing that to me based on something they don’t know anything about.”

This is what he wrote in an email “without thinking:”

“[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.”

No word on why McCain also posted links to the white supremacist website American Renaissance and the neo-Nazi website overthrow.com, at Free Republic using a pseudonym based on the name of a pro-slavery Confederate apologist.

Here’s an index page listing a few of the hundreds of links Robert Stacy McCain posted at Free Republic under the name “BurkeCalhounDabney.” All these links have been deleted (I wonder why?) but the index remains, and you can see that McCain linked not only to American Renaissance, but to the vile neo-Nazi site overthrow.com (now offline), run by McCain’s friend Bill White, currently in jail in Virginia:

Communist Teachers Using Classroom Time To Recruit
April 8, 2001 3:56:37 PM PDT · by BurkeCalhounDabney · 14+ views
LSN/Overthrow.com ^ | April 7, 2001 | LSN Staff

Communist Teachers Using Classroom Time To Recruit As If You Needed A Reason To Be Against Public Schooling 4/7/01 3:50:23 PM LSN Staff New York, NY — Members of the radical communist Progressive Labor Party who teach in New York’s and Chicago’s Public Schools have been using classroom time to recruit students into the organization and sell students Communist newspapers. Moises Bernal and Carol Caref, members of the PLP, were recently fired from their jobs at Chicago Vocational Career Academy after it was discovered they were using their position to take their classes on “field trips” to Communist rallies — …

[…]

Slavery Reparations Debate
May 24, 2001 7:07:16 AM PDT · by BurkeCalhounDabney · 7+ views
American Renaissance ^ | May 24, 2001

You are cordially invited to a debate: “The Best Response to the Slavery Reparations Movement” featuring Jared Taylor Author & Editor of American Renaissance versus Samuel Francis Author & Nationally Syndicated Columnist Sunday June 3, 2001, at 7:00pm American Legion Hall Old Town Alexandria, Virginia 400 Cameron Street * admission is free * sponsored by the Capitol Region Chapter, Council of Conservative Citizens The American Legion Hall is in the same building as the historic Gadsby’s Tavern. Signs to Old Town and Gadsby’s are found on any route to Alexandria. Cameron Street is one block north of, and exactly parallel …

And no word on why McCain has even written articles for American Renaissance:

Here’s an article McCain wrote for American Renaissance in 2002 under his pseudonym Burke C. Dabney, titled Race and Teenage Pregnancy:

One might well wonder about indiscriminate anti-natalist propaganda when some groups in the country are already below replacement-level fertility. The “success” of such propaganda only accelerates the decline of the white population. If crusaders against teenage motherhood were serious, they would concentrate on the black and Hispanic girls who account for more than half of teenage births. Targeting whites as part of a general campaign is yet another form of racial suicide.

I guess he just wasn’t thinking then, either.

Jump to bottom

330 comments
1 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 12:56:39pm

He doesn't think much, does he?

2 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:01:28pm

Seems to be a running theme these days. Before people post stuff; think.

I mean it. Think.

Do you really want to try and defend someone's indefensible racist leanings, rantings, ravings, and postings online?

Do you really want to defend associating with racists and bigots who are pursuing an anti-Jihad agenda but whose white supremacist antics are barely under the surface?

Do you really want to push kooky conspiracy theories about the current Administration?

If you do, are you really thinking all this through? Is that who you really want to be associating with? Apparently, all too many have already asked and answered this in a way that makes it all too clear that they didn't think it through -or worse simply ignore all the evidence and instead run headlong into a mess.

That's something I cannot and will not do.

3 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:01:42pm
and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us

Uh-huh, riiight. But what about what common sense and common decency tell us?

4 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:02:13pm

He is apparently "an altogether natural" racist. He can't keep it in.

5 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:02:37pm

re: #2 lawhawk

That's something I cannot and will not do.


Mr. President? Is that you?

/

6 Cato the Elder  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:03:06pm

Some people feel upset when they hear of interfaith marriages. I myself wonder a bit about Mary Matalin and James Carville.

But "revulsion"?

McCain's words are a blanket statement of understanding for racial bigotry. Nothing he could ever say will mitigate that.

7 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:03:30pm

re: #5 Occasional Reader

Someone has to write all those pretty lines and fill the teleprompter... ///

8 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:04:01pm
The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law

Oh, come on, McCain isn't racist! He's just anti-clerical.

/// to the Nth-degree ///

9 [deleted]  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:05:54pm
10 Lee Coller  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:06:24pm

Sometimes I send emails without thinking as well. Funny thing though, even those are never racist.

11 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:06:33pm

10 bucks says that when McCain is amongst friends he blames the Jew run media for making him sound like a racist.

12 tradewind  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:06:44pm

O/T, but I have to leave: the democrat left's fringe weighs in...
[Link: www.time.com...]
Somehow, I think this outrage will soon pass.

13 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:07:05pm

re: #8 Occasional Reader

Oh, come on, McCain isn't racist! He's just anti-clerical.

/// to the Nth-degree ///

And you're an anti-clerite! Next you'll be saying they should have their own schools!
-Seinfeld

14 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:07:45pm
run by McCain’s friend Bill White, currently in jail in Virginia

[snicker]

15 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:09:22pm
THIS IS NOT RACISM

"You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means."

16 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:10:23pm

re: #15 ArchangelMichael

He's attempting a Jedi Mind Trick, I think.

17 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:12:12pm

You know, I think rational people react to his revulsion at something that should be considered normal, with revulsion.
In other words, I am revolted by him.

18 SpaceJesus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:14:00pm

why does it not surprise me that mccain is in favor of homeschooling too

19 Lee Coller  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:14:00pm

And the clerk is thinking "I sure wouldn't want RS McCain as my brother-in-law."

20 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:14:09pm

To be more specific:

THIS IS NOT RACISM

EPIC "JEDI MIND TRICK" FAIL

21 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:16:03pm

The idea that McCain can excuse his blatantly racist comment by saying he "wasn't thinking" is ludicrous on its face.

And in fact it's not even an excuse. If he writes things like that "without thinking," it's very likely that we're getting a glimpse of his true ugly inner self -- and when he thinks carefully about hiding the racism, it's nothing but a mask.

22 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:17:38pm

I think the "without thinking" comment actually makes it worse. It means that it is ingrained in his psyche.

When I write without thinking, it's all about sex.

23 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:17:58pm

re: #18 SpaceJesus

why does it not surprise me that mccain is in favor of homeschooling too

He wouldn't want kids exposed to other races, where they might (horror!) actually think mingling with them is acceptable.

BTW, my parents rented the upstairs apartment to an interracial couple, and I had more trouble figuring out what they had in common to talk about due to the fact he was older, and a machinist and she was a college professor, than i had with them being interracial.
Not that I find anything wrong with either profession; I just wonder what they'd talk about.

24 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:18:18pm

"I wasn't thinking."

Reminds me of the old Steven Martin bit on SNL when he doesn't pay his taxes and tells the IRS, "I forgot".

25 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:18:20pm

And now Tim Blair is going on the attack.

26 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:18:23pm

re: #22 Ben Hur

I think the "without thinking" comment actually makes it worse. It means that it is ingrained in his psyche.

When I write without thinking, it's all about sex.

I have sex without thinking. Then I write about it.

27 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:18:43pm

re: #22 Ben Hur

I think the "without thinking" comment actually makes it worse. It means that it is ingrained in his psyche.

When I write without thinking, it's all about sex.

In seems you and Charles are in synhc.

boobs boobs boobs

What?

28 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:18:45pm

re: #18 SpaceJesus

why does it not surprise me that mccain is in favor of homeschooling too

no kidding, since you consider home schooling a form of child abuse

29 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:19:12pm

re: #24 marjoriemoon

"I wasn't thinking."

Reminds me of the old Steven Martin bit on SNL when he doesn't pay his taxes and tells the IRS, "I forgot".

I've gone thru a whole bag of chips without thinking a few times.

30 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:19:58pm

His defenders often say, "I met him in person, and I'm [insert racial or ethnic minority here]. He's not a racist."

I'm afraid some of us white people get to hear a lot more of this stuff than minorities who look like minorities. I'm sure Jews hear a lot more antisemitism than blacks or Hispanics hear racism, because the perpetrators know that it's not an acceptable public behavior, but can't identify Jews by sight. But I also wonder if some folks feel special because a guy who is reputed to dislike their type seems to like them. (I'm looking at you, Mr. Green.)

31 filetandrelease  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:20:48pm

I made the mistake of posting here a time or two with out thinking, and found it to be quite humbling.

32 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:21:08pm

re: #30 wrenchwench

His defenders often say, "I met him in person, and I'm [insert racial or ethnic minority here]. He's not a racist."

I'm afraid some of us white people get to hear a lot more of this stuff than minorities who look like minorities. I'm sure Jews hear a lot more antisemitism than blacks or Hispanics hear racism, because the perpetrators know that it's not an acceptable public behavior, but can't identify Jews by sight. But I also wonder if some folks feel special because a guy who is reputed to dislike their type seems to like them. (I'm looking at you, Mr. Green.)

Them Jews are sneaky that way.

/

33 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:21:56pm

re: #23 Kosh's Shadow

He wouldn't want kids exposed to other races, where they might (horror!) actually think mingling with them is acceptable.

BTW, my parents rented the upstairs apartment to an interracial couple, and I had more trouble figuring out what they had in common to talk about due to the fact he was older, and a machinist and she was a college professor, than i had with them being interracial.
Not that I find anything wrong with either profession; I just wonder what they'd talk about.

Years ago, I visited Denver, my first and only visit. I really fell in love with the city and I was quite shocked to see how hip it was. Natural food stores all over, cool clubs, lots of hipster-grunge-type young people. AND a whole lot of interracial couples. I mean noticeably so. Maybe it was just my timing, but I remember thinking how cool it was when I really expected it to be very white and conservative.

34 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:22:03pm

re: #17 Kosh's Shadow

I think rational people react to his revulsion at something that should be considered normal

Although as has been discussed before here on the topic... I've often been surprised and disappointed at how many otherwise-rational-seeming people have problems accepting an interracial relationship as normal. Particularly folks over a certain age (although by no means exclusively).

35 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:22:44pm

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I've gone thru a whole bag of chips without thinking a few times.

But I bet you haven't made a racist statement without thinking?

36 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:23:30pm

re: #23 Kosh's Shadow

Your anti-machinist bigotry will not be tolerated at this blog, sirrah.

/

37 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:23:39pm

re: #33 marjoriemoon

Years ago, I visited Denver, my first and only visit. I really fell in love with the city and I was quite shocked to see how hip it was. Natural food stores all over, cool clubs, lots of hipster-grunge-type young people. AND a whole lot of interracial couples. I mean noticeably so. Maybe it was just my timing, but I remember thinking how cool it was when I really expected it to be very white and conservative.

it's the altitude

38 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:23:39pm

re: #31 filetandrelease

I made the mistake of posting here a time or two with out thinking, and found it to be quite humbling.


So, another adventurer who's obviously read my book.

39 SpaceJesus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:23:57pm

re: #28 albusteve

no kidding, since you consider home schooling a form of child abuse

which would explain why someone with a crazy siege mentality like mccain would like it

40 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:23:59pm

re: #35 marjoriemoon

But I bet you haven't made a racist statement without thinking?

Nope, I usually plan them in advance for maximum effect.

/

41 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:24:40pm

re: #34 Occasional Reader

Although as has been discussed before here on the topic... I've often been surprised and disappointed at how many otherwise-rational-seeming people have problems accepting an interracial relationship as normal. Particularly folks over a certain age (although by no means exclusively).

I have two close friends in inter-racial relationships with African American women.

They get the most vocal sh*t from African American males.

42 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:25:03pm

re: #39 SpaceJesus

which would explain why someone with a crazy siege mentality like mccain would like it

hog hocky

43 SpaceJesus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:25:22pm

i wonder if mccain lost his girlfriend (lol) in high school to a black guy or something

44 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:25:26pm

re: #37 albusteve

it's the altitude

Mile high city eh? LOL

45 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:25:37pm

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I've gone thru a whole bag of chips without thinking a few times.

That happens to me.

It's the weed.

46 researchok  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:26:08pm

re: #25 Charles

And now Tim Blair is going on the attack.

I just saw that.

He's not much of a reader, is he?

47 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:26:31pm

re: #41 Ben Hur

I have two close friends in inter-racial relationships with African American women.

They get the most vocal sh*t from African American males.

Tell me about it.

Or, worse, black men who feel perfectly free to make remarks to your girlfriend, right in front of you.

No group has a monopoly on racism, folks.

48 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:26:40pm

re: #45 Ben Hur

That happens to me.

It's the weed.

They're baking weed into chips? Please do tell me which brand of chips I should be buying...

49 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:27:36pm

It's a great murky bog, that quandary of deciding whether one is disgusted that R.S.McCain and such as he are given a public forum, or satisfied that they are given enough rope to hang themselves.

50 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:28:00pm

re: #48 imp_62

They're baking weed into chips? Please do tell me which brand of chips I should be buying...

Buffalo

51 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:28:37pm

re: #44 marjoriemoon

Mile high city eh? LOL

I lived there for almost seven years...just a great town in almost every way

52 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:28:40pm

re: #38 Capitalist Tool

So, another adventurer who's obviously read my book.

Does that mean you're a "magnificent bastard"?

53 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:29:13pm

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Clever on several levels. Funny on at least one. :)

54 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:29:37pm

re: #52 Occasional Reader

Does that mean you're a "magnificent bastard"?

Magnificent, not so much.

55 MPH  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:30:25pm

The religions of the left (socialism) and right (theocracy) each grow stronger in opposition...this story is a perfect example of something which will only strengthen the opposing irrational elements...and it is a sad sight to see.

56 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:30:34pm

re: #41 Ben Hur

I have two close friends in inter-racial relationships with African American women.

They get the most vocal sh*t from African American males.

I have Hispanic friends married to whites, too, er... non-Hispanic. I wonder if that equally repulses Mr. McCain. I guess it would depend on how dark they are eh?

57 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:32:06pm

Charles has really brought the hammer down on RSM with at least two monster posts...it will be interesting to see how he maneuvers around the heat...scrutiny like that can make you do funny things

58 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:32:22pm

re: #56 marjoriemoon

I have Hispanic friends married to whites, too, er... non-Hispanic. I wonder if that equally repulses Mr. McCain. I guess it would depend on how dark they are eh?

My SIL is Hispanic.

She converted.

We tell people she's Moroccan.

59 Dreader1962  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:32:25pm

Numb banana kerflop chaining light-years...

Wait, I posted this without thinking!

60 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:04pm

*idle thought* I wonder if McCain prefers same-race homosexual relationships to interracial heterosexual ones.

61 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:09pm

re: #56 marjoriemoon

I have Hispanic friends married to whites, too, er... non-Hispanic

"White, not of Hispanic origin" is, I believe, the actual term used by the government racial/ethnic nose-counters.

(The term "Hispanic" itself is kind of weird, in a lot of ways. Is, for example, Alberto Fujimori "Hispanic"?)

62 Guanxi88  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:20pm

re: #39 SpaceJesus

which would explain why someone with a crazy siege mentality like mccain would like it

You're dead-on with the siege mentality - this explains the cocooning and "gulching" that we've seen of late among unhinged folk. They believe themselves to be under attack, and so justify their reactions as defensive.

63 researchok  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:24pm

re: #57 albusteve

Charles has really brought the hammer down on RSM with at least two monster posts...it will be interesting to see how he maneuvers around the heat...scrutiny like that can make you do funny things

He won't even acknowledge Charles- in doing so he'd have to concede to his bigotry.

64 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:24pm

Great work Charles, good for the country, right up there with the throbbing memo.

65 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:34pm

I'm married to a Japanese woman and have 2 kids. I can just imagine the waves of revulsion that must send thru McCain.

66 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:33:58pm

re: #51 albusteve

I lived there for almost seven years...just a great town in almost every way

It really and truly is. If it wasn't for that whole cold - snow thing, I'd move in a minute.

Mr. Moon was stationed in the Army there (the reason for my visit). Fort Collins? I think it was.

67 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:34:28pm

re: #59 Dreader1962

Numb banana kerflop chaining light-years...

Wait, I posted this without thinking!

You weren't just channeling Douglas Adams?

68 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:34:51pm

re: #65 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wouldn't that depend on whether you are yourself ethnic Japanese? And, perhaps, on whether your wife is hot?

69 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:35:24pm

re: #66 marjoriemoon

It really and truly is. If it wasn't for that whole cold - snow thing, I'd move in a minute.

Mr. Moon was stationed in the Army there (the reason for my visit). Fort Collins? I think it was.

winters in Denver are not so harsh...in fact very pleasant, sunny and mostly mild...of course not always

70 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:35:26pm

re: #68 imp_62

Wouldn't that depend on whether you are yourself ethnic Japanese? And, perhaps, on whether your wife is hot?

And of course we'd need photographic evidence on that latter point.

/

71 Dreader1962  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:35:48pm

re: #67 Capitalist Tool

You weren't just channeling Douglas Adams?

Kind of - more like thinking about a million monkeys with a million typewriters, randomly typing for a million years. I guess that's Robert S. McCain's take on what he sent out.

Sometimes it's Shakespeare - sometimes it's just monkey crap...

72 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:36:10pm

Eventually our descendants will all be sort of coffee-with-cream colored.

It's all good.

73 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:36:37pm

There's something brewing about Hannity having Jim Traficant as a guest on Yom Kippur.

74 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:36:40pm

re: #65 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm married to a Japanese woman and have 2 kids. I can just imagine the waves of revulsion that must send thru McCain.

Ewww!
//

75 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:36:59pm

re: #72 Ojoe

Eventually our descendants will all be sort of coffee-with-cream colored.

It's all good.

the Navajo say "we are in one nest"

76 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:37:04pm

re: #68 imp_62

Wouldn't that depend on whether you are yourself ethnic Japanese? And, perhaps, on whether your wife is hot?

I'm an Italian Yankee on one side and a German Texan on the other, and I married a hot Japanese former model. Eventually, we plan to re-enact WWII.

77 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:37:05pm

re: #58 Ben Hur

My SIL is Hispanic.

She converted.

We tell people she's Moroccan.

ROFL. Oh you're too much. Sometimes you really piss me off and other times... you don't!

78 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:37:46pm

re: #72 Ojoe

Eventually our descendants will all be sort of coffee-with-cream colored.

It's all good.

We'll be livin' la vida mocha?

79 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:37:49pm

Then there's horse-ass-burro.

But this is a family site...

80 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:38:10pm

re: #78 Occasional Reader

Very good !

81 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:38:14pm

re: #65 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm married to a Japanese woman and have 2 kids. I can just imagine the waves of revulsion that must send thru McCain.

OK.

Serious question:

Do Japanese women stop eating sushi and the like (you know, FISH) when they're pregnant?

My pregnant wife was told not to, and I'm like, "Hey! what do they Japanese do?"

82 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:38:17pm

re: #72 Ojoe

Eventually our descendants will all be sort of coffee-with-cream colored.

It's all good.


Tai Babilonia, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama...

83 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:38:33pm

re: #76 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm an Italian Yankee on one side and a German Texan on the other, and I married a hot Japanese former model. Eventually, we plan to re-enact WWII.

Japan, Germany and Italy vs. Texas?

/

84 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:38:54pm

re: #73 Ben Hur

There's something brewing about Hannity having Jim Traficant as a guest on Yom Kippur.

I guess Pat Buchanan wasn't available?

85 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:38:59pm

re: #32 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Them Jews are sneaky that way.

/

I had a boyfriend whose father was Jewish and his mother was Lutheran. He said he was Jewish "when it was convenient." He meant "when he could nail someone for antisemitism."

86 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:39:08pm

re: #77 marjoriemoon

ROFL. Oh you're too much. Sometimes you really piss me off and other times... you don't!

There's a long history of Joos doing just that to each other.

87 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:39:13pm

re: #72 Ojoe

Eventually our descendants will all be sort of coffee-with-cream colored.

It's all good.

That's entirely not true. Have you ever even read The Time Machine?

88 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:39:30pm

re: #82 Capitalist Tool

Yep.

89 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:39:34pm

re: #61 Occasional Reader

"White, not of Hispanic origin" is, I believe, the actual term used by the government racial/ethnic nose-counters.

(The term "Hispanic" itself is kind of weird, in a lot of ways. Is, for example, Alberto Fujimori "Hispanic"?)

I'm in Miami so we're all mixed up down here.

90 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:39:57pm

re: #87 bosforus

A sci-fi thing?

91 Guanxi88  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:40:34pm

re: #83 Occasional Reader

Japan, Germany and Italy vs. Texas?

/

That was the line-up in WWII, at least according to every Texan I've asked.

92 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:40:57pm

re: #81 Ben Hur

OK.

Serious question:

Do Japanese women stop eating sushi and the like (you know, FISH) when they're pregnant?

My pregnant wife was told not to, and I'm like, "Hey! what do they Japanese do?"

Maybe because of the mercury, and there is a lot more to Japanese food than sushi

93 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:41:08pm

re: #87 bosforus

That's entirely not true. Have you ever even read The Time Machine?

That reminds me of an old, old Lizard slogan: "To Morlocks as Morlocks are to Eloi"

94 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:41:15pm

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


John Derbyshire, a British-American conservative author and columnist for the National Review, has written a new book titled We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism. The book contains a section called “The Case Against Female Suffrage.” Yesterday on his radio show, Alan Colmes asked Derbyshire to articulate his argument.

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.

COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.


The stupid just won't stop.

95 filetandrelease  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:41:17pm

re: #38 Capitalist Tool

The first part for sure, the 2nd...

96 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:03pm

Damn, like, why does it take 3 or 4 tries to post a comment from "Preview" mode?

97 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:03pm

Damn, like, why does it take 3 or 4 tries to post a comment from "Preview" mode?

98 researchok  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:25pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


The stupid just won't stop.

Spectacular stupidity. Breathtaking, even.

99 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:25pm

Oh shit.

100 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:30pm

re: #90 Ojoe

A sci-fi thing?

Yeah. H.G. Wells. A couple hundred thousand years into the future we'll be Morlocks and Elois. Morlocks live underground and feed on the innocent playful Eloi.

101 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:36pm

re: #83 Occasional Reader

Japan, Germany and Italy vs. Texas?

/

It the only way to explain the cowboy meets Ilsa-san, she wolf of the SS, weekends.

Shit, there I go, posting without thinking again

102 hokiepride  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:43pm

Looks like the RSM - Vincent connection has garnered interest, thanks to Charles. Even though John Cook at Gawker credits Charles and LGF for reporting on the RSM - Lynn Vincents story, they still cannot resist calling him names, though. Hey Gawker, how about putting politics aside and giving credit where it is due

103 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:42:52pm

re: #6 Cato the Elder

Some people feel upset when they hear of interfaith marriages. I myself wonder a bit about Mary Matalin and James Carville.

I'm interracially married, myself. I was speaking to a small group one time, with my wife's nephew in attendance, and announced that we were a mixed family: I'm Methodist and they're Presbyterian. Brought the house down, that did.

104 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:43:07pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


The stupid just won't stop.

Makes sense. It's not like they own property or anything.
/

105 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:43:17pm

re: #99 Alouette

Oh shit.

"I'm a butterhead"

/finished the lyrics for you

106 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:43:39pm

re: #95 filetandrelease

The first part for sure, the 2nd...

... a manual on up- f***ing on lFg

107 Guanxi88  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:43:54pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


The stupid just won't stop.

I don't know how seriously he means to be taken in all this. One of my teachers, also a Limey conservative, argued extensively in favor of fox-hunting as a legitimate and deeply conservative sport, and I recall he had similarly effusive praise for the joys and wisdom of gambling. Sometimes an intellectual likes to kick up his heels and stand on his head. It's childish in the extreme, and downright stupid.

108 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:44:13pm

re: #92 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Maybe because of the mercury, and there is a lot more to Japanese food than sushi

It is because of the mercury.

I know there's more than Sushi! My wife is a sushi addict and I can't stand sushi, so I know about chicken teriyaki everywhere.

I was just wondering if it was all just American weirdness.

109 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:44:22pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout
John Derbyshire

On September 29, 2009, John Derbyshire expressed his view that the United States would probably be a better country if women could not vote. [6] Later in the interview, Derbyshire said there’s also a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”


UGH!

110 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:44:51pm

re: #100 bosforus

Oh, Yes I recall.

Stupid Eloi.

I saw the movie of that.

It's proof against being too much of a peace & love hippie.


BBL

111 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:44:57pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


The stupid just won't stop.

Wow. He's not kidding -- he actually thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote!

112 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:45:12pm

re: #81 Ben Hur

You might find this of interest.

Study: Pregnant women who eat more fish, including canned tuna, have smarter children

113 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:45:35pm

Later.

114 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:45:49pm

re: #108 Ben Hur

It is because of the mercury.

I know there's more than Sushi! My wife is a sushi addict and I can't stand sushi, so I know about chicken teriyaki everywhere.

I was just wondering if it was all just American weirdness.

I go for the noodles, Udon or Ramen. Can't stand soba. Yakiniku and tempura are good too.

115 dugmartsch  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:45:54pm

"They’re attributing that to me based on something they don’t know anything about."

I think I've seen this line of paranoid argument in every article I've read of RSM's (the few I could force myself to read). He's basically calling his critics stupid for not knowing things he hasn't disclosed that would immediately exonerate his purported bad behavior if they were known -- yet he refuses to identify them.

I was going to talk more about his critics vs. his supporters but this guy is a paranoid bigot and doesn't deserve that kind of attentive analysis. The fact that this guy wrote a book with the person who ghostwrote a memoir of a candidate for vice president should give everybody the ickies for how incestuous a part of the right wing has become.

116 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:45:55pm

re: #111 Charles

He also advocated repeal civil right's laws. I can't see how these comments are out of context or somehow edited. It looks real.

117 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:45:56pm

re: #111 Charles

Wow. He's not kidding -- he actually thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote!

Derbyshire obviously knows my ex.

118 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:46:28pm

re: #110 Ojoe

And a couple hundred thousand years after that this planet will be nothing but giant crabs walking around. I'm looking forward to it.

119 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:46:51pm

re: #101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

It the only way to explain the cowboy meets Ilsa-san, she wolf of the SS, weekends.

Shit, there I go, posting without thinking again

YOUR WEEKENDS >> MY WEEKENDS

120 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:47:03pm

I agree.

Women should not suffer.

Neither should children.

121 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:47:26pm

re: #108 Ben Hur

It is because of the mercury.

I know there's more than Sushi! My wife is a sushi addict and I can't stand sushi, so I know about chicken teriyaki everywhere.

I was just wondering if it was all just American weirdness.

Living in the Great Lakes, we hear a lot about mercury contamination and acceptable levels of exposure.

But I had never heard that there was a problem with deep-water ocean fish, which is what a lot of sushi is.

Not saying there isn't an issue, just that I've never heard any warnings about it like I have for fresh water species.

122 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:47:26pm
Derbyshire reasoned that we “got along like that for 130 years.” Colmes countered by asking if he also wants to bring back slavery. No, Derbyshire responded, “I’m in favor of freedom personally.” Colmes noted that freedom didn’t extend to women’s right to vote, however. Derbyshire said, “Well, they didn’t and we got along ok.” Listen here:

Later in the interview, Derbyshire said there’s also a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”

Yeesh!

123 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:47:59pm

He's not joking. Very serious.

124 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:48:05pm

re: #112 Bubblehead II

You might find this of interest.

Study: Pregnant women who eat more fish, including canned tuna, have smarter children

Thank you!

125 KansasMom  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:48:14pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


The stupid just won't stop.

Nah, he's just misunderstood...he doesn't want women to suffer.

126 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:48:53pm

re: #94 Killgore Trout

What hope is there if the GOP becomes a white males only party?
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote


The stupid just won't stop.

ROFL I'm sorry, this is too much.

We got the vote in 1920s??? Talk about carrying a freakin grudge! Holy Misogyny batman!

127 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:49:18pm

Totally OT, but another catholic bishop, Raymond Lahey, was busted with kiddie porn after signing a $15 million deal with victims of child abuse.The diocese has no idea where the money will come from, and then this. It's from my family home and I'm beyond disgusted. I know church scandals have come up here before so I'm hoping this is somewhat relevant to LGF, and quite frankly I just want this perverts name screamed from the hills so Rome can't just move him again or something.

[Link: www.cbc.ca...]

/rant done.

128 Picayune  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:49:50pm

re: #48 imp_62

They're baking weed into chips? Please do tell me which brand of chips I should be buying...


"Cheech & Chong Chips!" They come in green, with a guacamole flavor (to throw off the narcs). One chip is too many, and three bags aren't enough!

// no racist insults meant to Cheech Marin or Tommy Chong.

129 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:49:59pm

re: #126 marjoriemoon

ROFL I'm sorry, this is too much.

We got the vote in 1920s??? Talk about carrying a freakin grudge! Holy Misogyny batman!

It's been looking like the GOP may be headed back to the 1950's. Looks like some are planning to retreat further back in time.

130 jaunte  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:50:54pm

re: #122 Killgore Trout


Later in the interview, Derbyshire said there’s also a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”

That's pretty dumb. By that logic, we should have no laws at all.

131 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:51:11pm

It's amazingly anti-democratic logic; Group X doesn't vote with me so they shouldn't have the right.

132 filetandrelease  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:51:23pm

re: #111 Charles

Wow. He's not kidding -- he actually thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote!


And he is anti Muslim, that is one confused dude.

133 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:51:39pm

re: #112 Bubblehead II

You might find this of interest.

Study: Pregnant women who eat more fish, including canned tuna, have smarter children

Common Carp are considered to be one of the "cleaner" fishes as far as mercury and other heavy- metal content is concerned... beats me.

The studies of fish as brain food for unborn may have to do with Omega-3 content of cold- ocean fish as a building block for viable brain cells- haven't read such studies, so just a guess, although cold- water predators like tuna and salmon have high mercury content.
Quicksilver wit?

134 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:52:08pm

re: #129 Killgore Trout

It's been looking like the GOP may be headed back to the 1950's. Looks like some are planning to retreat further back in time.

what's the GOP got to do with him?

135 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:52:54pm

Aren't there more important anti-Obama issues to talk about than people who want to take away the vote from women?
//Registered since: June 2004
No. of comments posted: 3

136 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:54:43pm

re: #115 dugmartsch

The fact that this guy wrote a book with the person who ghostwrote a memoir of a candidate for vice president should give everybody the ickies for how incestuous a part of the right wing has become.

I guess Palin and this McCain are pretty tight. From the link at the top:

McCain does have his own connections to Palin. During the 2008 campaign he “briefly encountered her in Shippensburg, Pa.,” he recalled. “She autographed my notebook. She gave me a wink and a nod, little knowing that she was speaking to an agent of the Vlaams Belang.”

Earlier this year McCain got an exclusive quote from Palin, via email, about rumors that she was divorcing her husband Todd

Emphasis added. I wonder how little?

137 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:54:44pm

re: #134 albusteve

As we've seen with people like Glenn Beck these ideas can catch on and become popular. This weekend at the "take back America" conference there was a lot of talk about how feminism is destroying the country. If you check out the TP link Anne Coulter has previously hinted that women should vote.

138 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:55:15pm

re: #127 McSpiff

I was raised Catholic, and you always sort of stay one, and I can't stand that shit.

Away with the bishop, to elephant island with a tent.

139 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:56:25pm

Chicks, man.

140 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:56:50pm

Later.

141 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:57:00pm

re: #139 Ben Hur

Women are stronger than men in many ways.

142 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:57:02pm

re: #121 SixDegrees

Living in the Great Lakes, we hear a lot about mercury contamination and acceptable levels of exposure.

But I had never heard that there was a problem with deep-water ocean fish, which is what a lot of sushi is.

Not saying there isn't an issue, just that I've never heard any warnings about it like I have for fresh water species.

The greater the predatory habit of fish, the greater the mercury content.
Hence, warnings against too much Flathead, but not about Carp.
Mercury is naturally occurring in soils, but is believed to reach the fish food chain through the air as a pollutant associated with burning coal.

143 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:57:14pm

Convicted child killer Couey dies in prison, Florida officials say

He got off easy.

144 Guanxi88  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:57:56pm

re: #143 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Convicted child killer Couey dies in prison, Florida officials say

He got off easy.

In this world; I've theories and hopes about the next.

145 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:58:20pm

re: #138 Ojoe

I was raised Catholic, and you always sort of stay one, and I can't stand that shit.

Away with the bishop, to elephant island with a tent.

I think of myself as mostly a "Cultural Catholic", similar to the way some people identify as both atheist and jewish. It's my family, our history, our traditions and a large part of my morality. It just disgusts me how one man could ruin a diocese like this. To say there is a faith crises for many people at the moment is an understatement.

146 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:59:12pm

re: #144 Guanxi88

In this world; I've theories and hopes about the next.

there is no escaping the next worlds of our own making

147 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:59:16pm

re: #137 Killgore Trout

If you check out the TP link Anne Coulter has previously hinted that women should not vote.


PIMF/I stink

148 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:59:16pm

re: #133 Capitalist Tool

Common Carp are considered to be one of the "cleaner" fishes as far as mercury and other heavy- metal content is concerned... beats me.

The studies of fish as brain food for unborn may have to do with Omega-3 content of cold- ocean fish as a building block for viable brain cells- haven't read such studies, so just a guess, although cold- water predators like tuna and salmon have high mercury content.
Quicksilver wit?

You are correct. See here

It's a Lancet article.

From the ending conclusions.

Maternal seafood consumption of less than 340 g per week in pregnancy did not protect children from adverse outcomes; rather, we recorded beneficial effects on child development with maternal seafood intakes of more than 340 g per week, suggesting that advice to limit seafood consumption could actually be detrimental. These results show that risks from the loss of nutrients were greater than the risks of harm from exposure to trace contaminants in 340 g seafood eaten weekly.

149 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:59:26pm

re: #137 Killgore Trout

As we've seen with people like Glenn Beck these ideas can catch on and become popular. This weekend at the "take back America" conference there was a lot of talk about how feminism is destroying the country. If you check out the TP link Anne Coulter has previously hinted that women should vote.

hen the GOP endorses his profound wisdom, I'll take note...otherwise he's just another crackpot...but surly if he gets enough attention, who knows?

150 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:59:50pm

All girl C-130 crew. Women should vote.

BBL

151 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:00:36pm

re: #150 Ojoe

Girls. Uniforms. Guns.

BBL. I need a cold shower.

152 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:01:40pm

re: #145 McSpiff

I think of myself as mostly a "Cultural Catholic", similar to the way some people identify as both atheist and jewish. It's my family, our history, our traditions and a large part of my morality. It just disgusts me how one man could ruin a diocese like this. To say there is a faith crises for many people at the moment is an understatement.

The Church seems to be utterly clueless as to how these scandals affect the victims, as well as congregations around the country; these things truly do shake a person's faith.

I keep thinking that for every horror story of a priest out there, there are countless other good priests who are doing a good job, and whose jobs are made even more difficult by these scandals.

These pedophile priests need to be dealt with in the legal system, AND within the Church itself, as harshly as possible.

153 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:02:08pm

re: #129 Killgore Trout

It's been looking like the GOP may be headed back to the 1950's. Looks like some are planning to retreat further back in time.

Did you see Family Guy last Sunday?

Stewie and Brian take off in this time machine, although they can't control where they'll end up.

Their first trip (or one of the firsts) is to the same time period, but everything is very advanced. Stewie explains that since Christianity had never been invented, technology just soared forward 1000s of years LOL So irreverent.

154 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:03:03pm

re: #146 Capitalist Tool

there is no escaping the next worlds of our own making

Some people deserve to suffer before the end.

155 filetandrelease  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:03:49pm

re: #154 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some people deserve to suffer before the end.

Kinda like Dan Rather?

156 bofhell  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:03:54pm

re: #151 imp_62

Girls. Uniforms. Guns.

BBL. I need a cold shower.

Yet another reason I'm proud to be Jewish. Women of the Israeli Defense Forces

157 Picayune  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:04:18pm

re: #127 McSpiff


Agreement here. A guy I know , Jason Berry, has been busting the CC since the 80's for this criminal behavior, and he received a lot of negative crap before his books received the acclaim that they and he deserved. Thank you J. Berry for all of your hard work.

158 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:04:32pm

re: #156 bofhell

I've seen that one. And you're not helping matters.

159 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:04:35pm

re: #152 reine.de.tout

The Church seems to be utterly clueless as to how these scandals affect the victims, as well as congregations around the country; these things truly do shake a person's faith.

I keep thinking that for every horror story of a priest out there, there are countless other good priests who are doing a good job, and whose jobs are made even more difficult by these scandals.

These pedophile priests need to be dealt with in the legal system, AND within the Church itself, as harshly as possible.


I think that as long as The Catholic Church tries to superficially suppress the strongest urge to which humans are exposed, then stories such as this will persist.

160 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:04:57pm

re: #137 Killgore Trout

As we've seen with people like Glenn Beck these ideas can catch on and become popular. This weekend at the "take back America" conference there was a lot of talk about how feminism is destroying the country. If you check out the TP link Anne Coulter has previously hinted that women should vote.

What's her reason? Women aren't perfected yet?

161 bofhell  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:05:21pm

re: #158 imp_62

I've seen that one. And you're not helping matters.

That depends on your definition of help.

162 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:05:26pm

re: #152 reine.de.tout

The Church seems to be utterly clueless as to how these scandals affect the victims, as well as congregations around the country; these things truly do shake a person's faith.

I keep thinking that for every horror story of a priest out there, there are countless other good priests who are doing a good job, and whose jobs are made even more difficult by these scandals.

These pedophile priests need to be dealt with in the legal system, AND within the Church itself, as harshly as possible.

There are roughly a billion Catholics if I remember correctly, 500,000 priests and only 5,100 bishops. To me, stories like this show that the church is, to a certain degree rotten. To say these are a few bad apples... well, I'm just not sure I can buy that anymore.

163 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:07:18pm

re: #155 filetandrelease

Kinda like Dan Rather?

He's out $5 million now that his lawsuit fell apart. Brings a smile to my face.

164 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:07:37pm

re: #159 Capitalist Tool

I think that as long as The Catholic Church tries to superficially suppress the strongest urge to which humans are exposed, then stories such as this will persist.

Priests are tempted to violate their vows of chastity, and some fail. There is no doubt about that. Those priests take up with adults.

This is pedophilia, and unrelated to what you're talking about, imo.
These folks are attracted to the priesthood, not because they have any wish to serve in the clergy, but because the job gives them easy access to victims who will trust them.

165 Pawn of the Oppressor  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:08:22pm

Does anybody else hear this guy McCain as sounding like Foghorn Leghorn when they read his nonsense?

"I say son, I'm not racist, I just think tha nigras ought to be put in their rightful place is all, you see..."

166 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:08:57pm

re: #163 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

He's out $5 million now that his lawsuit fell apart. Brings a smile to my face.


Yet more evidence of a high price to pay for not honestly confronting ourselves.

167 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:09:14pm

Take Back America... to the 1800's.

168 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:09:54pm

re: #142 Capitalist Tool

The greater the predatory habit of fish, the greater the mercury content.
Hence, warnings against too much Flathead, but not about Carp.
Mercury is naturally occurring in soils, but is believed to reach the fish food chain through the air as a pollutant associated with burning coal.

And through other means as well. A lot of mercury reaches the fish food chain through water. That mercury comes from many sources, not the least of which are old batteries from littering.

169 Guanxi88  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:10:49pm

re: #165 Pawn of the Oppressor

Does anybody else hear this guy McCain as sounding like Foghorn Leghorn when they read his nonsense?

"I say son, I'm not racist, I just think tha nigras ought to be put in their rightful place is all, you see..."

I remember, years ago, listening to a guest on a radio program, never figured out if it was a put-on or what, who said "I am NOT a racist. I have love for the negro, whom the Jews are using to wreck this great nation."

170 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:10:49pm

re: #153 marjoriemoon

Heh.

171 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:12:19pm

re: #162 McSpiff

There are roughly a billion Catholics if I remember correctly, 500,000 priests and only 5,100 bishops. To me, stories like this show that the church is, to a certain degree rotten. To say these are a few bad apples... well, I'm just not sure I can buy that anymore.

I was in NO WAY trying to say the Catholic Church has no responsibility for handling this problem. None.

If you want to believe that the entire Church is 'rotten" (the Church, of course, being its members like myself), then I guess you will just have to believe that.

As for priests - I know a number of very good, compassionate priests, who are on duty 24/7 for anyone needing anything. To allow pedophile priests to shake my faith would be silly for me.

172 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:13:06pm

re: #167 bosforus

Take Back America... to the 1800's.

Well shit, they're doing a damn good job of that already through the political discourse. I swear it's ownly a matter of time until someone tries dueling again.

173 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:13:42pm

Just saw that Charles trademarked the name. Does that mean he can sue the stalker site for infringement?

174 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:01pm

re: #164 reine.de.tout

Priests are tempted to violate their vows of chastity, and some fail. There is no doubt about that. Those priests take up with adults.

This is pedophilia, and unrelated to what you're talking about, imo.
These folks are attracted to the priesthood, not because they have any wish to serve in the clergy, but because the job gives them easy access to victims who will trust them.


You may be right.
That particular sickness may lead them to the priesthood first, rather than the denial and suppression of sexual desire frothing and rupturing ultimately along whatever weak seam is available.
I don't know.

175 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:12pm

re: #51 albusteve

I lived there for almost seven years...just a great town in almost every way

It's not as polluted as they say?

176 filetandrelease  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:18pm

re: #172 Honorary Yooper

Well shit, they're doing a damn good job of that already through the political discourse. I swear it's ownly a matter of time until someone tries dueling again.

Sweet! Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, behind the barn!

177 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:18pm

re: #160 marjoriemoon

Ann Coulter’s Disastrous Political Strategy: ‘Take Away Women’s Right To Vote’

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

She just doesn't like the way they vote.

178 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:26pm

re: #167 bosforus

Take Back America... to the 1800's.

Not far enough for most Paulians though. Take Back America... to the 1790s.

179 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:41pm

re: #153 marjoriemoon

Did you see Family Guy last Sunday?

Stewie and Brian take off in this time machine, although they can't control where they'll end up.

Their first trip (or one of the firsts) is to the same time period, but everything is very advanced. Stewie explains that since Christianity had never been invented, technology just soared forward 1000s of years LOL So irreverent.

Well sure. But without all the cool torture instruments the Inquisition came up with. Now that was some well-invested intellectual capital!
Image: inquisition.jpg

180 peterb  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:14:42pm

re: #165 Pawn of the Oppressor

Does anybody else hear this guy McCain as sounding like Foghorn Leghorn when they read his nonsense?

"Nice man, but about as sharp as a bag of wet mice."

181 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:15:59pm

re: #173 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just saw that Charles trademarked the name. Does that mean he can sue the stalker site for infringement?

Yes. Since they use "little green footballs" as a part of their URL, they can be sued for infringement.

182 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:16:14pm

re: #174 Capitalist Tool

You may be right.
That particular sickness may lead them to the priesthood first, rather than the denial and suppression of sexual desire frothing and rupturing ultimately along whatever weak seam is available.
I don't know.

There have been some studies done, showing that this is the case, at least for some of these idiots. This particular sickness leads them to the priesthood; and seminaries have not taken any sort of keen interest in weeding these folks out and in fact, some studies suggest there are some seminaries where these sorts of folks seem to actually thrive.

I believe attempts have been made to address the seminary part of the problem. But now the Church has to learn how to weed out the bad apples.

183 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:16:27pm

re: #59 Dreader1962

Numb banana kerflop chaining light-years...

Wait, I posted this without thinking!

S'funny, it sounds like the subject line of some of the email spam I get.

184 bofhell  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:16:29pm

OT: GM has announced they are ending the Saturn brand

[Link: news.bnonews.com...]

And people wonder why I don't read newspapers...

185 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:16:55pm

Talk about misogyny, why don't they let the priests marry? Solve the problem overnight.

The pedophilia problem is not a homosexual problem. That should be very clear. No doubt some priests may be gay, but I suspect most are not. We think of only boys that are abused and that simply is not true.

The pope gave a horrible response to this fiasco. He apologized to the priests and not to the victims. If you don't have support from the very top, how can you hope to solve this problem?

186 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:17:24pm

re: #178 ArchangelMichael

Not far enough for most Paulians though. Take Back America... to the 1790s.

1790s? I thought the Paulians wanted to go back further, to the Articles of Confederation.

187 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:17:40pm

re: #173 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just saw that Charles trademarked the name. Does that mean he can sue the stalker site for infringement?

I'll say a prayer if you will ;)

188 MittDoesNotCompute  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:18:10pm

re: #181 Honorary Yooper

Yes. Since they use "little green footballs" as a part of their URL, they can be sued for infringement.

Prior art is gonna bite the Deuce (and Rodan) in the ass hard if Charles pursues legal remedies...Charles was here first.

189 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:18:25pm

re: #186 Honorary Yooper

1790s? I thought the Paulians wanted to go back further, to the Articles of Confederation.

They yammer enough about the Constitution I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

190 peterb  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:18:59pm

re: #111 Charles

Wow. He's not kidding -- he actually thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote!

This guy must be a blast at parties.

This interview actually left me speechless. I'm sort of hoping against hope that it was just a really bad joke? But even if so, it's the sort of bad joke that's so bad that you would have learned not to make it at, say, age 14.

I actually had to check the top of the page to make sure I wasn't reading The Onion. It's madness.

191 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:19:07pm

re: #175 The Sanity Inspector

It's not as polluted as they say?

they are cursed with an inversion effect up there...but notorious CO winds blow it all out sooner or later

192 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:19:16pm

re: #188 talon_262

Prior art is gonna bite the Deuce (and Rodan) in the ass hard if Charles pursues legal remedies...Charles was here first.

They'll have to change the name to "Little Blue [soccer] Balls"

193 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:19:33pm

re: #171 reine.de.tout

I was in NO WAY trying to say the Catholic Church has no responsibility for handling this problem. None.

If you want to believe that the entire Church is 'rotten" (the Church, of course, being its members like myself), then I guess you will just have to believe that.

As for priests - I know a number of very good, compassionate priests, who are on duty 24/7 for anyone needing anything. To allow pedophile priests to shake my faith would be silly for me.

O I'm not blaming the rank and file. Believe me, I could give you a list a mile long of good catholics. I still identify as catholic most of the time. I've also known some truly great parish priests. But when you get to the levels of bishop, and part of me fears beyond that to the College... well, I worry. These people need to either beg for mercy or they should not be in the church.

It seems to me, at least in my family and larger faith community that too many catholics have been isolating themselves, "Well MY church is fine. My priest is good. I'm not connected to that part of the church." Every catholic needs to be concerned about the church from Rome right down to each and every parish church.

194 bosforus  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:19:39pm

re: #172 Honorary Yooper

Well shit, they're doing a damn good job of that already through the political discourse. I swear it's ownly a matter of time until someone tries dueling again.

Just no big wigs, please.

195 shutdown  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:20:19pm

re: #184 bofhell

OT: GM has announced they are ending the Saturn brand

[Link: news.bnonews.com...]

And people wonder why I don't read newspapers...

I once drove a rented Saturn sedan 400 miles over highways in varying weather. It handled miserably, and I was all cramped up after the ride from fighting the tendency of the car to drift. The brand is said to have lost over $20bn over its years of existence. And in the end, they were simply putting Saturn bodies on an Opel chassis.

196 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:20:34pm

re: #184 bofhell

OT: GM has announced they are ending the Saturn brand

[Link: news.bnonews.com...]

And people wonder why I don't read newspapers...


When the Saturn line was first announced, some part of me wanted to believe all the ad copy and gleefully hoped that finally, they'd gotten it right.

The first time I rode in my friend's Saturn, I knew it was just another GM.
Uh-oh
Tricked again

197 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:20:36pm

re: #177 Killgore Trout

Ann Coulter’s Disastrous Political Strategy: ‘Take Away Women’s Right To Vote’

She just doesn't like the way they vote.

My goodness.

198 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:20:41pm

re: #184 bofhell

It's better to get it from the horse's mouth I find for auto news,

Detroit Free Press:
Penske Automotive nixes plans to buy Saturn

Penske Automotive Group announced this afternoon that it has canceled plans to buy General Motors' Saturn brand, after a deal with an unidentified third company to supply future vehicles fell apart.

GM followed with an announcement that it will be winding down the Saturn brand and dealership network.

In a statement, Penske cited concerns related “to future supply of vehicles beyond the supply period it had negotiated with GM.”

A shame.

199 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:21:27pm

re: #185 marjoriemoon

Talk about misogyny, why don't they let the priests marry? Solve the problem overnight.

The pedophilia problem is not a homosexual problem. That should be very clear. No doubt some priests may be gay, but I suspect most are not. We think of only boys that are abused and that simply is not true.

The pope gave a horrible response to this fiasco. He apologized to the priests and not to the victims. If you don't have support from the very top, how can you hope to solve this problem?

The pedophilia problem is not a homosexual problem; it is a pedophilia problem. It is unrelated to any normal adult relations.

The assistant pastor at my church is married. He was an Episcopal priest who converted to Catholicism with his family; and he is now a married Catholic priest, with wife and family.

200 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:21:46pm

re: #82 Capitalist Tool

Tai Babilonia, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama...

But remember how some voices once complained that the latter two weren't "black enough"?

201 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:21:55pm

re: #181 Honorary Yooper

Yes. Since they use "little green footballs" as a part of their URL, they can be sued for infringement.

WHAMMY!

Youtube Video
202 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:22:10pm

re: #152 reine.de.tout

The Church seems to be utterly clueless as to how these scandals affect the victims, as well as congregations around the country; these things truly do shake a person's faith.

I keep thinking that for every horror story of a priest out there, there are countless other good priests who are doing a good job, and whose jobs are made even more difficult by these scandals.

These pedophile priests need to be dealt with in the legal system, AND within the Church itself, as harshly as possible.


"Countless" is too large and vague an estimate. In recent years, it has been a "significant minority" of priest involved in some way with the pedophilia.

One could even say their was a "culture" of both pedophilia and homosexuality in the seminaries and priesthood.

203 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:22:30pm

re: #198 Honorary Yooper

It's better to get it from the horse's mouth I find for auto news,

Detroit Free Press:
Penske Automotive nixes plans to buy Saturn

A shame.

Saturns are junk...good riddance

204 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:23:40pm

re: #184 bofhell

OT: GM has announced they are ending the Saturn brand

[Link: news.bnonews.com...]

And people wonder why I don't read newspapers...

After those ads from Saturn saying how America can build good cars...
I was considering one, but then the latest reliability figures came out, and Saturn's had dropped off a cliff. At the time, Honda was offering low financing, so a Civic was about the same payments, despite being about $2000 more expensive.
That Civic lasted me 174,000 miles in 10 years, until the air conditioner evaporator failed. I don't do well in the heat, so I replaced it - and still got something for the car.

205 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:23:58pm

re: #193 McSpiff

O I'm not blaming the rank and file. Believe me, I could give you a list a mile long of good catholics. I still identify as catholic most of the time. I've also known some truly great parish priests. But when you get to the levels of bishop, and part of me fears beyond that to the College... well, I worry. These people need to either beg for mercy or they should not be in the church.

It seems to me, at least in my family and larger faith community that too many catholics have been isolating themselves, "Well MY church is fine. My priest is good. I'm not connected to that part of the church." Every catholic needs to be concerned about the church from Rome right down to each and every parish church.

You are correct, every Catholic needs to be concerned. The HS my daughter attends just changed its name a few years ago from "Bishop X HS' to something else because the good Bishop was discovered to have some skeletons in the closet.

We are all connected and need to speak out, and I think I've done so.
At the same time, I see no need for my faith in God to falter simply because there exist such a thing as pedophile priests.

(And you should know, the "rank and file" ARE the church).

206 funky chicken  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:23:59pm

re: #33 marjoriemoon

Years ago, I visited Denver, my first and only visit. I really fell in love with the city and I was quite shocked to see how hip it was. Natural food stores all over, cool clubs, lots of hipster-grunge-type young people. AND a whole lot of interracial couples. I mean noticeably so. Maybe it was just my timing, but I remember thinking how cool it was when I really expected it to be very white and conservative.

You were expecting northern Colorado Springs. The south of CO Springs (downtown area, old Colorado City, Manitou Springs) is pretty nice also. Denver wouldn't have much of a stigma for interracial couples because there isn't a large contingent of angry racists of any race there...it's too new to have old, intractable issues like that really.

207 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:24:45pm

re: #202 Bagua

"Countless" is too large and vague an estimate. In recent years, it has been a "significant minority" of priest involved in some way with the pedophilia.

One could even say their was a "culture" of both pedophilia and homosexuality in the seminaries and priesthood.

Ok. I'll change "countless" to "many".
OK?

208 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:25:10pm

re: #173 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just saw that Charles trademarked the name. Does that mean he can sue the stalker site for infringement?

More difficult if the site existed prior to the granting of trademark privileges, but not impossible.

It would certainly make any newly started sites much easier to prosecute. If, for example, the domain name got booted off a hosting service and the stalkers had to re-up elsewhere.

209 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:26:41pm

re: #199 reine.de.tout

The pedophilia problem is not a homosexual problem; it is a pedophilia problem. It is unrelated to any normal adult relations.

The assistant pastor at my church is married. He was an Episcopal priest who converted to Catholicism with his family; and he is now a married Catholic priest, with wife and family.

The problem is that too many bishops try to protect the priests and not the victims, and move the priests to other parishes. If a priest is a pedophile, he shouldn't be put in contact with children. There are plenty of other places the Church could put him.

210 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:27:05pm

re: #201 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

WHAMMY! of a different breed.

Youtube Video
211 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:27:43pm

re: #209 Kosh's Shadow

The problem is that too many bishops try to protect the priests and not the victims, and move the priests to other parishes. If a priest is a pedophile, he shouldn't be put in contact with children. There are plenty of other places the Church could put him.

Yes... out of the fucking church.

212 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:28:47pm

Found a site Charles can relate to: Emails from Crazy People

213 Digital Display  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:29:06pm

re: #209 Kosh's Shadow

The problem is that too many bishops try to protect the priests and not the victims, and move the priests to other parishes. If a priest is a pedophile, he shouldn't be put in contact with children. There are plenty of other places the Church could put him.

Jail...You know that whole morality think

214 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:29:23pm

re: #211 Walter L. Newton

Yes... out of the fucking church.

Most agreed. If the guy is a pedophile, there is only one place for him - behind bars.

215 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:29:24pm

re: #199 reine.de.tout

The pedophilia problem is not a homosexual problem; it is a pedophilia problem. It is unrelated to any normal adult relations.

The assistant pastor at my church is married. He was an Episcopal priest who converted to Catholicism with his family; and he is now a married Catholic priest, with wife and family.

Which is why permitting priests to marry would not change the actual pedophiles, however, it is clear that they gravitated to that profession and the prohibition on marriage gave cover and comfort for their problems with women.

However, while it may not be entirely a homosexual problem or a problem for homosexuals in general, it is certainly an aspect of homosexuality, this applies even more to the examples of ephebophilia.

216 Picayune  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:29:50pm

re: #166 Capitalist Tool


Dan Rathere's probably not concerned about any "high price" or costs of his law suit. He's driven now to revive his legacy, and without his law suit, he looses a needed platform to "correct the record" that he still perceives as, well, fake and not accurate, right. It's all about his legacy, but you are correct as to the remedy that would have prevented Dan from enduring all of his problems.

"Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141) - W.S.

217 Digital Display  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:29:52pm

re: #213 HoosierHoops

Jail...You know that whole morality think

Thing...

218 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:29:56pm

re: #212 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Found a site Charles can relate to: Emails from Crazy People

I'm thinking of setting up a subdomain here to post hate mails, along with advertisements, so I can monetize the hate.

219 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:30:00pm

re: #211 Walter L. Newton

Yes... out of the fucking church.

the problem is that too many peds are running around...they should be hunted down, prosecuted and jailed...to hell with the church...you're complicit, you go down too...treat it like the legal matter it is

220 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:30:11pm

re: #209 Kosh's Shadow

The problem is that too many bishops try to protect the priests and not the victims, and move the priests to other parishes. If a priest is a pedophile, he shouldn't be put in contact with children. There are plenty of other places the Church could put him.


I agree completely this is a large part of the problem. The church needs to defrock them completely, imo. Take away the authority and prestige of that position completely.


TO:
re: #162 McSpiff

re: #202 Bagua

I've looked through what I've said here, and I think I have made my thoughts known very clearly that priest pedophiles should not be tolerated.

Some of the things you responded to me about though, have to do with my statements that I don't believe I should allow the actions of other sinners to affect my faith in God.

Do either of you have a problem with that?

221 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:31:01pm

re: #209 Kosh's Shadow

The problem is that too many bishops try to protect the priests and not the victims, and move the priests to other parishes. If a priest is a pedophile, he shouldn't be put in contact with children. There are plenty of other places the Church could put him.

I really can't believe you would even suggest that the person even be accorded the opportunity to remain in the priesthood.

222 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:31:51pm

re: #221 Walter L. Newton

I really can't believe you would even suggest that the person even be accorded the opportunity to remain in the priesthood.

nor me

223 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:32:45pm

re: #218 Charles

LGF: Fleecing the Freaks

224 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:33:09pm

re: #218 Charles

I'm thinking of setting up a subdomain here to post hate mails, along with advertisements, so I can monetize the hate.

Why not. You might as well make money off these jerks who send hate mail. It'd be very entertaining for us as well.

225 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:33:21pm

re: #200 The Sanity Inspector

But remember how some voices once complained that the latter two weren't "black enough"?


Ah, yes.
Along similar lines, Sandra Bernhard once used a common Liberal cliche' as she popped off on Politically Incorrect and said of (then regarded as Conservative) Colin Powell, "Oh, but he's not really Black".
Fellow guest and Black Conservative Niger Innis leaned close to her face and said "I do not believe you just said that".
Her stunned and open- mouthed look revealed that Innis' words had struck a chord of truth with her and I do believe she learned something valuable in that moment.
At least I hope she did. Bless her.

226 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:33:30pm

re: #199 reine.de.tout

The pedophilia problem is not a homosexual problem; it is a pedophilia problem. It is unrelated to any normal adult relations.

The assistant pastor at my church is married. He was an Episcopal priest who converted to Catholicism with his family; and he is now a married Catholic priest, with wife and family.

I meant to add:
I suspect this priest is just as susceptible to temptations of all sorts as unmarried priests.

227 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:33:58pm
so I can monetize the hate

Capitalist!

228 Kragar  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:34:25pm

re: #218 Charles

I'm thinking of setting up a subdomain here to post hate mails, along with advertisements, so I can monetize the hate.

Will we be allowed to comment and mock them?

229 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:34:53pm

re: #221 Walter L. Newton

I really can't believe you would even suggest that the person even be accorded the opportunity to remain in the priesthood.

I should have been clearer - with an accusation that at appears at all substantiated, the priest should be moved out of pastoral work until cleared.
If there is a pattern, but it doesn't reach the standard of evidence for a conviction, then the priest should be permanently removed from pastoral work.
If the legal system gets a conviction, he can stay a priest in prison and serve the incarcerated.

230 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:35:08pm

re: #226 reine.de.tout

Female priests could certainly reduce the sexual abuse problem.

231 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:35:24pm

"An altogether natural revulsion" to interracial marriage, he says.

Actually no. What is unnatural is being freaked out by it. You have to be very carefully indoctrinated to have that sort of fear and racism. You might notice, that many cultures manage to get by without assuming that someone who looks a little different is awful. The difference is that they were not taught to hate.

As per these folks, I am also always appalled that they consider themselves great biblical scholars. If they would look into the bible they might notice an interesting passage.

Tziporah, the wife of Moses, is described as a Kushite. NOw a little point about that. Tziporah was from Midian, her father was Jethro priest of Midian, she was not from Kush at all. So what is the meaning of calling her a Kushite?

Well, Midian is modern day Iraq. Kush is Eithiopia. People from Kush are of course also black. To this day, Eithiopian women are known for being tall, long legged, lithe and graceful. In ancient times (as today) women with these features were considered very attractive.

So the point is, the Bible is saying that Moses' wife Tziporrah was hot. So beautiful in fact, that she even compared to the black women of Eithiopia.

King Solomon was certainly taken by the wit and beauty of another woman from there, the queen of Sheeba.

Nope... You have to be taught to hate like that. It is not natural.

232 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:35:27pm

re: #220 reine.de.tout

.

Some of the things you responded to me about though, have to do with my statements that I don't believe I should allow the actions of other sinners to affect my faith in God.

Do either of you have a problem with that?

Certainly not.

233 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:35:48pm

re: #218 Charles

I'm thinking of setting up a subdomain here to post hate mails, along with advertisements, so I can monetize the hate.

Hannitize the hatemail? Doesn't Sean do that with fruitbat callers?

234 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:36:11pm

re: #211 Walter L. Newton

Yes... out of the fucking church.

Well, there's that whole pesky forgiveness and absolution thing that sort of stands in the way of that. Excommunication for Catholics is worse than a death sentence, doctrinally speaking; it's the beginning of eternal damnation.

Which may be justifiable, but that's really up to God. Imperfect men here on earth have been extremely reluctant to apply such a measure.

And frankly, I don't really have a problem with them remaining in the church, albeit stripped of priestly duties. Just so long as they are handed over to the justice system for trial and, if found guilty, punishment. And the Church should be much more proactive in notifying the authorities and turning over whatever documentation they may have when cases are brought to their attention.

235 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:36:25pm

re: #229 Kosh's Shadow

I should have been clearer - with an accusation that at appears at all substantiated, the priest should be moved out of pastoral work until cleared.
If there is a pattern, but it doesn't reach the standard of evidence for a conviction, then the priest should be permanently removed from pastoral work.
If the legal system gets a conviction, he can stay a priest in prison and serve the incarcerated.


whoa

236 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:36:48pm

re: #205 reine.de.tout

You are correct, every Catholic needs to be concerned. The HS my daughter attends just changed its name a few years ago from "Bishop X HS' to something else because the good Bishop was discovered to have some skeletons in the closet.

We are all connected and need to speak out, and I think I've done so.
At the same time, I see no need for my faith in God to falter simply because there exist such a thing as pedophile priests.

(And you should know, the "rank and file" ARE the church).


O I totally see this as separate from God. But I've been to Anglican ceremonies before. Many Catholics would feel equally comfortable there I suspect. My relationship (or lack there of) with G-d is separate from my relationship with the Catholic Church.
re: #220 reine.de.tout

I don't have a problem with this not shaking your faith. But I do have a problem if you try to say that this should in no way shake others faith in the church. I strongly feel that the company you keeps says a lot about you. This is no exception for me. But I respect that faith is intimately personal. I suspect we agree on that point.

237 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:37:19pm

re: #218 Charles

I'm thinking of setting up a subdomain here to post hate mails, along with advertisements, so I can monetize the hate.

Please do! It would be worth a hoot. I have a dear friend who posts the crazy "physics" relating to new age stuff, UFOs and black helicopters, that various people send him outside his office. It is always entertaining in a Jerry Springer kind of way.

238 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:39:02pm

re: #234 SixDegrees

Well, there's that whole pesky forgiveness and absolution thing that sort of stands in the way of that. Excommunication for Catholics is worse than a death sentence, doctrinally speaking; it's the beginning of eternal damnation.

Which may be justifiable, but that's really up to God. Imperfect men here on earth have been extremely reluctant to apply such a measure.

And frankly, I don't really have a problem with them remaining in the church, albeit stripped of priestly duties. Just so long as they are handed over to the justice system for trial and, if found guilty, punishment. And the Church should be much more proactive in notifying the authorities and turning over whatever documentation they may have when cases are brought to their attention.


I don't know, the Church routinely denies divorcees the right to remain Catholic.
At least, that's what happened to my dear Catholic ex.

Maybe they did that to her because she married me in the first place.

239 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:39:43pm

re: #235 albusteve

whoa

re: #237 ludwigvanquixote

Please do! It would be worth a hoot. I have a dear friend who posts the crazy "physics" relating to new age stuff, UFOs and black helicopters, that various people send him outside his office. It is always entertaining in a Jerry Springer kind of way.

When I was in college, there was a place in the physics department for this stuff. I remember the "Defenders of the Geocentric Universe", and "Eckankar: the Ancient Science of Soul Travel". And I actually remember something particularly funny from the latter. They said that the heat we think from the Sun is really due to the "Living Eck Master polarizing the atoms". We were practically rofl. (I had ordered some of this free literature under the name "Harold Krishner".)

240 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:39:57pm

re: #234 SixDegrees

Well, there's that whole pesky forgiveness and absolution thing that sort of stands in the way of that. Excommunication for Catholics is worse than a death sentence, doctrinally speaking; it's the beginning of eternal damnation.

Which may be justifiable, but that's really up to God. Imperfect men here on earth have been extremely reluctant to apply such a measure.

And frankly, I don't really have a problem with them remaining in the church, albeit stripped of priestly duties. Just so long as they are handed over to the justice system for trial and, if found guilty, punishment. And the Church should be much more proactive in notifying the authorities and turning over whatever documentation they may have when cases are brought to their attention.

Guess what, I don't care about the religion part. Their ass should be out. If they are guilty, out, period.

If you want to go the religion route, the forgiveness thing, than go ahead.

I really don't give a shit about that.

241 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:40:06pm

re: #221 Walter L. Newton

I really can't believe you would even suggest that the person even be accorded the opportunity to remain in the priesthood.

On this point, I agree. Such an egregious violation of the duties and very role of a priest is clearly grounds for expulsion from the priesthood.

Ever seen The Mission? Bringing back some serious application of earthly penance might not be a bad thing, either. Although I prefer to just hand them off to the legal system in the end.

242 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:41:48pm

re: #241 SixDegrees

On this point, I agree. Such an egregious violation of the duties and very role of a priest is clearly grounds for expulsion from the priesthood.

Ever seen The Mission? Bringing back some serious application of earthly penance might not be a bad thing, either. Although I prefer to just hand them off to the legal system in the end.

I don't care, convicted pedophile, their ass is grass.

243 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:42:48pm

re: #242 Walter L. Newton

I don't care, convicted pedophile, their ass is grass.

some heavy windyness here

244 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:42:54pm

Anyone have a copy of The Urantia Book?

245 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:44:21pm

re: #202 Bagua

"Countless" is too large and vague an estimate. In recent years, it has been a "significant minority" of priest involved in some way with the pedophilia.

One could even say their was a "culture" of both pedophilia and homosexuality in the seminaries and priesthood.

One could say that, but it would be an grossly unfair generalization. Let's leave homosexuality out of the discussion, as homosexuality harms no-one.

Pedophilia is of course, a horrible crime. It is also sensational and is guaranteed to get a lot of coverage. As a result, out of the tens of thousands of Catholic Priests out there, who are not pedophiles, the ten or twenty who were make a huge and disproportionate splash in the public perception of the priesthood because of media coverage.

Now, I am in no way whatsoever defending the cover-ups of the Church hierarchy. In fact, the cover ups only made the situation worse on all levels. Of course, I am not defending pedophiles.

However, to say things like you just said, is grossly unfair.

246 bofhell  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:44:24pm

re: #204 Kosh's Shadow

After those ads from Saturn saying how America can build good cars...
I was considering one, but then the latest reliability figures came out, and Saturn's had dropped off a cliff. At the time, Honda was offering low financing, so a Civic was about the same payments, despite being about $2000 more expensive.
That Civic lasted me 174,000 miles in 10 years, until the air conditioner evaporator failed. I don't do well in the heat, so I replaced it - and still got something for the car.

I had a Saturn wagon for a number of years. Not a great car, not a bad car.

247 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:44:24pm

Drive by post:

I was going to say that brain injury might be a possible excuse for what he has said, but then I realized I might hurt the feeling of someone with a real brain injury, so I refrained.

248 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:44:46pm

re: #239 Kosh's Shadow

When I was in college, there was a place in the physics department for this stuff. I remember the "Defenders of the Geocentric Universe", and "Eckankar: the Ancient Science of Soul Travel". And I actually remember something particularly funny from the latter. They said that the heat we think from the Sun is really due to the "Living Eck Master polarizing the atoms". We were practically rofl. (I had ordered some of this free literature under the name "Harold Krishner".)

LOL we love those guys too!

249 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:44:57pm

re: #238 Capitalist Tool

I don't know, the Church routinely denies divorcees the right to remain Catholic.
At least, that's what happened to my dear Catholic ex.

Maybe they did that to her because she married me in the first place.

News to me. More typically, they simply won't grant the divorce, so you remain married in the eyes of the Church although the state marriage contract is dissolved. This prevents remarriage within the church. I don't recall ever hearing of an excommunication over divorce. But it's not something I give a lot of attention to, so perhaps you're correct.

250 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:45:07pm

re: #230 Killgore Trout

Female priests could certainly reduce the sexual abuse problem.

Maybe, maybe not. Women are not immune from committing sexual abuse acts. However, female and married priests would go a long way toward increasing the pool that priests could be chosen from.

251 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:45:53pm

re: #236 McSpiff

O I totally see this as separate from God. But I've been to Anglican ceremonies before. Many Catholics would feel equally comfortable there I suspect. My relationship (or lack there of) with G-d is separate from my relationship with the Catholic Church.
re: #220 reine.de.tout

I don't have a problem with this not shaking your faith. But I do have a problem if you try to say that this should in no way shake others faith in the church. I strongly feel that the company you keeps says a lot about you. This is no exception for me. But I respect that faith is intimately personal. I suspect we agree on that point.

OK. I don't see anywhere where I tried in any way, shape or form to dismiss the severity of the problem or the fact that the problem is contemptible.

Of course my faith in HOW the church handles these issues is shaken badly. Church officials do NOT take these problems nearly seroiusly enough.

And I don't see how anything I've said indicated anything otherwise.

252 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:46:16pm

Ohhh and to whomever said that Saturns suck...

I had a 94 saturn last me 230,000 miles and was still going strong. I would still have her if she had not been totaled. They are great cars.

253 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:47:01pm

Time to head home while my VM server runs diagnostics. Some of the virtual machines have been behaving strangely and I wonder what is causing the problem. But I can't do any work until that's done.

254 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:48:01pm

re: #252 ludwigvanquixote

Ohhh and to whomever said that Saturns suck...

I had a 94 saturn last me 230,000 miles and was still going strong. I would still have her if she had not been totaled. They are great cars.

I had been looking in 1999, and that's when the reliability figures took a nosedive. Before that, they seemed to be good. And maybe they got good again later.

255 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:48:19pm

re: #252 ludwigvanquixote

Ohhh and to whomever said that Saturns suck...

I had a 94 saturn last me 230,000 miles and was still going strong. I would still have her if she had not been totaled. They are great cars.

I did...you got lucky

256 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:48:36pm

re: #249 SixDegrees

News to me. More typically, they simply won't grant the divorce, so you remain married in the eyes of the Church although the state marriage contract is dissolved. This prevents remarriage within the church. I don't recall ever hearing of an excommunication over divorce. But it's not something I give a lot of attention to, so perhaps you're correct.


All I know is, she told me that she "couldn't be Catholic anymore" and that she began attending a Protestant church.
I'm not Catholic and haven't seen her in years... not really sure of the Church's position, so maybe shouldn't have commented.

257 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:49:19pm

re: #253 Kosh's Shadow

Time to head home while my VM server runs diagnostics. Some of the virtual machines have been behaving strangely and I wonder what is causing the problem. But I can't do any work until that's done.

Cisco?

258 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:49:30pm

re: #240 Walter L. Newton

Guess what, I don't care about the religion part. Their ass should be out. If they are guilty, out, period.

If you want to go the religion route, the forgiveness thing, than go ahead.

I really don't give a shit about that.

If you don't care about the religion part, then you have no say in how the religion operates. Excommunication is a strictly religious matter, and it remains up to the Church how and when it should be applied.

I agree that they should be removed from the priesthood, and that they should be handed over to the civil authorities for investigation, trial and punishment. But in the Catholic realm, excommunication is as serious as it gets, and isn't something that's taken lightly for the reasons already stated.

259 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:50:15pm

re: #256 Capitalist Tool

All I know is, she told me that she "couldn't be Catholic anymore" and that she began attending a Protestant church.
I'm not Catholic and haven't seen her in years... not really sure of the Church's position, so maybe shouldn't have commented.

I've never known anyone who has been excommunicated because of divorce.
I wasn't.

260 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:50:58pm

re: #258 SixDegrees

If you don't care about the religion part, then you have no say in how the religion operates. Excommunication is a strictly religious matter, and it remains up to the Church how and when it should be applied.

I agree that they should be removed from the priesthood, and that they should be handed over to the civil authorities for investigation, trial and punishment. But in the Catholic realm, excommunication is as serious as it gets, and isn't something that's taken lightly for the reasons already stated.

who cares about any of that?...what's it have to do with felony sex crimes?

261 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:51:53pm

re: #242 Walter L. Newton

I don't care, convicted pedophile, their ass is grass.

You don't get to make that decision. There's a wall of separation between the church and the state in this country, you may recall.

I'm all for letting these offenders render unto Caesar. I wouldn't expect excommunications to follow, though.

262 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:52:04pm

re: #260 albusteve

who cares about any of that?...what's it have to do with felony sex crimes?


these threads aren't typically delineated by any one subject-

263 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:53:15pm

re: #258 SixDegrees

If you don't care about the religion part, then you have no say in how the religion operates. Excommunication is a strictly religious matter, and it remains up to the Church how and when it should be applied.

I agree that they should be removed from the priesthood, and that they should be handed over to the civil authorities for investigation, trial and punishment. But in the Catholic realm, excommunication is as serious as it gets, and isn't something that's taken lightly for the reasons already stated.

I don't care what the church does with them AFTER the justice system is done with their ass.

264 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:53:25pm

re: #251 reine.de.tout

Honestly, it was when you said "I see no need for my faith in God to falter simply because there exist such a thing as pedophile priests." That, to me was dismissive. It came across as "not my problem." I apologize if I read too much into that. I'm probably a little on the emotional side at the moment to be discussing this topic, but hopefully that clarifies my reaction somewhat.

265 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:54:29pm

re: #260 albusteve

who cares about any of that?...what's it have to do with felony sex crimes?

Walter was demanding that these priests ought to be thrown out of the Church, which I took to mean excommunication. It's possible he's talking about simply stripping them of their priesthood, which is something I agree with.

I've also stated that I'm in favor of the Church turning them over to the legal authorities for investigation, trial and punishment.

Does that clear things up?

266 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:55:45pm

re: #265 SixDegrees

Walter was demanding that these priests ought to be thrown out of the Church, which I took to mean excommunication. It's possible he's talking about simply stripping them of their priesthood, which is something I agree with.

I've also stated that I'm in favor of the Church turning them over to the legal authorities for investigation, trial and punishment.

Does that clear things up?

no...he demanded no such thing

267 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:55:49pm

re: #263 Walter L. Newton

I don't care what the church does with them AFTER the justice system is done with their ass.

In that case, I believe we're in agreement.

268 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:59:41pm

re: #259 reine.de.tout

I've never known anyone who has been excommunicated because of divorce.
I wasn't.


I didn't use the word "excommunication", because she didn't, but maybe that's what the word means and maybe that's what she meant and maybe there was something she wasn't telling me.
I'm sitting here now, totally confused after all these years.
Maybe she was just laying a big guilt trip on me while suspecting that my ignorance of things Catholic would remain and that I'd feel badly about causing her to be "not a Catholic".

269 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:02:00pm

re: #266 albusteve

no...he demanded no such thing

Walter's #211:

re: #209 Kosh's Shadow

The problem is that too many bishops try to protect the priests and not the victims, and move the priests to other parishes. If a priest is a pedophile, he shouldn't be put in contact with children. There are plenty of other places the Church could put him.

Yes... out of the fucking church.

Again, in the Catholic realm, being "put out of the Church" means excommunication.

Walter has since clarified that he meant removal from the priesthood, something I agree ought to happen. But that's only become clear in the last couple of posts.

270 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:05:05pm

re: #264 McSpiff

Honestly, it was when you said "I see no need for my faith in God to falter simply because there exist such a thing as pedophile priests." That, to me was dismissive. It came across as "not my problem." I apologize if I read too much into that. I'm probably a little on the emotional side at the moment to be discussing this topic, but hopefully that clarifies my reaction somewhat.

And I'm a tad prickly myself right now (side effect of some meds).

I thought I was clear that my faith in God is a separate issue from the humans who serve in the ministry.

My faith in the church leadership's judgment on this issue (and I answered this as well) is indeed shaken to the core.

271 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:05:47pm

re: #245 ludwigvanquixote

re: #245 ludwigvanquixote


[…]
Pedophilia is of course, a horrible crime. It is also sensational and is guaranteed to get a lot of coverage. As a result, out of the tens of thousands of Catholic Priests out there, who are not pedophiles, the ten or twenty who were make a huge and disproportionate splash in the public perception of the priesthood because of media coverage.
[…]
However, to say things like you just said, is grossly unfair.

Oh dear, I though you were a mathematician and a scientist. Are you saying a reasonable estimate is somewhere around one out of one or two thousand?

The John Jay paper estimated approximately 4% of priests were pedophiles of the 110,000 priests who served during his study period of 1950 – 2002. The problem also affected more than 95 percent of dioceses.

Even the Church came back with an estimate of “no more than 1% world wide.

I’d say my words “Significant minority” were very fair assuming about 4% of priests were active pedophiles during that period, many more were actively enabling this behaviour and participating in cover ups. I might even say a disturbing minority of priests were pedophiles and still be very fair.

John Jay Paper

272 albusteve  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:05:59pm

re: #269 SixDegrees

Again, in the Catholic realm, being "put out of the Church" means excommunication.

Walter has since clarified that he meant removal from the priesthood, something I agree ought to happen. But that's only become clear in the last couple of posts.

I read it...his suggestion was far from a demand, as you said

273 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:07:08pm

re: #269 SixDegrees

Again, in the Catholic realm, being "put out of the Church" means excommunication.

Walter has since clarified that he meant removal from the priesthood, something I agree ought to happen. But that's only become clear in the last couple of posts.

Maybe I should be even clearer. If he is proven to be a pedophile, in my opinion...

1) He should be removed from the priesthood.
2) If I was a practicing, concerned Catholic, I would want him out of the church
3) Since I am not a practicing Catholic, I would still like to see him out of the fellowship of his church.

But on points 2,3 I have no way to effect those things happening, but if I could, I would.

274 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:09:58pm

re: #270 reine.de.tout

And I'm a tad prickly myself right now (side effect of some meds).

I thought I was clear that my faith in God is a separate issue from the humans who serve in the ministry.

My faith in the church leadership's judgment on this issue (and I answered this as well) is indeed shaken to the core.

You were clear. I think I was trying to misread some of what you wrote. I went out for air, and feel much calmer. Again, apologies to you. I still feel that many North American Catholics need to demand in no uncertain terms that changes occur, or this scandal will never finish.

275 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:11:20pm

re: #271 Bagua

Woah, I am a mathematician and a scientist. I have not seen this paper you are talking about, and the link is broken.

I am only going by the news reports I have heard. I have heard of ten or twenty cases.

If the problem is demonstrably bigger than that, I will withdraw my estimate. However, given how loaded this issue is emotionally, I would be very skeptical of the methodology of any paper from either side.

276 Picayune  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:11:35pm

re: #264 McSpiff

Since you opened this issue, here's a link to some of my friend, Jason Berry's works on this subject. [Link: blog.nola.com...]

Jason is a courageous fellow and has pioneered for exposure and relief of this problem for many years.

277 KansasMom  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:12:00pm

re: #218 Charles

I'm thinking of setting up a subdomain here to post hate mails, along with advertisements, so I can monetize the hate.

I LOVE this idea.

278 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:16:33pm

re: #275 LudwigVanQuixote

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]


Number of allegations
The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[14]
Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1000 which could not be substantiated.
According to the John Jay report, one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002-3. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.[14]

That excludes Canada, Ireland .


re: #276 Picayune

Thanks for the link. I did drag this thread pretty far off topic didn't I...

279 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:20:48pm

re: #272 albusteve

I read it...his suggestion was far from a demand, as you said

Feel free to parse every syllable posted to conform to what you want to hear. I'm not interested; it's juvenile. I've explained myself, you're not interested, end of story.

280 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:22:08pm

re: #278 McSpiff

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...] ses#John_Jay_study

That excludes Canada, Ireland .

re: #276 Picayune

Thanks for the link. I did drag this thread pretty far off topic didn't I...

Wow.. OK I had no idea. If those numbers are accurate than just wow.

OK I was wrong.

Bagua, do you see that?

281 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:22:58pm

re: #273 Walter L. Newton

Maybe I should be even clearer. If he is proven to be a pedophile, in my opinion...

1) He should be removed from the priesthood.
2) If I was a practicing, concerned Catholic, I would want him out of the church
3) Since I am not a practicing Catholic, I would still like to see him out of the fellowship of his church.

But on points 2,3 I have no way to effect those things happening, but if I could, I would.

I think a lot of reasonable people share your views.

282 Picayune  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:23:12pm

re: #278 McSpiff

S'ok, that's what makes LGF such a great blog - a place where logical, rational, and usually cool discourse can be found on important topics, except for "Cheech & Chong Chips". Heh! No, the humor here is good as well.

283 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:24:35pm

re: #275 LudwigVanQuixote

Woah, I am a mathematician and a scientist. I have not seen this paper you are talking about, and the link is broken.

I am only going by the news reports I have heard. I have heard of ten or twenty cases.

If the problem is demonstrably bigger than that, I will withdraw my estimate. However, given how loaded this issue is emotionally, I would be very skeptical of the methodology of any paper from either side.

Here's the link again.

[Link: www.bishop-accountability.org...]

However, your "However, given how loaded this issue is emotionally, I would be very skeptical of the methodology of any paper from either side." Is one of the common complaints of mine about some of the "climate science" papers, an idea you have angrily rebuked.

284 That's Banned Sockpuppet [With Turrets] to you  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:25:20pm

[ooh ooh ooh - a fresh dead thread ... the perfect place for Passive Aggressive Poetry]

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I could rhyme the next words
But I refuse to.

285 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:25:54pm

re: #280 LudwigVanQuixote

Wow.. OK I had no idea. If those numbers are accurate than just wow.

OK I was wrong.

Bagua, do you see that?

Yes, but not in time to modify my reply. Timing is forever my enemy.

286 SummerSong  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:26:19pm

re: #278 McSpiff

And of course, there is no telling how many events go unreported.

287 Mich-again  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:29:05pm

re: #238 Capitalist Tool

I don't know, the Church routinely denies divorcees the right to remain Catholic.


False.

288 tokyobk  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:30:10pm

What a joke. Yes, reacting with "revulsion" to an IR couple with no other information about them is the defition of racism.

Maybe you could get away with saying not all people who don't want to marry interracially are racist just as a black man with an aesthetic white preference or vice versa may not be racist, may be. But as he says it, rediculous.

289 reine.de.tout  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:31:08pm

re: #268 Capitalist Tool

I didn't use the word "excommunication", because she didn't, but maybe that's what the word means and maybe that's what she meant and maybe there was something she wasn't telling me.
I'm sitting here now, totally confused after all these years.
Maybe she was just laying a big guilt trip on me while suspecting that my ignorance of things Catholic would remain and that I'd feel badly about causing her to be "not a Catholic".

Hm. That sounds more like it. There is no excommunication for divorce, nor for a non-Catholic remarriage. Doesn't happen.

People who are living in a "state of sin" are not supposed to receive communion. But . . . that's about it. Each person is supposed to examine their conscience and make that decision.

290 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:31:55pm

re: #283 Bagua

re: #285 Bagua

It is OK.

I completely understand how you would be upset at this issue, knowing how large it apparently is, and then having me come in and make a bad analysis based on a faulty perception of the actual state of things.

It is obviously vastly bigger as a problem than I gave it credit for. If the paper from Jay was so faulty that it was off by a factor of ten, and it were only hundreds of cases in America alone, it would still be a giant problem and you had every right to get cranky at my ignorance.

I truly had no idea it was that bad.

Please let this be a teachable moment. :)

I know full well how large and issue AGW actually is and have the exact same response you just did, when faced with the angry and faulty analysis of others.

291 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:38:22pm

re: #290 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #285 Bagua

It is OK.

I completely understand how you would be upset at this issue, knowing how large it apparently is, and then having me come in and make a bad analysis based on a faulty perception of the actual state of things.

It is obviously vastly bigger as a problem than I gave it credit for. If the paper from Jay was so faulty that it was off by a factor of ten, and it were only hundreds of cases in America alone, it would still be a giant problem and you had every right to get cranky at my ignorance.

I truly had no idea it was that bad.

Please let this be a teachable moment. :)

I know full well how large and issue AGW actually is and have the exact same response you just did, when faced with the angry and faulty analysis of others.

As do I.

292 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 3:40:03pm

re: #290 LudwigVanQuixote

I knew had had this one won in advance, knowing you. :)

293 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:02:25pm

re: #291 Salamantis

As do I.

Sal,

Three substantive differences:

1. I read the evidence that others bring me and I instantly admit it if I am proven wrong. Have you ever looked at the multiple links I have given you on what is wrong with assuming that IPCC is only as bad as it will get, that would also put your Bristol paper into question? I gave you four last night.

2. You do not know how big an issue AGW is. You have no clue really. You are not in the field. You are not a scientist. You don't read the papers and you don't know enough mathematics to really understand the papers even if you did read them. Do not go writing that you KNOW anything at all about it.

3. When someone who is actually in science explains to you over and over again why your analysis is faulty, you rather than look at the arguments presented or the numerous links given, continue to spout the same stuff ad nauseam. It is more about dick waving at that point than being factually correct.

I fully accept that you are very smart. I am glad that you post here and I generally like your posts. However, I would very much like it if you would just quit the aggressive baiting that you do on this topic and accept that someone who actually is a physicist might, just might, know more than you about this at least enough to have the respect of processing the information he is giving you.

294 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:04:24pm

re: #292 Bagua

I knew had had this one won in advance, knowing you. :)

It isn't about winning. It is about getting the truth. These are important issues. It is important to get it straight.

295 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:07:01pm

re: #294 LudwigVanQuixote

It isn't about winning. It is about getting the truth. These are important issues. It is important to get it straight.

Yeah. Like accepting the most recent study, which corroborated the most extensive study to date.

296 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:14:08pm

re: #295 Salamantis

Yeah. Like accepting the most recent study, which corroborated the most extensive study to date.

DID you read the ten papers about accelerated melts that IPCC did not take into account from 2009 that I have given you? The paper you keep talking about is not the most recent study. It is not the only study.

What is so insulting about you is your arrogance and your refusal to read or think.

297 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:19:19pm

re: #293 LudwigVanQuixote

Sal,

Three substantive differences:

1. I read the evidence that others bring me and I instantly admit it if I am proven wrong. Have you ever looked at the multiple links I have given you on what is wrong with assuming that IPCC is only as bad as it will get, that would also put your Bristol paper into question? I gave you four last night.

And every one of them was written before Bristol July 2009, and thus could not take it into account. But its very methodology implicitly took them, and all future studies like them, into account, as it was a seal-level/global temperature correlation over the past 22,000 years, regardless of the cause of any temperature increase. And we have had global temperatures 7 degrees higher than today multiple times before, with a sea level rise from current levels of just under a single meter - not the three or ten you have previously hawked on this site.

2. You do not know how big an issue AGW is. You have no clue really. You are not in the field. You are not a scientist. You don't read the papers and you don't know enough mathematics to really understand the papers even if you did read them. Do not go writing that you KNOW anything at all about it.

What an egotistical appeal to self-authority. That particular tack has been a Greek logical fallacy for 2500 years. And I DO read the papers, and I solved your mathematical puzzle; you have yet to solve my logical one. I do indeed know how big the issue is; it's big enough to pull in big money and intense passions from all sides, and for both sides to develop extreme fringes.

3. When someone who is actually in science explains to you over and over again why your analysis is faulty, you rather than look at the arguments presented or the numerous links given, continue to spout the same stuff ad nauseam. It is more about dick waving at that point than being factually correct.

Actually, umm, no. You have not succeeded in explaining why the most current climatological consensus is woefully wrong, and why your dire catastrophist prophecies should instead apply. Nor can you.

I fully accept that you are very smart. I am glad that you post here and I generally like your posts. However, I would very much like it if you would just quit the aggressive baiting that you do on this topic and accept that someone who actually is a physicist might, just might, know more than you about this at least enough to have the respect of processing the information he is giving you.

What I would like is for you to actually stop being a fucking bully, and loudly shouting that everyone who has a principled disagreement with you, and dares to post links to credible climate studies to make their point, is either ignorant, malevolent, or dense. But your bloated distention of an ego prevents you from restraining yourself from relentlessly engaging in such vicious logorrheal bloviations.

298 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:23:20pm

re: #296 LudwigVanQuixote

DID you read the ten papers about accelerated melts that IPCC did not take into account from 2009 that I have given you? The paper you keep talking about is not the most recent study. It is not the only study.

What is so insulting about you is your arrogance and your refusal to read or think.

What is so insulting about you is your tendentious tendency to mislead. IPCC 2007 may not have been able to take those papers into account, but Bristol July 2009 took all papers like them into account, due to the methodology that was employed, and which I referenced in post #297. But they could not take Bristol July 2009 into account, as it was published after they were, and Bristol remains the most current climatological statement we have on the subject.

299 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:35:17pm

Rere: #298 Salamantis

re: #297 Salamantis

repost...

Your 2009 paper comes to defend IPCC and even gives credence to issues that both it and IPCC did not take into account that would make matters worse.

IPCC was 2007.

In the course of our discussions, I have given you over ten papers from 2007-2009 that detail what those other issues making things worse would be. The ice and the bogs are going faster than IPCC accounted for. This means that the feedbacks are growing faster than IPCC accounted for and your Bristol paper actually acknowledges this.

You refuse to see the papers. You refuse to take into account that IPCC is a lowball estimate because of them. I could give you ten dozen papers and you would still spout nonsense.

So from now on I am going to take a new tact with you. You are not a denier, you are just some web fool who is pompous enough that he just has to be right against the physicist no matter how many papers he brings you. G-d forbid you read them and understand the mechanism.

So from no on, since it is utterly clear that this is not about science for you at all, but rather that I or someone acknowledges your genius is so great that you can master any field just by skimming abstracts, I will lay the hammer down hard.

Sal, you are very bright. You are not a physicist. You don't know physics and you have not taken the time to learn physics. You are so, pompous, arrogant and insecure, that you can not take the time to read the physics when it is given to again and again and then patiently explained to you.

This is a very childish and insecure behavior on your part. Your value as a person does not change if I know more science than you. I should know more science than you - It is after all my job, and unlike you, I spent yars actually studying it.

I am tired of dealing with your ignorant attempts to show off how bright you think are by derailing discussion about important issues that I am trying to inform people about. It makes you a pathetic ass.

From now on when you bloviate I will simply repost this reply.

If you ever do decide to learn physics - I suggest you learn calculus first, I will be glad to talk science with you again.

300 funky chicken  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:44:48pm

re: #2 lawhawk

Seems to be a running theme these days. Before people post stuff; think.

I mean it. Think.

Do you really want to try and defend someone's indefensible racist leanings, rantings, ravings, and postings online?

Do you really want to defend associating with racists and bigots who are pursuing an anti-Jihad agenda but whose white supremacist antics are barely under the surface?

Do you really want to push kooky conspiracy theories about the current Administration?

If you do, are you really thinking all this through? Is that who you really want to be associating with? Apparently, all too many have already asked and answered this in a way that makes it all too clear that they didn't think it through -or worse simply ignore all the evidence and instead run headlong into a mess.

That's something I cannot and will not do.

great comment, and one I hope some people take to heart

301 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:45:38pm

And I will repost the abstract to the Bristol July 2009 paper. And bold the excerpt that you are depending upon, and the one that answers it - both of them in included the abstract.

[Link: www.nature.com...]

Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change
Mark Siddall1,4, Thomas F. Stocker2 & Peter U. Clark3


It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood1. [your favorite part]. However, sea-level fluctuations in response to changing climate have been reconstructed for the past 22,000 years from fossil data, a period that covers the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period. Here we present a simple model of the integrated sea-level response to temperature change that implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice. [the part you prefer to ignore, that points out that Bristol's methodology and subject matter implicitly takes such studies into account]. Our model explains much of the centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC). In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections.

Sal: and the last part points out that Bristol July 2009 closely correlates with IPCC 2007, so the most recent study corroborates the most extensive one to date, despite their different methodological paths.

1.Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, PO Box 1000, Palisades, New York 10964-8000, USA
2.Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, CH 3012, Switzerland
3.Department of Geosciences, 104 Wilkinson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-5506, USA
4.Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK

302 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:49:14pm

And I refuse to accede to your demands that I acknowledge your self-declared scientific greatness as a valid basis for your interminable appeals to your own authority.

I need not hold your self-attributed climatological ex cathedra infallibilty in high regard; you possess quite enough self-regard without the necessity of my adding to it.

303 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:49:34pm

re: #294 LudwigVanQuixote

It isn't about winning. It is about getting the truth. These are important issues. It is important to get it straight.

We all have our motivations; yours the pursuit of truth, mine the pursuit of scalps.

:)

304 McSpiff  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:51:06pm

re: #294 LudwigVanQuixote

Well put. For the record, I didn't view putting the numbers out for you as "winning." You asked for data I had. More than happy to provide it.

305 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:52:46pm

re: #297 Salamantis

No sal, you did not read the papers I have brought you. You certainly did not process what was in them. It is obvious. Is there a reason you need to keep up this stupid charade? You will notice that I upding your good comments. You will notice that I don't troll your other discussions.

But your nonsense on this needs to stop.

You solved my mathematical puzzle so you are now a mathematician?

Sal, I proved you don't know basic calculus.

You need to know that before you can critique a physics paper you know...

Here tell you what kiddo...

What is the definition of a derivative? Using Newton's definition, and the notion of a Reimann sum, how would you prove the fundamental theorem of calculus?

NO wiki allowed. I'll know if you did... That is a warm up.

Now here is a better one,

Using the method of differentiation under the integral, evaluate INT sin(x)/x from 0 to infinity.

Now... If you can't answer those questions, just admit you don't know calculus.

306 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:57:59pm

re: #305 LudwigVanQuixote

No sal, you did not read the papers I have brought you. You certainly did not process what was in them. It is obvious. Is there a reason you need to keep up this stupid charade? You will notice that I upding your good comments. You will notice that I don't troll your other discussions.

But your nonsense on this needs to stop.

You solved my mathematical puzzle so you are now a mathematician?

Sal, I proved you don't know basic calculus.

You need to know that before you can critique a physics paper you know...

Here tell you what kiddo...

What is the definition of a derivative? Using Newton's definition, and the notion of a Reimann sum, how would you prove the fundamental theorem of calculus?

NO wiki allowed. I'll know if you did... That is a warm up.

Now here is a better one,

Using the method of differentiation under the integral, evaluate INT sin(x)/x from 0 to infinity.

Now... If you can't answer those questions, just admit you don't know calculus.

First prove to me why the fallacy of assuming the antecedent is functionally equivalent to the fallacy of denying the consequent. It's been days, and you haven't answered that one.

Also inform me why you are able to read the plain english of the first bolded part of the abstract I posted in #301, but seem constitutionally unable to comprehend the plain english of the second bolded part of the abstract, and what it means for the papers you find.

The fact that you seem to grasp the first of the two but not the second is what I find to be self-servingly nonsensical.

307 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:01:44pm

BTW: I also upding your good comments. But on this issue you seem to be an extremist sensationalist alarmist AGW-exaggerating doppelganger of the Imhofes of the world.

I, otoh, accept the moderate sensible centrist position that is actually supported by the current climatological consenus.

308 Mark Pennington  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:02:25pm

I guess McCain would find me revolting. I'm white and marrying a Cuban American next year.

309 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:09:31pm

re: #306 Salamantis

First prove to me why the fallacy of assuming the antecedent is functionally equivalent to the fallacy of denying the consequent. It's been days, and you haven't answered that one.


Because the physical mechanisms involved have an order to them as well that takes supremacy over the publication date. If you learned the mechanisms involved, you would see that papers which say they were not accounted for in either your paper (well actually they did acknowledge it) or IPCC, must of necessity be lowball. Further I have given you several Greenland melt papers that were published after Bristol. You could do me the kindness of reading them and understanding what that means to the picture you are painting.

You also do not take into account the fact that your Bristol paper would have sat around for several months before publication to go through review.

Also inform me why you are able to read the plain english of the first bolded part of the abstract I posted in #301, but seem constitutionally unable to comprehend the plain english of the second bolded part of the abstract, and what it means for the papers you find.

Yes Sal, You even bolded it...

It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood.

In other words, if Greenland and the other ice sheets are going faster than this paper accounts for, the results and conclusions are in question. That is pretty plain English yes? And I have given you by now, many papers that say just that, the ice sheets are going faster.


The fact that you seem to grasp the first of the two but not the second is what I find to be self-servingly nonsensical.

No Sal, your vain attempt to say "look at me! I am sooo smart!" is what is nonsensical.

Now as to your ignorance of basic math...

Answer those questions.

If you knew the math, you would answer them. They are not hard.

The fact that you can not proves you don't know the math. Since you do not know even basic calculus, you have no right to say anything about a professional physics paper with the strength that you speak. You have no right at all, because you could not possibly even begin to understand the papers that you do not even read.

Now put up or shut up... Answer the question. You are being called out as a fraud and a pompous web loser.

310 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:13:39pm

re: #307 Salamantis

BTW: I also upding your good comments. But on this issue you seem to be an extremist sensationalist alarmist AGW-exaggerating doppelganger of the Imhofes of the world.

I, otoh, accept the moderate sensible centrist position that is actually supported by the current climatological consenus.

You are a pompous ignorant blowhard who doesn't even know what empirical means, or what it takes to model a system in an experiment. Shall we discuss your paper plate experiment again?

Idiot.

311 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:13:41pm

re: #299 LudwigVanQuixote

[...] It makes you a pathetic ass. [...]

Ludwig,

With respect I believe your position would be far better supported without all the gratuitous insults, profanity and emoting. Salamantis has established himself on this forum as the opposite of what you imply.

re: #307 Salamantis

BTW: I also upding your good comments. But on this issue you seem to be an extremist sensationalist alarmist AGW-exaggerating doppelganger of the Imhofes of the world.

I, otoh, accept the moderate sensible centrist position that is actually supported by the current climatological consenus.

Ludwig,

I agree with that observation, regrettably, as I find your other observations and manner so agreeable on other issues.

However, I do recognise that there is a stark difference in that Inhofe is scientifically illiterate and you are the opposite. However, in terms of style and sensationalism there is a clear parallel that I believe you may wish to consider if you want your message to gain strength.

312 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:25:53pm

re: #309 LudwigVanQuixote

Because the physical mechanisms involved have an order to them as well that takes supremacy over the publication date. If you learned the mechanisms involved, you would see that papers which say they were not accounted for in either your paper (well actually they did acknowledge it) or IPCC, must of necessity be lowball. Further I have given you several Greenland melt papers that were published after Bristol. You could do me the kindness of reading them and understanding what that means to the picture you are painting.

You also do not take into account the fact that your Bristol paper would have sat around for several months before publication to go through review.

First, I notice that you failed to answer my logic question, while demanding that I answer your math questions. Reciprocity: it's not just for breakfast any more.

Second, the entire point of Bristol, which you seem to have missed, is that it doesn't matter by which mechanisms the temperature changes; what matters is the correlation between temperature and sea level. And that correlation has held steady for the past 22,000 years. THAT is what in Bristol implicitly takes all of those papers into account

Third, Bristol July 2009 shows that IPCC 2007 was NOT a 'lowball' estimate; in fact, it had a range between 18 and 76 cm, which is nearly a fivefold spread, closely correlated to the spread found in Bristol 2009 (7 to 82 cm).

And if Bristol was lying around before publication, so were those other papers. It is more current than they.

No Sal, your vain attempt to say "look at me! I am sooo smart!" is what is nonsensical.

Yes Sal, You even bolded it...

It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood.

In other words, if Greenland and the other ice sheets are going faster than this paper accounts for, the results and conclusions are in question. That is pretty plain English yes? And I have given you by now, many papers that say just that, the ice sheets are going faster.

But none of those studies is predicting that the temperature will rise more than the 7 degrees that is the generally accepted climatological consensus, and a 7 degree rise in temperature has, for 22,000 years, correlated with lass than a meter rise in sea level. Which is why Bristol implicitly takes them into account.

Now as to your ignorance of basic math...

Answer those questions.

If you knew the math, you would answer them. They are not hard.

The fact that you can not proves you don't know the math. Since you do not know even basic calculus, you have no right to say anything about a professional physics paper with the strength that you speak. You have no right at all, because you could not possibly even begin to understand the papers that you do not even read.

Now put up or shut up... Answer the question. You are being called out as a fraud and a pompous web loser.

You are showing yourself to be an obdurate and egocentric asshole. An asshole who has yet to even acknowledge, much less answer, my prior referenced logic question.

Maybe that's what your problem is; you lack the logical facility to convert data into rational conclusions.

313 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:30:32pm

re: #310 LudwigVanQuixote

You are a pompous ignorant blowhard who doesn't even know what empirical means, or what it takes to model a system in an experiment. Shall we discuss your paper plate experiment again?

Idiot.

Shall we discuss why it enrages you every time I mention the plain fact that it is I, and not you, who is supporting the current climatological consensus?

I also notice that in #309 you once again were selective, and repeated bolded statement 1 in post #301 while ignoring bolded statement 2 (while I, being evenhanded, bolded them both in my original post). Because the second one does not support your position that your papers are relevant to Bristol's temperature/sea level correlation, but in fact undermines it.

314 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 5:36:44pm

Also, whenever I mention that it is I and not you who is supporting the current climatological consensus, you always seem to desperately endeavor to change the subject - usually accompanied by insulting ad hominem, as you once again attempted in #310.

315 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 7:04:27pm

re: #312 Salamantis

re: #314 Salamantis

Also, whenever I mention that it is I and not you who is supporting the current climatological consensus, you always seem to desperately endeavor to change the subject - usually accompanied by insulting ad hominem, as you once again attempted in #310.

No you are not supporting the current consensus. The current consensus is that IPCC was lowball for the reasons that have been given to you, explained to you and documented to you again and again and again.

I have not changed the subject. Not once. I keep explaining how your one paper is not the consensus. I keep explaining how your one paper even acknowledges the issues that I keep giving you reference after reference to.

You keep refusing to process.

I answered your silly questions too many times Sal. I explained the mechanisms at work many times and I have given you the data to prove it.

Now it is my turn.

Yes this is ad hominem. I am specifically calling you a pompous fraud.

I specifically am claiming that you make all sorts of strong statements about this with no knowledge of your own.

I specifically claim that as a minimum on the way to even be able to argue this like a professional you need to know calculus.

I claim that you do not even know that. I claim you are a fraud. I am calling you stupid. Prove me wrong.

So, you have claimed you know the science. Anyone who "knows the science" and speaks with the authority you do knows basic math.

Answer the questions and stop dodging. Or have you not had enough time to wiki :)

What is the definition of a derivative? Using Newton's definition, and the notion of a Reimann sum, how would you prove the fundamental theorem of calculus?

NO wiki allowed. I'll know if you did... That is a warm up.

Now here is a better one,

Using the method of differentiation under the integral, evaluate INT sin(x)/x from 0 to infinity.

Now... If you can't answer those questions, just admit you don't know calculus.

316 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 7:11:51pm

re: #311 Bagua

Ludwig,

I agree with that observation, regrettably, as I find your other observations and manner so agreeable on other issues.

However, I do recognise that there is a stark difference in that Inhofe is scientifically illiterate and you are the opposite. However, in terms of style and sensationalism there is a clear parallel that I believe you may wish to consider if you want your message to gain strength.

Bagua,

I truly do understand that you feel my debating style is lacking. However, I would ask that you point out a single thing I have said that is overly alarmist.

I ask that you point out anything that does not add up to a global catastrophe.

Sometimes science is harsh. It is a scientific fact that if G-d forbid, someone got shot in the head with a 12 gauge , they would die in a gruesome manner and that bits of their head would splatter all over the place. It is not therefore alarmist to not want a 12 gauge pointed at your head.

Now I want you to look at the projections in the table of the middle of this paper and tell me if they are OK. I want you to tell me how if they came to pass, they would not be a catastrophe.

Specifically look at table one.

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

If you believe a 3 meter rise in ocean levels coupled with mass extinctions - and do look at ocean anoxia predictions too, in the next 100-150 years is no big deal, then please explain why.

Otherwise I will thank you to not call me alarmist.

317 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 7:35:49pm

re: #314 Salamantis

All this time whining and trying to change the subject Sal, you could have answered the basic math questions.

They are not that hard for anyone qualified to claim authority in matters of physics.

Yet, you still have not answered...

Is that because you do not know?

If you do not know, could that mean you are just making stuff up out of a pathetic attempt to self aggrandize and fool people into believing you posses knowledge that in reality you do not?

I repeat Sal, I am openly calling you a fraud.

I am continuing to do so.

You have an amazing chance to shut me down here Sal... Just show you know basic calculus.

Answer the questions and stop dodging. Or have you not had enough time to wiki :)

What is the definition of a derivative? Using Newton's definition, and the notion of a Reimann sum, how would you prove the fundamental theorem of calculus?

NO wiki allowed. I'll know if you did... That is a warm up.

Now here is a better one,

Using the method of differentiation under the integral, evaluate INT sin(x)/x from 0 to infinity.

Now... If you can't answer those questions, just admit you don't know calculus.

318 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 8:19:12pm

re: #316 ludwigvanquixote

Bagua,

I truly do understand that you feel my debating style is lacking. However, I would ask that you point out a single thing I have said that is overly alarmist.

I ask that you point out anything that does not add up to a global catastrophe.

Sometimes science is harsh. It is a scientific fact that if G-d forbid, someone got shot in the head with a 12 gauge , they would die in a gruesome manner and that bits of their head would splatter all over the place. It is not therefore alarmist to not want a 12 gauge pointed at your head.

Now I want you to look at the projections in the table of the middle of this paper and tell me if they are OK. I want you to tell me how if they came to pass, they would not be a catastrophe.

Specifically look at table one.

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

If you believe a 3 meter rise in ocean levels coupled with mass extinctions - and do look at ocean anoxia predictions too, in the next 100-150 years is no big deal, then please explain why.

Otherwise I will thank you to not call me alarmist.

(Answer in multiple parts to foil sensible blog defenses)

Ludwig,

I think you know it’s mostly the profanity and rush to insults that I object to, it drags down the debate and harms your position. I don’t like that Salamantis joined in #312 either. I don’t believe this is appropriate for an educated person, especially for one representing their profession. You have certainly toned that down considerably, and I appreciate that.

The “alarmist” charge is separate, and one I expect we will continue to debate hotly, (just hopefully civilly.) I do understand you would feel some indignation at this charge, however, part of being a professional is the ability to counter such charges in a logical and dispassionate manner. This goes along the lines of “The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted the spoons.” Does not mean a spoon was missing, just that it is common to find the guilty angrily defending their misdeeds.

319 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 8:20:57pm

As to the charge itself, your post help illustrate my position very well. So please indulge my fisk.

Sometimes science is harsh. It is a scientific fact that if G-d forbid, someone got shot in the head with a 12 gauge , they would die in a gruesome manner and that bits of their head would splatter all over the place. It is not therefore alarmist to not want a 12 gauge pointed at your head.

I have bolded the key word I often find missing in your prognosis of the future climate: if. Whenever I read the material you link to, or that I find myself, there are always qualifiers such as “if,” “likely,” “probable” and so forth, along with other assumptions that are clearly spelled out. This tends to be missing sometimes in the AGW comments of yours which I challenge as alarmist.

Secondly, time frame and trend. You say:

If you believe a 3 meter rise in ocean levels coupled with mass extinctions - and do look at ocean anoxia predictions too, in the next 100-150 years is no big deal, then please explain why.

Let’s accept the premise that the literature indicates your projection and not Sal’s, and in general I would accept you as the authority on what the papers say. The example of the shotgun is an unarguable proximate threat, however your projection are over many decades, centuries even, and require the active participation of people not yet born in a future far away, and assuming no technological advancement, surely they will be using laser guns 100 years from now, not shotguns.

A projection over 100-150 years, is just that, a projection. It makes many assumptions among which, that trends will continue as present, and as expected in the future. It is much like those who say that demography is destiny, it is where otherwise reasonable people go astray. It is not “destiny” it is a current trend and the observation that if the current trend continues and if other factors do not intervene then that is the likely, probable or possible result.

320 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 8:22:59pm

A great deal can change in 100 – 150 years, a great deal can change in 50 or even 30 years. It is simply wrong to image that 10 – 30 years from now, at which time the climate models will have likely become fine tuned and more widely accepted by the hoi polloi, that there would be no action at that time. Thus part of this alarmism is the canard that we must take dramatic - economy shattering and massively expensive yet futile - action immediately or that this certain doom awaits us, that and the urgency of a current short term emergency, which is simply unsupportable.

It is leading to all sorts of unhelpful political debate, anger, partisanism, and ineffective solutions that do nothing to mitigate the increase in atmospheric CO2 and everything to do with advancing the radical environmentalist agenda. The taxpayers rightly see this stitch up and are angry.

Yes, they are also ignorant and go too far in their dismissal of the empirically accurate aspects of the science, but this is the nature of the common man whose behaviour you wish to modify and whose vote and tax dollars you need to advance your proposed changes. I expect the counter movement will be very harmful to attempts to protect the environment from many short term and undeniable harmful actions that will fall prey to this backlash, such as preserving the rain forests, reducing waste, and reducing pollution.

(Apologies to other readers as to length, this is an attempt to advance a long running discussion on multiple threads)

321 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 8:39:52pm

re: #318 Bagua

re: #319 Bagua

re: #320 Bagua

The very short form of the reply, and thank you for writing so clearly an eloquently...
is...

1. All those qualifiers of if when and maybe are bounded within a certain set of parameters of change. At the lowest end, the absolute lowest end is IPCC. If, without any more tweaking (all of the tweaks tend to make things worse, not better) that is all that will happen, we are still looking at massive flooding, drastically reduced growing capacity, drastically reduced fresh water supply and large spread of contagion as disease carrying critters migrate to new places.

2. It is not all rosy and then suddenly things happen in 100-150 years. It will get bad, then worse, then catastrophic.

3. CO2 stays in the air for centuries. We are already committed to changes that we will not like. If we continue as we are for 30 more years, we may well pass a tipping point.

Please read that paper I linked to, it explains what I mean clearly. Also, that paper is sited 129 times and is a survey of many different groups findings.

In short, the science is clear that waiting 30 years is not an option. The shotgun is very much pointed at our face.

4. We have a technological solutions now to the issue, yet we do not deploy them. In the future, it will require even more drastic changes and have to be based on technologies that do not yet exist. Your suggestion of waiting for people to figure it all out, and then sacrifice even more than they would have to now, to fix things is not tenable. There is no good story here. There is no way to have your cake and eat it too.

322 The Left  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 10:15:55pm

re: #307 Salamantis

BTW: I also upding your good comments. But on this issue you seem to be an extremist sensationalist alarmist AGW-exaggerating doppelganger of the Imhofes of the world.

I, otoh, accept the moderate sensible centrist position that is actually supported by the current climatological consenus.

Ludwig isn't an extremist, nor sensationalist, nor alarmist. No one actually thinks you aren't clever, Sal, but on this issue you seem to be mired in some kind of weird battle that you shouldn't be. It's tiresome, and disappointing to read, as I like you both.

But then again, I'm just a DFH who wants people to get along. Here's my dedication to you both:

Youtube Video
323 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 10:55:30pm

re: #322 iceweasel

But then again, I'm just a DFH who wants people to get along. Here's my dedication to you both:


I had no idea you were Turkish!

I suspected and speculated like the rest but just never predicted this.

Sen nasıl Iceweasel yapıyorsun?

324 Bagua  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 10:56:15pm

re: #321 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #321 LudwigVanQuixote

Answer pending publication and peer review tomorrow as it is late and you gave me a reading assignment.

325 The Left  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 11:23:12pm

re: #323 Bagua

I had no idea you were Turkish!

I suspected and speculated like the rest but just never predicted this.

Sen nasıl Iceweasel yapıyorsun?

ha!

I'm a slave on remulak, it appears. I used to be a DFH, but will now be given another identity.

326 mph  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 7:36:50am

Seems he might have cross-published to American Renaissance under his own name:

[Link: 74.125.113.132...]

[Link: 74.125.113.132...]

327 Salamantis  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 11:55:08am

re: #316 ludwigvanquixote

Bagua,

I truly do understand that you feel my debating style is lacking. However, I would ask that you point out a single thing I have said that is overly alarmist.

I ask that you point out anything that does not add up to a global catastrophe.

Sometimes science is harsh. It is a scientific fact that if G-d forbid, someone got shot in the head with a 12 gauge , they would die in a gruesome manner and that bits of their head would splatter all over the place. It is not therefore alarmist to not want a 12 gauge pointed at your head.

Now I want you to look at the projections in the table of the middle of this paper and tell me if they are OK. I want you to tell me how if they came to pass, they would not be a catastrophe.

Specifically look at table one.

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

If you believe a 3 meter rise in ocean levels coupled with mass extinctions - and do look at ocean anoxia predictions too, in the next 100-150 years is no big deal, then please explain why.

Otherwise I will thank you to not call me alarmist.

I looked at table 1. It states that the transition scales for both the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet are, as the table itself charaterizes them, slow (>300 years, and according to the body of the text, perhaps as long as 1000 years). Also, according to the text, if ALL of them completely melted, the sea level rise would be a maximum of 12 meters, and a minimum of 7. Thus, an estimate of a 3 meter rise as a result of melting of these ice caps in the next 90 years is not supported by the model (I also notice that you now weasel by claiming that your dire consequences will eventuate in 100-150 years, rather than baldly stating, as you have before, that your predictions apply for the next century). It also notes that the melting of the Arctic summer sea ice could occur much more rapidly, although the 10 year estimate they give is unreasonably rapid, but since that ice already floats in and displaces water, its melting would not appreciably raise sea levels - which is why the table does not attribute any sea level rise to such an occurrence.

It is sensationalist and alarmist to point a BB gun at someone's head and declare it to be a 12 gauge shotgun. The pellet would sting, but it wouldn't blow one's head off.

Ocean anoxia predictions are a separate subject entirely, and I note that nowhere in the body of the text is any support presented for the table's predictions.

I also note that while the paper criticizes IPCC 2007, it lacks the benefit of the input from the July 2009 Bristol study that massively corroborates IPCC 2007, and that implicitly takes all causes of temperature change into account, by simply correlating temperature with sea level for the past 22,000 years. The future is fluid, many contributing factors in both directions (more severe and less severe) are most likely uncalculated because unknown, and future models based upon hypothetical extrapolations are hence frequently incorrect, but the past has already happened, and if what happened in the past happens again in the future, temperature-wise, we should fully expect what happens with sea levels to follow - and that would be a sea level rise of just under a meter in the next century if the upper range temperature rise prediction of IPCC 2007 (6.4 degrees C) is correct.

328 Salamantis  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 12:09:27pm

re: #317 LudwigVanQuixote

All this time whining and trying to change the subject Sal, you could have answered the basic math questions.

They are not that hard for anyone qualified to claim authority in matters of physics.

Yet, you still have not answered...

Is that because you do not know?

If you do not know, could that mean you are just making stuff up out of a pathetic attempt to self aggrandize and fool people into believing you posses knowledge that in reality you do not?

I repeat Sal, I am openly calling you a fraud.

I am continuing to do so.

You have an amazing chance to shut me down here Sal... Just show you know basic calculus.

Answer the questions and stop dodging. Or have you not had enough time to wiki :)

What is the definition of a derivative? Using Newton's definition, and the notion of a Reimann sum, how would you prove the fundamental theorem of calculus?

NO wiki allowed. I'll know if you did... That is a warm up.

Now here is a better one,

Using the method of differentiation under the integral, evaluate INT sin(x)/x from 0 to infinity.

Now... If you can't answer those questions, just admit you don't know calculus.

YOU are the one who is trying to change the subject from the fact that the close corroboration of the IPCC 2007 by Bristol July 2009 renders it the current climatological consensus, which is what I am accepting and you are not. As to your math questions, why haven't you answered my prior logic question? I guess that failure renders you incapable of drawing valid and sound conclusions from proferred premises. At least it does if your charge against me is correct; what's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

I am therefore openly calling your claim to be able to logically deduce likely consequences from experimental data to be fraudulent, and you to be a fraud. It makes just as much, or as little, sense as your claim that I cannot read and evaluate the plain english in IPCC 2007 and Bristol July 2009.

And I will repeat that plain english to you again, and annotate it in order to facilitate your understanding, in my next post.

329 Salamantis  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 12:37:33pm
Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change
Mark Siddall1,4, Thomas F. Stocker2 & Peter U. Clark3

[Link: www.nature.com...]

1.Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, PO Box 1000, Palisades, New York 10964-8000, USA
2.Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, CH 3012, Switzerland
3.Department of Geosciences, 104 Wilkinson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-5506, USA
4.Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK

Sal: Are you, a non-climatologist, claiming that THESE people, who represent the pinnacle of climatology research, do not understand the math behind their correlation and thus made errors in applying it to the data, or that they erred in their plain english exposition of what the results of that correlation entail, or do you dispute the data upon which they performed their correlations? Perhaps you should call their offices and enlighten these poor benighted souls, who quite obviously suffer from the lack of your superior expertise and wisdom.

It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood.

Sal: In other words, scientific models depending upon hypothetical extrapolation are necessarily fuzzy, and quite possibly incorrect, due to limited understanding. Things could be more severe than they predict, and they could be less severe.

However, sea-level fluctuations in response to changing climate have been reconstructed for the past 22,000 years from fossil data, a period that covers the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period.

Sal: This is what they have done. For the past 22,000 years, they have closely correlated global average temperature with sea level, including for periods when the global average temperature was both much colder than it is now, and when it was much warmer, using fossil data.

Here we present a simple model of the integrated sea-level response to temperature change that implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice.

Sal: Here they are saying that all the things that are happening now, and will happen in the future, including all those effects that your referenced papers mention, in response to particular global average temperatures, have happened before, in response to the identical temperatures when they happened in the past, and they resulted in the sea levels that they correlate with the global average temperatures at the time. And that they have developed a simple cross-correlational mathematical model that formalizes this linkage.

Our model explains much of the centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Sal: Here they are asserting that their model corroborates the IPCC estimate of how much sea level has risen during the past century, in corelation with global average temperature rise during the same period. In other words, their cross-correlation model works, not just broadly, for the past 22,000 years from which they extracted the data that led them to a model that would account for it, but also narrowly, for the last century - so it should likewise work for the next.

to be concluded next post...

330 Salamantis  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 12:50:54pm
In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections.

Sal: Here, they are saying that the Bristol July 2009 model predicts a sea level rise very close to that predicted by IPCC 2007 in response to the global temperature rise also predicted by IPCC 2007. In other words, the most recent cross-correlational study of global temperature and sea level closely corroborates the most extensive one undertaken to date, two years earlier, even though they independently arrived at their results via different methodologies. They also state that such independent corroboration strengthens confidence in the IPCC 2007 predictions.

And notice the ranges: the minimums (the actual 'lowballs') are 7 and 18 cm respectively, while the upper ends are 82 and 76 cm respectively. Thus midrange would be a sea level rise of around 42-50 cm in the next century, or around 20 inches - which would still be more than twice 8 inches that the sea level rose in the last century. And far, far below 3 meters (300 cms), much less ten.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Water War Is Brewing Between the U.S. And Mexico. Here’s Why A water dispute between the United States and Mexico that goes back decades is turning increasingly urgent in Texas communities that rely on the Rio Grande. Their leaders are now demanding the Mexican government either share water or face ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 139 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
4 days ago
Views: 315 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2