PeterDavid.net

It may well be true Utopias only exist in print but, as long as we continue to strive to be better people, we can hold out hope the world will become a better place. It will never change if we give up trying.

We must work on ourselves as individuals and our immediate environments. One person can't change the world, but if enough people care, change will follow. I won't get started with my opinions on presidential policy, as I will be talking all day. But I think the strongest battle that American citizens face is the ignorance that is rampant. Recently someone said something that really bothered me: "If the people in Iraq don't care what happens to Americans, why should I care what happens to them?" I think the sins of the few, as is so often the case, is being taken out on the many. This needs to change.

Well, much like anything else that requires an open mind, art is obviously evil too in the minds of many.

When I see stories like the one PAD is talking about regarding the teacher, I thank God that my own experience with school administrators has been so good. I've had at least 7 different principals so far and I've never had reason to doubt that any one of them would back me up.

The idiot in this particular case actually approved the trip and is now trying to make her a scapegoat for whatever bug that one parnet had up their hindquarters. Thank God for the internet--I doubt this will stand.

Those who might like to send an email to the idiots...um, to the concerned parties, check out the info on this page: http://www.miserywatch.com/2006/09/why_this_countr.html

It's usually best not to lead off your email with "Hey, Jackass!". I usually find it more effective to take on a tone of sorrowful indignation, like it's shaken my faith in the fine folks of Texas to discover that they allow such complete morons to walk the Earth, much less run schools.

Oh, but starting with "Hey, Jackass!" is so astonishingly appropriate in this case...

I am truly amazed at ... actually, scratch that. I'm saddened, but not especially amazed.

TWL

I bet nothing would have ever been said, if the kid had seen carved up bodies, with their innards hanging out, injected with polymer and put on display. But show the beautiful form of a naked human body, something everyone has, and they go ape-crap. Religion has done it's number on us since A&E realized they were naked. You are born like that, but god forbid that anyone see you like that after the first hour.

Anyone notice the irony in what PAD said? Bush claims to be one of the most devout, god fearing, even chosen by god men on earth and he's the biggest lying, killing dusche bag in the country.

Well, since this is happening in my town of Frisco, TX, it's good to bring a bit more to the discussion. First, let me say that the first I heard about this was when it made the Dallas Morning News late last week. Second, I'll also say that my daughter does not attend the specific school, nor ever had this teacher. So, this isn't anything I've got real firsthand knowledge of.

Still, to hear the teacher's side of it was astounding. Frankly, though, it doesn't jibe with my experience in this school district. We moved to Frisco several years ago and have been very pleased overall with the schools, staff and board. So, her side doesn't totally pass the smell test from my point of view.

One quick fact: she has not spent her entire 28-year career at FISD, but only the last few. So, to accuse of FISD abandoning a longtime employee is not accurate.

Today, I saw a letter from Rick Reedy, superintendent of the Frisco Independent School District. He explains (in broad strokes) that her performance had been called into question 12 months prior to the field trip to the museum and the discussions with her about this are documented.

Bottom line, I'm still not sure who to believe, except to say that I've never been given much cause to doubt Rick Reedy. If there are documented concerns going back a year before this instance, then that sounds more like someone going public to make a stink, not an abused employee. As a manager, I also know enough about Texas HR law to know that there's very little an employer can say publicly without legal risk. So, I find it at least credible that they are saying this goes back prior to this field trip.

Frankly, I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth, unless this teacher waives her privacy rights and allows her record to be opened.

I'm always willing to hear both sides of a story. The version I heard was that she had excellent evaluations up to the library incident. If it turns out that this is not the case it will certainly hurt her credibility.

That said, and again I'm relying on the reports I've read, it does seem true that the principal acused her of allowing kids to see nudity in the museum. Well, sorry, but that's what happens in museums. That's what they have there. We aren't talking graphic Mapplethorpe photos or Karen Finley smeared in chocolate here. If the principal didn't want kids exposed to nudity in any form she should not have approved the trip. And if this woman was supposed to be such a bad employee why did they let her take 89 kids out of the school anyway?

So maybe this will turn out to be a case where things are not as they first appear but right now I'd say the teacher is the one looking very much like the aggrieved party.

Bill,

Unfortunately, the teacher's side is what's getting all the airplay, which is why she looks like the aggrieved party. She and her lawyer get to throw out these accusations, and FISD has its hands tied.

Personally, I'd be furious to discover that her version of the events are true - as would most of the parents I've discussed this with. I really hope this teacher's career is not ended because of one parent who has a hang-up about a nude statue.

However, given the reception she's getting in the media, I doubt she'll stay unemployed long. :)

Okay, I have to backpedal a bit on my summary of the letter from the superintendent. I misread the bit on the performance reviews.

The performance issues 12 months prior were not formally documented, but were only verbally discussed. They were brought up and documented a year later - which coincided with the post-field trip fallout.

So, now we have a district that verbally expressed concerns a year in advance - but can't prove it - and the paper trail started at the same time.

What a mess.

Unfortunately, Peter, we live in a world that seems to believe pointing our your own shortcomings is a shortcoming in and of itself. But pointing out other people's is A-OK.

As a Christian, I am baffled every day by so many of my own faith who cannot seem to demonstrate a central theme of Christianity: the belief in one's imperfection.

I'd like to regularly see high visibility Christians humbly admit they were wrong at SOMETHING and then talk about the redemptive steps they took to correct it.

I think Christians need a Day of Atonement too.

--Captain Naraht

P.S. Just as a bit of personal atonement, I really should be more grateful about my lot in life, and I should interview better, and I should be a better brother... and...and... I should learn to remember people's names for heaven's sake!

Funnily enough Peter, some of my thoughts were running vaguely along the same lines, but maybe from a slightly different direction. I was sitting here this morning transcribing interviews with the directors of two upcoming fantasy films, but as I usually work with the TV on, every once in a while, a little bit of the real world would bleed through. So I'd be sitting here, typing away at my laptop, about dragons and fauns and and fairy tales, and occasionally I would look up and hear about how a respected Congressman had been sending dirty e-mails to a former page and his peers had been covering it up for the past year. Or a well-respected journalist had just published a book detailing how our government was misleading us on the Iraq war and that very same government that had extolled the virtues of the journalist's previous two books was now making a full-court press to discredit him. And just when I'd had it up to here (my hand is under my chin), a milkman- a milkman, for f**k sake- goes into an Amish school and kills a bunch of innocent kids before killing himself, instead of doing it the other way around, which would have saved us all a lot of misery.

Sometimes the so-called 'real world' really sucks.

One quick thing about the teacher story. First off, the principal knew that this group was going to the museum. Second off, unless Texas schools are a whole lot different than Pennsylvania schools, the kids' parents had to sign a permission slip for the kids to go on this trip. My point? If either this administrator or these parents didn't know what was in this museum, they either should have checked it out or gone themselves.

Regarding the teacher having a verbal discussion about performance issues could mean anything. This would be considered a performance issue and if the facts match the media and similar happened later then this current situation could be just as ambiguous. It could be as little as showing a photo of Michaelanglo's David or a big as speculation she's having sex with a male student. That doesn't say much either way. Sadly I can't comprehend the parent that found this to be devastating to their child.

The Amish community has my prayers. It's unimaginable how someone can conspire to act against our children like this.

Sean, if these are the kind of people who inexplicably up in arms about the kind of exhibits that one finds in a local museum, it begs the question: have they even been in a museum? Or for that matter, can they spell the word museum? Could we do a quick survey to see how many of them actually have opposable thumbs?

Uptopia may only currently exist fictiously in other media, but I hope I'm not in the minority when I say I have enough Don Quixote in me to tilt at any valid windmill in the quest to make this dream a reality someday.
"To dream, the impossible dream..."

At my schoool you have to go through some very specific documented steps to be able to get rid of a teacher (once they've been there 3 years, I think. Before then they can easily ask you to leave for any reason or none at all). Caliming there were verbal warnings is not worth a bucket of warm spit here but standards may be different in other places.

Abuses still occur--we had our footbal coach removed from the job under circumstances that stunk on ice. He appealed the decision, won, got his job back and the superintendant resigned. It was amazing. If we'd won the championship the next year it would have been a Disney movie.

a respected Congressman had been sending dirty e-mails to a former page and his peers had been covering it up for the past year.

Let's not be hasty here--politics is a blood sport but when it comes to child molesters and their enablers we should be damn sure before making accusations. There's little question that Foley should probably spend some jail time between now and when he begins an eternity in Hell but if all his peers had to go on was the original emails they can hardly be accused of a coverup. They were not that damning. The instant messages, now THOSE were clearly proof of his sick personality. If they knew about them they should follow him into political oblivian. Has this been proven? (I note that at least one newspaper also had the emails a year ago and also came to the conclusion that they were not enough to run with. In retrospect one wishes that a bit more investigation had been done by both the House and the media.)

Peter David: And I come out of syngague, and into a world where....an art teacher loses her job--her contract terminated--apparently because a parent complained that their child had been exposed to nudity...during a class trip to an art museum...
Luigi Novi: Figures. Even when we try to teach children to enjoy something like art, which is filled with everything from ancient fertility symbols to pornographic hieroglyphs to naked cherubs, we teach them that nudity is dirty.

I've participated in a portraiture/caricature/cartooning workshop in Union City, NJ's annual Multi Arts Festival every year since my junior year of high school. The Festival displays art work and presents musical performances by grammar and high school kids in the area. In my workshop on the second floor behind the auditorium's mezzanine, I draw whatever the kids want, whether it's a comic book or cartoon character, a caricature, portrait, or whatever. One thing I liked to do was display my sketchbooks on the table I work, which is filled with anatomical studies, facial studies, and comic book reference art. But then the Festival organizer, who happens to be the art teacher at one of the Union City's two high schools, asked me not to show the pages that featured figures whose genitals were unclothed. As much as I respect her for all the hard work she did overseeing the Festival in the decades prior to her retirement in 2005, I was very disappointed that I had to tape shut or tape over those pages. Now I don't even bother bringing the sketchbooks to the Festival.

And this was an art teacher.

Art is supposed to, among other things, make the world a better place, and make us better people.

But only if you don't show boobies and wee-wees.

Bill, I apologize for maybe engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Perhaps I should have said that the Rebublican leadership covered up the fact that Foley was sending e-mails at all to a former page, and leave it up to the rest of the world to decide if they're dirty or not. But certainly the notion that a 52 year-old Congressman e-mails a former page (which they're not supposed to do, BTW) and asks for a photo has a certain creepiness factor at the best of times. Still I feel fairly safe in saying the Republicans have covered it up considering one of the Democrats in charge of the page program claims he wasn't notified about the e-mails at all. And I suspect 48 hours from now, my post will seem pretty tame.

You may be right, Joe. I doubt that Hastert will be Speaker come Friday.

When the emails first came out my warning signs went off but I had to admit that there was nothing that could be fairly used to destroy a man's life (which an accusation of this sort can do). I still email former students. I could even see asking for a picture if one requested a recommendation (mostly because I probably won't remember them from their names, with a few exceptions) (and needless to say, after all this one thing I WON'T ever do is ask a former student for a picture! Best not to even allow for the possibility of ill intent).

I'm a little bugged by a few of the commentaries on both sides of the political fence--right wingers complaining that Foley is being treated more harshly than Studds was, when Studds actually had sex with his page. (My reply--so the hell what? Maybe our standards are higher now. What difference does it make?) Some on the left seem to think that the REALLY bad part of Foley's behavior was the hypocrisy of his activism against child predators when he was one. Nah, I think hypocrisy is just a BIT less of an offense than being a sexual predator, thanks. Andrew Sullivan seems to think that this has something to do with the tragedy of the closeted gay. Jeeze...if he had been chasing after underage girls would the solution be for him to be more open with his sexual preferences? And Andrew should know better than to mix gay rights with the actions of a semi-pedophile.

This seems to be one of those things where people project their own agendas into it. Maybe I'm doing the same--I pretty sure what he did was illegal but even if it wasn't he deserves to be ridden out of town on a rail. There's just no excuse for this kind of abuse of power and sexual predators are generally creepy people that shouldn't be trusted with responsibility.

I think Christians need a Day of Atonement too.

Well, it's been a while since I've attended regularly, and I'd be lying if I said I was familiar with the sacrements of each and every sect of Christianity across the board, but isn't that generally what the Sacrement of the Holy Communion (or whatever different people may call it) is about?

-Rex Hondo-

And if what Peter was discussing seems harsh, consider the news story that aired on Monday night stating that a man walking home from synagogue in Queens was critically injured by a hit-and-run driver. After 25 hours of praying to be sealed in the Book of Life, this seems like the most ironic of accidents. Hopefully, he'll pull through.

1Utopias don't exist, outside of the realm of imagination, because we - as a culture and a world - are not ready for them to exist just yet. The sad fact is that the hardship and strife in the world is one of the only things motivating people to try for something better. Not a lot of people, just some. Maybe it's enough. It seems we need the challenge of war and injustice and various other evils, to set our selves against in order to define ourselves as good or bad or whatever. If we - as a species - were ready for the enormous task of challenging ourselves, not to overcome the obstacles without but the obstacles within each individual, then we would be doing it at this very moment, and I'm certain, (with no trace of sarcasm), that we would be creating a better world this very instant. There is nothing stopping us but our unwillingness to recognize the danger and act. If we were ready, it would already be accomplished. So, we must not be ready. We - as a group and as individuals - must not want it desperately enough to focus our considerable energies in that direction. So, it stands to reason that we, as a culture, species and world, actually like the despair and depridation of our present circumstances. We are gluttons for punishment. That being said, maybe it also stands to reason that we are all in desperate need of therapy.

Or it could just be me.

We speak about "sins of injustice" such as waging war upon others or trying to use violence to change things.

*cough**cough*Invading Lebannon*cough**cough*

Not to be simplistic about it, but what would be the point of a utopian world? To me, the point of life is to struggle to make things better, and in a utopia there's no room for improvement, or even maintenance.

There is only one utopia, and it ain't to be found in this life.

Posted by: John at October 3, 2006 06:55 AM

*cough**cough*Invading Lebannon*cough**cough*

First of all, it's spelled "Lebanon," not "Lebannon."

Second, what's your point? That Jews are a monolithic group and must answer for the actions of Israel -- even if they're, you know, American citizens who don't vote in Israeli elections?

Third, I think one can easily draw a distinction between the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a nation that borders on Israel and was harboring terrorists who were attacking them, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a nation that is far from our borders and posed no direct threat to us.

Finally, what should Israel have done to ensure its security, given that the terrorists have declared that they will settle for nothing less than pushing Israel into the sea?

Gee, it's easy to be cute and think you're all clever until someone comes along and calls you on the carpet, eh?

First, I really have to start coming here when I have more time.

Second, to paraphrase Nicholson, we couldn't handle utopia. Nothing would get done, everyone would just be enjoying utopia.

Third, this guy in Amish country--was his life so empty that he was still carrying a grudge after 20 years? And was anyone involved in his grudge actually IN the school? (I'm not preaching, here, I just don't know.)

I doubt that Hastert will be Speaker come Friday.

I suppose it depends on how the investigation goes. If the FBI is getting involved, that's not good.

At worst, Hastert should only be Speaker for another month. ;)

Obviously, there's a lot of details that still need to be sorted out, but until this, Foley sounded like an ok kind of guy. But if what we've heard is true, and this ok kind of guy was sending some creepy ass e-mails, it sounds like the Republicans could've done more to make sure that it didn't get to the point we're at now.

Bill, you know that there isn't a bigger supporter of Israel on this board than me...well, other than the posters who live there, an dhey, they're understandably biased. But John DOES make a valid (if snarky) point. Saying "We speak about "sins of injustice" such as waging war upon others or trying to use violence to change things." doesn't leave much wiggle room for nuance.

Israel had every right to invade Labanon or even Lebannon, in my opinion, but it's hard to deny that this is an example of "using violence to change things". As is the ongoing campaign against the Taliban and as SHOULD be the world's desire to stop the butchers in Darfur and othert regions of the world where the bad guys do not respond to the words "pretty please."

(John should note however that PAD is not actually saying that this is his view. He's describing the difference between what we wish and pray for and the world as it is. I'd also point out that while one could have a philosphy that espouses the peaceful resolution of problems it isn't at all hypocritical to also favor war when the opposition does not share one's views. Favoring nonviolence does not mean you should not defend yourself. If you don't think that applies to the Israel/Lebanon conflict, fine, but that's a naother argument.)

Maybe what could help a lot of these "macro-conflicts" (as opposed to depressed milkmen and power-drunk Congressmen) around the world would be helped by what they did in post-Apartheid South Africa.

(Hopefully people at this blog who are more familiar with the story will help me on this) but didn't the New South African democracy establish something like a "truth commission" that didn't so much level charges and jail time as much as offer an opportunity for agrieved parties to talk to one another about the pain of Apartheid? As a result I heard that a lot of former blood enemies became the best of friends.

Again I'm not sure of the details, (does anyone else remember?) but in a world gone mad, couldn't we all we could all use a bit of honest atonement and forgiveness?

In answer to Rex's question, unfortunately, as a Protestant I'm ignorant of much of Catholic Sacrements (though I do attend Christmas Services in a Catholic Church with my wife's grandmother.) Sorry. I wouldn't be an accurate source to the answer of your question.

--Captain Naraht

The Republicans (and I'm speaking as one) should have thrown Foley under the boss at the first hint. Now that he's resigned and all this is coming to light, they should also throw Hastert and Shimkus under the bus, and anyone else who covered it up. This whole Hannity thing about "Well look at Clinton, that was so much worse!" is childish and stupid and smacks of moral relativism -- one of the things that conservatives are supposed to stand against. The party of family values should hold itself to a higher standard. Hastert (and Bush, for that matter) should make a statement about the whole thing being reprehensible, punish the right people, and clean house before we get into our own version of discussing the definition of 'is'.

Bill Mulligan, in retrospect I am forced to acknowledge that I let my emotions get away with me. I simply wanted to make the point that it's unfair to single out Judaism, because all of the world's major religions struggle to reconcile reverence for life with the need to resist the aggression of evil. The Jews are not unique in facing that problem.

Rex Hondo, I am an ex-Catholic. I'm by no means an expert on Catholicism but am knowledgeable enough to answer your questions. First of all, not every Christian denomination offers the "sacraments." I believe only Catholicism, and a couple of the protestant offshoots that have stayed pretty close to Catholic doctrine (I think the Episcopal church may be one), offer them.

And no, Communion is not a sacrament of atonement. Instead it has its roots in the story of the Last Supper, where Christ was said to have given the apostles bread and wine and told them they were his body and blood. He asked them to consume these things in memory of him. Catholics believe that through the sacrament of Communion, the wafers and wine offered become the true body and blood of Christ. They call this transubstantiation.

Catholics have the sacrament of confession, which is indeed for atonement. In addition, Catholics are required to sacrifice something during Lent, another form of atonement.

Mind you, I am decidedly an ex-Catholic and for that matter non-religious. I have spiritual beliefs but don't feel the need to belong to a particular organization in order to explore them. So I'm not trying to push any particular religion on anyone. I just thought I'd help answer your questions, Rex.

Posted by: Captain Naraht at October 3, 2006 09:23 AM

Maybe what could help a lot of these "macro-conflicts" (as opposed to depressed milkmen and power-drunk Congressmen) around the world would be helped by what they did in post-Apartheid South Africa.

(Hopefully people at this blog who are more familiar with the story will help me on this) but didn't the New South African democracy establish something like a "truth commission" that didn't so much level charges and jail time as much as offer an opportunity for agrieved parties to talk to one another about the pain of Apartheid? As a result I heard that a lot of former blood enemies became the best of friends.

Again I'm not sure of the details, (does anyone else remember?) but in a world gone mad, couldn't we all we could all use a bit of honest atonement and forgiveness?

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission offered victims of atrocities committed under apartheid an opportunity to come forward and make their stories part of the public record. It also gave perpetrators of such atrocities an opportunity to confess their misdeeds and ask for amnesty.

There are those who believe the commission was a failure, but there are many who think it was brilliant. I tend to fall into the latter category.

I see utopia all around me. Next time you see a parent hug they're child. Next time you see an stranger pulling over to help someone who's car broke down.

This is utopia. This is what we need to hold on too! This is where we get our strenght to create more utopias as we muddle through our lives :)

All the best!

Bri

To get a little further off topic still...

Catholics believe that through the sacrament of Communion, the wafers and wine offered become the true body and blood of Christ.

This subject came up yesterday between my wife and myself. She never knew exactly what Communion entailed, and I, being an ex-Catholic, explained it to her.

To say the least, she finds the entire concept disgusting. She more or less views it as a veiled form of cannibalism, I think. Anyways.

Theophagy.

Just to add a few thoughts to Bill Myers' earlier post, the sacrament of confession used to pretty much be a weekly thing for many Catholics, or at least it was in my church, which I guess that atonement was a pretty regular thing back then.

Like Bill, I'm pretty much a lapsed Catholic (is that the same thing as an ex-Catholic), which was a process that started outside the church years ago as people came out of mass and shouted at their fellow parishoners for cutting each other off in the parking lot. But the final nail in that coffin was the sex scandal in which the shameful actions of so many priests were covered up by the powers-that be (sound familiar?). Not surprisingly, this has prompted all sorts of discussion with my parents who are heavily involved in the church, but during my last visit down to Hilton Head, I pointed out the recent scandal in which their pastor had embezzled quite a considerable sum of money and was... transferred! So I think I'm done with the Catholic church for the time being.

But having said that, Brian brings up a very good point. Sometimes you can make people's life better just by doing something nice, whether it's just holding a door open for somebody, or stopping at a crosswalk, or pulling something down from a grocery shelf for an elderly shopper. If more people did little things like that, maybe we wouldn't have as much to atone for.

The problem with a day of pondering one's own sins and shortcomings is that it prompts you to resolve to try and do better...and then you come out into a world aligned against such philosophies.

You make a good point. This only makes sense if God really exists and prayer to him really makes a difference. I have been working with people for 20 years who have all sorts of issues. Trying harder rarely makes a difference. At the very least it takes living in a community who share the same convictions who can help you change (AA is a great example of how transformation can happen in a community setting). As a Christian, though, I believe it takes a renovation of the heart by God to truly make a difference. Not that Christians are by any means perfect, but I have seen change happen that takes a murderer and transforms him into someone who truly loves his neighbor.

I don't believe we will have utopia here on earth. That is just reality. No matter how educated people become, there are still wars, murders, theft, and lieing. But I do believe we can make a difference. We can, as the Prophet Micah says, seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before our God.

Iowa Jim

Second, to paraphrase Nicholson, we couldn't handle utopia. Nothing would get done, everyone would just be enjoying utopia.

Another interesting topic. What would we do in "heaven" or "utopia"?

I think we define it wrong. It is not "Disneyland" where things are "perfect" and all about having fun. When I got married, it was hard to imagine I would love my wife more today than I did 5 years ago. But I know I do.

If God exists, the God of the Bible, then he is perfection itslef. He is eternal, far bigger than I could never comprehend in a hundred million years (this is the Christian definition of "god," not the Greek, Roman, etc. understanding). If this is true, than utopia / heaven is in part the enjoyment, together with others, of the most good, perfect, loving being in the universe for all eternity.

That is my idea of utopia. That is an adventure that is far greater than any fantasy novel or comic book adventure I have ever read. It is what I some have called the "Sacred Romance." And that is something worth hoping for.

Just my thoughts.

Iowa Jim

>there is only one utopia, and it ain't to be found in this life.

Thew rub lies in part in the fact that one person's "Heaven" is another's "Hell", and vice-versa. Makes it kind of hard to have any one "Utopia".

>Next time you see an stranger pulling over to help someone who's car broke down.

See? Good example. My "Utopia" doesn't include cars that break down.

This is utopia. This is what we need to hold on too!

Not that I have any say in the matter but I'd rather Utopia or Heaven be something more like the Mormon idea or the Indian Happy Hunting Grounds, or Valhalla. Basically here but with better cable TV reception. You get to do whatever you like to do but with far greater success. You say "But Bill, wouldn't it get boring if you went out fishing every perfect day and came back with a dozen fresh trout for dinner? Wouldn't you get tired of that?" And I reply "Boy, you really don't know anything about fishermen do you?"

By the way, transubstantiation is a bit more complicated than just the bread and wine turning into actual blood and flesh. The Church knows that to all senses and scientific measurements, it is still bread and wine. It has something to do with Substance theory, which I once knew and cared about and I know this because I found a notebook from my college philosophy class filled with this stuff. But there's only enough room in my brain for so much of this stuff before it starts crowding out the GOOD stuff, like the fact that a spanking new cinemascope copy of Ilya Muromets aka The Sword And The Dragon is finally available. Yeah! Aleksandr Ptushko!

Heaven also has the greatest film library ever AND I get to periodically wipe my memory clean and watch films as if for the first time ever.

As someone whose own place of worship is practically in that schoolhouse's backyard, I hear ya, I hear ya.

There is much more going on then a milkman (over simplification on that one- he drove a tanker truck that picked up the milk from numerous dairy farms around the area) exacting revenge.

Which no one can figure out around here, because he says HE was the perpetrator in all his statements and notes not the one perpetrated upon?? How was what he did revenge??

From all indications, he was twisted and tired of surpressing the urges that drove him to perversion.

I think this guy should have had the chance to ponder his own sins and seek atonement. (or at least TALK about his past sins!) Perhaps if he had it wouldn't have come to this. Probably not, but you never know? right?

Not that I have any say in the matter but I'd rather Utopia or Heaven be something more like the Mormon idea or the Indian Happy Hunting Grounds, or Valhalla. Basically here but with better cable TV reception. You get to do whatever you like to do but with far greater success. You say "But Bill, wouldn't it get boring if you went out fishing every perfect day and came back with a dozen fresh trout for dinner? Wouldn't you get tired of that?" And I reply "Boy, you really don't know anything about fishermen do you?"

By the way, transubstantiation is a bit more complicated than just the bread and wine turning into actual blood and flesh. The Church knows that to all senses and scientific measurements, it is still bread and wine. It has something to do with Substance theory, which I once knew and cared about and I know this because I found a notebook from my college philosophy class filled with this stuff. But there's only enough room in my brain for so much of this stuff before it starts crowding out the GOOD stuff, like the fact that a spanking new cinemascope copy of Ilya Muromets aka The Sword And The Dragon is finally available. Yeah! Aleksandr Ptushko!

Heaven also has the greatest film library ever AND I get to periodically wipe my memory clean and watch films as if for the first time ever.

"prayer book...or fantasy novels."

Same thing

No, Starwolf, although your positivity is refreshing and a good message, that is just not Utopia. A linguist I ain't but...Utopia by definition includes everyone.

Bill, I probably oversimplified transubstantiation a bit in my haste, but, c'mon, I'm at work right now. I never meant to imply that Catholics believe that the wafers and wine take on the physical characteristics of Christ's flesh and blood. And I don't think any reasonable person would infer that from what I wrote.

Remember, I used to be a devout Catholic. I've since rejected Catholic doctrine in favor of beliefs that make more sense to me, but for God's sake that doesn't mean I believe Catholics are delusional or cannibals. They're just people whose beliefs differ from my own.

And I don't think transubstantiation is that complicated. According to Catholic theology, the wafers and wine retain their outward appearance and physical characteristics, but in substance they become Christ's actual body and blood. There is no scientific basis for this, of course, which is why Catholics refer to it as a "sacred mystery."

I'm not saying that it's wrong because it's not scientific, by the way. I'm just stating a fact: it's not something scientists can measure. Catholics believe it is true nevertheless. I may not believe in Catholicism anymore, but I nevertheless agree that science is only one prism through which to view the world.

Bill, I apologize if my prior post was snippy. Someone at work really upset me today and apparently it's getting to me more than I realized. One of my colleagues just responded to an e-mail and thought I was very upset with him, when I in fact wasn't.

I think I'll stay away from e-mail, blogs, and anything else online for a bit while I clear my head.

Again, Bill, sorry. Wasn't my intention to take stuff out on you.

Bill Mulligan-- Does that mean Heaven's Film Library has also refused to accept delivery on the (3) STAR WARS Prequels too? If so, then I'm IN!

No, because in heaven, people would finally stop griping about the Star Wars prequels and realize that it's okay that George Lucas made movies that they don't care for, just like it's okay that there are thousands of other movies out there that they just don't enjoy and never will.

Well, no one ever said being good or working toward a good world would be easy. But that's one of the reasons it has to be done. We just try to live the best we can and hope it will change things around us.

It's all about hope, man. It's potentailly the most powerful emotion in the world.

Bill, I probably oversimplified transubstantiation a bit in my haste, but, c'mon, I'm at work right now. I never meant to imply that Catholics believe that the wafers and wine take on the physical characteristics of Christ's flesh and blood. And I don't think any reasonable person would infer that from what I wrote.

No, your post was fine, but I've seen people actually ask whether or not Cathlics belive that if CSI ever did an analysis of a communion wafer they'd all say "Hey! Someone cut up the Son of God into tiny bite sized pieces!"

Transubstantiation is fairly complicated to me and fairly goofy but hey, every religion should have at lest ONE goofy premise, just so the boys at South Park can illustrate it with the "THIS IS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE" caption.

Sorry you had a bad work day. I didn't think you were being snippy. Not like that time when I took back my concession over the national election anyway.

Bill Mulligan-- Does that mean Heaven's Film Library has also refused to accept delivery on the (3) STAR WARS Prequels too? If so, then I'm IN!

No, because in heaven, people would finally stop griping about the Star Wars prequels and realize that it's okay that George Lucas made movies that they don't care for, just like it's okay that there are thousands of other movies out there that they just don't enjoy and never will.

In heaven you two better be sitting way in the back of the theatre, 'cause I'm allowed to use a tazer on people who argue/talk/use cell phones during the movie.

You mean you're not allowed to use them now? No wonder I keep getting thrown out of my local multiplex!

Bill Mulligan wrote -

"Heaven also has the greatest film library ever AND I get to periodically wipe my memory clean and watch films as if for the first time ever."

Nice! I'm in, Bill! There have been a few times in recent months when I've wished I could see a movie or television show "for the first time" again.

"In heaven you two better be sitting way in the back of the theatre, 'cause I'm allowed to use a tazer on people who argue/talk/use cell phones during the movie."

Believe me, if you ever found yourself in a movie theater with me, you wouldn't hear a word out of me. Talking during a movie is a big no-no with me.

Heaven also has the greatest film library ever AND I get to periodically wipe my memory clean and watch films as if for the first time ever.

FINALLY, an idea of Heaven I can actually get behind. What do I have to do to be one of the elect?

TWL

Nah, I'm gonna still gonna dream of my version of Heaven. I like a heaven with no Star Wars prequels.

Sorry for the extra "gonna". I was just so excited to start dreaming again.

Meanwhile, in the Cineplex 7 in Hell:

1- Gigli
2- Glitter
3- From Justin to Kelly
4- Alone in the Dark (Special Directors Extended Cut)
5- Can't Stop the Music
6- You Got Served
7- Battlefield Earth

Also, the popcorn has too much salt and the drink machine is broken. Again.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill. I suppose my confusion stems from the fact that, in the church in which I was raised, we did not have confession, and the function of confession was sort of wrapped up in communion, putting more of an emphasis on the "commune" part. While taking the bread and wine (according to belief) one is supposed to remember and confess one's sins (silently. No talking with your mouth full) before God and promise to make an honest effort to do better. Probably an oversimplification, having been quite a few years since I was studying up for baptism, but that's the general gist of it.

Of course, much like many here it would seem, quite a while ago I found myself with less and less use for organized religion, choosing, instead, to talk directly to the Big Guy without intermediaries mucking up the whole process. ;)

Oh, and (the other) Bill, don't forget the special Wednesday night double feature: Caddyshack 2 and Blues Brothers 2000!

-Rex Hondo-

"In heaven you two better be sitting way in the back of the theatre, 'cause I'm allowed to use a tazer on people who argue/talk/use cell phones during the movie."

No worries; in the TV show Firefly they explained why this was impossible:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0579532/quotes

I don't know. Cineplex 7 in Hell doesn't seem that bad. I'll take Battlefield Earth over House of the Dead any day.

Meanwhile, in the Cineplex 7 in Hell:

1- Gigli
2- Glitter
3- From Justin to Kelly
4- Alone in the Dark (Special Directors Extended Cut)
5- Can't Stop the Music
6- You Got Served
7- Battlefield Earth

At least we don't have to worry about #7, It will already be full of scientologists.

JAC

According to Catholic theology, the wafers and wine retain their outward appearance and physical characteristics, but in substance they become Christ's actual body and blood. There is no scientific basis for this, of course, which is why Catholics refer to it as a "sacred mystery."

Alan Moore had a cool riff on that in "V For Vendetta". When V got around to the former priest of the internment camp, he first engaged his victim in a prolonged theological discussion, touching particularly on Transubstantiation, and the idea that for it to work, the worshiper had to really believe. Then he fed the priest some cyanide communion wafers.

The head detective discussing the case later, after they've listened to the recording of the event: "And when they looked in his stomach, you know what they found? The wafers were still made of cyanide."

Bill Myers: "I may not believe in Catholicism anymore, but I nevertheless agree that science is only one prism through which to view the world."

Or as Mr. Spock once said to Lt. Valaris. "Logic is only the beginning of wisdom."

--Captain Naraht

P.S. Didn't Sheppard Book (from Serenety/Firefly) say that there is a special place in Hell reserved for those who talk in movies? Then how does Bill Mulligan get to tazer people in Utopia? Do they bus them in from Hell? Does Bill Mulligan's Utopia have a contract with Sheppard Book's Hell?

In the meantime, organized religion becomes the scapegoat for abomindable personal behavior, as Matt Foley endeavors to tar the Catholic church with the brush of his own behavior. While speaking out of one side of his mouth and accepting responsbility for his actions, he chooses to announce suddenly that he was molested by a priest in his youth. Between announcing that he's an alcoholic and now this, it comes across to this observer as desperately trying to paint himself as an emotional, victimized cripple.

Oh, and he's gay, which must have gay activists around the country cringing. Just what they need: more fuel for the concept that gay men are pedophiles (although Foley claims he isn't; it makes you wonder just how long it'll be before the first guy who steps forward and announces he was molested as a teen by Foley). What's the next announcement? That he's a sex addict? The neighbor's dog made him do it?

But I'm still suspecting the GOP politicos who knew about this are not going to step up and resign. If there's anything they excel at, it's shirking personal responsibility. I can't wait for them to try and find a way to blame it on Clinton.

PAD

>There have been a few times in recent months when I've wished I could see a movie or television show "for the first time" again.

Ah but that's the sign of a truly good film as far as I'm concerned. Even when you KNOW the surprises, it still hits you. SPECIAL BULLETIN, CITIZEN X, V FOR ... and so on. Heck, I know exactly how each and every effect in 2001 were made, but I still 'believe'. It's that good.

Whether anyone should resign is still a matter of debate--if the "this" in "the GOP politicos who knew about this" is just the original emails, there wasn't enough to go on. If they knew about the IMs, well, off with their heads.

Looks like I'm wrong about Hastert resigning but in the unlikely event that the GOP holds the House I doubt he will keep his position, which is fine by me for reasons having nothing to do with this.

Some gay activists are peddling the line that since pedophile means an attraction to prepubescent kids there is no way that Foley applies. Yeah, whatever. Let's not split hairs here. Maybe the term is not always used correctly but underaged is underaged and for a 50+ Congressman I think I'm on safe ethical ground when I say that a 16, 17 year old page is definitely underage.

But you know what? Don't be shocked if his pleas for sympathy work, if he manages to somehow repackage himself. A few changes in his politics and a good book tour can do wonders. If an idiot like McGreevy can manage to turn his story from a politician with a sleezy life of corruption into that of a politician with a sleezy sex life....(though it didn't seem like Oprah's audience was buying the shtick...)

One other thing--I assumed that what Foley did was illegal and it might be. Or not. Depends on the state. Using an interstate medium (the internet) to entice a minor into sex is illegal under the Mann Act. In Washington DC his actions would not be illegal but in Florida they would be. If he can prove that he intended to have sex with the kid in DC he might win (or, in fairness, if he claims that he never intended to have sex with them). In Florida he would be in trouble.

I'm not sure where cybersex falls in all this.

BTW, when poiliticians and news folks say that this was "an open secret" in Washington what are they talking about? That Foley was gay? That he liked young boys? That pages needed to be wary around him? What?

"ome gay activists are peddling the line that since pedophile means an attraction to prepubescent kids there is no way that Foley applies. Yeah, whatever. Let's not split hairs here. Maybe the term is not always used correctly but underaged is underaged and for a 50+ Congressman I think I'm on safe ethical ground when I say that a 16, 17 year old page is definitely underage."

Most people (except for pedophiles) find the idea of sex with prepubescent minors repugnant from an aesthetic point of view, but not the idea of sex with postpubescent minors. However the law and morality are not about what seems to us disgusting or not, but rather to protect minors (prebuscent and older) from exploitation by sdults in a sexual situation. That is why we accept homosexuality (even if to many heterosexuals it might seem aesthetically strange) between concenting adults, but reject an adult having sex with a 16 year old, because we fear that there's a danger of exploitation.

Some Israelis were against the war in Lebanon. Others were for it but against other wars. Others are not satisfied with our governments over reliance on the use of force and neglect of other methods while we have to admit that the use of force is sometimes necessary.

I recently was in Zurich for a day (on my way back from SF). I noticed that nude magazines and photography books (with nude on the covers) was visible and accessable to all customers. This obviously goes beyond the issue of museum art discussed earlier. But I was still wondering if the visibility of such nudity affects the swiss compared to other societies.

Heaven should probably resemble something like the Nexus in Star Trek VIII(?). It would also have better versions of movies according to the person's taste.

PAD -
more fuel for the concept that gay men are pedophiles

Unfortunately, the talking heads are already running with that, PAD. For one example, some guy with a right-wing family group was on Chris Matthews' Hardball yesterday, and he basically said the same thing: that gay men are more likely to molest than straight, blah blah.

There are a lot of questions about this situation, so I'm not entirely passing judgment on Foley at this point.

Regardless, it sounds as though the rules of Congress were broken by his contact with the pages. But laws? Well, yeah, age of consent *will* have a say in this, along with probably harassment laws (ie, something not consentual between both parties) and such, if not worse.

Also, comparisons to Catholic priests are bound to be brought up, but I'm not sure they apply. Those priests targetted young children, thus they are pedophiles, but I've seen nothing to indicate the majority, or even a significant minority, of them were gay, and thus that explains everything as the right-wingers will now run with with Foley.

Bill Mulligan -
Maybe the term is not always used correctly but underaged is underaged

I'm sorry, Bill, but this is really unacceptable.

If the term is used incorrectly, it's used incorrectly. Foley was not sexually attracted to young children, he was attracted to 16 year olds who, in many cases, are able to make the same life decisions as 18 year olds.

It sounds like there were multiple pages, and the contact was possibly between several states. So, this will get messy, but I really think age of consent is going to be a factor here. Although, I think we've seen enough recently to indicate that age of consent laws might be ignored if somebody really wanted to get Foley in jail.

Note, I'm by no means approving of what Foley did, just looking for the facts. And at this point, I think the facts are showing that Foley could find himself in jail, and that there was an attempt by the Republicans to cover this up.

Oh, one last thing: if anybody tries to blame this on the Democrats, they should be slapped silly. It was *former pages* who brought this to the attention of ABC; it isn't some freaking Democratic conspiracy.

"Oh, one last thing: if anybody tries to blame this on the Democrats, they should be slapped silly."

Maybe, but I'll bet it won't stop them. I may be misremembering, but didn't someone already try to diminish the impact of this by claiming that, hey, it wasn't nearly as bad as what Clinton did?

PAD

Maybe, but I'll bet it won't stop them. I may be misremembering, but didn't someone already try to diminish the impact of this by claiming that, hey, it wasn't nearly as bad as what Clinton did?

That would be Hannity.

Amazing how quickly the GOP is becoming the party of moral relativism. Wasn't that supposedly the Dem's shtick?

There's a couple lines of print in some stories questioning the timing of the release...on the last day of the current session...as maybe the Dems knew and withheld the information until it would serve the most political damage to the GOP.

Which I suppose is possible, but not according to many other sources that say that the sole democrat on the page board (and the other Republican) were kept out of the loop.

Now, I'm sure many folks on the Hill had heard rumors, and I suppose we could blame them for not following up on them. But the key point is that the GOP leadership attempted to deal with this outside the normal channels. Anyone else that may or may not have heard a rumor can't be blamed...it's not their job to police the ethics on the Hill. But the people who's job it IS...the Speaker, the Page board member that WAS involved...those folks are to blame.

And from what I hear, the only reason the Dems brought it up at the end of last week was because the GOP wasn't doing anything. It has long ceased to amuse me that the GOP...seemingly in control of the government...continues to blame the minority party for so many problems.

Well Fox 'News' certainly tried to blame it on the democrats.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

This isn't even funny anymore

Okay, can someone please explain to me the moral and/or ethical reasoning under which a married man cybersexing an underage boy is "better" than a married man getting a hummer from a 22-year-old woman?

Particularly when the woman involved apparently set out for the nation's capitol with the express intent of seducing the President - whoever he/she might happen to be at the time? (Which brings to mind a creepy mental image of Lewinsky and George Sr...)

Whereas it would be interesting to discuss the Foley situation, I'd like go back and cover the topic of "utopia" for just a bit.
The idea of a utopia in the sense Thomas Moore used, as a city of ideal perfection, has been out dated since shortly after Moore wrote it down. To my way of thinking, a utopian society is; 1) Here on Earth and not in some religion's heaven - and more importantly 2) Not a world in which there is no struggle but a world in which there is no pointless struggle. If we - right this moment - just ceased all the needless killing, all the pointless bickering over our differences, all the unnecessary judgment of other human beings - then we could focus our energies into solving the real problems of humanity; starvation, poverty, homelessness, disease - things of that nature. Or at least we could start working on those things in earnest. If we stopped letting our differences divide us and started focusing on how they can bring us together we might be able to start working on the things that will truly benefit humanity.
Maybe that's overly ideal. By that reckoning it would fit more into Moore's sentiment of what a utopia is.
And not to cheese off the religious people too much here, but I keep hearing this nonsense about the end of the world and heaven or whatnot lately - I suppose that's fine, if you're into that kind of thing - but what strikes me as infinitely sad is the fact that all those people, hoping and praying for heaven or whatever, are missing a golden opportunity to do something real and beautiful in the here and now. Maybe we'll have our utopia, or something like it, if people just stopped waiting and started making it happen - right now, today.

And here's a tip from Gandhi, who said, "You have to be the change you wish to see in the world."

Okay, so maybe it's not just me...

I'm just wondering if anyone dialed 1-800-oops-jew to leave an apology to Stephen Colbert. He set up the line so Jews who had wronged him could call and apologize.

garbonzo

Sasha -
That would be Hannity.

Hannity also tried to make the claim the other night that Lewinsky was 17 when she started having her fun with Clinton.

Facts mean nothing to Faux News.

Jasonk -
Well Fox 'News' certainly tried to blame it on the democrats.

Wow. That's just... wow.

I'm amazed. Fox actually proved to me that they could sink even LOWER in my estimation of them. They've now sunk to such lows, I didn't even realize I could think that little of an organization. But you can understand Fox's error...Foley started out as a (D), before switching parties...16 years ago.

I think Foley is single (Wiki backs me up on this, for what it's worth).

There was a Republican on Fox News this morning that trotted out the Clinton scandal as well, which suggests they may be trying it out as apossible talking point. Because of course, it is exactly the same thing.

And I know this is going completely off-thread, but I'm really curious: what's with these losers who keep latching on to really old threads and leaving nonsensical messages that have nothing to do with the previous discussion at all? Is some sort of web-based scavenger hunt, or do these people simply have way too much time on their hands?

If there's anything they excel at, it's shirking personal responsibility

I think that's politicians in general, not just the GOP. As an example, I'd point out that Foley willingly resigned. Democrat Jefferson (the money-in-the-fridge representative) on the other hand, hasn't left congress yet and had to be forced to resign from his chairmanship.

On another note, and back to one of the other discussions on this thread: the Frisco school district has asked the art teacher (Sydnee McGee) for permission to open her personnel file to the public, so it can better respond to her public complaints.

"Let's shine a light on Ms. McGee's allegations and discuss whether she was disciplined for a parent complaint regarding what students viewed at an art museum," Dr. Reedy said in his statement. "This district has been making trips to the Dallas Museum of Art for years and will continue to do so. No teacher has ever been disciplined for the art seen by students, so why would the district start now?"

McGee's lawyer has counter-offered: only if the principal and superintendant Reedy's files are also opened.

The fun continues.....

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at October 4, 2006 01:29 PM

And I know this is going completely off-thread, but I'm really curious: what's with these losers who keep latching on to really old threads and leaving nonsensical messages that have nothing to do with the previous discussion at all? Is some sort of web-based scavenger hunt, or do these people simply have way too much time on their hands?

Joe, a lot of it is blog spam. It has a variety of goals. Some of them want you to click on their link, which will often lead to some kind of scummy part-fools-from-their-money site. In some cases it's an attempt to raise a site's rankings in the various search engines (the more your site is linked to on other sites, the higher your site is ranked in places like Google).

I'm sure there are other purposes with which I'm unfamiliar. The bottom line is it's coming from scummy bottom-feeders who want to use other people's blogs to further their own bottom-feeding goals.

Thanks Bill, I was just morbidly curious. Bottom line, just ignore these pinheads and concentrate on the discussion(s) at hand.

Those priests targetted young children, thus they are pedophiles, but I've seen nothing to indicate the majority, or even a significant minority, of them were gay, and thus that explains everything as the right-wingers will now run with with Foley.

The majority--maybe even vast majority--of the cases were of priests and young boys. Now one could make the argument that I've seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered "gay" but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered "straight". (As in "Most child molesters are straight." Fair's fair.)

If the term is used incorrectly, it's used incorrectly. Foley was not sexually attracted to young children, he was attracted to 16 year olds who, in many cases, are able to make the same life decisions as 18 year olds.

And I know some 14 year olds who are more mature than most 20 year olds but you have to draw the line somewhere...but you are correct that given what we know the term pedophile is inappropriate. As for underage...it fits my definition, if not the legal one. Seriously, I work with 16 year olds. They are generally so unlike regular humans that this borders on bestiality...

At any rate, the rules on pages is clear and he broke them. There's no room for any forgiveness for him. As for the rest of them if it turns out that anyone actually knew about his behavior and sat on it either to protect their party from bad press or to use against the other party at a more opportune time, they should be bounced out of town with a healthy dose of tar and feathers.

Incidentally, I don't belive his bit about being molested by a clergyman. His lawyer pointedly refused to say what denomination they were or name names. Think about that. They are being very careful not to let people assume that it was a Catholic preist since it would be easy to find out what priest was around him at that time.

And by staying slent on who was the abuser isn't he possibly allowing more abuse to continue? Sounds like a lot of BS to me. Ditto the alcohol. He may be an alcoholic but I doubt he was roaring drunk when he was IMing some kid during a vote.
what strikes me as infinitely sad is the fact that all those people, hoping and praying for heaven or whatever, are missing a golden opportunity to do something real and beautiful in the here and now.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. Many, maybe even most of the most generous, charitable people I know are also religious. Believeing in an afterlife does not seem to preclude one from working to make the regular life a better one.

Now one could make the argument that I've seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered "gay" but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered "straight".

Umm, you're not really making any sense, Bill.

Pedophilia is an act in-of itself... it has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. It has to do with an adult who wants to have sex with a child, not necessarily whether that the adult is male or female, and the child is male or female.

Which is why I don't think you can sit there and say the priests are gay because they targeted young boys. I mean, do you really think every single one of those priests was a closet homosexual? I certainly don't.

But then, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that there were that many pedophile priests to begin with, even if the Church was sweeping it under the rug.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 04:31 PM

The majority--maybe even vast majority--of the cases were of priests and young boys. Now one could make the argument that I've seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered "gay" but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered "straight". (As in "Most child molesters are straight." Fair's fair.)

Bill, it's not nearly as simple as that. I have learned much about the pathology of molestation by listening to my girlfriend talk about her career in the social services field. Her caseload has included more than a few situations where molestation, or at least allegations of molestation, were involved.

There are two types of molesters. The first type has what my lovely girlfriend, Jeannie, refers to as "boundary issues." The sexual orientation of this type of molester is actually towards adults, whether of the same or the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this type of molester for whatever reason never learned proper boundaries of behavior, and if the only outlet for their sexual urge at a given moment is a child, well, they will take the "opportunity." Alcohol is often a factor. According to Jeannie, this type of molester may respond to therapy.

The other type of molester actually has a sexual orientation towards children. Again according to Jeannie, this type of molester rarely if ever responds to treatment.

By the way, Bill, for a very long time there was no role for young girls on the altar in Catholic churches. That's why they're referred to as Altar BOYS. So it could be that Catholic clergyman who molested children gravitated to young boys because they were easiest to prey upon.

Anyway, in either case it's an abnormal sexual pattern and I don't think it makes sense to pigeonhole it as gay OR straight. Particularly due to the large and ever growing body of evidence showing that homosexuality is a natural, albeit uncommon, sexual orientation that appears in the animal world just like heterosexuality, and is an orientation that may have its basis in our DNA.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 04:31 PM

And I know some 14 year olds who are more mature than most 20 year olds but you have to draw the line somewhere...but you are correct that given what we know the term pedophile is inappropriate. As for underage...it fits my definition, if not the legal one. Seriously, I work with 16 year olds. They are generally so unlike regular humans that this borders on bestiality...

Bill, I am not about to try to justify adults having sex with teens. It's not right. But it is different than pedophilia. In fact, there is a different term for it (I can't remember off-hand what it is, but if I find it I'll give a holler).

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 04:31 PM

At any rate, the rules on pages is clear and he broke them. There's no room for any forgiveness for him. As for the rest of them if it turns out that anyone actually knew about his behavior and sat on it either to protect their party from bad press or to use against the other party at a more opportune time, they should be bounced out of town with a healthy dose of tar and feathers.

Bill, typically I like to remain non-partisan, but this is one instance where I think logic dictates that I cannot. Back when the Republicans were going after Bill Clinton with gleeful abandon, I told everyone who would listen, "Mark my words: this will come back to bite the Republicans in the ass." And now it looks like it has.

I mean, seriously, what incredible hubris! To think that they could join the cultural movement that conflates the private with the public, but believe that such a thing could be contained to only hurt the Democrats! As though one can call up the Devil, metaphorically speaking, and expect him to behave!

Apparently it never occurred to the Republicans that they are just as human as the Democrats and have just as many skeletons in their closets.

Given the sanctimonious puffery of the Republicans who charged forth to impeach Clinton for having an affair, any Republican who is in any way implicated in this Foley mess will look like a hypocrite when he or she tries to defend him or herself.

You know what would be really wonderful? If Republicans and Democrats alike would start behaving with maturity, and in the case of something like the Foley scandal, cast politics aside and act in the best interests of the country. It actually happened once, during the Watergate scandal. Democrats and Republicans alike actually worked together to investigate the Nixon administration, and most of them approached the task with dignity and solemnity.

Pedophilia is an act in-of itself... it has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. It has to do with an adult who wants to have sex with a child, not necessarily whether that the adult is male or female, and the child is male or female.

Which is why I don't think you can sit there and say the priests are gay because they targeted young boys. I mean, do you really think every single one of those priests was a closet homosexual? I certainly don't.

Um...I'm not sure if I agree. My perception is that most pedophiles zero in on one sex or the other. If it's true that they have no particular preference in the child's sex well, that's news to me. Certainly the members of NAMBLA are less open minded (but they may not represent pedophiles as a whole).

Wow. this is a weird conversation.

It wouldn't shock me if all of the priests in question were closeted gays. It's been argued that the clergy is seen by some gay men as a way of dealing with their orientation--using celibacy to make it go away. Not a great plan and the church is so hard up for priests that they may not be doing a good job of weeding these guys out from the gay men with a genuine calling.

By the way, Bill, for a very long time there was no role for young girls on the altar in Catholic churches. That's why they're referred to as Altar BOYS. So it could be that Catholic clergyman who molested children gravitated to young boys because they were easiest to prey upon.

Only if we assume they are bisexuals. And anyway, there is ample opportunity for clergy to prey on girls if they so wish. Girls may only recently have been allowe dto be alter girls but they were going to a lot of the sunday school activities.

Apparently it never occurred to the Republicans that they are just as human as the Democrats and have just as many skeletons in their closets.

Given the sanctimonious puffery of the Republicans who charged forth to impeach Clinton for having an affair, any Republican who is in any way implicated in this Foley mess will look like a hypocrite when he or she tries to defend him or herself.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

I'm fine with Republicans being judged as harshly or even better, MORE harshly than Democrats. The fact that Bill Clinton saw fit to pardon Mel Reynolds (the one guy who seems like the clsest parallel to Foley) is not any reason to hope that Bush does the same for Foley (and I doubt there is a person alove who thinks that will happen. I'd rather the hard lesson Republicans get out of this is that zero tolerance for this behavior is the best policy, not that one should tolerate disgusting behavior in others lest it reflect back on you.

Meanwhile, if I'm understanding David Corn correctly, gay activists are set to release a list of staffers to Republican senators and congressmen who are gay. Corn tries to justify this somewhat. I'm amazed anyone could do this and look themselves in the mirror but politics does funny things to people.

Just a few weeks to go and it's getting very very ugly.

Bill Mulligan -
My perception is that most pedophiles zero in on one sex or the other.

That may be and probably is true. I was just trying to move away from the line of thought that all male pedophiles only go after male children, etc.

It's been argued that the clergy is seen by some gay men as a way of dealing with their orientation--using celibacy to make it go away.

Hmm, I hadn't thought about that.

But, it makes sense: Christian churches keep trying to convince themselves and their followers that you can be cured of being gay, and all that nonsense.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Clinton was given enough rope to hang himself, and he more or less jumped at the chance, unfortunately.

That still doesn't forgive the fact that the charges were borne of nonsense and were trumped up by the Right because they wanted him out of office.

gay activists are set to release a list of staffers to Republican senators and congressmen who are gay

The defense here seems to be that gay rights activists want to 'out' those gays that are voting anti-gay, ie, if you're Republican and gay, you're likely voting against what's best for gays. I'm not sure I can totally blame them, in that regard.

They aren't outing anti-gay politicians. They are outing the people who work for them. This is contemptable to me.

And it could backfire. If a Rick Santorum, who is considered to be one of the most anti-gay members of the Senate, turns out to have a gay staff member he could, if he has an ounce of brain matter, come out and say the equivilant of "Just because I'm against changing the definition of marriage it doesn't mean that I want to destroy the lives of decent gay people. My opponents, in seeking to harm me, are willing to waive all decency , no matter who gets hurt. I urge my opponent to disavow the actions of his supporters and call on all people to condemn this kind of dirty politics."

Now, Santorum probably isn't that bright. But why take the chance. Plus, there's the whole IT'S JUST A SLEEZY WRONG THING TO DO factor.

Hopefully saner heads will prevail, though even the threat of this is disgusting.

And anyway, there is ample opportunity for clergy to prey on girls if they so wish. Girls may only recently have been allowe dto be alter girls but they were going to a lot of the sunday school activities.

Altar boys, to my understanding, do, however, spend considerably more time alone with said clergymen.

-Rex Hondo-

They aren't outing anti-gay politicians. They are outing the people who work for them.

Well, that's what they might be saying... for the moment.

I don't know why they'd target those who work for politicians, rather than the politicans themselves (and I still think that that is within the realm of possibility along with what you've said).

Is it contemptable? Probably, but, I guess I just have a hard time feeling pity for any politician these days, or those that work for them.

The same thing applies: if I were gay, and I really wanted marriage rights, etc, I wouldn't be working for somebody who wants to deny those things to me.

What the Republicans did with Clinton was pretty damn deplorable as well, but that didn't stop them from doing it either. So, as the party in power with a penchant for sticking it to the Democrats in any way they can, well, in some ways they've had it coming.

Yep, it's going to get ugly.

But how can you condemn what McCarthy famously did--attacking a young man who worked with one of McCarthy's political opponents for a brief dalliance with a communist organization, attempting to ruin his life for a quick political buck--if you think it's not such a bad thing for people to do the same thing now?

(And I know this is playing dirty and twisting the knife but you DO realize that Ann Coulter would probably agree with both actions...)

Me, I think the words spoken then to tailgunner Joe apply just as well to anyone who would do the equivilant today--"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.... You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

(None of this is directed at you, Craig. You can be harsh but I don't think you'd ever be mean enough to do this kind of thing)

It's possible for a gay person to look at the totality of a political cause and come to a different conclusion than the one you think is appropriate. Maybe they feel more strongly about taxes than gay marriage. Not all gays are exactly chomping at the bit for marriage, though I would hope they would want to see others have the right. But that's their business.

This is extortion. If money were demanded it would be pure blackmail.

Remember the good old days when a movie like ADVICE AND CONSENT would portray someone who is trying to use the homosexuality of a senator to influence a vote as evil, pure and simple. Guess we've become more nuanced now. Good, bad, it all depends on the outcome.

Craig, it's gonna GET ugly? Y'mean, we're not already sitting in the middle of Uglyville?

I love all these political scandals that make my Goth bi- and try-sexual friends look mainstream.

Craig, while I support your ethics about not working for someone who doesn't support "your" lifestyle or goals (the quotes are just in case there's someone out there that might come back and tell you I just called you gay. I don't THINK you are, but seeing as how all I know of you is your typing, how the heck would I know?) sometimes it might not be that easy. Might be the only job you could get, fer example.

One thing to remember with all these scandals, though, prevalent as they may seem. You don't hear about the people NOT involved in a scandal, unless it's to say, "I'm not involved in a scandal," which makes the media types dig through their entire genetic makeup until they find out that Great Aunt Ginny married an atheist horse while wearing white after Labor Day. Yeah, there have been a lot of priest abuse cases in the news, but I don't think all priests or clergy are abusers. Same for politicians. Although, I could be wrong about that.

Joe and Bill--glad I'm not the only one noticing those odd posts. A few of them made me kinda nervous, names I never saw before talking about things completely non-sequitur and who KNOWs what? Made me kinda nervous, like PAD's blog being used for some kind of undercover communications or something. I got WAY too overactive an imagination.

Bill M, if Santorum DID have a staff member come out, I know a LOT of people at work that would split their sides. Captain Conservative doesn't have too many supporters by us.

Hey, guys, sorry about the double post, but I just saw this, and it just seems to fit the theme of this thread.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=5&id=38511

Wonder if THIS mother would've checked out the museum?

(BTW, we just found out our 5-year old is going on a field trip to a pumpkin patch next week. Should I go to make sure there are no phallic squash? Or turnips, for all you Black Adder fans out there?)

Bill Mulligan -
But how can you condemn what McCarthy famously did if you think it's not such a bad thing for people to do the same thing now?

Well, to go back on your phrase, this could be viewed as "splitting hairs".

If these groups want to release names... well, after that, they won't have to do any attacking. So, it's not a direct attack that they're after, it's just simple cause and effect.

I'm not sure if comparisons to McCarthy are entirely valid, as he was a wannabe-dictator, while gay rights activists just want equal rights as the rest of us. They see outing Republicans as the way to make it happen. But they don't have the FBI investigating people and threatening to destroy their lives (yeah, I'm sure even Foley will find that there's life after Congress).

I don't pretend that the political arena is a friendly place to be. Everybody has to be prepared to have their closets searched under the glare of the media spotlight. It's not pretty, it's not fair, it just is.

I think all I said is that I can understand the reasoning behind this, not that I agree or disagree... as I type, I'm still thinking about it.

But I admit that there would be some level of satisfaction if some other scandal hit before the election and it helped the Republicans lose the majority. And I say that for a variety of reasons.

God knows the Dems need all the help they can get, and it's time for a shift in power. That, and I'm sick of the hypocrasy from the party of "family values".

but you DO realize that Ann Coulter would probably agree with both actions

Probably. But I've never said Coulter is 100% wrong all the time... it's only about 99.5% of the time. ;)

You can be harsh but I don't think you'd ever be mean enough to do this kind of thing

No, I don't think I would. I don't see the point, to be honest. There are certainly better things to deal with than attacking somebody over their sexuality or the sexuality of their employees.

Heck, as we've already seen with Dick Cheney's daughter, it's not necessarily a strategy that guarantees success.

In Foley's case, however, it isn't or shouldn't be about his sexuality, but about whether he broke any laws or Congressional rules regarding the governing of contact between Congressmen and pages.

Sean Scullion -
Might be the only job you could get, fer example.

Well, in politics, I doubt it. The turnover is pretty decent. :)

Yeah, there have been a lot of priest abuse cases in the news, but I don't think all priests or clergy are abusers.

Well, that's why I commented that I'm surprised at how many accusations there have been. There's gotta be some false accusations hidden in there.

The thing I worry about with politicians are the things we don't know. Just look at what Bush has brought upon us since 9/11, and all the things that the top leadership of the GOP in Congress supposedly knows about but won't tell anybody else: wiretapping, torture, secret prisons...

There's probably plenty of worthy scandals waiting to be found. Things far more deserving of attention than whether Clinton and Gingrich are having affairs with consenting adults and so forth.

Sean Scullion -
Hey, guys, sorry about the double post, but I just saw this, and it just seems to fit the theme of this thread.

Yeah, I saw a little bit about that too. This one isn't making the big headlines like these stories usually do.

Harry Potter trying to indoctrinate kids into Wicca... *cue the laugh track*

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM

It wouldn't shock me if all of the priests in question were closeted gays. It's been argued that the clergy is seen by some gay men as a way of dealing with their orientation--using celibacy to make it go away. Not a great plan and the church is so hard up for priests that they may not be doing a good job of weeding these guys out from the gay men with a genuine calling.

My girlfriend has wondered the same thing -- although her hypothesis was that child molesters in particular were gravitating towards the priesthood in hopes that the vow of celibacy and the blessings of God would steer them away from their heinous urges.

Anyway, the Catholic Church has decided that homosexuality is the problem and declared that even homosexuals who elect to remain celibate are unfit for the priesthood. I believe the real problem, of course, is that the Church is a large organization and is therefore prone to the same kinds of problems as any large organization. In this case, specifically, the tendency to place the organization itself above the values it purports to represent.

Before anyone goes all anti-Catholic on me, or accuses me of same, note that I said such problems tend to afflict ALL large organizations.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM

Only if we assume they are bisexuals. And anyway, there is ample opportunity for clergy to prey on girls if they so wish. Girls may only recently have been allowe dto be alter girls but they were going to a lot of the sunday school activities.

As Rex Hondo pointed out, priests spent more time alone with altar boys. And I didn't say girls were impossible to prey upon, only that boys may have been easier to prey upon. It's like burglars who case a neighborhood, knowing they could probably break into just about any house; they nevertheless pick the easiest ones.

Anyway, if I have time I may do some research and see if I can't find something to put to rest the question of whether or not molesters tend to choose one sex or the other. Then I'll start going to therapy again and ask my therapist why I'm looking shit like that up.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

On paper, yes. But one only has to look at the context to see that the Republicans were not truly interested in justice.

Remember, this case stemmed from a deposition Bill Clinton gave in the Paula Jones case. But Judge Susan Webber Wright determined that the question of whether or not Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky was immaterial to the case. For something to rise to the level of perjury, it must have relevance to the case at hand. Moreover, the entire Paula Jones case was dismissed by Judge Wright as having no legal merit. Clinton did settle with Jones later in exchange for her dropping her appeal, but I doubt he would have done that had he not been put through the wringer in Congress.

Anyway, the Republicans decided, "Hey, if it wasn't illegal then, we'll ask him about it in front of a grand jury and then if he lies it'll be perjury."

People can laugh about Clinton arguing about something depending "on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," but the Republicans really took the cake when it came to playing games with the law.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM

I'm fine with Republicans being judged as harshly or even better, MORE harshly than Democrats. The fact that Bill Clinton saw fit to pardon Mel Reynolds (the one guy who seems like the clsest parallel to Foley) is not any reason to hope that Bush does the same for Foley (and I doubt there is a person alove who thinks that will happen. I'd rather the hard lesson Republicans get out of this is that zero tolerance for this behavior is the best policy, not that one should tolerate disgusting behavior in others lest it reflect back on you.

Bill, by now you should know me well enough to know my sense of morality is more well-developed than that. The Clinton impeachment hearings were a thinly-veiled excuse to get him out of office at all costs, and were in no way a reasonable or principled application of the law. It was an example of how we've come to conflate the private and the public. Foley, if guilty of that which he has been accused, has clearly broken the law though. My point was not that you should overlook the poor behavior of others to avoid scrutiny of your own behavior. My point was that engaging in the politics of personal destruction will always come back to bite one in the ass. The Republicans who went after Clinton did not create the problem, but they exacerbated it and took it to a whole new level. Now it's coming back to haunt them. Rather than looking at the Foley mess through an objective lens, with the intention of seeing justice done, everyone is out for blood. The Republicans are partly to blame for the very problem that is now afflicting them. That was my point.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM

Meanwhile, if I'm understanding David Corn correctly, gay activists are set to release a list of staffers to Republican senators and congressmen who are gay.

I have gay friends and I would bet most, if not all, would agree with me that "outing" someone against their wishes is obscene. The decision about whether and when to come out of the closet is highly personal, and there is a special place in hell for people who decide that their ideological agenda supersedes that.

Geez, Bill, I feel like I'm beating up on you! We're still cool, right?

I can't remember the last time we disagreed this much. Hell, half the time you persuade me to see things from a different point of view! I guess the problem is lately you're just wrong. (Kidding! Kidding!)

Well, that's why I commented that I'm surprised at how many accusations there have been. There's gotta be some false accusations hidden in there.

Oh there were. I remember at least one case where the accuser later recanted. Of course, thesemay be more than balanced out by cases that go unreported.

Anyway, if I have time I may do some research and see if I can't find something to put to rest the question of whether or not molesters tend to choose one sex or the other. Then I'll start going to therapy again and ask my therapist why I'm looking shit like that up.

I looked around a bit and, frankly, it's hard to find stuff that isn't promoting some agenda. It's also the kind of stuff that makes you want to just get a rocket launcher and I don't need the encouragement.

(And was something in the water yesterday? I helped break up a fight between two possible gang members and, in another unrelated incident, a kid threatened to "**** my ***** up, you ****ing ****". Me, the most beloved of teachers! That's the thanks I get for my generous gum policy...)

Moreover, the entire Paula Jones case was dismissed by Judge Wright as having no legal merit

True but let's not forget that she also found Clinton in contempt of court for misleading testimony.

And it actually remains to be seen whether or not Foley broke any laws--not that this is relevent to whether or not he should have resigned.

And I'm not sure I still get your whole point. Aren't republicans who think that both Clinton and Foley should have resigned over their personal deficiancies at least being consistant?

Anyway, sure we cool.

And just so I don't look like I'm only picking on liberal bloggers and stuff I think it's appalling that cosnervatiev bloggers are now releasing the name of one of the kids who received Foley's attentions (ABC News let the name slip but that's no excuse).

Bill Mulligan -
and, in another unrelated incident, a kid threatened to "**** my ***** up, you ****ing ****".

I hope you said something to the principal at your school. After the stuff that's happened in the last week or two, I would not take such comments lightly.

Aren't republicans who think that both Clinton and Foley should have resigned over their personal deficiancies at least being consistant?

Many Republicans in Congress are probably fortunate in that they didn't know what was going on. Joe Scarborough, who's a former Representative from Florida, has said on his show that he's good friends with Foley, has known all along that Foley was gay, but had no idea the man was acting this way with pages.

So, the only way the Republican leadership (ie, Hastert) is being consistent here would be if there wasn't a cover up in this whole Foley mess.

At the very least, it appears that said leadership was grossly negligent in dealing with Foley, as it sounds like this stuff was brought to their attention possibly more than once over the last several years.

I also couldn't believe some of the comments I've heard people make regarding whether there may be criminal charges against Foley or not. Comments to the effect that Foley could've had all the cybersex he wanted with underage teens, but if he didn't try and meet up with them, there's probably nothing they could charge him with. Yikes.

Hi all.

First let me say that I live about 40 miles from the town where the Amish school shooting occurred. Central PA is still pretty numb by the whole senselessness of it. No one can really understand how something like this can happen. The horrible thing is accepting that no laws, no security measure short of locking the children in the cellar 24/7 could have prevented. By all accounts, the shooter was a disturbed individual plagued by demons of his past that may or may not have been real.

On to the Foley question, it's amazing to me how much spinning is going on. You'd think that the conservative commentators wouldn't want to come within 500 feet of this story, but both Rush and Drudge had insinuated that the pages were the real predators. Rush this week actually went as far as to suggest that the democrats paid the pages to approach Foley. And, of course, Hannity did his best to spin it around to make sure everyone knew that he thought, no matter what Foley did, Clinton did something worse. Even if Hannity had to lie about Monica Lewinski's age to do it. Then O'Reilly tried to rewrite history by putting D-Fl next to Foley's name.

Sickening.

On a happier note, this weekend, we attended my in-laws' 50th wedding anniversary and they held a special mass in their honor on Sunday. Now, I wasn't raised Catholic. My wife was, but she isn't practicing. As for many Catholic priests being gay, well, we learned that one of the priests that presided over our wedding 14 years ago has since left the priesthood and is now living in South Beath as an openly gay man.

Take that for what you will.

"Now one could make the argument that I've seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered "gay" but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered "straight". (As in "Most child molesters are straight." Fair's fair.)"

To me the problem doesn't stem from whether same-sex pedophiles are gay. The problem is the notion that *because* someone is gay they are, by definition, potential child molestors. As in, We don't want a gay man as a scout master because--due to his sexual orientation--he's automatically a danger to the kids.

To me this is right up there with the assertion that all men are potential rapists simply because they have the equipment for it. I would venture to say that most people would classify this as a narrow, extremist and ultimately false view of the world...and yet some would not hesitate to assert that all gays are potential child molestors, and not see the conflict or irony in those two viewpoints.

PAD

Well, it didn't take long for me to find something from Coulter in the "99.5% wrong" category: her latest article tagline, which I spotted while scrolling through Yahoo, is "Foley is a closet Democrat".

Of course he is.

And I'm the King of Canada. Hail to the king, baby!

Well, it didn't take long for me to find something from Coulter in the "99.5% wrong" category: her latest article tagline, which I spotted while scrolling through Yahoo, is "Foley is a closet Democrat".

Well, I suspect that's part of the entire Democrat = Gay = Godless Sodomite = Evil = Vote-Republican-no-matter-what meme the right wing's shooting for. The comment of "closeted Democrat" pretty much screams it out.

Right now, though, people will make PAD's leap of logic about gays and molestation. It's like one of those standardized tests questions, just because SOME members of group A are a certain way, to these people ALL members of group A are that way. These are the same people, that if you said the men/rapist statement, too, would just reply "Well, that's DIFFERENT." For some people, it's just a gut reaction that they don't think much over.

Den, southeastern Pa. is also still pretty on edge, from what I've seen. Kinda makes me glad Brian's in a school hidden by trees that no one can find.

I know the "Wonder No More" thread is the new hot topic, but I thought I'd try to sneak one more thought into this thread.

Sometimes I actually pine for the days when I was part of an organized religion. Why? Religious holidays like Yom Kippur break you out of your normal mindset and help you reflect. It's easy to say, "OK, just set aside a day like that yourself and reflect," but it's not that easily done. There's something about a particular day with a history behind it and the collective bond of worshipping and praying with other believers that can allow you to transcend normal everyday thinking in a way that is otherwise not possible.

Don't get me wrong. I have no regrets about my choices and remain firm in my beliefs. I won't be going back to organized religion. Ultimately, I found worshipping as part of a collective was more harmful than beneficial (although I do not look down upon those who disagree; to each their own). But I do sometimes miss those few things I found beneficial about religion.

Peter, thank you for doing such a wonderful job of articulating the difficulty inherent in resolving to be a better person in a world that is, as you so aptly put it, "aligned against such philosophies." I didn't interpret your words as a repudiation of hope, but rather as a somber reflection on the disparity between the world as it ought to be, and what it actually is.

"It says something when the only place where utopias exist are in the pages of a prayer book...or fantasy novels."

On the other hand, thank God we have those prayer books and fantasy novels, to give us the image of an alternative.

"Good words. That's where ideas start."