Scribble Jam
I do not know much about what this event was about, but it looked interesting. I wonder how it got elevated to Vandelism.

Bronson has Been Drinking to Much Wine
Peter must have been drunk when he wrote this. Now, when you are drunk often one tends to let down their guard and speak one's mind freely without limit. Here Peter is doing two incredibly stupid things. First he is letting his bigotry out with a vengeance. How can a man who is supposedly educated and an informed person state the following?

The Catholic Church can't seem to connect the dots that link homosexual priests to sexual assaults on boys.

Peter, you need to for once look up the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. You will note they are not the same thing. They are not linked. Bigots who wish to attack homosexuals try to link them, but offer no factual data to support their unfounded claims, which sounds like what Bronson did. Peter then exhibits his own ignorance about his own religion wit this statement:

The Bible is unambiguous: Homosexuality is a sin like adultery.

Did Peter rewrite the Ten Commandments? Are the Ten Commandments now not the highest Christian dogmatic law? Where is the reference to homosexuality in the Ten Commandments? I can find the commandment on adultery in there. That is clear. Homosexuality is not a comparable sin to adultery. First of all it is not even treated the same in most churches. When was the last time a minister or a politician or any individual denied rights or kicked out of a church for committing adultery or for getting a divorce? Adultery is not considered a big deal to people like Bronson, if it was he would never have supported Ronald Regan. Homosexuality is a footnote in the bible. There are plenty of other rules, no pork, how you grow crops, circumcision, and killing adulterers that are not practiced by nearly all Christians. Those rules are just as clear as the homosexual decrees, yet I bet Peter Bronson does not comply with all of those requirements. If I see him at next month’s Oktoberfest eating a Brat I will be sure to shun him for "breaking God's law."

I am not the only one with an opinion on Bronson's column. City Council Candidate John Schlagetter sent me a copy of the email he sent to Bronson:

Peter: whatever happened to "hate the sin but love the sinner?"

Opinion pieces are one thing; these unrelentingly uninformed and poorly-constructed assaults upon the Enquirer's readers' intelligence are growing tiresome.

As I understand it, the Bible contains half a dozen remonstrations against homosexual "acts" but over two hundred against heterosexual acts- what's the bigger problem here?

Your comparison of homosexuality to adultery is logically flawed. Homosexuality is a state of being; it can exist without volitional action. Thus we have homosexual (and heterosexual, et.al.) virgins. One is homosexual simply by virtue of sexual attraction or affectional preference for others of one's own sex. Age here is not an issue unless the attraction is acted upon.

By contrast, adultery cannot exist without the commission of an act. One cannot be an adulterer without first committing an act of adultery.

Once again, your attempt to causally link pedophilia to homosexuality is beyond the pale. Yes, pedophilia and ephibophilia (I'm not bothering to
spell check this morning) are problems in the Catholic priesthood. Is the incidence rate of pedophilia higher in this population than the general
population? Possibly. Is this causally the result of homosexuality? Of course not, no more so than different-sex pedophilia is causally the result
of heterosexuality.

Two points come into play to refute your argument (hysterically shared by CCVers et.al. which they find necessary for effective fundraising):

1. Pedophilia is not about sex, it is about power. It is about the ability to control and manipulate one who lacks the emotional and intellectual development to consent to sex with an adult.

2. The incidence rate of same sex behavior will of course be higher among single sex populations: prisons, the military, et.al. This will have much to so with the use of sexual substitutes, "making due." You've also reported on the problem of rape in prison, to your credit. Of course rape is about violence not sex and does not comport with this discussion. Others may be "gay for pay," intrinsically heterosexual but willing to perform mechanical sexual acts for compensation. Thus the incidence rate of "gay sex" must be considered separate from the incidence rate of homosexuality per se.

Should homosexuality ever be generally accepted (different from behavior tolerance) as what I characterize "common cause variation," a one to two percent incidence rate in the otherwise statistically normal heterosexual population, then maybe closeted and conflicted individuals will be more comfortable openly pursuing healthy and consensual adult relationships rather than pursuing what they might consider "easy marks" (the young) or furtively skulking about public restrooms (many closeted men, including those who are married, are too afraid to be seen in known gay-friendly establishments to socialize, seeking instead short-term gratification concommitant with risky and socially unacceptable behavior).

As "common cause variation," homosexuality is never going away. We are hard wired this way; this is the crux of the "nature" argument. Compare this to the reparative or restorative therapy camp believing that homosexuality can be "unlearned." They believe homosexuality is "special cause variation," existing outside the statistically normal process of sexual orientation and that it can be done away with; this is the "nurture" argument confounding same-sex behavior with orientation. The inability to distinguish between the two dooms this approach.

If the Church were generally to relax its restrictions on the ability of its priests to marry or otherwise engage in healthy consensual adult relationships, I predict the incidence rate of same sex pedophilia in the Church would plummit. Be sure, I am not excusing any such misbehavior, I simply think there are intelligent ways to reduce it rather than pounding sand about the "menace" of homosexuality.

As our friends in quality management remind us, "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Hope you a great vacation!

Regards, J.

John Schlagetter

Peter's second stupid thing, is his embrace of the Vineyard as the next generation of Christian Churches. I don't know much about that church and its teachings. I would on the surface make one judgment about it. I think they might not care much about homosexuality, and they might even welcome homosexuals, without the worry about "changing" them. They might even ordain gay/lesbian ministers. I don't know this as a fact, but their website really is not concerned about putting forward a fundamentalist Christian Agenda, and I would surmise they at a minimum don't share Peter's crusade against gays.

Bronson still must be in vacation mode.

My latest XRay column is now online: "Cheerleaders, Tanks, and Blogs, Oh My: The Good, the Bad, and the Propaganda from the War."

The Ballad of Hannity and Livingston
Last night Sean Hannity appeared at Xavier University. Not much has been reported on what happened. All I could find was the following quote from the front page of 55KRC's web page:

Sean Hannity and 55KRC Thee Talk Station would like to thank everyone who made the night a complete success. Neither rain nor protests (8 protestors...WOW!...that proved a point. Nice job Nate!!) could keep us down. Thanks from 55KRC Thee Talk Station

8 protestors sounds about right. I was hoping for a little more action. When you put two groups of buffoons together (Boycott B and Hannity Fans) at one venue, one would have expected some fireworks. Well, I guess it was the weather that kept the conflict to a minimum. I am sure the Boycott B group were there with the usual racist rhetoric, and Hannity's brand of theocracy was surely being preached with the usual fire and brimstone and bigotry. If these folks were all the same race they would fit in like syrup and pancakes.

Fascist is as Fascist Does
Yes, I do use the word Fascist a whole hell of a lot. I use it generally as an adjective, not as meaning "one who practices fascism." It seems the right wingers are a little pissed about liberals using the word so much. Well, when conservatives stop using communist and socialist incorrectly on any liberal who is not in favor of capital gains tax cuts, then maybe I will give a rat's ass. Until then, and likely even after, I will use fascist where it fits.

UC News Record Former Editor Arrested
Dale F. Smith, editor for the 2002-2003 school year, was arrested for stealing thousands of dollars using a credit card processing machine from the UC News Record. Smith is not the current editor, which was not clear from the headline of the Post. This is a blow to a vibrant publication. I hope at least some of the money can be recovered or at least in this case the News Record will not be held liable for the missing money. If found guilty, I hope Smith sees jail time.

Peter's Sin of Omission
I read Peter Bronson's Enquirer column today and it was not much of a surprise. I said much of the same in my blog about Springer possible motives. I agree that the media, including the Enquirer, are suckers for celebrities, which is why Springer was covered so heavily. Peter later on referenced Larry Flint's run for governor of California as another example of the media being suckered. Peter also laments how the GOP candidates would never get such gushing treatment. I thought for a second and then two ideas came to mind. Either Bronson is a manipulative hack just like George Bush, or he turned in this column early on Tuesday, because unless he has been a coma since Wednesday night he might have noticed the media's obsession with another candidate for governor named Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Springer's attention is nothing compared to Arnold’s wall-to-wall coverage. Arnold suckered the media into covering him with what is considered the best political announcement for office by any candidate ever. That is best in terms of coverage and spin, not on rhetoric or political platforms. If you were to read Arnold's comments to Jay Leno, one might think a Peter, I would surmise, considers Arnold's treatment fair because he is a "good" man, and Springer's bad because he is a "bad" man. It would not have anything to do with their party affiliation would it? Arnold is getting great coverage with no questions on what his platform or his real motivations are. Arnold has a movie out this summer and there is just as much of a chance this is just a PR stunt to promote his movie, pushing up his numbers. It goes to show that Bronson cares nothing for being a fair and balanced journalist. If he did, even if he had turned in his column earlier this week, he could have asked he editors to include a single sentence referring to the level of celebrity coverage of Arnold. This did not happen. So when Peter whines about media bias, even bias in opinion journalism, he needs to look in the mirror and wake up to the fact that his side of the isle spins as much, if not more, than the liberal side. He will not admit that. He can’t deviate from the talking points. He does not want to lose his place in the GOP pecking order.