The Single Time I'll Ever Write About Roman Polanski
My sense is that jailing him now is a purely punitive act — insofar as I know, he hasn’t raped anyone else in the years between his trial and his recent arrest, given his age future rapes are quite unlikely, the circumstances surrounding his case are so unusual that it is unlikely to have any effect on deterring similar crimes in the future, and the victim herself no longer wants him to be tried.
So unless I am missing something — and I may be — punishment is the only reason to try and jail Roman Polanski. Perhaps that helps explain why so many people are calling for his release.
But not me.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there isn’t anything going on here except purely punitive justice, I say punish him — send him to jail for the rest of his life, and sully his name.
“the circumstances surrounding his case are so unusual that it is unlikely to have any effect on deterring similar crimes in the future”
Is this true? Obviously, the exact situation is unique, but important parts of it are not, namely the jurisdiction-fleeing and the use of prestige and connections to avoid justice. At least on the margin, wouldn’t punishing Polanski deter those inclined to believe that their wealth and power insulate them from punishment?
— salacious · Oct 1, 10:33 AM · #
You’re acting as if the past is real. Bad Conor.
— Senescent · Oct 1, 11:02 AM · #
A-fucking-men, and mercilessly mock the random retard French and Polish lawmakers calling for his release, and sigh about the judgement of Terry Gilliam.
— Sanjay · Oct 1, 11:14 AM · #
. . . and I suppose you should sigh about the judgment of Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and David Lynch, as well. Not to slight Gilliam— he’s made a few wonderful movies— but three of American film’s greatest talents are backing Polanski’s release, not to mention scores of other well know actors and directors, many foreign, many not. I don’t think they’re right, but it makes me wonder what’s really at work in their campaign for his amnesty. Sure, fame and wealth must be considered. Then there’s the age of the crime and its familiarity— in addition to his films, two of the first things you learn about Polanski are his marriage to Sharon Tate and the rape trial exile.
Perhaps, though, the pivotal factor is Polanski’s status as an artist. A feeling exists, even more vigorously among Europeans than Americans, that the artist is another kind of creature, one that should be pardoned his excesses. In fact, the notion goes, aren’t these excesses some element of his dark artistry? Bad behavior— from alcoholism to philandering— is often romanticized in poets, painters, etc. . .
I don’t mean to suggest his great films ameliorate the crime or that his conduct was mere “bad behavior.” Going on a bender and landing in the pokey is a transgression many orders slighter than drugging and sodomizing a thirteen-year-old. However, many of his fellow film makers have clearly decided his work has somehow redeemed his crime. His art, not merely his money or fame, is supreme in their minds. It trumps justice.
— turnbuckle · Oct 1, 12:54 PM · #
I’m glad for the whole dust-up, because without it I never would have gotten the chance to read this:
““If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”” – Roman Polanski, 1979
Child of the Seventies that I am, I was inculcated with all sort of what I now understand to be odd notions about sex. One of those notions was that the best sex is inconsequential; and that sexual utopia would be a place where the end result of sex was an orgasm, and nothing more.
Fortunately my life has offered me the opportunity to learn that consequential acts (sexual and otherwise) are infinitely more satisfying that inconsequential acts.
The other odd notion that seemed to imbue the sexual culture of the Seventies. and one that I think is expressed in Polanski’s explanation of why his rape of a 13 year old girl provoked so much interest, is the idea that if you express disapproval or revulsion toward any sort of sexual behavior that your disapproval is rooted in the denial of your own desires, your own shame, and/or a lack of sophistication.
I understand that prior to the social revolution of the Sixties there were people who suffered greatly because the way they wanted to live their sexual lives fell outside the social norms of the time, or even outside the boundaries of the law. I’m sure it’s clear to TAS writers and readers that I have an elevated interest in sexuality and also in its intersection with society, and as such I regard it as a personal tragedy if a person is not able to live a sexual authentic life.
I would even go as far as saying that it is a personal tragedy for an adult who finds himself sexually attracted to persons below the age of consent to be unable to live a sexually fulfilled life within the bounds of the law. I don’t imagine that such a person feels their desires any less deeply than I feel my own, and when I read about such cases I often have the thought, “Thank god the urges and desires I have fall within the law, for surely I could not resist them if they did not.” (There are no atheist in foxholes.)
But my own compassion for persons plagued by desires they must not consummate does not mean I do not support statutory rape laws. My support is rooted in the liberal notion that in the interests of justice, persons below a certain age should not be held fully accountable for their actions, and in the conservative notion that parents have broad rights and privileges where their children are concerned.
For example, I was appalled by the defense of Australian photograher Bill Henson on the grounds of “artistic merit”, but grudgingly supported his under-aged subject’s parents’ right to decide whether or not they wanted their children to pose for his photographs without clothing.
Similarly, I support “Romeo and Juliet Laws” which recognize that children are sexual beings, and will engage in sexual activities, and acknowledges that there is a ethical difference between consensual sex between teen lovers, and the predetory acts of adults; and that the law can reasonably parse this difference.
But to come back to the above quote from Polanski, I also believe that many thought leaders in the area of sexual liberty (for want of a better phrase) have not yet fully reckoned with the sexual legacy of the Seventies, its odd definition of utopia, and its cloying attachment to counter-shame. And I believe that has been as damaging to the discourse on sex, sexuality, and society as any counter-revolutionary efforts.
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 01:07 PM · #
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
Roman Polanski, 1979
Screw feeling remorseful, at least twenty years ago he didn’t even feel as if he had committed a crime. And let’s not forget that shortly thereafter he started a relationship with then 15 year old Natasha Kinski. There’s a pattern there.
He’s had both fame and difficult challenges in his life. His mother was killed in a Nazi death camp, he was separated from his father and hid by Roman Catholic Poles during the war and his wife, Sharon Tate, was killed while 8 1/2 months pregnant by the Manson freaks. He is also an acclaimed and award winning filmmaker and composer who mixes company with the rich and powerful and lived a life far better than most others in the world.
Neither his accolades or his sufferings exonerate him from the crime he committed. Nor should his fame be an excuse not to seek punishment. He plead guilty and that’s the crux, had he never had a trial it would be one thing but he admitted his guilt and then fled over fears of the prison sentence. Justice must still be served, regardless of station in life.
I would take the request of the victim into consideration here but the purpose of sentencing him is clearly punishment and deterrence and I see nothing wrong with that. It’s not going to stop sexual predators at all but it might send a message to the high and mighty that they are not so and beholden to the law of the land in the same fashion as we unwashed masses.
I’m not sure what the sentencing guidelines are on this, I am sure they are different and more stringent now than in 1977 but I would think 12-18 months in jail would suffice.
— RIRedinPA · Oct 1, 01:47 PM · #
I agree with Salacious. IIRC, under the common model of criminal punishment, there are four legitimate purposes of punishment: (1) pure punitive, in which we give people the punishment they “deserve” and channel the retributive wishes of their victims and society into the justice system; (2) deterrence, i.e. that we wish to deter the criminal and others from committing future crimes; (3) rehabilitation of the criminal so that she doesn’t commit future crimes after release; and (4) isolation of the criminal, so that she doesn’t commit additonal crimes while imprisoned (or that so most of the crimes she may commit are confined to the prison).
Here, jailing Polanski has the dual purposes of punishing him for the rape and for fleeing justice, and of deterring others from future crimes.
I’ll grant, the possibility of him raping additonal 13 year olds seems remote and basically a problem for the French, but the crime of fleeing the justice system is ongoing, and will continue until he is punished. (Cf. Mark Rich).
— J Mann · Oct 1, 01:58 PM · #
Many liberals love to mock what they see as the screwed up attitudes toward sex that many conservatives have. Polanski demonstrates that it goes both ways. There’s an intellectual and emotional element of liberalism that is paralyzingly non-judgmental about sex. It holds that sex is the one area of life to which no moral or ethical standards can be applied. If Polanski had just had enough self-control to cruise around until he found a 13 year old girl desperate and screwed up enough to say “yes” to him, imagine the sort of support he’d be getting.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 1, 02:44 PM · #
From “State and Main,” screenplay by David Mamet.
— Noah Millman · Oct 1, 02:47 PM · #
>>Many liberals love to mock what they see as the screwed up attitudes toward sex that many conservatives have.<<
That’s a lovely little strawman you threw out there. As a liberal I damn will mock conservatives getting all bent out of shape over two adult consenting males doing whatever they want in their bedroom but I have no problem finding a deep dark hole to throw pedophiles into and leaving them there.
Don’t mistake the Hollywood liberalelites as speaking for the entire left as I won’t assume David Duke or birthers represent the entire right. Their support for Polanski is rooted more in self preservation of their entitlement view of life rather than political ideology…I haven’t seen much support in the blogosphere or anywhere else by liberals for letting Polanski go.
— RIRedinPA · Oct 1, 04:01 PM · #
This isn’t coming from the left. Nobody on DailyKos or Pandagon has done anything but excoriate Polanski and his defenders. Anne Applebaum and Richard Cohen are his prime defenders these days and they’re hardly liberals.
This is about the elite and powerful defending one of their own; refusing to believe that wealth, power, and influence aren’t carte blanche to do whatever they like. Liberalism has nothing to do with it; liberal attitudes to sex aren’t an obstacle to recognizing rape as rape. Privilege is.
— Chet · Oct 1, 04:15 PM · #
“That’s a lovely little strawman you threw out there.”
I take it you’ve never read Atrios when he’s in a snit over statutory rape laws or his rants of “sexting”?
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 1, 04:22 PM · #
“Liberalism has nothing to do with it; liberal attitudes to sex aren’t an obstacle to recognizing rape as rape.”
As I said – If Polanski had simply found a 13 year old desperate and screwed up enough to say “yes”, imagine the level of support he’d be getting then.
As for powerful elites excusing other powerful elites, sure. That’s a fact of life. But liberal attitudes toward responsbility and judgment and how those things should not be applied to any sexual matter are also playing a role in this matter.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 1, 04:28 PM · #
You know, it’s possible to believe that statutory rape laws are unfair (because they criminalize behavior, with life-spanning consequences, that is legal between minors and legal between adults, but potentially illegal between persons with less than a years’ age difference between them) and that Roman Polanski is a rapist who should be punished for it.
He actually raped the girl. Statutory or not. This isn’t about some poor kid whose 16th birthday turned his entirely legal relationship with his girlfriend into felony rape in the eyes of the law. This is about a powerful man who used his influence, fame, and intoxicating drugs to rape a 13-year-old. Statutory rape laws aren’t even necessary in this case – he committed plain ol’ rape.
I’m not entirely sure what would be different. This is, essentially, what Polanski’s defenders are saying happened anyway. (They’re lying or deluded, of course.) Liberals would recognize that the 20 or so years of age, plus his fame and prestige, were coercive factors, because liberalism explores the coercive dynamics of power and privilege differentials all the time. (It’s kind of our thing.) If anything it would be conservatives rushing to his defense, blind as they are to coercive power dynamics.
No, they’re not. The liberal sexual libertines are firmly against Polanski in this. The people rushing to his defense don’t fit your description. You really think Oprah is someone who believes personal responsibility and judgement should never be applied to sex? Really? Richard Cohen and Anne Applebaum are exactly the same way? Liberalism has nothing to do with it.
— Chet · Oct 1, 04:35 PM · #
Mike, I get the gyst of what you’re saying, but are you sure you want to say that it’s “desperate and screwed up” for a thirteen year old to want to have sex? Maybe you’d rather say “It’s desperate and screwed up for an adult to take advantage of what (depending on the child) may very well be desires that are appropriate for their stage sexual development. It’s desperate and screwed up for an adult to usurp parental rights and authority in guiding how their child navigates the transition from childhood to adulthood.”
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not counsiling that thirteen year olds should be having sex. With my own daughters I urge caution and read passages from Fooled by Randomness. But I would never tell them that if they want to have sex, or even if they do have sex at what I regard as an inappropriately early age, that they are desperate and screwed up.
Whaddya say, Mike?
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 04:49 PM · #
“Liberalism has nothing to do with it.”
Really?
How many conservatives have you heard sticking up for this child-rapist?
— tomaig · Oct 1, 04:51 PM · #
>>I take it you’ve never read Atrios when he’s in a snit over statutory rape laws or his rants of “sexting”?<<
No, I’ve never read Atrios bu regardless, one person speaking on a topic does not represent the entire ideological movement they are associated with. Once again, should I consider you a racist because of David Duke?
— RIRedinPA · Oct 1, 04:52 PM · #
Actually, come to think of it, I’m thoroughly surprised that a few has-been directors/actors/Hollywood-hangers-on haven’t seized the opportunity [been directed by their publicists to seize the opportunity] to get some notoriety and talk-show invitations by loudly and publicly throwing Polanksi under the bus, which would seem to be a pretty slick career move.
— Sanjay · Oct 1, 04:57 PM · #
MBunge, you’re not persuasive here.
Liberal attitudes about sex, varied as they inevitably are, have tended to recoil from what many conservative and Christian scolds regard as sinful sex: homosexuality, interracial coupling, masturbation, promiscuity, etc. . . This should not be confused with condoning statutory rape. Implying that liberals are okay with the defilement of a 13-year-old is effectively saying what conservatives have hysterically and unconvincingly pushed for generations: sodomy is sodomy, once you green light same sex relations, everything is fair game. No restrictions. Bang anything you can.
Roman Polanski may consider anyone game, but he doesn’t qualify as a solid rep. for liberal social mores. And neither does David Lynch or Woody Allen. They might have voted for Obama. It doesn’t mean liberals in general don’t recognize the difference between a sexual matter that deserves privacy and respect— two women who choose to have sex— and a sex act that requires prosecution— sex with a 13-year-old.
One more thing, obviously the foundation of statutory rape law is that a person under a certain age is in no position to say “yes,” regardless of desperation. And by the way, “screwed up” is a necessary condition of being a 13-year-old.
— turnbuckle · Oct 1, 04:57 PM · #
Don’t know if I’d class Kevin Smith as a has-been, but for what it’s worth:
http://twitter.com/ThatKevinSmith/status/4472158172
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 05:00 PM · #
The conservative-leaning Op-Ed page of the Washington Post, for one thing. Richard Cohen is a conservative, as is Anne Applebaum (who holds the post of Adjunct Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.) They’ve both written Op-Eds (presumably approved by the editors of the WaPo) in support of Polanski. It’s absurd to say that the defense of Polanski is a liberal phenomenon.
— Chet · Oct 1, 05:09 PM · #
Richard Cohen is a conservative?? The conservative-leaning WaPo?
That tells me a lot about your viewing angle.
When you’re out in far left field, eveything looks like it’s to “the right”.
— tomaig · Oct 1, 05:27 PM · #
For what it’s worth, among the blogs I read, which I would estimate run about 2/3 liberal, Conor’s post is probably the most pro-Polanski, in that it doesn’t call for, say, drawing and quartering. There just isn’t a big constituency for the drugging and involuntary sodomizing of 13 year-olds.
Additionally, those defenses that I have seen in the media, aside from “just let it rest already,” seem to break into two categories:
1. The victim was somehow partly responsible—and “she was asking for it” is not a rape-defense with much currency among liberals.
2. Procedural arguments about the conduct of the trial, the plea bargain, etc. These defenses would actually be legitimate if they had any factual basis: even a child rapist deserves a fair trial. However, as far as I can tell, there really is very little ground for contesting the procedural history here, except in ways that break against Polanski.
Anyway, this is all a long way of saying that it’s pretty much impossible to extract a narrative of liberal moral turpitude from this story. Sorry folks, better luck next time.
— salacious · Oct 1, 05:42 PM · #
It tells me a lot about the “no true scotsman” game you’re trying to play here, frankly, where suddenly the Bush-endorsing, Kristol-Doubthat-Applebaum-publishing, torture-supporting, wiretap-regulation-opposing, bellicose-foreign-policy-loving, health-care-reform-hating anti-Obama WaPo op-ed page is “liberal” because, surprise surprise, they’re also opposed to the prosecution of the powerful and influential for their crimes.
If all you watch is Fox News, then yes, anything in the “mainstream media” must be assumed to be liberal. If you actually have ever read a WaPo op-ed, on the other hand, the conservative bias is pretty evident. Anne Applebaum is a fellow of the AEI. Is the AEI “liberal” now, too?
— Chet · Oct 1, 05:51 PM · #
Richard Cohen is no liberal. Just ask a liberal!
Count me as another liberal who thinks Polanski belongs in jail. To try to use Woody Allen’s support of Polanski as some sort of indictment of liberal morality makes no sense. I have no problem supporting the right of consenting, informed adults to any damn thing they want to, and believing children must be protected from predators. Trying to score political points from this just smacks of desperation.
— tgb1000 · Oct 1, 06:36 PM · #
This was an awesome comment thread until it got derailed by the idiotic assertion that liberals tend to be okay with child rape. Fucking politics. My God. Are we really at a place where ideological battle requires using a conversation about child rape in the comboxes of a medium traffic blog to make your vase about how awful liberalism is? To everyone else, thanks for some thought-provoking stuff.
— Conor friedersdorf · Oct 1, 06:39 PM · #
“If Polanski had just had enough self-control to cruise around until he found a 13 year old girl desperate and screwed up enough to say “yes” to him, imagine the sort of support he’d be getting.”
Um, very little because she would be 13 frigging years old? A 44 year old man penetrated a 13 year old girl. Full stop. That single detail is enough to damn Polanski forever.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Oct 1, 06:41 PM · #
What salacious said. Deterrence, for wealthy and well-connected criminals, is a big big deal to me in this case. (Not saying there’s no room for punishment as well!)
— the commentariat you wish you had · Oct 1, 06:56 PM · #
Conor, what do you want? I mean, I disagree with the proposition that politics has gotten inherently nastier, but I think party affiliation has swelled to the point where it dominates everything. Nobody thinks it’s bizarre anymore if you have a friend who won’t, say, date conservatives (or liberals). I know people I like and respect who basically will assume you are a moral degenerate if you’re a Republican (and I’ve met people who seem decent enough who have the opposite view.) So every comment gets escalated into a party-line fight. It makes the kind of broad cultural critique Reihan and Ross attempted originally with this site essentially impossible because for the majority of talkers now the site is first and foremost seen through a prism of being right-leaning.
I mean, I’m not saying it’s a good thing. But your observation seems like you just came from Mars or something.
I know that if I say something like, oh, “it’s a fucking embarassment that it’s October and the President, having already greenlighted sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, doesn’t seem to know what his actual military objective there is,” I will get flamed by dumb “liberals” — really just ovine partisans — even though the point isn’t particularly right-or-left and is one that Brzezinski has been making for a while. Which means you can’t usefully critique policy. How do you, who writes for a living, not know that?
And you’d better get used to it because it puts a responsibility on you. Your readers aren’t seeing, “Conor Freiersdorf thinks Polanksi is a dink,” they’re seeing, “this Republican thinks Polanski is a dink,” and meanwhile they see that Jeralyn Meritt is oddly rooting for Polanski here, and BANG a partisan line exists. What you say here will be used to discredit, say, Reihan or Glenn Beck or Pete Feaver or whoever. Look at what’s going on there: hell, I can’t tell what Richard Cohen’s ideology is — he’s fun to read but inconsistent — and his Polanski piece (that I saw) was weird: something like, the guy;s a scuzzball, maybe this isn’t worth prosecuting and we should let him go, but only if I get to beat him up first. And people are using that dreck as some kind of evidence for something or other.
This isn’t meant to be me criticizing how the discourse is done, I’m just trying to explicate it and say, look, dude, if you don’t know the context in which you write that’s your problem.
— Sanjay · Oct 1, 07:53 PM · #
Friedersdorf makes a good point about the ideological hijack of the reply thread. Okay, yes, he seems overly steamed by it, considering it happens all the time, but truly this conversation began and went for like a dozen comments before the topic was played through a prism of alleged liberal decadence and its role in condoning sexual assault. And it was indeed a much more interesting conversation before that happened.
— turnbuckle · Oct 1, 08:20 PM · #
You want a ‘jack? Here’s a jack.
Commerce requires people with diverse, divergent, and even opposite interest find a way to work it out.
Fundraising relies on fear, guilt and controversy.
And remember, Important Art/Jounalism/Blog/Jazz/InsertYourPetCause here has never been profitable and never will be; ergo everything worthwhile must devolve into fundraising.
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 08:55 PM · #
And Conor, I might have sounded glib in the Fruit Thread, but I’m not. Keep at it. Keep. At. It. Imagining a different, better world is a noble thing to do. Don’t stop. Ever.
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 09:00 PM · #
I think I could agree with a narrow reading of what Mike was arguing (if we assume that the majority of liberals are not willing to defend him under present circumstances).
On one side, liberalism puts a lot of emphasis on consent. On the other, it is simultaneously ready to admit that drawing lines (like the proper age of consent) is always going to be arbitrary. It’s all a question of supposed sexual maturity anyway. Is someone really that much more mature on the birthday that they reach age of consent, than they were previous Saturday night? etc.
So, consent becomes a crucial element in such a case. Had she consented, for example, then all this could’ve been packaged and sold as some kind of a “love story” or something.
Let me illustrate my point another way:
Liberals would likely be sympathetic to a case of a brother and a sister who, let’s say to make it even more palatable, have grown up separately and then when reunited realized that they were strongly sexually and romantically attracted to each other.
All social conservatives (no matter how “compassionate”) would almost certainly disapprove of this on the ground of anti-incestuous norms, but some liberals (and libertarians) could find it less abhorrent precisely because the case involves consenting adults and is essentially victimless.
— Marko · Oct 1, 09:27 PM · #
“So unless I am missing something — and I may be — punishment is the only reason to try and jail Roman Polanski”
Yes, punishment IS the ONLY reason since he’s already had his trial and admitted guilt.
— C3 · Oct 1, 09:49 PM · #
In the case of Polanski, consent is not an issue. He drugged her.
But on Marko’s larger point, I’m inclined to agree. And I would say liberals are more inclined to make allowances for specific cases (like the brother-sister one). But that’s hardly indicative of some larger societal failing.
— tgb1000 · Oct 1, 09:53 PM · #
Almost down to the bottom of a can of Bud. I’ll risk being accused of self interest and offer these two posts – one a scholarly examination of a 1964 SCOTUS obscenity case and other a personal recollection of New York in the late Seventies – have something to do with Polanski and how insane the Seventies were and how insane things were before everything got insane:
Jacobellis vs Ohio: “I know it when I see it.”
“The 1964 Supreme Court case Jacobellis vs. Ohio centered on the obscenity conviction of Ohio theater owner Nico Jacobellis for screening the 1958 French film The Lovers (Les Amants). Again at the risk of sounding condescending, I’m not sure a modern audience can fully appreciate that there was a time in this country when a person could be put on trial for showing a film like The Lovers (or for publishing a book like Ulysses for that matter.)
“But as unbelievable as it sounds, it’s true. In 1964 in a lot of places in the US marriage between blacks and white was illegal; in 1964 in a lot of places in the US it was illegal even for husbands and wives to engage in oral sex; and in 1964 screening a film like The Lovers could land you in jail.”
New York in the Seventies was a shithole, and I miss it.
“What do I remember most? The smell; pretzels, piss, sweat and sex. Yes, in 1978 New York actually smelled like sex. At the time I didn’t have a name for the smell, but I recognized it, was excited by it, was intoxicated by it. My uncle lived at Seventh Ave. and 12th St. and we ended many of our long days touring the city with hamburgers at David’s Pot Belly on Christopher St., in the gayest heart of Greenwich Village. On Christopher St. the smell of sex hung in the air almost like the perfume of lilacs on a Spring day, save that the oder sex wasn’t light and floral, it was heavy and portentous.”
So the question is, what’s next? I just got a call from the democrats asking me if I was going to vote for the democratic town supervisor. You know what I told them? I told them I’ve never voted for a republican in my entire life, but they’ve screwed up the town so badly (on a per capita basis we’re one of the most indebted municipalities in the nation, while most of our zipcodes are in top of the Forbes list) I’m ready to do it this go ‘round.
Free surface area.
That’s the way I see it. Maybe the reason things seem upside down is because they are. In that case, then free surface area might be a good thing. At this point I’m considering all possibilities!
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 09:57 PM · #
Let’s stick to imagining possible worlds first.
Since I believe Conor to be a man of good faith, I will consider it a happy accident for him and his career that his shtick — lamentations of base incivility, stirring calls to mildness — will never be anachronistic in this democracy of ours.
I believe Tocqueville (for example) addressed it in the chapter about ‘minor parties’ and factitious zeal, and the chapter about why Americans often do and say ill-considered things.
Sartre was almost right. Hell is not other people; hell is equal people.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 1, 10:14 PM · #
Oh — and this is quite beside the point since this is a case of good ole’ fashioned rape-rape — but sexual norms change (obviously). Back in the raucous days of Manifest Destiny, the age of consent in California was 10.
You could argue that Polanski was merely under blackpool lights. Except, you know, he did the whole rape thing. For that, he should be hanged.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 1, 10:29 PM · #
“Let’s stick to imagining possible worlds first.”
Different and better = impossible?
We’ll never smell the wild stench of entrepreneurialism coming off of you, JA.
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 11:49 PM · #
More on fundraising opportunities
“Grayson would hardly be the first politician to recognize that, simply put, there is no such thing as bad publicity. The problem, however, is that the Age of Hypermedia has magnified the incentives for crude political behavior substantially. Indeed, desperate politicians – particularly those expecting stiff competition in the next election – know that outrageous statements are more likely to get broadcast/blogged/tweeted/posted/forwarded than well-reasoned ones. They further know that these statements will mostly alienate those who wouldn’t have voted for them anyway, while the die-hards will back them more strongly than ever – and often with cash. Just ask Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), whose receipts rose substantially after she suggested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama held “anti-American views”; or Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who reaped $1.8 million in contributions barely a week after he shouted “you lie” at President Obama during a joint-session of Congress.”
Might seem like a stretch to Sanjay. Doesn’t seem like a stretch to me.
— Tony Comstock · Oct 1, 11:57 PM · #
I don’t think it’s just about punishment, but also about the fairness of our criminal justice system, and whether it strives to treat people equally, regardless of money, power and fame, or has just given up. I think it’s fair to say he needs to face the music. Doesn’t he still have to be sentenced? Does anyone know what the actual punishment guidelines are for him? It seems that all the arguments made for freeing him should be made, not on twitter, but in court, and we have to trust our criminal justice system enough to end up at a fair resolution.
I’m usually up for defending “liberal Hollywood” or actors stating their political views, but in this case it makes me kind of sick that all these celebrities are defending Polanski so vehemently. Seriously? This is what you will sign a petition for? If you think the law isn’t fair, lobby to change the laws, but don’t argue that he shouldn’t even have to show up in court because of his artistic talent, his age, or the length of time since his crime. If he hadn’t run away in the first place, and had just served his sentence, he would probably be a free man now.
— Sunny · Oct 2, 01:39 AM · #
Different and better, no doubt and I’m for it. Temperate discourse in times of drift? — that’s impossible.
— JA · Oct 2, 04:47 AM · #
We all want to change the world?
— Tony Comstock · Oct 2, 11:08 AM · #
As recently as a half dozen years ago, I recognized myself as a conservative. I don’t consider myself a liberal now. Anyhow, pursuing Polanski’s arrest is sledgehammer to flea territory. It is punishment for the sake of punishment. So he has gotten away with it. Live with it. People get away with serious crimes quite regularly. This whole idea that addressing the sentencing of someone 30 years after the fact is just as important as trying to address myriad of crimes that have occurred over the past 6 months is just part of someone’s law and order wet dream.
— Badger · Oct 2, 03:08 PM · #
While most on the left do not support Polanski, almost everyone who supports Polanski is on the left. Read through the names on the pro-Polanski petition, Conor. How many of them can you honsetly say are not on the left? How many of them can you honestly say are on the right or even in the center? To the not-inconsiderable extent to which there is a constituency for moral libertinism or moral libertarianism with regard to sex — including a pro-pedophile constituency and even a pro-zoophile constituency — that constituency is almost entirely on the left. Being on the left means keeping some degree of company with certain unsavory types — including pedophiles and zoophiles — just as being on the right means keeping some degree of company with certain other unsavory types. Those are simply the breaks.
— TRB · Oct 2, 05:24 PM · #
TRB – an incredibly clumsy and easily disprovable attempt at parity. In regards to the petition – how many of those are employed in Hollywood? Support for Polanski has nothing to do with being on the left and everything to do with being one of his Hollywood colleagues. That’s why there’s absolutely zero support for Polanski on any left-leaning blog.
Absolute horseshit. To the extent that there is a pro-pedophile constituency in American politics, that constituency is indisputably the Catholic Church, which you will find firmly lodged among conservatives. If Polanski had been a pedophile priest instead, he’d never have had reason to flee in the first place.
— Chet · Oct 2, 08:53 PM · #
Chet,
To repeat: most people on the left do not support Polanski, but almost everyone who supports Polanski is on the left.
By the same token, almost everyone who supports Polanski works in Hollywood or in film, but almost everyone who works in Hollywood or in film is on the left.
So the Polanski affair is a partisan matter in the limited sense that the only support that there is for Polanski comes almost entirely from the left, albeit from a subset, probably a small subset, of the left.
As for Catholic pedophile priests, they are a small subset of the pedophile constituency, which is mostly on the left. If, for some strange reason, you want to find people openly supporting pedophilia, you will find them on the left. You’ll find them in groups like NAMBLA and among some leftists academics who work in gender studies, queer theory, etc.
That said, even among the Catholic priest subset of pedophiles, it’s still an open question how many Catholic pedophile priests are on the left as opposed to the right. It’s often been conjectured, for example, that a part of what caused the Catholic pedophile priest phenomenon was Catholic seminaries, post-Vatican II, relaxing their standards, so far as admitting gay men. There’s been a lot written about hypocrisy among the Catholic clergy, within whose ranks there is a flourishing subculture, and in some places a pervasive culture, of actively homosexual priests with leftish views on sexuality, views that can’t be seen as on the right or as conservative, because they are heterodox at odds with the Vatican’s views.
For the record, I’m not Catholic, nor an I an expert on clergy sex abuse. But I still think your overestimating clergy sex abuse as a percentage of all pedophilia. And I also still think that you’re underestimating the extent to which pedophiles and their apologists align with the left.
— TRB · Oct 3, 02:46 PM · #
Support for Polanski the individual is hardly a proxy for support of pedophilia, as you’re using it.
If they’re so “heterodox”, why has the Vatican gone to such lengths to defend them from prosecution? We’re not just talking about a few pedophile priests, after all, we’re talking about a church-wide effort to defend pedophiles from prosecution, over and over and over again. The current Pope, as a cardinal, was the leader of these shielding efforts. No one could mistake him for a figure on the “left.”
And you’re overestimating it, based on zero evidence. For one thing individual pedophiles are far more likely to identify as conservatives, given how effective that is as a cover for predation (nobody suspects a good, conservative family man.) They’re usually middle-aged white heterosexual males (the prime demographic for conservatism).
And how do you explain the regular march of conservative Republican politicians caught up in the horns of underaged sex scandals? Seems like there’s a new one every month, a rate you simply don’t see on the left.
NAMBLA isn’t “on the left” any more than the KKK is “on the right.” (Interestingly, they were formed to oppose the re-election of a Democratic Asst. District Attorney.) And, again, the number of Catholic figures deeply involved in attempts to shield pedophiles from prosecution vastly dwarfs the number of leftist academics who do the same.
Defense of pedophiles qua pedophiles (not pedophiles qua filmmakers) is a religiously-driven phenomenon most closely associated with the right. If you’re going to dispute that I’m going to need more than just your assertions, TRB.
— Chet · Oct 3, 07:44 PM · #
There is just as high a rate of pedophilia among public school faculty as there is among the Catholic clergy and just as much effort expended among public school faculty to cover up such abuse as is expended by the Catholic clergy. If anything, rates of pedophilia among public school faculty and effort expended to cover it up are even great among public school faculty than among the Catholic clergy. If you want to argue that public school faculty are on the right or in the center as opposed to on the left, have at it — be my guest.
As for NAMBLA and the KKK — NAMBLA is on the left just as surely as the KKK is on the right.
In another instance of pro-pedophilia on the left, since you ask for one: the Ford Foundation funds an outfit called the Satcher Institute, run by David Satcher, who was Surgeon General in the Clinton administration. Among the Satcher Institute’s goals is essentially the normalization of sexual libertinism or libertarianism, to include the normalization of both pedophilia and zoophilia. Through sizable grants to the Satcher Institute which then passes grants along to a wide variety of leftist with radically revisionist moral stances on sex, the Ford Foundation is working to set the stage for first pedophilia and then zoophilia as the next alternative sexualities to be normalized by the left, following on from the normalization of homosexuality via court-imposed gay marriage.
Like I said earlier to Conor, this simply is what it is — the left is more pro-pedophile than either the center or the right.
Those are simply the breaks, and there’s nothing I can do to help you with that, not being willing to pretend that things are otherwise than how they actually are.
— TRB · Oct 4, 07:44 PM · #
Really? Seems like a pedophile teacher is being frog-marched off to jail every other week (especially when its a woman preying on boys, for some reason.) Whereas I can’t recall a single example of a pedophile priest actually being prosecuted. Most recently it was announced that there will be no prosecutions in the Irish Catholic orphanage sex abuse scandal.
Says you? Evidence, please?
I’m sorry but that’s a paranoid conspiracy theory, not “evidence.”
Um, except that it’s not?
— Chet · Oct 4, 09:17 PM · #
Chet,
Funny that you ask for “evidence” of pedophilic sex abuse among public school faculty, while you don’t provide any yourself for pedophilic sex abuse among the Catholic clergy.
I didn’t ask you for any, only because it would be foolish and jejune to feign to doubt that such abuse exists, just as it is foolish and jejune of you to feign to doubt that similar abuse exists among public school faculty.
As for the Ford Foundation and the Satcher Institute, it’s not “conspiracy theory,” it’s simple and well-documented fact.
Go to the “Stand Firm in Faith” website — which covers issues within the Anglican and Episcopal Churches — and read Greg Griffith’s and Matt Kennedy’s reporting on Ford’s and Satcher’s attempt to influence debate over sexual issues within the Anglican Communion.
Their report came out in conjunction with news of a leftist-activist vestryman at an Episcopal Church in North Carolina who was arrested for trying to prostitute his and his male partner’s adopted pre-pubescent son to other pedophiles over the internet, seemingly in exchange for sexual access to other pre-pubescent boys.
I mention this context to offer yet another example of pedophilia on the left and in a clerical context that cannot in anyway be construed as right-wing.
— TRB · Oct 5, 12:18 AM · #
That’s funny, I replied to this but the post is gone.
But I don’t doubt it. Don’t you remember, when I referred to teachers being publicly prosecuted for sex abuse of their students? How could I refer to prosecutions and then deny that some teachers are pedophiles?
What I asked for evidence of, and what you have not substantiated, is your absurd and unfounded claim that “rates of pedophilia among public school faculty and effort expended to cover it up are even great among public school faculty than among the Catholic clergy.” Clearly, that’s false – there’s no Teacher Pope working as hard as he can behind the scenes to shield pedophile teachers from prosecution.
What “Stand Firm in Faith” website? Who is “Stand Firm In Faith” that I should accept them as an authority on criminal justice and sex abuse? Why should I accept them, when they’ve already gotten so much wrong – David Satcher was Surgeon General in the Bush administration for longer than he was in Clinton’s, and the website for the SHLI has absolutely no indication that they exist to promote the “normalization of zoophilia and pedophilia”, as you claimed.
But he was arrested and prosecuted, both fired by Duke University and defrocked by the Episcopalian church. Where’s this vast left-wing movement to defend pedophiles, as he would have been defended, protected, and sheltered in the Catholic church? Why did the supposed left-wing equivalent not shelter or protect him?
Isn’t it because no such equivalent actually exists?
— Chet · Oct 5, 05:32 AM · #
Chet,
I find it hard to square your skepticism toward Stand Firm in Faith with your credulity toward the Satcher Institute.
Whom do you think would have more incentive to dissimulate about a pro-pedophile and pro-zoophile agenda, those being subjected to that agenda or those doing the subjecting?
I also find it hard to see how the take-home lesson from the Catholic clergy sex-abuse scandals ought to be credulity toward other institutions — like the public schools — with sex-abuse scandals of their own.
The fact that you and I even know about the Catholic clergy sex-abuse scandals to the extent that we do is itself a function of the lengths that the left has gone to to cover up the equal prevalence of sex-abuse in the public schools — especially the length that the left-aligned media have gone to.
The most-played card in the leftist deck is to project the left’s own pathologies on scapegoats and enemies whom they left defines itself and feigns to purify itself through enmity toward.
So Sara Palin is a frightening demagogue, but not Barack Obama.
So the small-town lower-middle-class are filled with “antipathy toward people who are not like them,” but not the big-city upper-middle-class.
Socially conservative, morally traditional Christians want to “impose” their beliefs on others, but not socially liberal, morally revisionist secularists.
I could go on and on.
It’s in the left’s interest to define pedophilic sexual pathology as a phenomenon of what it regards as the right — and especially as a phenomenon of the Catholic clergy.
Pedophilic sexual pathology is certainly a problem among the Catholic clergy.
But it’s not a problem only or primarily among the Catholic clergy, where its prevalence is no greater than in any other institution.
And it’s wrong to characterize the Catholic clergy — as the left would like to — as being on the right, and it’s especially wrong to characterize the subset of the Catholic clergy who have engaged in a disproportionate share of sex-abuse as being on the right.
Something like four out of five instance of clergy sex-abuse have been committed by homosexual men preying on adolescent boys — pubescent boys, not pre-pubescent boys.
Most of those clergy entered the priesthood post-Vatican II, as seminaries relaxed their standards on homosexuality and took a more morally liberal and morally revisionist stance toward sex in general.
That was a swing of the Catholic pendulum toward the left with regard to sex, and the resulting clergy sex-abuse scandal has been more of a left-wing phenomenon than a phenomenon of the right.
Again, I write this as a non-Catholic. And, I might add, as a non-Republican.
— TRB · Oct 5, 03:31 PM · #
TRB, you’re really not meeting your obligations, here.
Again – who is “Stand Firm in Faith” that they are an authority on criminal justice and sex abuse of children? They’re just a name, to me, whose supposed claims I’m getting second-hand via you. Why shouldn’t I be skeptical?
Surely you can’t be serious with this. This is your argument? “Of course they deny it; that’s just what we’d expect goat-fucking pedophiles to do!” By that logic I can “prove” that you’re a pedophile.
That makes zero sense. And again, you’ve not defended your claim that there is “just as high a rate of pedophilia among public school faculty as there is among the Catholic clergy and just as much effort expended among public school faculty to cover up such abuse as is expended by the Catholic clergy.” I need evidence if I’m to believe this claim. The words “Stand Firm in Faith”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, do not constitute such evidence.
Well, yes. Nobody shouted “kill him” and “he’s a nigger!” at Obama’s events, but they did at Palin’s.
Well, yes. The big-city upper-middle-class mythologize rural America as a bucolic paradise, and celebrate the inhabitants as “real Americans”.
Well, yes. Preventing two gay men from marrying because you don’t think it’s right for them to do so is an imposition of your morality on them. Allowing them to get married if that’s their desire isn’t an imposition of morality on anybody at all.
How can you be so consistently wrong, TRB? How can you so consistently project the right’s own pathologies on enemies you define yourself through enmity towards?
Again – I don’t believe you when you say these things, because I have reason to believe you’re wrong. Evidence would be more convincing. Please note: the words “Stand Firm in Faith” aren’t evidence of anything (except perhaps your preoccupation with “firmness”, pedophile!) Conspiracy theories about Bush’s Surgeon General aren’t evidence of anything (except the paranoia characteristic of a pedophile!)
This is another statistic you’ve obviously made-up for the purpose. You know, something like 4/5 pedophiles post on the internet under the name “TRB”!
Ok, look, I’m kidding about the pedophilia stuff. I know you’re not a pedophile. But I hope you see how easy it is to conclude that you’re one, based on your own logic. Sure, you’d deny it – but wouldn’t it be in a pedophile’s interest to deny it?
Aren’t we abandoning all pretense of truth when we begin to logic in that manner?
And a non-pedophile, I hope. But I’m not at all sure what possible relevance it could have, whether or not you’re a Catholic or Republican. Could you explain?
— Chet · Oct 5, 07:03 PM · #
Chet,
I’d say it’s you and not me who has failed to meet his obligations here. You asked for evidence of my contentions about the Satcher Institute and the Ford Foundation. I provided you a source for my contentions, a source which draws in turn on other sources. But rather than evaluate the source and its contentions, you reject them out of hand, sight unseen, on the pretext that no source of evidence that you yourself have not already evaluated can have enough credibility for you to bother evaluating it. Your “logic” is circular and not worth entertaining. Even you can’t entertain it for very long, so you start accusing people of being racists — which is sort of the leftist or liberal equivalent of hoisting the white flag of surrender. By your circular “logic,” why should I bother to even consider to the sources you would cite to corroborate the idea of racists at Sarah Palin rallies, anymore than you should give even bother to glance at Greg Griffith’s and Matt Kennedy’s work at Stand Firm in Faith? Luckily, I don’t employ the same circular “logic” that you do. So, back when the charges were initially made, I looked at the evidence for cries of “nigger” and “kill him” at Sara Palin rallies and found that there was none — only baseless assertions by paranoid or else consciously-dissimulating leftists. I suppose you’ll be telling me next that no leftist has ever faked a racial “hate crime” or that no leftist has ever been paranoid about Sara Palin. Anyway, it wouldn’t hurt you to enter the reality-based, the logic-based, the reason-based community, and at least evaluate Griffith’s and Kennedy’s claims at the Stand Firm in Faith. The reason I mention that I’m neither Catholic nor a Republican is that you seem to impute some sort of bias to me and my sources that simply isn’t there. Griffith and Kennedy are not Catholics and I haven’t the foggiest clue what their politics are. Their interest in the Satcher Institute and the Ford Foundation was motivated solely by a desire the investigate funding sources for the factions within the Episcopal Church that are pushing for radically revisionist agendas with regard to sex. In the process of that investigation, they turned up the Satcher Institute and examined its work, which does, indeed, include, among other things, advocacy for pedophiles and zoophiles. Your unwillingness to accept that inconvenient truth reminds me quite a bit of the similar kind of unwillingness that many in the Catholic church seem to have had about the clergy sex-abuse subculture within their midst. I can only hope that you come to your senses sooner than most lay Catholics did, and in a less traumatic way. Believe it or not, it’s possible not to be a blinkered partisan of either the left or the right. Reality is good and those of us who live there would be happy to have you join us.
— TRB · Oct 5, 10:52 PM · #
Here’s the video.
Well, no. You just said “Stand Firm in Faith.” You didn’t even give me a URL. What or who is that, that I should care? That I should accept them as a relevant source?
Um, what? When did I ever call you a racist?
At what? Again – what on Earth is “Stand Firm in Faith” supposed to mean to me? Who are “Griffith and Kennedy”?
Do you understand, yet, that I have no idea what you’re talking about, because you keep saying “Stand Firm in Faith” like I’m supposed to already know what that means?
TRB, the problem here is that you’ve presented no sources. “Stand Firm in Faith” is a combination of words that has no meaning to me. Is that a book? A web forum? A magazine? A pamphlet? An article in a newspaper? An organization?
What am I supposed to do with “Stand Firm in Faith” when you won’t tell me what it is?
TRB, when are you going to source these allegations:
If anything, rates of pedophilia among public school faculty and effort expended to cover it up are even great among public school faculty than among the Catholic clergy.
Something like four out of five instance of clergy sex-abuse have been committed by homosexual men preying on adolescent boys — pubescent boys, not pre-pubescent boys.
Through sizable grants to the Satcher Institute which then passes grants along to a wide variety of leftist with radically revisionist moral stances on sex, the Ford Foundation is working to set the stage for first pedophilia and then zoophilia as the next alternative sexualities to be normalized by the left
Why do you insist on repeating these allegations without providing even a shred of evidence that they’re true?
— Chet · Oct 6, 12:37 AM · #
Chet,
Something called “Google” exists. Have you not heard of it? Have you also not heard of things called knives and forks? Would you like me to cut up your salisbury steak into itty-bitty, teensy-eensy bites for you? If so, should I do that before or after I give you the url for Google? Granted, I could just save you a step and give you the url for Stand Firm in Faith, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt for being a big boy now. Perhaps that’s been my mistake for this whole conversation …
— TRB · Oct 6, 03:53 PM · #
No, I’d like you to source your allegations. Why do you consistently refuse to do so?
Source these allegations or retract them.
(Incidentally Googling for “Stand Firm in Faith” returns more than one million hits. You’re going to have to be more specific if you want me to do your homework for you.)
— Chet · Oct 6, 04:21 PM · #
Chet,
Instead of it being incumbent upon me to “source” my “allegations” — which I’ve done repeatedly — it’s incumbent upon you instead to start taking your medication again. Perhaps you can wash the pills down with a fruit smoothie drunk through one of those swirly straws — perhaps one with Sponge-Bob Squarepants on it — since you clearly don’t seem to be a big enough boy even for salisbury steak cut up for you into itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny bites. I would offer you a salisbury steak smoothie to wash your meds down with through the swirly straw … but that would be gross.
— TRB · Oct 6, 09:20 PM · #
I don’t understand the use of scare quotes, here. You seem to be derisive of the very idea of supporting your contentions with evidence. (Not really surprising considering your complete intellectual dishonesty.)
Well, no. You’ve cited “Stand Firm in Faith” (whatever/whoever that is) as the source for your claims about Bush’s AG and zoophilia, but you’ve cited no source at all for these claims:
Isn’t it the case that you’re unable to cite any source for these claims – these specific claims, don’t handwave with “Stand Firm in Faith” any more, please – because these claims are just things you made up? Your derisive and evasive response would seem to confirm that.
Better trolls, please. (I’m beginning to appreciate Kate Marie a lot more.)
— Chet · Oct 7, 05:36 AM · #
Chet,
Clearly you prefer your salisbury steak through a Sponge-Bob Square-Pants swirly straw.
So here is the very first hit one gets on Google when once searches for Stand Firm in Faith:
www.standfirminfaith.com
And, no, having given you the authors’ names, I’m not going to go any further than that in helping you out.
That would be like holding your wing-wang while you pee-pee, and, however much you’d no doubt like me to do that, I simply refuse.
PS: There are such things as quotation marks as opposed to scare quotes. Have you not heard of them? Should I be surprised if you haven’t heard of them, given that you hadn’t heard of Google, or that you can’t use it, or that you don’t understand how citation works.
— TRB · Oct 7, 12:58 PM · #
Chet,
Alright, on second thought, having attained a pair of medical tongs, I’ve decided to use them to hold your wing-wang for you while you pee-pee. Please note that this citation comes not from Stand Firm in Faith, the existence of which you seem to be compelled for some strange reason to deny, but rather from one of the sources cited by Stand Firm in Faith. Whether Stand Firm in Faith’s citation means that this source also does not exist, cannot exit, or should not exist, in your eyes, I cannot say. I can only cite the source. Please trying harder this time to aim for the toilet bowl instead of the bathroom floor.
http://www.americananglican.org/money-sex-indaba-corrupting-the-anglican-communion-listening-process
— TRB · Oct 7, 01:13 PM · #
I’m at a loss, TRB, to explain why it appears you’d rather talk about my penis than source your statements. Please note that neither the “Stand Firm in Faith” website nor the American Anglican article can be sources for these claims, because neither the website nor the article makes these claims.
Can you, or can’t you, cite sources for these claims?
— Chet · Oct 7, 04:30 PM · #
Chet,
Sex abuse in public schools:
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.doc
Homosexual nature of Catholic clergy sex abuse:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse01.htm
I’ll take it as a mea culpa that you’ve switched from demanding the goods on Ford, Satcher, et al with regard to pedophilia and zoophilia to demanding other kinds of goods.
PS: Why shouldn’t I — with the aid of medical tongs — help you make pee-pee? I’m doing everything else here for you, am I not? Besides, being too busy fiddling with your wing-wang even to do a simple Google search, you’re doubtless also too busy fiddling with yourself not to p*ss yourself.
— TRB · Oct 8, 12:08 AM · #
Chet,
More recent stats on homosexual nature of Catholic clergy sex abuse:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092910.html
— TRB · Oct 8, 12:15 AM · #
You’re not doing anything but talk about my penis, for some reason. You’re certainly not defending your assertions with evidence. Sorry, but none of your sources are sufficient. Your “Catholic News” source substantially misrepresents the report it refers to – did you look it up? You should have – and you substantially misrepresent it in turn.
Your report from ed.gov, similarly, is not support for your claim that:
which is a claim that can be found absolutely nowhere in the 158-page document. So, again, I’m forced to ask why you insist on talking about – fantasizing about? – my penis and urinary habits instead of supporting your views with evidence.
Why would I do your homework for you? Further, how do you explain the fact that when I do search for evidence for your claim, the evidence I find indicates the exact opposite?
P.s. No mea culpa was intended or offered. You failed to source the Sanger claims so I’ve stopped giving you chances to do so. I merely wanted to eliminate your ability to use “Stand Firm in Faith” as a smokescreen to avoid sourcing the other claims. Since you were forced to misrepresent your supposed “sources” it would appear that I’ve succeeded.
— Chet · Oct 8, 03:53 PM · #