Discuss amongst yourselves
His nipples are kinda small.
That's cos it's cold in there. And his ego's big enough to make up for it...
SECOND!
It looks as if the head's been Photoshopped onto the body.
I guess the nipple marketing association paid for the pic.
Very Guckertesque.
He does have nipple confidence.
Arrghh! My eyes...
Since he's so bio-tech, I just hope that he doesn't get himself cloned.
Besides, Monsanto should pay him $60,000 just to delete that photo from his website.
Talk about corporate blackmail...
If you stare at the picture long enough you'll turn gay !
Too bad he's obviously lacking in the penis department.
Yikes!
Good piece, Cathy. I mean your column, not the visuals.
Unbelievable.
If you stare at the picture long enough you'll turn gay !
Even more likely to happen if you're already oriented to the left politically/socially.
Your antinausea medication must really be working to be able to stand to post that picture. As soon as your page loaded coworkers rushed over to give me the Heimlich maneuver when I saw that abomination.
"Even more likely to happen if you're already oriented to the left politically/socially."
Which of course explains such dedicated leftists as Roy Cohn, "Spitz" Channel, Ken Mehlman, David Drier, and Grover Norquist.
Mark,
You are just to funny brother. Keep it up.
Cathy,
Nice essay. Thanks for writing it.
peace
For a guy with little reason he sure seems cocky. I give him demerits for small body/head ratio and for lack of self-awareness.
$60,000 seems a paltry sum for your credibility, though he could put a part of it toward a well tailored suit.
The picture must be an old one because he developed perforated diverticulitis in Iraq and came home early with a colostomy. No scars in the picture.
I think his work on such topics as "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" was fine. I haven't read his pieces on bio-engineering since I never read any of that stuff. 98% is crap.
The picture is ridiculous and I wonder why he would post it.
"I think his work on such topics as "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" was fine>"
You would.
Roy Cohn, "Spitz" Channel, Ken Mehlman, David Drier, and Grover Norquist.
That's why I used the qualifier "politically/socially."
People like Norquist appear to lean to the left socially-culturally when it comes to something as basic as traditional marriage (which is Case Study 1-A in showing how far left the left has moved today---in which even some liberals cringe at the idea of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples) and therefore isn't exactly a "rabid conservative":
And for a rabid conservative, he's unusually progressive when it comes to his tolerance for gay Republicans. "There is no reason why gay people shouldn't be with us. To create a coalition, people don't have to agree about everything." To that end, the Log Cabin Republicans are welcome at the Americans for Tax Reform's invitation-only Wednesday meetings. And, perhaps not surprisingly, Grover opined in 2003 that same-sex marriage is "is not a vote-moving, people-threatening issue." (So much for that theory.) [Update: On April 2, 2005 Norquist married Palestinian activist and former high school classmate Samah Alrayyes.]
This year Grover spoke beofr the Log Cabinettes.
Wonder where he stashed the beard.
Wonder where he stashed the beard.
If he's like Wally Cox, Marlon Brando, Robert Downey Jr, Anthony Perkins, Oscar Wilde, etc, etc, he doesn't need one----and just another example of why the clueless left hates to focus on the concept of free will and free choice in human behavior.
Well, I always liked him ripping apart ADHD and ADD drugs were the equivalent of crack, but the Monsanto stuff is beyond the Pale.
Yawn.
""I think his work on such topics as "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" was fine>"
You would.
David Ehrenstein"
And you wouldn't. If you can show me the numbers of hetero cases that weren't drug users, do so. If not...
The hysteria in the state legislature when AIDS began was amazing. I was on the CMA legislative commission at the time. The bill on confidentiality for HIV testing, in its first version, wouldn't allow the doctor who had ordered the test to know the result. He would have to ask the patient.
I was running a trauma center and we could not test unconscious patients. My partner cut himself twice on HIV positive cases. The intense desire to make this NOT a homosexual disease was responsible for ridiculous stuff like the projections of heterosexual cases and the prediction of depopulation of Africa. The population of Africa is up 300 million since AIDS arrived.
The avalanche of junk science began on the left, not with Intelligent Design. Now Science has another scandal. Politics has wrecked the presitigious science and medical journals, not the pharm industry.
A little payola, eh Michael? Well, at least Fumento must have done well at "Prostitute College."
I think his work on such topics as "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" was fine
I agree. Especially at the time it was written. He got the statistics and various group risks pretty much right at a time when the LaRouchies were predicting the End of Civilization. We had a weird confluence of the sexually repressed, the pc folk that can't stand the idea that risk varies with groups, and gays that were fearful of an anti-gay pogrom which combined to foster the notion everyone was at significant risk. I remember that, having attained near heresy status, it wasn't carried by some bookstores.
His more recent stuff is increasingly problematic.
Is that the "little person" who was Kramer's buddy on "Seinfeld"?
Bet he went to Hooker High as well.
So your're suggesting that graft is more than common. How common? In percentage terms of the overall journo world....
I have yet to see a business sphere that didn't have its share of bad seeds. Some aspects of Hollywood are so graft ridden, mostly on the creative side of the divide, that it's a wonder anything gets done. Transparency is the key to everyone playing fair, but how do you get transparency in a business that is (uniquely) protected by a constitutional amendment? And the symbolic first amendment at that.
If you consider all NPOs as untaxed businesses, then I would say the problem is much more severe on the Left side of aisle. The LA Times refers to these people as "activists."
I would also delete any posts that refer to, or infer sexual orientation, if the associated topic does not. Reading enfant terrible drivel in 2006 is boring. More infantile than terrible.
Delusions of grandeur. Yuk.
Thanks to the Headmistress for her ruling on language toward fair maidens. Much appreciated.
p.s. in my town, the Sunday L.A. Times has just been reduced by .50 an edition. I have heard that circ is really struggling.
The avalanche of junk science began on the left, not with Intelligent Design.
I wonder if Galileo would agree with you on that.
I wonder if Galileo would agree with you on that.
Your comment reminds me of all the leftists who, when it comes to civil rights issues in particular, think and act as though they're caught in (and probably wish they were---because then they'd feel less irrelevant) the 1950s and 1960s. Similar to the rantings (lol) of this board's gay "mulatto" liberal:
Imagine a corporation has a ‘heart” that is “sick.” It’s also, like so much of this culture, racist to its very core. No question that Wal-Mart was sending a cyber “shout out” to the white supermacist customers whose business it values. The only problem, was it got found out.
"I would also delete any posts that refer to, or infer sexual orientation, if the associated topic does not."
Already tried that gambit - it was rejected (you'll never guess by who).
watch your language, or I will delete.
I know there have been observations raised here or elsewhere about a larger percentage of people of the left, on more occasions, debating in a way that's not only more profane or juvenile than what comes from many centrists or rightists, but that's also no nicer or more humane than what comes from anyone else, even though many liberals like to believe their philosophy is somehow rooted in kindness.
The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper's ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats as well as to Republicans.
In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.
There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper's staff could not "keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff," and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.
A little payola, eh Michael? Well, at least Fumento must have done well at "Prostitute College."
That would explain the photo.
I wrote to Fumento a couple of times while I was in Iraq for some info on the latest research on depleted uranium. He was extremely gracious and helpful. He also got part of his foot blown off while embedded in Iraq, making him the kind of courageous journalist that Tim keeps bringing up, or would if he ever read conservatives.
I'd have no problem with a pundit being paid to write a piece in support of a cause if the piece were disclosed as an ad as opposed to the pundit's own view. It may well be his own opinion, which would explain why he was sought out by the sponsor, but there's a difference between advertising and reporting, just as there's a difference between reporting and editorializing.
The nipples are kind of small, though.
"mulatto"? My what a quaint epithet.
David,
Yeah I can't wait to see how Mark explains that!!!
peace
Cathy,
I'd like to address your attention to this admission:
It’s not like I begin every piece thinking, but is it good for the vast rightwing conspiracy?
We expect professionalism and loyalty from our opinion writers. So, when you pen the next column, remember to focus, focus, focus.
Yeah I can't wait to see how Mark explains that!!!
David E's opinion seems to be caught in a time warp of the 1950s ("...white supermacist customers whose business it values"----where's Bull Connor? Where are those whites-only lunch counters and bathrooms!?), so words like "negro" or "colored" come to mind.
And with you words like "smug honky asshole" come to mind.
And David, you're a half-honky half-asshole.
"Mulatto" and "smug honky asshole"?!?!?!?!? Both in one night. Brothers we can do better. Don't you think?
peace
Your comment reminds me of all the leftists who, when it comes to civil rights issues in particular, think and act as though they're caught in (and probably wish they were---because then they'd feel less irrelevant) the 1950s and 1960s.
Yeah, a real product of the '60s, that Galileo.
I'm with James, though it is hard to stick to the content of our character when Fumento is showing so much skin.
Am I the only one who saw the picture and just assumed Lewis was filling in again?
"he avalanche of junk science began on the left, not with Intelligent Design.
I wonder if Galileo would agree with you on that.
LYT"
That brings up the entire question of science and Christianity. There's an interesting book titled "For the Glory of God" that deals with that issue. I don't agree with everything the author (a sociology prof) writes but he makes good points that many of the stories about the Catholic Church and science date from anti-clericalists in the 19th century.
The "flat earth" story, for example, is a myth. The Spanish court who opposed Columbus' plans did so because he had the wrong longitude dimension and, had the Americas not been there, he would have starved. They knew the world was round and how large it was.
Galileo did run into resistance because Aristotle was dogma but Copernicus was employed by a bishop. Most scientists were religious clerics. For example, Albertus Magnus, the teacher of Thomas Aquinas, discovered arsenic and is the patron saint of scientists. The story of Galileo was embellished by the same anti-clerics.
Most scientists until the 18th century, were priests or monks. Where I disagree with the author (Stark) is that the Protestants were more productive in science, especially invention. The Edict of Nantes sent the Industrial Revolution to England with the Huguenots.
Scientists have never been known for good judgement.
Isaac Newton, perhaps the most famous scientist in history, was also an alchemist and a little odd. He noticed when he pressed on his eyelids in a dark room he would see lots of flashing colors. He then did the less than obvious followup. Isaac took a spoon and inserted it between his eyeball and socket to get better colors. He was nearly blinded. As a social recluse, he was quite the opposite of Feynman.
Uh, I don't get it. First off, I think that Cathy shouldn't be indicting Fumento with gossip. I don't care what people have 'long' been saying about Fumento. Heck, what critic of enviornmentalism *hasn't* been long accused of being in the pocket of corporate America?
Second, the 60k was for a book. In 1999. He started the column in 2003. I don't see how you can even begin to argue that this was pay-for-play. I suppose you could argue that he should disclose the book advance every time he mentions Monsanto...but I've seen little evidence that most columnists observe such a standard.
Third, you're misrepresenting his comments about Scripps-Howard. He isn't suggesting that he should get a pass on his sins because of his good service and no-pay status. He doesn't believe he committed any sins at all. He is annoyed that they dropped him without even bothering to get his side. I also find that troubling. Sounds very much like a witch hunt to me.
So...where's the beef?
Cathy - it's a cheap shot posting that picture of Fumento. He clearly explains why he posted that photo on his blog, and it wasn't for your commenters to critique his nipples or speculate on his sexuality. Your intent was to belittle the man - mission accomplished.
I've read and listened to Fumento for years, and have found his work to be solid and backed up with facts, not feelings or innuendo. With all due respect, I didn't read anything in your column that changes my opinion of the man.
I love your stuff, Cathy, but I fear you're allowing the 'no post is too outrageous' style of your most vocal commenters to infect your work. Please consider some deletions of your own. Wishing you the best,
"smug honky asshole"
Again, "asshole" not only is a commonly used epithet but it also refers to a part of the human anatomy associated with intimacy between many homosexual males.
David E, now do you understand why many people equate gays with grotesque or derogatory things?
Mark, hate to break it to you, but many straight couples also enjoy anal sex as well as oral sex. Your obsession with anal sex is puzzling.
"Am I the only one who saw the picture and just assumed Lewis was filling in again?"
No, Devin, you're not. My first thought when I saw it was what is Lewis up to now?
The article on NRO was very good. In a similar vein, this morning there was an article on Yahoo about how Richard Scrushy had paid a writer to put favorable articles about him in a black newspaper in Birmingham. If anyone followed his case, you'll know he become active in black churches and was acquited by a mostly black jury. I don't know how to post links in haloscan, but it's an interesting story.
Tim,
Ahhh, but Mark is on a crusade to prove that gay men are "defective."
peace
" In a similar vein, this morning there was an article on Yahoo about how Richard Scrushy had paid a writer to put favorable articles about him in a black newspaper in Birmingham. If anyone followed his case, you'll know he become active in black churches and was acquited by a mostly black jury. I don't know how to post links in haloscan, but it's an interesting story.
Kenneth from Alabama "
I was in Alabama during Scrushy's trial and his strategy was brilliant. It is also a very sad comment on the state of black juries. Everybody knew exactly what he was doing but it was still successful.
He didn't kill anybody, like OJ, but he was able to pull it off even though he is white. Amazing.
A friend of mine in Mississippi says her brother lives in "LA." Lower Alabama. It's another world. I did a bunch of medico-legal stuff with some hospitals in the Tuskaloosa area. Absolutely another world.
Another friend is a professor of OB/GYN. He took a job in Tuskaloosa at UAB. One of his colleagues came from a very old family that had owned a cotton plantation before the Civil War (The War Between the States if you live there).
When the cotton was harvested, it was packed into huge bales and hauled by wagon to the river to load on steamers. The bales were pushed off the bluff to fall down to the river bank.
This guy told him that slaves were used to haul the bales to the bluff but the plantation hired Irishmen to catch the bales at the bottom of the bluff. Slaves were too valuable for that work.
"Has anyone read a pro-biotech piece — or anything about Indian gambling, Bandow’s paid-for pet cause — that doesn’t practically smell like solicited spin?"
This assessment resonated with me. Sort of like, when you tune in Limbaugh or Prager, you can discern within two seconds whether he's doing content or a commercial -- before the words even register.
"Exciting biotech products," indeed. (Nobody should ever have to tell you something's "exciting." It is or it isn't, and it's your call.) The poison, ingested long ago, is still in Fumento's system.
And the pic is unwarranted.
Mike K.
What is the "state of black juries."
peace
I liked Fumento when he was the lone voice in the wilderness debunking the myth of the hetreosexual AIDS plague that was supposed to decimate the straight world twenty years ago and we're still waiting for. What I want to know is the answer to a question Jean Shepherd (now known mainly as the creator of A CHRISTMAS STORY but known to many of us as a late-night radio raconteur and satirist) posed decades ago: Where can I go to sell out? I've been a libertarian for about forty years, and during that time have earned a few shekels writing the occasional article and op-ed column, but not enough to suit me. I would love to become the paid lackey of some bloated moneybags, writing articles to promote ideas I believe in anyway. Where do I sign up?
Call L. Brent Bozell, Bilwick. I don't have his number myself but I'm sure "Mark" has him on speed-dial.
Last I checked Bozell wasn't a libertarian. Remember, David E.,I wrote that I wanted to be subsidized "to promote ideas I believe in anyway." You know, like a courtesan who only allows herself to be kept by men she likes and would probably go to bed with anyway. And when is that heterosexual AIDS plague the Gay Left pilloried Fumento for debunking going to hit, anyway? Do we have another ten years, at least? I'm still bitter about how the fictional hetero-AIDS plague killed off all the easy sex (with women) even guys like me were getting up until about 1983. Was there an "all clear"? If so, can someone notify the straight women of America?
"Mike K.
What is the "state of black juries."
peace
James "
I assume that this is a rhetorical question. You can't possibly be unaware of the existence of jury nullification in black juries. The rhetoric of defense lawyers about all those black men in prison ?
What was astonishing to me was how a rich white man could avoid conviction for multi-million dollar fraud by joining a black church, reading Bible verses on TV, singing at services and, by the way, donating a ton of money to the church. Do a Google search on Scrushy and get stories like this.
This might help.
You can't be that ignorant. Maybe your politics blind you to reality.
Anonymous.
Ah yes. My politics and reality. So now to ask a question is to be blind to reality. My.My. Who knew?
Yeah I've heard of jury nullification, but aside from the few infamous cases we can all point to are you telling me that people who are charged with a crime are not going to prison? Across the country prisons are filled. How is that fact connected to jury nullification. Maybe I should have come up with a better question: taking the infamous trials out of the mix, is there a significant difference in the conviction rates of predominately white juries when compared to predominately black juries?
peace
Sorry about the anonymous. HaloScan seems to forget personal info at times.
Maybe your question was sincere and,if so, I apologize for thinking it was rhetorical. Although your tone in the response does raise that question again.
"Anonymous.
Ah yes. My politics and reality. So now to ask a question is to be blind to reality. My.My. Who knew?
Yeah I've heard of jury nullification, but aside from the few infamous cases we can all point to are you telling me that people who are charged with a crime are not going to prison?"
It seems to be an issue. If you read the links, you'll see that law schools professors are concerned.
" Across the country prisons are filled. How is that fact connected to jury nullification."
Prisons are filled because of crime and a determination since the 70s to keep repeat offenders locked up. I think that's good policy. The NY Times doesn't and asks why are so many in prison when crime is down. That is a cart vs horse question that you and I might disagree on.
"Maybe I should have come up with a better question: taking the infamous trials out of the mix, is there a significant difference in the conviction rates of predominately white juries when compared to predominately black juries?"
It's tough to come up with data for obvious reasons. Charles Murray was demonized in 1995 when The Bell Curve came out. I was at Dartmouth at the time and, when people discovered I had a copy, a number asked me if they could borrow it. They didn't want to be seen buying it. That was before Amazon although the abuse of book reviews on Amazon continues with the new Kate O'Beirne book.
Here is one study.
As you can see, even white jurors tended to acquit black defendants.
Many of the cases mentioned in the links are drug cases, which raises another issue. I am ambivalent on drug laws. Many juries are too. The famous cases are so egregious, and data on routine cases so hard to come by, that I think it is an issue. Do you have any other explanation for the Scrushy verdict ?
In the spirit of full disclosure, I sent money to Sergeant Stacey Koon's family while he was in prison. That was a classic runaway jury. Koon saved Rodney King's life.
I also testified for a patient of mine who sued the LAPD in the 70s for a clear case of abuse that left him paraplegic and he got nothing. The pendulum had swung so far by 1992 that it made a felon dirt bag rich. And sent the cop, who prevented an inexperienced female CHP officer from shooting him, to prison.
"peace
James "
Likewise,
Mike K
the abuse of book reviews on Amazon continues with the new Kate O'Beirne book.
abuse of book reviews. poor little abused book reviews.
Awwwww, poor little defenseless Kate!
Ahhh, but Mark is on a crusade to prove that gay men are "defective."
I certainly think the absurdly high percentage of homosexuals who also gravitate to leftwing politics is defective. But generally, how many parents (including liberal ones) won't shudder or flinch just a bit if they happen to see their teenage son passionately kissing another male instead of a female?
A Gay Republican is like a Jewish Nazi.
I am ambivalent on drug laws. Many juries are too.
Keep in mind that our drug laws and the way we deal with dealers of narcotics in particular have been greatly affected by the generally crime-plagued nature of many predominantly black neighborhoods. Neighborhoods where a number of residents complain about the high crime rates----and having to put bars on their windows----and also about the cops not doing enough to stem them, and yet who at the same time often turn to liberal politicians and policies which favor coddle-the-criminal thinking and tactics.
You wrote a fine article and have made a fine post here.
Your new rule is also commendable and entirely welcome.
A Gay Republican is like a Jewish Nazi.
Once again, homosexuality frequently is so closely aligned and intertwined with loony liberal biases, that it's difficult to know where one begins and one leaves off.
Mark,
Sure. Okay. When you used the word "defective" to describe gay men, you were speaking just politics. Come on brother. No need to hide. Come out and say what you really think.
Mike K.
For the record: when I ask a question, I'm asking for clarification. I know on this forum, and others, people on opposite ends of the political spectrum are supposed to yell at each other and such, but that is not my way.
As for the other points: No I do not have an explanation of the Scrushy verdict, but I will say this: I may not agree with every verdict done by juries, but I do think it's the best system. And while we can all go crazy over the famaous cases, it is the everday ones that strike me as more telling. And we will disagree on the cart/horse question. Juries, as our prison population shows, are putting folk in jail.
I'm confused about "The Bell Curve" refrence, but will state in full disclosure, that I'm no fan of the book's authors and think at best it is fake science.
Tim
Not a Nazi metaphor?!?!?!?!? :-) So why can't gays be Republicans? Can't gays want smaller government and traditioanl values? I'm not a member of the GOP, but it strikes me democracy is served best when we simply disagree as opposed to making the Nazi reference.
peace
"I love your stuff, Cathy, but I fear you're allowing the 'no post is too outrageous' style of your most vocal commenters to infect your work. Please consider some deletions of your own. Wishing you the best, (Dean)
----------------
That's actually one of the most interesting statements I've read here in a long time.
Without any hidden agenda, I'd appreciate reading something to further clarify that. It's thought-provoking.
Because the Republican Party is a self-defined, homophobic organization.
I was responding to Marks comment about gays who are liberal/leftist being defective.
I wasn't equating Nazi and Republican.
Because the Republican Party is a self-defined, homophobic organization.
And I guess the Democrat Party, in turn, is heterophobic.
Liberals in general seem to be bisexual-phobic, because they don't like emphasizing the free will and free choice of human nature, evident among many gay people, males in particular, whose life history is one of switching back and forth between same-sex and opposite-sex partners and relationships.
Tim,
Well one could also make the same charge of the Democratic Party. It isn't like the Dems are filled with gay loving folk. Jeeesh, you had operatives blaming the loss in 04 on gays and lesbians (could the lousy campaign of Kerry be the real reason?).
Listen I think we are all big enough to accept that the GOP is the party for some gay folk. Nothing wrong with that.
peace
ps: just for the record: in case any of you are wondering how I get all the time in to write these beautiful words blame unemployment :-)
So why can't gays be Republicans?
If over 80 to 90 percent of homosexuals suddenly became centrist to rightist instead of liberal to leftist, I bet people like Tim wouldn't be quite as enamored of the idea that gays are like Rosa Parks, or quite as bothered by the specter of gay bashing.
The Scrushy verdict may be a combination of his full court press on the black Christian community and the government's dependence on the CFO's testimony with it's intrinsic conflict of interest. Understanding the complexities of accounting is beyond what can be expected of nearly all juries, black or white. Another long smoldering case, Medical Manager, just resulted in 10 indictments and will be interesting to watch. The DoJ has flipped 4 folks and indicted an additional 10. At least one of those that I follow has been padding his Christian credentials.
Another Christian wrapped example of executive excess is Craig Winn and his short lived IPO documented by one of his VP's in "Dot Bomb." I don't believe the class action guys even got a piece of him (just the insurance). He's a really skilled pitch man.
OTOH, Martha went down for lying rather than trading on insider information. They didn't even have a tape of the "lying" just scribbled notes. But lying is a lot easier to explain to a jury than insider info arcana and what Martha did had never before been considered illegal - just smelly. Something she probably knew from her stint as a stockbroker.
From this: "I’d like to see more criticism of op-ed payola from the right as well as the left, because people like Bandow and Fumento really aren’t doing their side of the political spectrum much good. Or even, when you think about it, the clients that pay them to write this pap. Has anyone read a pro-biotech piece — or anything about Indian gambling, Bandow’s paid-for pet cause — that doesn’t practically smell like solicited spin?" - Cathy
To: A discussion of a man's proper nipple size and homosexuality (who's fer and agin it).
Yup. Exactly the kind of assurance a writer might like -- you know... just to be certain that he or she is being understood sometimes. We're doing a bang-up job of that here for sure.
And the pic is unwarranted.
Yeah, what a cheap shot to reproduce an embarrassing photo that ... Fumento hismelf posted on his public website the same week he's in the news for an ethical cock-up & wild-eyed, unrepentant self-defense.
It would be nice if the comments section actually had something to do with Cathy's post. Instead it usually turns in to all gay all the time. You may want to delete off topic comments wehther they are pro gay or anti (see how fair I am).
Bill,
Fair point. So I promise not to respond to any more of Mark's comments when he feels a need to opine about sexuality.
peace
"You may want to delete off topic comments wehther they are pro gay or anti (see how fair I am)."
If you've been reading this blog for the last year or so, you'd be aware that this plea has fallen on deaf ears many times in the past - so don't hold your breath on that score.
But at least give James some props for trying.
It would be nice if the comments section actually had something to do with Cathy's post.
Well, the social-cultural agenda of the people described by Lawrence O'Donnell in Cathy's post does include issues like the belief that gays are the new Rosa Parks and that only cruel and inhumane Republicans/rightists want to maintain laws that uphold traditional marriage.
things were better, O’Donnell muses, “way, way back when the Democrats had big majorities in the House and Senate
It INCLUDES them, eh?
Oh gee whiz, please pardon me for my stupidity. I must be missing things all over the place.
(But mightn't David E. use the same reasoning to his own effects?)
Curtis, I am on record here praising Cathy's column.
One fo the things I like about cathy is while I may disagree with her on any number of topics she never states her case from an ideologically loaded position. Almost all her columns concern real ordinary everyday life as she's lived it. Conservative points arise quite naturally out of the give and take of everyday living
(eg. the Trader Joe's Dads). She doesn't propagandize but states her case in clear, and above all practical terms.
And now back to our regularly scehduled Mark-baiting:
"Keep in mind that our drug laws and the way we deal with dealers of narcotics in particular have been greatly affected by the generally crime-plagued nature of many predominantly black neighborhoods."
Is that where Rush was sending his maid to score oxy, Mark?
David, I'm aware of your having praised Cathy's column. The point I made regarding Mark still seems to apply, though.
The exchange the two of you have isn't actually enlightening -- repetition wears down the points to dullness after awhile, just as a river's effects on rocks midstream smoothens them. Some of that is understandable (repetition can be useful), but too much is too much.
As I've wriiten before, you are an accomplished individual whose work deserves notice. I applaud you for that.
Mark is anonymous. Whatever his points, David E,. he's anonymous. I'm genuinely puzzled that you would take the time to respond so directly -- you empower that stuff by doing so.
I must be missing things all over the place.
Yea, you are. Certainly when a current movie that is receiving a variety of awards----and which undoubtedly is pleasing the sad-poor-gays-need-civil-rights-too crowd----pertains to homo/bisexuality, and when a not-insignificant portion of liberal America (culturally, if not also politically/economically) wants to keep pushing concepts like same-sex marriage.
Is that where Rush was sending his maid to score oxy, Mark?
No, it's one of those neighborhoods that even you----who awhile back claimed to have a residence near south central LA----tend to avoid living or spending much time in.
Oh so Rush DOES like African-Americans. Just so long as they're perps.
(You see, Curtis? How can I possibly resist free entertainment like this?)
Mark, as I trust you're aware I don't like "Brokeback Mountain" at all.
Mark, nice try, but no cigar.
Either admit downright stupidity regarding reading the clear signals or keep on doing what you're doing.
You've made mockery of your points, Mark. Prove to me (which is doubtful under any scenario) that wasn't your purpose in the first place.
Your anonimity is pointless. Just as you have made some other points to be.
You're a coward, Mark.
"(You see, Curtis? How can I possibly resist free entertainment like this?)" - David E.
------
Gee, David, I know some skeptics who'd believe Mark to be nearly a perfect construction of your own mind.
(Yikes What a dreadful thought!)
Prove to me (which is doubtful under any scenario) that wasn't your purpose in the first place.
I detect a soft spot in your heart for the gay-rights agenda.
BTW, I don't take such social-cultural issues lightly when, for example, the US Supreme Court not long ago was only one vote away from forcing the Boy Scouts of America to drop their bylaws that disallow homosexuals from serving as Scout Masters. Or the various city councils here and there that more recently have actively reprimanded the Boy Scouts for maintaining such a policy.
Mark, I don't respond to this stuff. Get effin real someday.
(Another nice try, though.)
(Yikes What a dreadful thought!)
Hmm, another indication that if one scratches below the surface, one will discover that Curtis really is a closeted (ie, socially, if not economically/politically) leftwinger!
Holy smokes, David E.! Was that you?
Shame on you!
Mark, you just stepped on a touchstone -- now I know you're a fraud.
you just stepped on a touchstone
Yea, I know----you have a soft spot in your heart for the liberal-gay-rights agenda, and that therefore brings up your resentment towards comments that run counter to that agenda.
To the so-called "Mark,"
You screwed up.
Now, it's only a matter of finding who you "serve."
Do you like that language? Sounds different when applied to you, doesn't it?
You're a coward, Mark.
I know you are, but what am I?
You're gay, Pee Wee.
You screwed up.
Naw----I got your number. I can tell you lean left when it comes to the controversies that involve homosexuality.
You're gay, Pee Wee.
I know you are, but what am I?
"the abuse of book reviews on Amazon continues with the new Kate O'Beirne book.
abuse of book reviews. poor little abused book reviews.
leigh "
So you think that 500 negative reviews by people who haven't read the book are helpful ?
Why not just post a review that says "I'm a lefty."
Mark, each and every response of the type you've made this evening is cowardly.
You seem to have the idea that an attack on me worries me.
Continue trying it. Frauds are of little concern.
It's simply over, Mark.
Some of the points made under your name will continue to be discussed, but not so much because of you as they will be in spite of you.
In that respect, people of different persuasions tend more often to need a nudger than an avalanche, which seems to be your specialty. David E. would be hurt if I didn't include him here, so I will.
But consider something, Mark, you've had a pretty good run with the anonimity (well over 10 or 15 minutes of fame).
At some point, Mark, we tune out.
You seem to have the idea that an attack on me worries me.
I've merely said you lean left when it comes to the gay-rights agenda. Since you bring up non-sequiturs ("coward this, coward that" anonymous this, anonymous that") instead of dealing with the core of my observation, I have no reason to believe I'm misstating your take on things.
I'll soon run out of my patience with you, Mark.
I know you. It's over, that's all.
For your views to have credibility, get a real identity.
It's that simple.
Some of what you've said (over time) I agree with.
Once you have that (a personal identity), we'll visit.
I deeply, deeply wish that Amazon would give a way to only look at reviews of people who have bought the book from amazon (and statistical summaries of same, because I'm that sort of geek).
There's a reason I put my full name on my internet posts.
In re: Fumento. I'd thought reasonably well of him until he made several major errors during the SARS epidemic. The first editorial had him talking about the Spanish Flu, and pulling numbers completely out of nowhere. The second showed a lack of understanding epidemiology -- in the middle of an epidemic, he cited numbers on alive after catching the disease vs. dead from the disease and claimed this ratio as the mortality rate. But there were a lot of people who still had the disease, and are two options for the infected: fight off the disease or die. You can't count people in an indeterminate state as survivors. The actual death rate from SARS was thus much higher than he claimed.
Ahhh, but Mark is on a crusade to prove that gay men are "defective."
I think that he's just proving that David is defective. And quite effectively.
Odysseus,
Mark has on this site gone on record to describe gay men as "defective." Here are his words:
"It's one reason I think of male homosexuals as being, well, defective, certainly when it comes to their olfactory senses and hygiene."
He makes no mention of David at all. This idea of his pertains to all gay men. In later missives he said his logic was also based on the voting habits of gay men.
Jeesh. Am I breaking my own promise to stick to what Cathy wrote?!?!?!?! :-)
peace
Much like Mark, I have a theory.
I have a theory that if, as he occasionally postulates, 90% of gay men suddenly became moderate to conservative, he would still dislike them and keep bringing up Marlon Brando as some kind of justification why.
For your views to have credibility, get a real identity.
Again, a non-sequitur. What does my identity have to do with the issue of your liberal biases towards homosexuality?
This idea of his pertains to all gay men.
Homosexuality, as is the case with color blindness, dyslexia or Tourette's Syndrome, is a defect. However, since a ridiculously high percentage of gay people also gravitate towards a leftist philosophy---which often rejects the idea of conformity, or the concept of when in Rome, do as the Romans do----it's difficult to know where that ends and their sexuality begins.
he would still dislike them
I bet it's far more likely that people who lean left, possibly including even yourself, would lose their enthusiasm for gay rights if a high percentage of homosexuals suddenly became truly centrist to rightwing.
Meanwhile, the nonsensical left and homosexuality march arm in arm, as the following is in today's Washington Post.
BTW, the fact that homosexual males and females are labeled differently (ie, "gay" and "lesbian") not only makes such people sound like a sub-species of the human race, but it shows that even our modern language discriminates towards homosexuals by creating two separate categories---one for male "gays," another for female "gays":
Three months before the annual Easter egg roll at the White House, the usually festive event is already taking on a divisive edge because of plans by gay- and lesbian-led families to turn out en masse in hopes of raising their public profile.
The Family Pride Coalition and other organizers envision the April 17 action as a celebration that will earn goodwill and showcase their families engaging in the annual tradition.
A Baltimore judge ruled yesterday that Maryland's law banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory and "cannot withstand constitutional challenge," throwing open the possibility of a bruising legislative battle over a constitutional amendment.....the judge's decision thrilled the 19 gay men and lesbians who filed suit last year after being denied marriage licenses in courthouses across the state.
Well, if they truly all became right-wing, they'd stop wanting rights. And if they did that, I guess there'd be no more reason to fight for them.
which often rejects the idea of conformity, or the concept of when in Rome, do as the Romans do
In ancient Rome, people buggered their male slaves. Is that the kind of conformity you'd like?
Well, if they truly all became right-wing, they'd stop wanting rights.
Oh, really?
I bet most of the people promoting or sympathizing with these type of meddlesome, nanny-state laws lean left politically/culturally:
Nestled amid rolling hills on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, Calabasas has become an unlikely trailblazer in the debate over secondhand smoke — and even some nonsmokers wonder whether their upscale suburb has gone too far. The city of 30,000 this week adopted an ordinance — considered by experts to be one of the toughest in the nation — strictly regulating smoking in public places. The rule bans smoking in outdoor spaces when other people are in the area.
The push has been the brainchild of Mayor Barry Groveman, a former prosecutor of environmental crimes who co-wrote California's landmark Proposition 65, a 1986 law requiring businesses to provide warnings if they expose people to potentially dangerous substances.
The City Council has also been debating proposals that would ban smoking in cars that children are riding in, as well as on apartment patios, though no action has been taken on those ideas.
Groveman said the city had received thanks from residents who are glad it was trying to protect their health.
The Calabasas effort is the latest push to make it harder to smoke in public spaces in the Southland. Two years ago, some cities along the Southern California coast approved bans on beach smoking.
In ancient Rome, people buggered their male slaves.
Such disegenuousness. You know exactly the thrust of the meaning or symbolism behind the phrase "when in Rome..."
"exactly the thrust"
Yep, you got me there.
Ms. Lambert, I'm not saying that there aren't or haven't been heterosexuals with AIDS. If you reread my post you'll see that I used the word "plague," and I did this because I was referring to the literal plague--and I mean as widespread among straights as among Gays--that the media prophesied was just around the corner. Straight people were going to start dropping like cartoon bugs in an insecticide commercial from all the wild sex we had with each other in the Seventies and pre-scare Eighties. The scare seemed to be one of the rare instances wherein the Gay Left and the Religious Right were in agreement. I remember Fumento as one of the rare dissenting voices, and as I recall, he was the object of some pretty rabid "hate speech" for his maverick position. Am I remembering incorrectly? (And yes, I know from the MSM that only "right-wingers" are guilty of "hate speech" but I don't know what else to call it.) If that plague eventually did hit, with the apocalyptic fury that was prophesied, it was certainly THE under-reported story of the Nineties.
Mark, you are to a T what I learned nearly 40 years ago about disinformation.
Time catches up with some people and you're one of them.
The only thing more embarassing that Seipp's childish attacks on Fumento over a meaningless, journalist-created faux scandal is that it appears right between two blog entries in which Seipp complains about other journalists' attempts to do the exact same thing to her, for the same reason. Yet we're all supposed to gloat over Fumento but feel sorry for Seipp because .... um ... why, exactly?
According to an e-mail I got from Mr. Fumento, if you are a man creeped out by this photo, then you are gay (open or repressed). If your a woman..come on, you know you want him.
I am a woman, and I actually find a man with a brain extremely attractive. Fumento has written on more scientific topics than most journalists could ever stomach, and he makes the reading as comprehensive and interesting as he can. And omigawd, he received a book grant once. Well, if that does negate all of his work and bring his nipples to the forefront of the scandal. Cathy, get a life, get a career, get a face, and get a brain and maybe you and your trolling followers would be worth reading. No one learns anything here. It is all personal opinion and gossip. What a waste of time.
i read Fumento's article. i read Cathy's world regularly. Can't quite figure out where the roughness started. but clearly, the accusation against Fumento isn't convincing. out of the gate, i'm normally inclined toward Cathy's perspective, but not here. i would need more insight. and geez, you have to sort through numerous comments abouts nipples and evaluations of photos. i guess i don't care if fumento is gay or looks the part, i just was attempting to find out if he's really bought. maybe later.
My sense is that Eamon Javers is to Michael Fumento what the NCAA is to "hostile and abusive" college mascots or nicknames.
Fumento in the National Review:
Read the Business Week piece. It takes three whole minutes. Nowhere does it say I took money for any column or story. It says I solicited a grant from Monsanto for a biotechnology book I was working on. (It doesn't say, but should, that such solicitations from philanthropies and corporations are the general rule for writers of policy books.) It says my think-tank employer accepted the grant and paid me a salary while I worked on the book.
Using a bizarre set of rules that writer Eamon Javers made up on the spot, applied specifically to my circumstances, and then made retroactive, Javers decided — bizarre though it sound — that a book grant received in 1999 should be disclosed in columns written in 2006 — and presumably forever.
USA Today:
With Florida State having prevailed against a new NCAA restriction on the use of Native American nicknames and imagery, at least three other schools with close ties to local tribes are preparing appeals.
Officials at Utah, which is working with the Utes; North Dakota, working with the Sioux, and Central Michigan, working with the Chippewas, said Wednesday they are hopeful of having their names removed from an original list of 18 schools the NCAA deemed as having "hostile or abusive" nicknames or mascots.
Seems to me Fumento made Cathy look like an idiot numerous times, and she certainly shouldn't be commenting on other people's looks based on her photo on this blog.
Pathetic.
Commenting by HaloScan
