For the Love of God, Why do Catholics Allow Bill Donohue To Speak For Them?

From time to time, William Donohue allows the simmering pustule of rage that is slowly devouring his very soul to interfere with his ability to reason clearly. Thus, this press release:

NOT ALL SEXUAL ABUSE IS EQUAL
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a news story about a former priest who molested a male listed as John Doe:

On September 28, the Chicago Tribune reported that "former Chicago priest and convicted sex offender Daniel McCormick sexually abused him [Doe] while he was a grammar school student." We then learn that the student was really a middle-school student, in the eighth grade, when the abuse began.

Middle school? Well, why didn't you say so? Case Dismissed!

The abuse reportedly continued for five years. According to the lawsuit, "McCormack inappropriately sexually touched, hugged, rubbed and/or abused Doe." It's time to ask some tough questions. Why did this young man not object earlier?

Yes, why wouldn't a Catholic teen defy a priest? It's not as though he had been taught from birth to respect the authority of the clergy!

Why did he allow the "abuse" to continue until he was 18?

Dude, what's with the quotes?

The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing.

Ah. And as we all know, rubbing is not abuse. Unless it leads to dancing!

the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.

Glacial? Usually one uses the term glacial to indicate extreme slowness, as in "The movie's plot advanced at a glacial pace." One might use it to indicate coldness, I suppose, but I have never heard the term used to indicate vastness. It's not really important, it's just odd.

Here's what we know. We know that this case, like most of them, was the work of a homosexual, not a pedophile.

Oh, thank God! If that poor kid had been jerked off by a pedophile, then that would be super-abusive! As long as the "rubbing" was done by a chickenhawk, I'm sure no harm was done.

And like most of the cases of priestly sexual misconduct, there was no rape involved.

If there was no rape, you must let the defendant escape!
If rape was not committed, the priest must be acquitted!
If he did not sodomize, the rubbing is justified!

Inappropriate touching is morally wrong, and the offenders should be punished, but the time has come to object to all those pundits who like to say that the scandal is all about child rape. Most of the cases did not involve children—they were post-pubescent males—and most weren't raped.

Seriously, what's the big deal? What's a little sexual assault between teenage boys and the men they are taught to view as God's representatives here on Earth? Jeez, it's not like anyone got literally raped! Although, if I'm being honest, I don't recall hearing anyone say "child rape." It's usually referred to as "sexual abuse" or "molestation." Of course, I'm not blinded and deafened by fury and a persecution complex, so maybe it sounds different to you. Anyway, I don't really see why this matters.

Why does this matter? Because those looking to sue the Catholic Church for being inappropriately rubbed decades ago are not exactly the poster boys for the victims of child rape.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. They're not the poster boys for the victims of child rape. Are you implying that these lawsuits are somehow frivolous? That because these boys were not technically children or technically raped, they don't have a legitimate beef? I don't even get what point you're trying to make here.

And because those who hate the Church continue to use the term child rape as a way of discrediting the Church. They lie about this being a pedophilia problem and they lie about the nature of the misconduct. That’s reason enough to call them on it.

Bill? Bill? Who touched you, Bill? Was it a priest? Is that what's going on here? You took it like a man when Father McTouchy made you do stuff, and now you're angry that these other boys are whining about it? They're telling people about the special secrets and they're going to ruin everything. Is that it Bill? You didn't know that you could object. You didn't know you could tell the police. You knew they'd never believe you anyway, right Billy? So you took it and you never cried and you never complained, and now these boys are getting sympathy? And getting paid? Getting rich because they weren't strong enough to take it like a man? Is that what's bothering you, Billy? Because you can get help. There are doctors you can talk to who will help you. And they won't touch you, Bill. They won't make you touch them. And they won't make you keep secrets, Billy. You can tell the truth. You can tell what happened, and you'll fell better. Maybe you won't be so angry all the time. Maybe the nightmares will stop, Billy. maybe you can start to become a normal person.

Todd Palin Says things on the E-Mail

This is what Todd Palin (Secret Service code name: "Who?") e-mailed to some people named "Joe" and "Tim," one of whom is apparently Joe Miller:
(via Wonkette)

Joe and Tim,
Hold off on any letter for Joe. Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe
and yet he can’t answer a simple question

” is Sarah Palin Qualified to be President”. I DON’T KNOW IF SHE IS.

Okay, couple of things. First, Sarah endorsed nutbag Joe Miller, she didn't exactly put her ass on any lines for him. There wasn't a lot of personal risk involved in saying "hey, if you like dummies, vote for my dumb friend Joe Miller. He's the dumbest!" What, was Lisa Murkowski going to beat her up after homeroom? (by the way, I think all we need to know about the electorate of Alaska is this: Lisa Murkowski is having to run YouTube ads teaching people how to spell her name. Her name is spelled phonetically. It's not like Mike Krzyzewski is running a write-in campaign.)

Second, if someone asks you "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president?" "I don't know" is about the kindest thing you can say. It's better than saying "President of what?" or "Sure, just like I'm qualified to be Thor, the mighty god of thunder!" or "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!"

But it gets better. Because Todd goes on to add this:

Sarah spent all morning working on a Face book post for Joe, she won’t
> use it, not now.

All morning? She spent all morning working on a Facebook post? Oh, yeah, she's obviously qualified to be the POTUS!

Writing shit on Facebook, that's something teenagers do one-handed while pretending to listen to their geometry teacher. How could that possibly take all morning?

Of course, Todd's fifth-grade playground tone might be the most pathetic part of the whole thing. "well now she's not gonna write something nice on your Facebook, so nyah nyah nyah!"
Ooh, that'll show 'im!

And in a stunning display of, I don't even know what to call it, Todd adds this:

Joe, please explain how this endorsement stuff works, is it to be
completely one sided.

Yeah, it's not supposed to be a quid pro quo, you stupid ignoramus. If you're only endorsing someone in the hopes of getting an endorsement from him in return, then your endorsement means nothing. And if Joe Miller throws his support behind your idiot wife because she supported him, then he's just another dishonest politician, swapping favors and saying shit he doesn't believe.

Maybe you just ought to stay off the interwebs altogether. better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, eh?

Thank You, Captain Obvious

FBI: Stripper, drugs & judge a bad mix

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering whether that would be a good mix.

Head-Hurtingly Stupid Quote of the Day

"They don't like animals"
--Anita Andrews from Alliance For Truth

At first glance, that doesn't seem stupid at all. But here's what makes it migraine-inducing stupid: The "they" she refers to, it's the Humane Society of the United States."

Yep, the Humane Society just plain don't like them animals!

So how did this quote come to be? Well, surprisingly, Tea-baggers are involved!

TPMMuckraker

Missouri Tea Partiers, Joe The Plumber Join Movement Against 'Radical' Anti-Puppy Mill Legislation

Jillian Rayfield | October 5, 2010, 8:51AM

A conservative group in Missouri is picking up the backing of the Tea Party and Joe The Plumber in its quest to stop the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups from passing "radical" anti-puppy mill legislation.

You would think the teabaggers would have bigger fish to fry, what with the impending Commu-Nazi takeover and the death panels and what not, but no. They really really love their puppy mills. Or maybe they just love being mean to dogs, who knows?

The measure, which can be read in full here, is called Proposition B or the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act."

"This measure would provide common sense standards for the care of dogs," Markarian [the Chief Operating Officer of the HSUS] told TPM, including sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things. Markarian said the measure only applies to "commercial dog breeding facilities" that have more than 10 breeding females who they use for "producing puppies for the pet trade."

Or so they would have you believe!

Well, according to the Alliance For Truth, the main force behind the anti-Prop B movement, there is something much more nefarious afoot (er, apaw) in the HSUS measure. The Alliance For Truth claims that the HSUS has a "radical agenda" and is "misleading the public with its intentions on Prop B. The society seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners."

That's right, the Humane Society goes to all the trouble and expense of organizing volunteers into a society, raising money, holding meetings, all the falderal that comes with being a non-profit organization just so they can make it harder for families to own dogs. That's the principle around which the entire group is organized. Like cartoon villains, they seek no personal gain for themselves, only the promotion of evil for the sake of evil.

Oh, you want me to take time out of my busy schedule to come down to the animal shelter and work for no pay? Gee, I don't know, what would be the point? Oh! Well, if we're making it harder for little Timmy to get a puppy, then count me in! Me and all my nefarious friends! I don't really even have any personal beef with little Timmy, I just don't like animals! Therefore, I am glad to donate my time to see that cruel, inhumane puppy mills are shut down.

So, would anyone like to jump in here and make this even stupider?

Yes, sir. You had your hand up?

The Alliance For Truth also has the support of some better-known conservative activists, like Joe 'The Plumber' Wurzelbacher, who wrote on the Alliance For Truth site that the HSUS is "cowardly hiding behind animal cruelty, lying to our citizens and taking our constitutional rights away - one state at a time."

Oh, God!

Yeah, Joe. That's right. The Humane Society has no interest in animal cruelty, they just see this issue as an opportunity to take away our rights. That's what they're doing. You got 'em. The jig is up. The Humane Society's real goal is to go from state to state taking people's rights away. Yeah, some folks thought it was the Freemasons behind all the dastardly plots, some thought it was the Bilerbergers. Nope, it's the freakin Humane Society. And now that you're on to us, Mr. The Plumber, I have no choice but to eliminate you! Bwahahahahaha!!!!

What? A guy can dream, can't he?

Dear God, Why Is Ben Stein Still Around?

Like, I assume, most normal people, I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Ben Stein until I saw "Ferris Beuler's Day Off" back in 1980-something. And like most everyone, I found it amusing to hear him say "Anyone? Anyone? Beuuuuuhler?" in a flat, expressionless monotone. Then some ad exec saw that and said to himself "Hey, if it's funny once, it's bound to be funny ten thousand fucking times," and soon Stein was doing ads for Chips Ahoy, and Clear Eyes, and Comcast, and then some credit-score scam, and everyone just wanted to throw a shoe through the TV screen whenever they heard that dull, dreary sound of pure tedium. Then I didn't see him for a while, and I had hope again. Hope that finally, finally, Ben Stein had retired from "acting" or died or whatever, just so long as he was out of public life. Then today, I saw this:

Here in Atlanta, some ridiculous little jagoff organization called "Seize The Day" is throwing a circle-jerk rally at Philips Arena, home of the Hawks, Thrashers, and the smell of failure. And who's that, second from the right? Ben Fucking Stein!

He's everybody's favorite deadpan teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." But in real life, Ben Stein is a brilliant writer, lawyer, actor, social and political commentator and financial expert. With his distinctive voice and offbeat style, Ben dissects today's economy and helps audiences balance life's priorities, even as he offers an eye-opening tour of its greatest absurdities.

Absurdities? What know you of absurdities, Mr. Stein? Ben Stein having an acting career, now that's an absurdity! Ben Stein being referred to a "brilliant writer?" well, let's see:

Ben Stein: Raising My Taxes Is a Punishment

Asks: If Raising Taxes Won't Help Economy, Why Am I Being Punished?

Oh, so many reasons. So many reasons to punish you, Ben.
Let's begin with the dishonest sub-headline.
If raising taxes won't help the economy, then why. . .? You could apply that logic to anything.
If eating breakfast won't help the economy, then why should I bother to pour milk on my Lucky Charms?
Here's a thought - maybe it's not about helping the economy. Maybe it's about paying down some of the debt you conservatives are supposedly so concerned about.

I am a fairly upper income taxpayer. Not anything even remotely close to sports stars or movie stars or financial big boys. But I am above the level Mr. Obama says makes me rich. [also the level that EVERYONE ELSE says makes you rich] So, in the midst of a severe recession, I am to have my taxes raised dramatically.

Dramatically? Really? Are you really serious?

I am not quite sure what my sin is.

Um, here's a hint:

I worked for almost every dollar I have, except for a small percentage my parents left me by virtue of hard work and Spartan living, and most of that was taken by the federal estate tax.

Okay, that's a lie. According to Wikipedia, your father died in 1999. In 1999, the estate tax didn't kick in until after the first $650,000.00, and after that, the very tippy-top rate it could reach was 55%. A significant percentage, but hardly "most."
And your father was an economist, which is a perfectly legitimate profession, but let's not pretend that he was out digging ditches for a living. According to Wikipedia he was: a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was on the board of contributors of The Wall Street Journal, so not exactly back-breaking work, collecting wingnut welfare.

I have a hell of a lot less than I did before the stock market and real estate market crashes.

Oh, no! Your un-earned income is going down! Someone get this man a tax break, stat!
Thank God you still get paid by the syndicator to complain about how little income you have!

I didn't get a bailout or any part of a stimulus program, except for traffic jams as the roads in Beverly Hills got worked on for the 10th time in the last 10 years (or so it seems).

How did you not get a bailout? Clearly, you and your Beverly Hills neighbors are struggling as badly as GM! And it must be rough having your streets worked on all the time. I'll think a kind thought for you next time the West Atlanta potholes destroy my alignment.

I pay my income taxes, and after them and the commissions I pay my agent, I am left with about 35 cents for every dollar I earn.

If your agent is able to get YOU acting gigs, count yourself lucky that he=is commission isn't your immortal soul!

I own some real estate in California and Idaho and the District of Columbia. Naturally, I pay property tax, supposedly mostly to educate local children. Not far from me, the city of Los Angeles just spent about $600 million to build the most lavish school in America for about 4,000 children. That's my money. Naturally, I had no say in it.

Oh, yeah that's tough. I remember feeling the same way when I had no say in whether my tax dollars were going to fund an illegal, ill-advised, immoral pointless war that you neocons insisted on. But yeah, kids having nice schools to go to, that's a real bitch. that's way worse than seeing kids coming home in body bags and thinking that's my tax dollars at work.

I am not asking for any tears.

Then shut the fuck up! Not asking for any tears? Then what the hell is this whinefest all about? ooh, I'm being punished! Ooh, my inheritance got taken! Ooh, I have to pay for schools! You don't want any tears? Bitch, please!

I am not asking for any tears. I live a great life, have a fabulous wife, a great son and daughter-in-law, four wonderful, furry dogs and six cats, all adopted. I have more than enough to eat.

But what I don't get is this: There is no known economic theory under which raising my taxes in the midst of a severe recession will help the economy recover.

Goddammit, we already went over this!

It isn't part of any well known monetarist or Keynesian theory. So if it does no good to raise our taxes, I assume we are being punished.

You know, I'm pretty sure you're smarter than this. I think you're purposely using this specious argument because you know that your readers are easily fooled. It won't help the economy recover, therefore it does no good? You know what else doesn't help the economy recover? You writing your stupid dishonest column. Therefore your column does no good, so I can only assume that your readers are being punished.

But for what? I don't own slaves. I employ a lot of people full- and part-time and they are all happy with their pay. When charity calls, I almost always write out a check. I don't have a yacht or ponies or a plane. My wife doesn't wear a tiara. I don't gamble.

Hey, I don't own slaves either! Neither does anyone else I know. Maybe no one should have to pay taxes! It's not fair that even though I own zero slaves, my money is still taken to build roads, and have a police department, and have mail delivered to my doorstep. What did I do wrong that I should have to pay for hospitals and national parks and the Marine Corps?

What did I do wrong? I know I have often lost my temper with my wife and the cats, but that's not a crime, yet. I tried to be successful, which is what I thought I was supposed to do. When did it turn out that was a crime to be punished? Maybe when the economy recovers, raising my taxes makes sense, but for now, it's just punishment, and I can't figure out what for.

Really? You can't figure it out? Here's a hint: