Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Of all the voices on the right, Mike Adams is one of the most grating to me. He's virulently anti-gay and he's a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina as well as a columnist for various right wing outlets. His latest column is absolutely appalling in its casual equation of homosexuality with child molestation and the obvious leaps of logic required to justify that equation -- all prompted by a deep-seated hatred for gay people that is palpably obvious.
The story he is discussing is even more appalling if the charges are true. A former Duke University professor is charged with soliciting men to rape his adopted five year old son. If true, that's about as heinous a crime as one can imagine and the man deserves to suffer enormously for it.
Unsurprisingly, Adams uses this as an occasion to tar homosexuals -- as if that was the man's crime! Here's one of the obvious cultural truths, in this country at least: Members of any minority group are inevitably judged on the conduct of their worst members, while members of the majority are never judged by the conduct of theirs. And while the conduct of their worst members will always be used to smear all other members of the minority group, that is never true of the majority.
Adams has some truly weird complaints about one press article about this case.
It is interesting that the first demographic mentioned is age, as opposed to race or sexual orientation. As I proceed with my commentary it may be worthwhile to ask, once again, a question I will ask now: Is Frank Lombard's age the most relevant demographic variable in relation to the charges to which he agreed to plead guilty?...But to acknowledge that "M.L" is the son, not daughter, of Frank Lombard is to acknowledge that Lombard is gay. And the Gods of Diversity frown upon the notion that males can be victims of rape and that the perpetrators can be homosexual men.
And to acknowledge the race of the victim is to suggest that homosexuals might be capable of committing hate crimes, even if they do not play Lacrosse. Hate crimes legislation is supposed to protect, not prosecute, gay men.
And, finally, there should be no mention (yet) that his son was adopted. The public, when confronted with such information, might use it to form dangerous opinions - such as the opinion that gay men should not be adopting little boys.
Where to begin? First of all, I don't think any demographic variable is particularly relevant to the crime. The man is 42; does that fact indict other 42 year olds? He's also white; does that fact indict white people? Does the fact that he's adopted a child indict those who adopt children? Adams makes none of those claims, of course.
But one demographic variable matters to Adams -- coincidentally the one variable he has spent his entire adult life obsessing about. He picks out one demographic trait of one vile (alleged) criminal and uses it to tar every other person in that group.
Never mind that pedophiles rarely pay much attention to the gender of their victims, often raping both girls and boys without distinction. Their pathology is entirely distinct from one's sexual preference.
But why does he take a single example to reach such a broad conclusion and ignore other, far more compelling statistics? 96% of all child molesters are male. So why isn't Adams arguing that men should be kept away from children? 95% of all child molesters know their victims and 1/3 of all child molesters victimized their own children. If one instance of molestation by one gay adoptive father is enough to prompt a call to prevent gay men from adopting, surely the hundreds of thousands of instances of straight fathers molesting their own children should prompt similar calls to keep fathers away from their daughters, right?
Of course not. But you can now see the kind of special pleading that Adams has to engage in to justify his position. He can't apply his reasoning consistently without reaching all kinds of bizarre and unwarranted conclusions. But since one of those bizarre and unwarranted conclusions fits his pathological hatred of gay people, he'll just pick out that one and ignore the other implications of his argument. Very convenient.
Politics
Comments
What a vile excuse for a human Adams is. He is not alone in 'confusing' pedophilia with homosexuality. I was a scout leader for many years and every year we had mandatory training on child abuse, how to recognize it, and how to prevent it. Inevitably, the subject of gay scouts and leaders came up and every year I had to point out that straight men were a far bigger threat as pedophiles than gay men. I had some success but the fear runs deep.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 9, 2009 9:42 AM
Gays go for gays, straights go for straights. It is those who loath themselves for latent homosexual tendencies (which every human has)that molest children, bash gays, and rape. ALL VIOLENT SEX ACTS derive from self-hatred that is generated through denial. Denial is the root of all evil.
I am surprised that Mike Adams doesn't know that. But maybe he does and is hiding it.
Posted by: Rodney | December 9, 2009 9:54 AM
He capitalizes Lacrosse. Fail.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 9, 2009 9:56 AM
I've followed Mike Adams for some time, and he is as vile as Ed describes. He teaches at UNC-Wilmington, by the way, which is one of the majority African-American schools in the system, which I have always found amusing. He also mentions in his biographical information that he failed English all four years of high school, which explains his writing style.
I assume that Mr. Lombard is, in fact, gay, although therw is nothing in either the WRAL story or Mr. Adam's hit job that independently suggests it: As Ed states, it is pretty well accepted in psychological theory that pedophiles really don't care what sex their victims are: If they do care, they target older kids who are starting to show sex-linked traits. Ephoebophilia, as opposed to pedophilia.
As a whole, the article is a hodgepodge of assumptions, many of them not just random, but bizarre:
Might be, I don't see how we have the information to answer that. Actually, it is supposed to protect everybody. You'd think a Criminology Prof would be aware of that. He's never seen a movie set in prison? What an idiot.Posted by: kehrsam | December 9, 2009 10:00 AM
Never mind that pedophiles rarely pay much attention to the gender of their victims, often raping both girls and boys without distinction.
Huh. That surprises me. On what is that based? (Not challenging it, I just really don't know.)
Posted by: Ray Ingles | December 9, 2009 10:13 AM
I thought this statement by Ed was worthy of adding to my collection of favorite quotes:
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:25 AM
Mr Adams stated: "I think we can now see why WRAL has withheld certain relevant information. Lombard was a high-level administrator in the area of health policy. To reveal his sexual orientation would raise certain questions, which might violate someone’s right to feel comfortable at all times." [Emphasis mine]
Really Mr Adams? And where exactly is the right to 'feel comfortable at all times' enshrined in law exactly?
"For example, 'Are certain sexual practices both detrimental to individual health and prevalent in the gay community?'"
No, the questions is how are a person's sexual habits any of your business. By your logic any kind of sexual contact would disqualify a person from doing anything, since sex involves a finite probability of risk. Even straight sex carries the the risk of spreading the Human Pamplona Virus, which is associated with increased risk of cervical cancers. But also if he's not having unprotected sex with everyone he comes in contact with, how exactly is this relevant, and would there be any less a risk with an equivalent straight man?
"And, 'Could such practices, if widely adopted (no pun intended), be detrimental to the public health?'
Was he planning to use 'teh Ghey Mind-control device' to spread kinky sex to unsuspecting Brads everywhere? Again totally irrealvant argument.
"Finally, 'Is a homosexual man the best candidate available to help run a Center for Public Health and teach a course about AIDS at Duke University?'"
OMG you are soooo right! Perhaps we should get an funny-looking ex-Hitler Youth member who wears dress, talks to his imaginary-sky fairy and hangs around with loads of pedophiles to teach the class. That would make sooo much more sense! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 10:27 AM
DJ @ 7 asks a rhetorical question:
A quibble about your argument. I bring it up since this form of argument is the primary argument used by conservative media pundits to defend their position denying equal rights and protections to others they ostracize or rights they oppose. While its effective in influencing millions of people, it's a fatally flawed argument, at least here in America and other countries whose constitutions are based on enlightenment principles.
People do have a right to feel comfortable. A right does not need to be enshrined in law to exist, for us to exercise it, or for us to expect it be defended by our government. That's because our rights belong to each of us individually; they are not granted by law or government mandate. The government in a country that claims liberty for its citizens instead has certain delegated powers that might limit, regulate, or prohibit the exercise of that right; either because of a numerated power to promote the general welfare or to defend the exercise of another person's superior right.
For example, my right to feel comfortable is not an adequate argument to deny employment to a co-worker that is gay if my being around gay people made me uncomfortable. The gay person's right to exist and pursue happiness is far greater than my comfort right.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:47 AM
DJ, that's "papilloma." Pamplona is where the bulls are run annually- a different sort of dangerous practise. ;-)
Posted by: Bob Carroll | December 9, 2009 10:58 AM
DJ is confused, the Human Papilloma Virus is sexually transmited, the Human Pamplona Virus is a brain disease that makes running in front of a frightened bull seem like a good idea.
Posted by: Ramel | December 9, 2009 10:59 AM
Damn it Bob!
Posted by: Ramel | December 9, 2009 11:02 AM
The websites I read have been following this guy for quite a while now, so I can tell you that Dr. Mike (he insists on being referred to as "Doctor") is a particularly noxious specimen. Aside from his hatred of gays, transsexuals, Muslims and women in general, there's his habit of using his column to air petty grievances against other professors and even his own students. He seems to use his class to extract humiliating information from his students so he can write about it. Allegedly, the introductory questionnaire for his class used to prompt his students to describe sex acts they have performed. (Now he asks them to describe criminal acts they've performed instead) In one particularly infamous incident, he actually encouraged some of his students to harass another student with whom Dr. Mike had argued. He later married one of those students. (She's since divorced him. I can't imagine why)
Posted by: D Johnston | December 9, 2009 11:44 AM
My experience indicates that people usually move backwards. They have prejudice (either positive or negative towards something) and then find evidence to justify it.
Posted by: Absurd | December 9, 2009 11:45 AM
Damn, you both beat me to it.
I'm betting that was what I call an SCE -- spell checker error.
Posted by: Pieter B | December 9, 2009 11:48 AM
Michael - While I understand not all rights are enumerated in law but such enumerated rights still exist, the so-called 'right to be comfortable AT ALL TIMES' (hence forward called simply Adam's Right) is a new claim, that would have to be tested against rights already in law*.
Firstly, how would it be defined legally? Could I take someone to court for wearing too much aftershave/cheap perfume? Could I sue the Transit Authority for having too many people on a platform? Could I sue a library for keeping their reading-rooms at 68.8oF? Could I sue you 'cause you looked at me funny? Not to mention the vague boundary encapsulated in the phrase 'at all times'. How would this be legally defined?
Secondly, do existing rights over-ride Adam's Right? Ed's criticism might sting Mr. Adams, but does Adam's Right out weigh freedom of expression? Does Adam's Right give me the right to insist on absolute non-ownership of all weapons, because it makes me nervous? Could I shut down Catholic churches because the very idea of pedophilia makes me queasy?
And thirdly, is Adam's Right, a right that provides a net-benefit to society as a whole or not? (also how would one practically enforce, pursue and punish someone for violating Adam's Right without making that person feel uncomfortable?)^ - DJ
---------
* To be fair to Mr Adams, he could claim that it constitutes a 'hostile environment' for him, I suppose. (Not A Lawyer).
^ I was a long time member of a youth theatre. We produced an anti-nuclear play that was preformed at the UN. One one my favorite bits were the 'If I had a gun' speeches in which each cast-member said what they would do if they had a gun, but then saying if they were a certain country (brandishing a little flag of that country) they would never, ever use nuclear weapons.
One the cast members claimed she'd use a gun if someone was embarrassing her, really, really embarrassing her... and on and on. Finally one the other cast-member tries to reign her in, politely at first, but with increasing assertiveness. Finally the rambling cast member (Russia) turns on the one trying to silence her (USA), and very coldly, deliberately, and menacingly says: "You're embarrassing me". [A beat]
It's scary but sometimes wars really do start like this. It's this 'right to comfort' (or freedom from embarrassment, I suppose) that reminded me.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 11:55 AM
"What a vile excuse for a human Adams is. He is not alone in 'confusing' pedophilia with homosexuality."
MikeMa:
I'm betting he's not the least bit confused. He knows the truth, it doesn't serve his purpose, so he ignores it.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 12:00 PM
To all who helpfully pointed out my error I say BULL- oops, think I stepped in something. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 12:02 PM
Thanks for getting to this (Ed emailed me the link to the article before he made this post). I am swamped with work this semester (until Dec. 18 when my grades are due).
You put it as well as I could have, or better.
It's really a shame that this is what passes for conservative academic thought. Adams is a prof who is suing his school because he got denied a promotion from Associate to Full Professor.
He's saying it's because of his politics. No, it's probably because he's a colossal asshole.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 9, 2009 12:10 PM
No, he's not confused at all. If he could show actual harm done by mere homosexuality, he'd be shouting that from every housetop and not wasting any time talking about pedophiles. He's only bringing pedophilia into the mix because he knows that guilt-by-association is the ONLY way he can make homosexuality look as evil as he wants it to look.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2009 12:15 PM
When I first saw this, I thought you meant Mike Adams the natural health woo-nut that Orac always posts about. Seems like there's more than one vile and nutty Mike Adams on the Internetz.
Ed said:
Here's one of the obvious cultural truths, in this country [U.S.] at least: Members of any minority group are inevitably judged on the conduct of their worst members, while members of the majority are never judged by the conduct of theirs. And while the conduct of their worst members will always be used to smear all other members of the minority group, that is never true of the majority.
Eh, I can't agree, sorry. Think of the Amish. Or what about white priders/nationalists? Yes, they ARE a minority in the US, even among white people, and while they aren't exemplary citizens by any means, most of them are harmless and non-violent. But they have a much worse public image that's commonly associated with violence and KKK-like cross burnings.
And what about Jews? There are anti-Semites out there who harp on each and every example of Jewish white-collar crime, such Bernie Madoff and his family's Ponzi scheme...but don't most Americans have an overall positive view of Jews rather than a view of Jews as inveterate money grubbers and Gentile-bilkers? I haven't seen the polling numbers lately, granted.
I also get the feeling that most white Americans have a hazy warm-fuzzy respect for Native Americans thanks to the vaguely positive and romanticized "Wise and Mystical Indian who Communes with Mother Earth" image promoted in movies like Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, and New Moon.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread from the overall bashing of Mike Adams, who deserves it.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 9, 2009 12:34 PM
D Johnston @12:
Aside from his hatred of gays, transsexuals, Muslims and women in general, there's his habit of using his column to air petty grievances against other professors and even his own students. He seems to use his class to extract humiliating information from his students so he can write about it.
Charming.
He's also a big time anti-feminist Macho Man who loves to brag about how manly he is by virtue of the fact that he goes hunting. He's also a cDesignProponentist. Who can forget his virulent attacks on PZ for the latter's opposition to and exposure of the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 9, 2009 12:38 PM
I'm pretty sure Adams isn't seriously propounding this as a right, but is being sarcastic. He goes on to list some of the questions that he suggests would make people uncomfortable:
Clearly he thinks these are pertinent questions and that anyone who thinks otherwise thinks there is a right to be comfortable at all times.
It's a pretty common talking point with social conservatives to suggest that the only reason for things like protection from discrimination or actually enforcing separation of church and state is to "make sure no one is offended" or "make sure no one is uncomfortable".
It's a pretty transparent straw man, but so many people hear it often enough that they're sure that that must be the actual reasoning of these awful liberals.
Posted by: Escuerd | December 9, 2009 12:45 PM
DJ - From what I can see, Adams isn't claiming that there exists a "right to feel comfortable at all times." He seems to be - indirectly and backhandedly - implying that his opponents claim such a right. He's saying that revealing Lombard's sexual orientation would be 'uncomfortable' for people who support gay rights. And then implying that the news source values their comfort more than truth.
Adams is apparently a complete tool; we don't need to misrepresent his position to show that. It's reprehensible enough on its own.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | December 9, 2009 12:59 PM
Oh, I just realized that in my earlier comment, I actually cited something that strengthened Ed's point rather than argued against it (the white pride example, as they are indeed a minority judged by the worst examples of their membership rather).
Comment fail. Oh well.
But I still do maintain that certain minorities (Native Americans and Jews) tend to enjoy an overall positive "spin" in majority (white) America's eyes, despite the crimes or misdeeds perpetrated by individual members of those minorities.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 9, 2009 1:11 PM
Mr. Adams stated: 'To reveal his sexual orientation would raise certain questions, which might violate someone’s right to feel comfortable at all times."
Taken as written he certainly does think Adam's Right exists (note no 'allegedly' or 'supposedly' about that so-called right). But as I pointed out this assertion would not stand any legal challenge.
Mr. Adams can not believe such a 'right' is so ridiculous as to be an absurdity, AND believe that protecting minority rights* is, in fact, Adam's Right in action (a suggested movtive for Mr. Adams, given by another commenter up-thread) and therefore evil incarnate. Which is it Mr. Addams sinister or risible?
I don't think I misrepresented his prima facie argument at all (assuming even he knew what it was in the first place). - DJ
--------
* Such protections have been challenged legally, and stood the test, thus they are manifestly not Adam's Right, and yet he stated it as a fact. Like all the 'facts' is his argument, they melt away on closer inspection.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 1:45 PM
DingoJack @ 25,
In the context of what immediately follows, I really think it's clear he intended talk of this right to be sarcastic. I wouldn't normally expect someone to put the words "alleged" or "supposed" into a sentence that's intended to be sarcastic.
-He thinks the rhetorical questions he asks would make people uncomfortable.
-He thinks they represent points that should be raised.
-Therefore, he believes there's no right not to be made uncomfortable.
OK, perhaps that would be a better case if there were a reasonable expectation of logical consistency, but even if there isn't, I'm not sure I can see what motivation he would have for suggesting that there is such a right. How would he perceive it to help his case?
I've heard such similar sentiments expressed sarcastically by conservatives so many times that this is the interpretation that seems the most obvious and natural to me (especially in context).
Posted by: Escuerd | December 9, 2009 2:08 PM
Adrienne - as a Native American, I had a good chuckle about your comment on the gen'l populations view of Natives. The reality is a little more complicated. In my experience, white folks who have never lived near areas with a concentration of Natives (ie near a Rez, or towns with a lot of Natives) and have some New Age-y spiritual beliefs tend to have warm fuzzies of Natives. Of the non-New-Agers - esp. those who tend to lean conservative in their politics - tend to think Indians get 'special rights'. A lot of people think we don't pay taxes (I wish! Tribal governments don't because THEY ARE GOVERNMENTS. But as individuals, we pay tax just like any one else, altho in a few cases there are exceptions regarding state income taxes).
And for whites who live near Reservations and other regions with a lot of Natives? No shortage of racist attitudes. They'll tell ya we're all a bunch of lazy, no good alcoholics. Doncha know. Some 'border towns' in the Plains and Southwest remind me of the deep racism of the Old South. It ain't pretty.
Posted by: Nettles | December 9, 2009 2:55 PM
I'm still trying to figure out the point of this meaningless exercise after perusing the article and the we-have-too-much-time-on-our-hands-can-you-help-find-us-a-job? commentators.
There is a definite stream of invective toward Mike Adams - but curiously, very little toward the sick former Duke University Executive who has already pleaded guilty to the crime - unlike the clear inference of non-guilt in the original article.
Nothing as usual from the "we-gonna-strike-you-mean-white-folks" brigade that the US administration has hired for his PR function - which is odd since the perpetrator was white and the children black. Where is Al Sharpton and "uncle" Jesse when these things happen? Oh, yes, there isn't a woman involved. Perhaps that is the reason.
From a French medical view, it looks like most of the contributors and commentators need a good system flush and to stay off the alcohol for a while. Maybe get away from so much pork, too. You'll feel better for it and come away with much less of a problem with your gall bladder, you know.
Posted by: Dr Duncan Druhl | December 9, 2009 2:59 PM
Duncan Druhl @ 28,
I think this forum is cognizant of the horrific crime and the need to aggressively investigate, prosecute, and sentence criminals for such horrendous crimes. We don't suffer from a lack of critical thinking skills, neither the blogger nor nearly all his regular commenters. Besides the obvious evil involved, Ed also pointed out in is second paragraph of his blog post:
The analysis Ed presents here is how people like Mr. Adams exploit such crimes to vilify those they hate and want ostracized, even when there is no causal tie justifying their targeting such hatred on a targeted group of people.
As best as we can tell it is Mr. Adams' bigoted hatred towards others who took his eye off the ball; a point Ed exposes in this blog post and you seem to miss entirely.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 3:11 PM
You accuse Mike Adams of taking a single example to reach a broad conclusion and of ignoring other statistics. Yet, you also ignored the same IMPORTANT statistic in your argument.
What is the percentage of gay child molesters in comparison to straight child molesters?
96% of all child molesters are male? What percentage of the 96% are homosexual males?
95% of all child molesters know their victims? What percentage of the 95% are homosexual males?
1/3 of all child molesters victimized their own children? Again, I ask, what percentage of that 1/3 are homosexual males?
If you want to accuse Mike of being a bigot because he used one example, why not provide the statistical evidence to prove him wrong? Or do those statistics not fit your argument? So instead you picked out the three that you thought would and ignored the most important statistic of all? Very convenient.
Posted by: Sara Britton | December 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Where in the world did you get the idea that "the majority" is never judged by its worst members?
The worst members of "Anglo" society are veritably celebrated by leftists everywhere. Endemically!
This misunderstanding of reality might have considerably colored your remaining axioms.
Posted by: James | December 9, 2009 3:24 PM
Nothing as usual from the "we-gonna-strike-you-mean-white-folks" brigade that the US administration has hired for his PR function...
Okay, "doctor" Drool, you just flushed your credibility down the drain.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2009 3:24 PM
Sara Britton, #30: What is the percentage of gay child molesters in comparison to straight child molesters?
I dunno. I assume that it's roughly the same. I mean, why would having a preference for one sex over the other have anything to do with whether you'd hurt kids? I would think that when it comes to statistics that the burden of evidence should be on those who want to treat other people as monsters for no good reason.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 9, 2009 3:48 PM
You all are completely dense.
He's not implying that all homosexuals who adopt do this to their children. He's not even saying most of them do.
What he IS saying is that if you compare the media coverage of this case, you will find a HUGE and inexcusable disparity.
This case, which involves a perpetrator who is homosexual, received almost no coverage. The Duke lacrosse players received nationwide coverage, and they weren't even guilty (although they were treated as if they were from the start). Why the difference? One is a homosexual who is an adoptive parent. The media can't let this demographic be seen in a bad light. The other are supposedly privileged white men. This is a demographic that is vilified at every opportunity. If you don't see this bias, then you are all very obtuse.
Posted by: William | December 9, 2009 3:53 PM
I agree with Nettles. I could take you into a lot of bars in rural areas of Michigan where you can hear drunken white people complain about drunken Indians.
Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2009 3:55 PM
Taz: Spot on. Or folks who get together in little groups to talk about how "The Jews" bought up all the prime real estate. We are a land of milk and honey, aren't we?
Posted by: kehrsam | December 9, 2009 4:11 PM
Why doesn't anyone realize that Adams is writing satire? Almost every single one of his columns is satire. He is comparing this case to that of the Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape a few years ago. The players were essentially lynched in front of a national audience and found guilty by the media upon the basis of them being affluent white men. It was criminal the way they were treated, especially given that they were exonerated through DNA evidence and STILL put through the meat grinder. Their accuser was believed 100% because she was black and a woman, and it would have been "racist" and politically incorrect to point out she was insane.
Adams is simply using satire - pointing out the absurd by using the absurd - to point out the absurdity of political correctness. You liberal types are so freaking thick.
Posted by: David | December 9, 2009 4:14 PM
There's probably the same proportions of heterosexuals and homosexuals among pedophiles as there are among non-pedos. The two conditions aren't linked.
Get a grip, Sara, you ignorant twit.
Posted by: Katharine | December 9, 2009 4:28 PM
Chiroptera #33-
It is relevant because, if homosexual men molest children more often than straight men, than homosexual men should not be able to adopt as easily as straight men.
In other words, if the statistical burden of evidence falls on homosexual men molesting children more often than straight men, than we should treat homosexual men wanting to adopt as potential "monsters". Or are you afraid that might offend someone?
William #34
I'm pretty sure that most of the people commenting have only read Ed's article and therefore have no clue what Mike's article was really about.
Posted by: Sara Britton | December 9, 2009 4:30 PM
Here's a nice survey article on the subject of the relationship between sexual orientation and child sex abuse:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
To summarize, those who try to paint homosexuals as child molesters generally exploit the fallacy of marking down an offender as a homosexual if he (or she, though it most often is he) victimizes a child of the same sex, regardless of whether he had any homosexual attraction towards adults. In other words, an offender is often heterosexual when it comes to getting married and having children, but only counts as a homosexual in the context of his crime.
I've also seen articles (though I forget where) that compare risk of suffering sexual abuse for children in households led by opposite-sex parents with the same risk in households led by gay men. By leaving out gay women, they were able to show a much higher risk in the gay-led household (the one with twice as many males).
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2009 4:48 PM
Somewat OT but related to homophobia in general, I just read that Uganda did NOT pass the kill all gays law. Victory. Link
Posted by: MikeMa | December 9, 2009 4:51 PM
Sara Britton:
Ed's point seemed to be that these demographic variables are a poor basis on which to make decisions like this. He listed variables besides homosexuality to highlight the absurdity of this.
I strongly suspect that if the real goal were to reduce sexual abuse, the best way would be to allow only spinsters and lesbian couples to adopt (or at least to "make it harder" for any couple including a male than for them). If Ed's statistics about the percentage of perpetrators that are male/know the kid/are a parent of the kid are correct, then I would bet that the marginal reduction in abuse of adopted kids would be much larger than any (if, in fact, there would be any) gained from prohibiting gays from adopting. But no one is proposing this, which is why many of us suspect there's some other motivation here.
Posted by: Escuerd | December 9, 2009 4:56 PM
Sara, as has already been pointed out pedophilia has never been linked to homo sexuality. At the moment you position would be just as intellegent if you were asking about whether or not people who eat burgers are more likely to abuse kids.
Seriously folks, who alerted the horde?
Posted by: Ramel | December 9, 2009 4:58 PM
Interesting. If the definition of "homosexual" is appropriately flexible, then I imagine one could purport to show all sorts of things.
Posted by: Escuerd | December 9, 2009 4:58 PM
DaveL - I know you are not prone to clerical errors but I think your last post contains at least one error that makes a point different than I believe you might have intended in your last point.
Just to pile on to DaveL's point. We know that Paul Cameron misrepresented other's research to attempt to claim that gay men disproportionately abused children when in fact those studies showed no such thing. Mr. Cameron has been formally ostracized by his ex-colleagues, party due to his "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research" and from another group, ""consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".
Citation for misrepresenting work on child abuse: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html#cameron
Citations for his ex-colleagues ostracizing him are footnoted at his Paul Cameron's Wikidedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 5:07 PM
To the racist attitude perpetrated (and even possibly by comedic purpose) by Druhl, I say to you that regardless of the behavior of the individual that Adams comments against, it is that his screed is targetted against an undefined and more ambiguous, general group of people which, in his mind, form the core of a behavioral problem; that, instead of being a part of normative society, homosexual men are the primary threat when it comes to child sexual abuse. It is this argument, and not any plea of guilty on the part of Adams' individual subject, that forms the point of his screed, and thus the reason for the reply.
To Sara Britton, I say to you: The statistical data regarding child molesters (from fondling to intercourse, rather than exposure) tends to be performed by straight, related and much older males in the family. The data indicates many of them were not only molested themselves as children, but have an abnormal fixation on the act perpetrated upon them, as well as a fixation on the child as a sexual object (in the same mein as a straight man would on an adult member of the opposite sex, or a gay man on an adult member of the same sex). This, being pedo- or hebephilia, is practically if not actually its own sexual orientation. This psychology implies that the source is trauma, which does not seem to occur in normative gay or straight men, and indicate that any behavior that arises (some pedophiles never act on their attractions) is performed through an abnormal inclination. Adams seems to conflate these two, and would be the kind to ignore statistics (or confuse them) in order to prove his case.
Studies from Kinsey to now and leading to the removal of Homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders in the DSM indicate that gay men are statistically less likely to commit child abuse (in any fashion) than straight men, and that gay women are almost completely unlikely to commit child abuse relative to their straight counterparts. To date, there are virtually NO proven cases (demonstrated) that indicate that gay women (lesbians) sexually abuse theirs' or anyone elses' children; the deviation from the mean in men is higher, but not substantially so, enough that it makes no sense to use it -- legitimately or logically -- to support the argument (which Adams does nonetheless, as did the BSA, the Mormon LDS church, the Catholic Church, etc.) that homosexuals (men in particular) are a threat to ANYONE's children.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | December 9, 2009 5:17 PM
Am I the only one who finds Mr. Adams' objection about the alleged criminal's age very, very strange? Is Mr. Adams not used to reading articles? It's standard practice for an article to go, "Mr. Whoever, [age here], is ..." It's a concrete element in Terry Pratchett's The Truth for crying out loud!
I think it reflects serious issues that he tries to make a big deal out of this. It's like him saying, "It's interesting that they included his middle initial, instead of omitting it or printing his full middle name. As I proceed with my commentary..."
What a maroon.
Posted by: Kris | December 9, 2009 6:46 PM
@ Sara 39
So if straight men molest children more often than lesbians, then straight men should not be able to adopt as easily as lesbians?
Posted by: Dr X | December 9, 2009 7:44 PM
Mike Adams spends a huge amount of time spouting brash, confrontational opinions all over the internet. Plus he travels the country for speaking engagments, delighting in provoking people on purpose.
Ironically, Mike's employer (UNC Wilmington) is good to him. They tolerate his barbs and reward him with perks and tenure. Yet it's doubtful whether Adams puts in sufficient time and energy to do his job as college instructor.
Frankly, Mike Adams has a childish streak. (That may account for his wife leaving him -- for all his high and mighty Christian preaching about traditional marriage).
Posted by: Vince | December 9, 2009 7:52 PM
I don't see what all the hubbub is about regarding Adams comments.
Posted by: andrew | December 9, 2009 8:08 PM
This is a "Science Blog", yet you (and those writing comments) are sorrowfully lacking in simple logic skills. Re-read Adams article and try thinking.
Posted by: MnM | December 9, 2009 8:47 PM
"...members of the majority are never judged by the conduct of theirs"
This is untrue. How many times has Fred Phelps been portrayed as being somehow in the mainstream of Christianity? (I believe him to not be a Christian at all based on the "fruit" he and his horde bear). Same thing with Randall Terry being falsely put forth as the "face" of the pro-life movement. WHY would anyone have gone to him after Tiller was killed?
Like it or not, those involved in homosexuality, as a matter of mere statistics aside from any moral judgments, are more likely to engage in and/or promote aberrant, and even criminal, sexual behavior. That includes "mainstream" homosexuals...Kevin Jennings, anyone? No one can honestly deny that there is a big problem among homosexual males and their appetite for, and pursuit of, pubescent boys. What does this have to do with anything? It demonstrates the double-standard that Adams was pointing out.
Posted by: Vada Lavina | December 9, 2009 9:23 PM
If I were to say something like "most people who park in fire lanes are black" would you consider that sterotyping? Because if it is, it's stereotyping based on my observations. Just like a co-worker accused me of being racist for pointing out that my observations are that if someone is parked right up next to a building like Home Depot, they are almost always black. I made that comment based on observation, in fact, now I always look for it and my statement almost always proves true based on my observations, very rarely to I see white people parked in the fire lanes.
What does this have to do with the topic of this column? The point is when people make observations and point those observations out, if they are not politically correct, then the person who pointed it out is a homophobe, racist, sexist, etc. My observations based on behavior is that the vast majority of liberal males are homosexuals. I mean, come on...tell me Alan Grayson hasn't had a few late night meetings with Barney Frank! I might be wrong on that particular example because I suspect that Alan Grayson is a tranny, but you get my point.
Anyway....gerbals, fisting, salad tossing and most every other deviant sexual behavior are celebrated by liberal males...er...homosexuals. If some bearded dude looks at another burly guy and thinks "oh yeah, I've got to have that" how can that person possibly be normal? Sure...I'm a pig because if a hot chick (not the stereotypical butch) looks at another hot chick with lust, now that's HOT. I'm a pig, so sue me! Rock on Mike!
Posted by: Jay | December 9, 2009 9:44 PM
--He capitalizes Lacrosse. Fail.--
The Duke Lacrosse Team is an organization, and thus a proper noun.
--Never mind that pedophiles rarely pay much attention to the gender of their victims, often raping both girls and boys without distinction.--
Unless you pretend that males raping males is not homosexual, there is no truth to this at all. Less than half of all child molesters are homosexual--but less than a twentiteh of all men in general are homosexual. And that problem won't be addressed by screaming 'bigot' at anybody who dares to notice it.
Posted by: The Redneck | December 9, 2009 9:48 PM
Ramel, before you imply someone's argument is unintelligent, you might want to try learning how to spell the word "intelligent" first. BTW, the point of Dr. Adams' article, that the media bury stories that don't show their chosen protected people (or issues, as in the AGW fraud cover-up by the media) in a good light, is right on target. Read the article and try to understand it before you go ranting about the article or the author, please, people!
Posted by: Cee Dee | December 9, 2009 9:50 PM
Wow, the fucking nutship landed on this thread. Mr. Adams seems to have the same sort of credulous, racist fuckhead adherents as Sarah the Impalinator.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 9:56 PM
The whole world hates you fags. (Except maybe for Godless Denmark and possibly those pansies over in the UK). Get used to it. And don't expect it to be any easier for fags to get a job when they are a protected class. Who wants to hire someone that they can't fire because that person is going to scream about their rights?
Posted by: TRUECRISTIAN | December 9, 2009 10:02 PM
I may have gotten a little lazy in my writing, and for that I apologize. In short, the article I was referring to took data that showed a child's risk of being abused was correlated to the number of adult males in the household and, by ignoring those households led by female homosexual couples, concluded that homosexuals were more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.
Which statistics are those, the ones that count offenders with an adult heterosexual orientation as homosexuals if their victim is of the same sex?
I don't understand how a woman would find burly guys attractive. I have a hard time understanding how senior citizens can find each other attractive. I don't even want to think about how my parents had sex. All of these people, however, were perfectly normal. Get this through your head: your ability to identify with what turns someone else's crank is not the arbiter of what is and what is not "normal".
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2009 10:05 PM
Actually there is quite a bit of truth in it. If you actually follow the link to the studies above, you'll find it's very rare for offenders who rape children of the same sex to actually have an adult homosexual orientation. In other words, these are not people who have adult homosexual relationships. Therefore when you try to associate these people with those who self-identify as "gay", those wishing to marry adult partners of the same sex, etc. you don't have a leg to stand on. They're just not the same people.
Actually, a much tinier fraction is actually homosexual. As noted above, most of the people you identify as homosexual here are actually people who self-identify as heterosexual and carry on adult heterosexual relationships.
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2009 10:14 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake, what are you talking about?
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2009 10:20 PM
@60:
"Oh for fucks' sake, what are you talking about?"
That guy's an idiot, or listening to them. He's conflated the inclusion of Gays in the list of actionable hate speech motives with the inclusion of Gays as a Protected Class, which if my memory isn't rusty is actually part of court precedent.
Posted by: Rutee | December 9, 2009 10:28 PM
Vada Lavina (#52) -
Yes, aside from the non-existent moral issue, you'll have reams of statistical data to show homosexuals are more likely to engage and/or promote aberrant sexual behaviour, as defined by the psychologists and/or psychiatrists.
Again, you have reams of statistical data show homosexual (men I presume) have an appetite for and pursue pubescent boys*. - DJ
----------------
^ As pointed out earlier in the thread persons (mostly males) who lust after pubescent teenagers are called hebopilliacs, they are more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual. Paedophilia is lusting after children. Sex is often more about control and domination thus the sex of the child is irrelevant. Again, much more common amongst straight males than gays.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 10:38 PM
We're well aware of that Christian fucktard.
Posted by: Owen | December 9, 2009 11:14 PM
"How many times has Fred Phelps been portrayed as being somehow in the mainstream of Christianity?"
Pretty much never.
And when has Kevin Jennings ever engaged in and/or promoted "criminal sexual behavior" (I'm ignoring the "aberrant" part of your statement, since, unlike "criminal sexual behavior, "aberrant sexual behavior" is based on one's opinion)?
"My observations based on behavior is that the vast majority of liberal males are homosexuals" (then proceeds to mention Grayson and Frank to supposedly prove his point.).
I learned two useful things from Jay here. 1. it's possible to have one "observations" ("...observations...is...") and 2. a whopping total of two liberal males (Grayson and Frank) represent "the vast majority of liberal males." Thanks, Jay!
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 10, 2009 12:00 AM
Unbelievable to Hear the leftists talk about what a "horrible Monster" Mike adams supposedly is ? People can you muster some of that hatred for Child molest?
Homophobia= a word people made up who fear heterosexuals.
Posted by: John | December 10, 2009 2:04 AM
democommie "I'm betting he's not the least bit confused. He knows the truth, it doesn't serve his purpose, so he ignores it."
Never let facts get in the way. Ideology beats facts. Ideology kicks facts' ass.
James "The worst members of "Anglo" society are veritably celebrated by leftists everywhere. Endemically!"
Hardly. They barely "celebrate" me at all. I am quite evil. Hence the secret volcano fortress. Obviously.
David "You liberal types are so freaking thick."
If we're so thick, how do you explain Sara Palin, hmmm?
Sara Britton "In other words, if the statistical burden of evidence falls on homosexual men molesting children more often than straight men, than we should treat homosexual men wanting to adopt as potential "monsters"."
If, then potentially. I anxiously await your unbiased statistics. (Note: as the column above points out, your logic means that we should already be treating heterosexual men as "potential 'monsters'". And left-handers, too.)
DaveL "Here's a nice survey article on the subject of the relationship between sexual orientation and child sex abuse:"
Bastard! You beat me to it. Clearly this means that you're some hyper-efficient future me.
Escuerd "Interesting. If the definition of "homosexual" is appropriately flexible, then I imagine one could purport to show all sorts of things."
It gets worse. Did you know that some Nazis were homosexuals? That's right. Nazis.
Vince "(That may account for his wife leaving him -- for all his high and mighty Christian preaching about traditional marriage)."
Rules are for other people. Obviously.
Vada Lavina "Like it or not, those involved in homosexuality, as a matter of mere statistics aside from any moral judgments, are more likely to engage in and/or promote aberrant, and even criminal, sexual behavior."
And yet, statistically, you're hauling a load of garbage. Statistically.
"That includes "mainstream" homosexuals...Kevin Jennings, anyone?"
Mr Jennings, yet another rightwing bogeyman ("How dare he advocate teaching in comprehensive sex-ed class, which we are against, sexual things which we are also against! Knowledge is murder!").
"No one can honestly deny that there is a big problem among homosexual males and their appetite for, and pursuit of, pubescent boys."
You go get 'em! Don't let facts get in the way!
"What does this have to do with anything? It demonstrates the double-standard that Adams was pointing out."
Considering the facts-adverse trainwreck of logic that brought you to that conclusion, you might want to revisit your premises.
Jay "Just like a co-worker accused me of being racist for pointing out that my observations are that if someone is parked right up next to a building like Home Depot, they are almost always black."
What do the scientific/double-blind studies indicate? I say this because anecdotes are not data. This is because anecdotally, everything is true.
"My observations based on behavior is that the vast majority of liberal males are homosexuals."
Someone's been hanging out at The Fire Pole again…
"I mean, come on...tell me Alan Grayson hasn't had a few late night meetings with Barney Frank! I might be wrong on that particular example because I suspect that Alan Grayson is a tranny, but you get my point."
Yeah, take that members of a group that you don't like!
"Anyway....gerbals, fisting, salad tossing and most every other deviant sexual behavior are celebrated by liberal males...er...homosexuals."
I assume you've gone, um, deep undercover, gathering evidence of this liberalist homotopia…
The Redneck "Less than half of all child molesters are homosexual--but less than a twentiteh of all men in general are homosexual."
{citation needed}
Cee Dee "BTW, the point of Dr. Adams' article, that the media bury stories that don't show their chosen protected people (or issues, as in the AGW fraud cover-up by the media) in a good light, is right on target."
Oh, man, are you ever right. I can't count the number of times I've seen the Evening News' top story be, in giant blinking letters, Inner-city African-American Boy Missing.
John "People can you muster some of that hatred for Child molest?"
Odd. I don't see anyone here defending him. Perhaps you're mistaking pointing out the mendacity of Adams' column with, well, whatever the heck you think we're saying.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 3:14 AM
I love the way Cee Dee thinks a speling mistake by a dyslexic invalidates an argument, clearly no one who makes a spelling mistake could ever be right...
Argue the point or fuck off shit for brains. What the hell is with this surge in idiots?
Posted by: Ramel | December 10, 2009 4:06 AM
Ramel "What the hell is with this surge in idiots?"
I'd blame the Moonbatsignal (Na-na na-na, na-na na-na. Na-na na-na, na-na na-na. Moonbat!), but that only attracts Obama and his extreme SOCIALIST values. I assume the wingnuts have a similar kind of thing. I make the further assumption that it's powered by a combination of fear and ignorance, the alternating current of the Right.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 4:22 AM
Lots of anti-Gay KKKrazees show up on this thread the week before finals in Adams' classes at UNC/Wilmington. I smell an extra discredit assignment.
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2009 5:20 AM
Lets see, a white homosexual left wing academic adopts and abuses black child and the story Ed hears is a tale of gay bashing.
How can you overlook the abuse of an innocent chld here? How can you care more about the paedophile than the victim?
How can you fail to consider that this case at the very least requires us to question whether allowing homosexuals to adopt little boys is a good idea?
How can you fail to consider that this case at the very least requires us to question whether interracial adoption is a good idea?
How can you fail to consider that this case at the very least requires us to question whether allowing white leftwingers, with their history of support for Jim Crow and enshrining racial discrimination in law, is a good idea?
Remember that only 50 years ago the US left was fighting in the courts and the legislatures to defend Jim Crow and today are promoting affirmative action and the bigotry of low expectations to undermine and minimise the achievement of black people. That a left wing white American asserts his belief that he is racially superior to blacks through sexual abuse is hardly surprising.
And Ed, please go back and look at the statistics for child abuse by women again - a far greater share of offences are commited by women and you shouldn't let your misandry blind you to that fact. You cavalier attitude to child abuse generally and child abuse by women, homosexuals and racially aggrivated child abuse are deeply concerning and show scant regard for the rights and welfare of victims of padophilia. Your downplaying of a serious crime for the sake of making a cheap point about a gay man (who I note was so opressed by the heterosexual establishment that he had to live a marginal life as a highly paid tenured academic and was permitted to vote, work where he liked, live where he liked, do what he liked and adopt little boys to abuse with impugnity) is very disturbing and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Tom | December 10, 2009 5:35 AM
Tom "Lets see, a white homosexual left wing academic adopts and abuses black child and the story Ed hears is a tale of gay bashing."
No. Ed read a tale of someone talking about the case and using it to smear gays.
"How can you overlook the abuse of an innocent chld here? How can you care more about the paedophile than the victim?"
Again, nobody here is defending the pedophile.
"How can you fail to consider that this case at the very least requires us to question whether allowing homosexuals to adopt little boys is a good idea?"
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. Conflating the two smears innocent people. It's been posted earlier, but read facts about homosexuality and molestation.
"How can you fail to consider that this case at the very least requires us to question whether interracial adoption is a good idea?"
Does not follow. Alternately, red herring.
"How can you fail to consider that this case at the very least requires us to question whether allowing white leftwingers, with their history of support for Jim Crow and enshrining racial discrimination in law, is a good idea?"
Are you seriously suggesting that the Democratic Party of the 1950's is the same as the Democratic Party now? Every here of the "Southern Strategy"? The hop of the "Dixiecrats" to the Republican Party around the time of the Natinal Voting Rights Act of 1965?
"Remember that only 50 years ago the US left was fighting in the courts and the legislatures to defend Jim Crow and today are promoting affirmative action and the bigotry of low expectations to undermine and minimise the achievement of black people."
Race-baiting is a Republican thing now. The two Parties now are not what they were.
"That a left wing white American asserts his belief that he is racially superior to blacks through sexual abuse is hardly surprising."
If you've got evidence of that, we're all ears.
"And Ed, please go back and look at the statistics for child abuse by women again - a far greater share of offences are commited by women and you shouldn't let your misandry blind you to that fact."
I've said this before, but {citation needed}. Anecdote is not data. Declaration is not fact.
"You cavalier attitude to child abuse generally and child abuse by women, homosexuals and racially aggrivated child abuse are deeply concerning and show scant regard for the rights and welfare of victims of padophilia."
Again, nobody here is defending Frank Lombard.
"Your downplaying of a serious crime for the sake of making a cheap point about a gay man…"
It's not a cheap point about a gay man. It's a pointed barb dealing with Mike Adams atttempt to conflate one pedophile with all homosexuals.
"...you should be ashamed of yourself."
No. You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself, for ignoring the subject of this post entirely, choosing instead to attack things that nobody here said. You're ranting against a fiction, and basing that attack on a lack of facts, twisting that lack of facts around your willfull disregard for the actual subject of this post.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 5:55 AM
Wups, that should be "Ever hear of the 'Southern Strategy?", rather than "Every here of the 'Southern Strategy'?" which I think we can all agree is nonsensical.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 5:57 AM
Apologies, that last sentence should read RELATIVE impugnity. Now that he has been caught and entered into a plea bargain he will be punished to a certain extent, although as he is being sentenced in a Democrat controlled state I suspect they will go easy on him for fear of offending people like Ed who might consider a long sentence for this homosexual paedophile as a form of intolerable homophobia.
Posted by: Tom | December 10, 2009 5:59 AM
And again you open your mouth just long enough to stick your foot in it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 6:02 AM
Minor clarification: The shift seems to have started in the 30's, and the Dixiecrat exodus began around the time the Truman and the President's Committee on Civil Rights post-War.
The point is still the same. Neither Party now is what it was.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 6:11 AM
Tom - the reading disabled fucktard made a number of idiotic and/or delusional statements, I'll address merely one @ 73:
Here is what Ed wrote in this very blog post, prior to any delusional fucktards showing up:
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 10, 2009 7:46 AM
Modusoperandi:
I applaud (and yet deplore) your courtesy and restraint in dealing with Tom @70 & 73. You assume that he is making an argument, in good faith, utilizing erroneous data points. I do not. I think he's a lying racist, homophobic fuckbag whose cherry picking of history perfectly complements his cherry picking of biblical scripture.
People like Adams would be empty gongs without the fevered support of the blindy credulous and fearful echo chambers that they preach to.
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2009 7:52 AM
Michael Heath:
Well said.
Do you get my ocassional e-mails?
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2009 7:54 AM
To pile on:
If you put 1000 men in a stadium and ask the gay men to raise their hands, 20-50 men will raise their hand, lets say it is 20
These are the self identified homosexuals. some of them may molest boys. Lets say 1 of them do.
Of the remaining 980 men, some of these may molest children, and some of them may molest boys. Lets say 20 of them do.
That would make 21 molesters of boys in the stadium.
There are 20 self identified gays in the stadium, less than the boy molesters.
counting all molesters of boys as homosexuals clearly is different thant counting self identified homosexuals.
This is the point.
It means you cannot argue against gays adopting, purely by looking at men who molest boys. Since gays adopting are self identified gays, you must at least look at the proportion of self identified gays, who go on to molest.
I have no idea what that number would be, or if there even is a statistic showing that, but the danger of letting gays adopt is your conclusion, then you must make sure that your argument rest on a single definition of being gay.
Just to forestall any diagreements. The number of gays, and molesters in my example were totally random. they are not meant to relate to reality in any way.
Posted by: Soren | December 10, 2009 7:54 AM
democommie "I applaud (and yet deplore) your courtesy and restraint in dealing with Tom @70 & 73. You assume that he is making an argument, in good faith, utilizing erroneous data points. I do not."
No, actually, I don't. I doubt that he is but, even though I might fail to argue in good faith myself, I always make the attempt. This is because I'm a pointy-headed liberal and I think I'm smarter than he is. Plus, the facts tend to be on my side, which helps immeasurably.
It has been said by a wiser, more satirically-minded man than myself that reality has a liberal bias, but that's not the whole picture. Liberals also have a reality-bias. That's not to say that we don't have blind spots (anybody who says they don't is as self-deluded as they are ignorant). We, and as usual I speak for all liberals, just haven't made those blind spots the bedrock foundation of our philosophy.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 8:52 AM
@Michael Heath #76 - When I first read this post I remember thinking that it was sad that Ed even had to say that, since I'd hope that everyone here would feel the same way about that man's crimes (if it in fact turns out that he's guilty). But then a genius like Tom shows up...
Posted by: Imrryr | December 10, 2009 8:58 AM
democommie: Where does Tom quote scripture?
Tom: Your reading skills are inadequate. The article says he's getting 15 years. That's a pretty hefty sentence even if we are a "Democrat controlled state."
Posted by: kehrsam | December 10, 2009 9:08 AM
Oh, and I should mention that there are good conservatives, like that Michael Heath fellow (whose rhetoric is slipping. "Reading disabled fucktard" is simply lazy, Michael. I would expect such poor use of the English language from Dingocommie*, but from you I look for a higher level of rhetoric), but they've been left with very little voice in the public dialogue and they're currently without a Party. It's at the point now where the Democratic Party is its own opposition party (continuing the tradition of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory), while the GOP just shows up to grab its paycheck, mug for the cameras and shit on the floor.
*Yes, Dingocommie is actually two people, but I've combined them in my mind because it's funnier. If you were me, which I doubt, you'd agree.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 9:11 AM
Re: Tom @70,
Hah! Tom, you owe me a new computer, now that mine has coffee spewed all over it. How funny is the idea that the southerners who enacted and supported Jim Crow laws were liberals?!Right on, ModusO. As you said, "the parties are not what they were." And Tommy seems not to know that it was those liberal northern Democrats--like Hubert Humphrey--who kept pushing for a civil rights act, and conservative southern democrats--like the otherwise respectable and exceptionally intelligent Richard Russell--who opposed it.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 10, 2009 9:19 AM
kehrsam:
Tom does not quote scripture, but I'm a betting man when it looks like a slamdunk and I'm willing to bet the doghouse that Tom is a HUGE fan of a few verses in Leviticus; re: Sermon on the Mount, not so much.
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2009 9:59 AM
What is it with homo's? constantly making up statistics such as all human being having latent homosexual feelings? if that were true i would ponder to guess that all homo sexuals have latent pedophilic tendencies, wouldnt you agree.
The contention by Dr. adams is clear: the media does whatever it can to protect homosexuals over and above the public at large. while they have no problem discussing the potential racism in a white on black crime, or cover pedophiles who attack the opposite sex, they seem distraught over giving the same treatment to blacks who kill whites, or white liberal out-of- the- closet gays(who are administrators at a prestigious university-a liberal bastion) who rape adopted black boys and then try to get their friends in on it! No matter what your position on the matter, you have to wonder why a story such as this relegated to the back page or outright ignored. where was jesse jackson and al sharpton in this? why wasnt the same made out of this as was out of the false accusations against the duke lacross players?
Posted by: george | December 10, 2009 10:27 AM
Re George
I think that fuckface George would be much happier in Uganda where they propose to exterminate homosexuals, much like his hero, Adolf Schicklgruber did.
Posted by: SLC | December 10, 2009 10:48 AM
democommie @ 79 - I haven't seen an email from you for a couple of months now. Strange since I go through my Junk Mail prior to deleting.
Modus @ 83 - thanks for the kind words and the chuckle. I do want to clarify that I have never identified as a conservative in spite of my voting for some of them or being a long-time member of the GOP until recently. I self-identify as a moderate republican (small 'r'). I think looking at a one-dimensional continiuum of political ideologies is flawed and prefer the 2-D models and wish there was a 3-D model to better model people's positions.
I reject the whole idea of conservatism, particularly their way of thinking, rejection of functional experts, rejection of reality, and tendency towards opposition- and identity- politics. I also can't stand their fear-mongering, hatred of others, willful ignorance, hatred of individual rights, and fear of change. I don't fear the future unless Palin, Bachmann, Beck or some other delusional incompetent idiot got power.
I'm probably most aligned with Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bartlett's brand of ideology, which Sullivan calls conservatism but lacks any identifiable members in power who claim the same (In the U.S. at least; U.K. is a different story). My hero tends to be Alexander Hamilton and his progressive approach to economic growth and acceptance that a vibrant central government is a requirement for a growing, competitive economy. Since then we've also learned the federal gov't is our biggest defender of rights unless conservatives in the Executive Branch or the courts dominate, contra to Madison and Hamilton's expectations.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 10, 2009 10:49 AM
To all the right-wing sheep who keep trying to explain Adams' point:
1. We get it, we just don't agree with it. Taking two disparate examples which involve a lot of other factors and claiming they demonstrate a media bias is absurd. About as absurd as the contention someone made above that Lombard will get a lighter sentence because it's a "Democrat controlled state."
2. If you think Adams' article is NOT attempting to demonize a group of people, and is only making a point about the media, you're the ones who are deluded.
Posted by: Taz | December 10, 2009 10:59 AM
Are you outing yourself, george?
Posted by: DaveL | December 10, 2009 11:13 AM
Michael Heath "Modus @ 83 - thanks for the kind words and the chuckle."
No problem. To be perfectly honest, I'm just buttering you up...so that you'll drop your guard long enough for me to rush in and steal a kidney.
"I do want to clarify that I have never identified as a conservative in spite of my voting for some of them or being a long-time member of the GOP until recently. I self-identify as a moderate republican (small 'r')."
Keep in mind that I'm Canadian and that, by definition, I therefore think that you're all nuts. I'm sure that the historical record supports, if not exceeds, my claim.
"I think looking at a one-dimensional continiuum of political ideologies is flawed and prefer the 2-D models and wish there was a 3-D model to better model people's positions."
Yeah, but people like labels. It makes it easier to identify the out-group. Ooooo, I hate the out-group so much!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 11:28 AM
Michael Heath:
Junk mail? I am wounded to the quick! Anyways, I'll have to check and see if I have an old e-mail from you (I do, I save butter wrappers--and everything else) and send one out as a reply.
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2009 12:19 PM
Demo @ 92 - not sure you're joking or not. To clarify, I have a junk mail folder which I can't completely control in terms of what emails are directed to that folder. That's why I visually scan it prior to deleting this folder's contents.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 10, 2009 1:43 PM
Re Modusoperandi @ 80 & 83: *clapclapclap*
Posted by: Kris | December 10, 2009 3:51 PM
Wow, the flying monkeys really got out their cages this time.
Posted by: Martin | December 10, 2009 6:22 PM
"...they (the media) seem distraught over giving the same treatment to blacks who kill whites..."
You're right, the media completely ignored the case of O.J. Simpson (black) being accused of killing his wife and Ron Goldman, both Caucasians (massive rolling of eyes).
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 10, 2009 8:35 PM
Dr. X wrote:
It's too bad she didn't return. I would have liked to see her answer this. Or try, anyway.
...
I have to say that 15 years seems kind of light, though.
Posted by: Leni | December 11, 2009 8:24 PM