AdamSmith

"All of Dostoyevsky can be reduced to two rings of an algebra of the structure of conflict." -- GOLEM XIV, Stanislaw Lem

Likely true! Considering how it remains on the shelf, in its original wrapping, never used...

Your post is serious and substantive. Thk u for it. To declare my own pawns in the battle, I am a failed product of my mama to make me a Southern Baptist. Regrettably instead I came out an atheist. (Which our fellow poster MsGuy here will note is but one more breed of believer. He is right, but be that as it may!) To try and get to my point: Having watched Bishop Gene Robinson's struggles with his Communion over some years, what are your thoughts about this issue? Protecting doctrine and core belief against arbitrary or even evil onslaught is clearly a duty. But how to discern when spiritual -- and worldly -- authority of experience authentically challenges received doctrine? And -- as Luther found, quite to his dismay -- what to do when schism is the only path left open to one?

Nice update on pathbreaking, openly gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson... http://www.advocate....hought-he-would

Take care, Eudora. Our hitoall is the worst tease in either hemisphere.

Where is Pat Robertson when you need him? P.S. And how is this Rev. McTernan so well informed about Southern Decadence?!

I love BoyToy.com! ...of course, I love everything that moves and is of a remotely similar species...

Thank you! Going to the full version on iPhone 4S works.

This has been discussed elsewhere here but I can't find the thread to append this to. So on its own: Shocking Footage Emerges of Mitt Romney Spouting His Bigoted Bile Against Gays Michelangelo Signorile In my last blog post, which lit up the Internet and social media, I quoted Mitt Romney making shocking remarks that were highlighted in investigative reporter Murray Waas' Boston Globe story last week. Now, for the first time in this campaign, video has surfaced of Romney making those bigoted claims about gay parents while pushing his heartless policy against their children. Waas' article revealed how Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, refused to allow birth certificate forms to be reprinted to accommodate the children of gay and lesbian couples, stigmatizing those kids and creating possible hardships for the rest of their lives. Documents Waas unearthed showed how Romney required hospitals to instead cross out "mother" or "father" on the birth certificates of children born to same-sex couples and write in, with a pen, "second parent," and only with the permission of Romney's office. One of two video clips that Waas has now uploaded to YouTube shows Romney speaking to conservative voters in South Carolina in 2005, as he was testing the waters for a presidential bid, discussing his battle with the Registry of Vital Statistics and Records regarding the birth certificate forms. Romney distorted the Registry of Vital Statistics' plan, which was to change the labeling of boxes on the forms from "father" and "mother" to "father or second parent" and "mother or second parent." He claimed the plan was to change the form to have "Parent A" and Parent B" boxes, when, as the documents Waas obtained show, those terms were not in fact used: Today, same-sex couples are marrying, under the law, in Massachusetts. Some gays are actually having children born to them. We've been asked to remove the phrase "mother" and "father" and replace it with "parent A" and "parent B." It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and father. The second clip, from C-SPAN, includes footage of Romney speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., a few months earlier (at the 6:11 mark). In that clip he speaks about child development: The children of America have the right to have a mother and a father. Of course, even today circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are unmarried or divorced, the child can still visit each of them. If a mother or a father of a child is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of their departed parent. His or her psychological features can be developed by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having mothers and fathers? Will our children be indifferent about a having a mother and father?" Romney outlined his battle with the Registry of Vital Statistics to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding changing the birth certificate forms. He defended his position to the Judiciary Committee (and again claimed it was about changing the form to include boxes labeled "parent A" and "parent B" when that was not the case) even as a Massachusetts Department of Health attorney warned that it didn't conform to legal statues and could disadvantage the children later in life, impeding their ability to apply for school and get passports, drivers licenses or other forms of identification, particularly in a post-9/11 world where they might be viewed as security risks with altered birth certificates. In 2006 Romney went on to stop the publication of an anti-bullying guide for public school students, because the term "bisexual'' and "transgender'' were used in a passage discussing harassment against students. These and other actions were a stark turnaround from when Romney had, in his Senate run in 1994, told gay activists that he was better on gay issues than Ted Kennedy, claiming to support an array of rights for gays and saying that his voice would have more weight on the issue than Kennedy's. What seems clear now, looking at Romney's record, in which he made a lot of promises to gays in those early years but never delivered, is that the pandering he did was to gay activists and the voters of Massachusetts, as the devout Mormon used that state as a stepping stone to the presidency. The real Romney is the guy who actually delivered to cultural conservatives and sought to harm the children of gay couples, and who is now running for president with the backing of those very same religious extremists. http://www.huffingto..._b_2038327.html

If Mitt wins, you will have to adopt me so I can escape and move to wherever you are now. I promise I will be good!

Friedman did a nice job... Why I Am Pro-Life By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: October 27, 2012 311 Comments HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.” These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well. But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion. In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.” “Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax. The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society. Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change. Now that is what I call “pro-life.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html?src=me&ref=general

Aw, come on. Bruising satire aimed at public figures has been part and parcel of Western life since at least Roman times. One of the most vibrant, vital and enduring forms of public debate. Not to mention fun!

Dear heart, please send me several kilos of whatever drug you're on. When a newspaper endorses a candidate, of course it's the editorial staff speaking. Thus the label "EDITORIAL" as explicitly shown above. Specifically and emphatically not the news staff. Nor obviously the photogs nor typesetters nor janitors nor night watchmen nor anyone else.

Probably too late in the campaign to make much difference, but one can still hope that this repulsive shit loses him votes across the industrial heartland.

Not surprised, just even more disgusted than I had believed possible before. Thought FG had hit bottom when he insisted his mother be buried at the Franklin Graham Ego Center instead of where she had wanted to be. This latest at least equals that.

You know I don't really disagree with you on this. Still, right now it's a good thing I don't have the power to bring about what I wished for.

Thought that was the other candidate! I fully intend to. Giving my dead relatives a ride to the polls as well. Things are now so desperate that a few minutes ago a live person (!) appeared at the door with an Obama leaflet and a detailed list of nearby early-voting places, dates and hours.

Agree now, in retrospect. It was the calculation of someone who thought he had the canonization already locked up, and was just looking to run up the score. Things feel pretty grim in NC right now. Getting not only robocalls but almost-daily live calls from local Obama workers urging us to vote early.

Irrelevantly, a marvelous Spock montage...

I have long regarded Billy Graham as being at least a little above his hate-filled brethren. But now my judgment that his son, Franklin Graham, belongs in the lowest bolgia of Dante's Hell has been reaffirmed. http://m.newsobserver.com/observer/d...tguid=0RoBRUlf

This from a man wearing a light pink tie on a white shirt, in a dark suit?

This is to report one change in site behavior. As of just now, when I tried again to log in from my iPhone 4S, the site no longer appears to accept the login (but then would not). Instead, after I keyed in my user name and password, then clicked to enter them, the site just froze and did not respond at all. If this is a sign that the programmers are working on this problem and partway to a solution, I'm grateful. Most of my interaction with the site as of the last year or so has been from my phone, so my participation is crimped by the new lack of iPhone 4S access. My best wishes for a speedy resolution.

Since the upgrade, I haven't been able to log in to the forum from my iPhone 4S. It does not appear to be a conflict with already being logged in on my laptop, as has happened a couple of times in the past. Has anyone else reported this issue?

First my immortal immutable salesforce.com, now you... ...wither goeth the Cloud?

Thank you! I thought I was a top. Until I met Andre, a total top. First, I fell in love. Then, I tried to bottom a couple of times, but couldn't. Then, I bought a bottle of poppers (butyl nitrite, which these latter days is all we mortals can get). THEN I discovered how to take him. Being in escort-love with him was an important part of it, trusting him and so forth, to be able to open up, even with the poppers. Then, after two experiences with him this way, I discovered how to transfer the emotional and physical opening-up experience over to any occasion. In a few instances some guys would just be so big physically that I would bleed a little bit, but I could still take them and get a lot of pleasure out of it. And one needs to say NOT pleasure bred of pain; just pleasure of prostate massage. P.S. Then I noticed the poppers were diminishing my penile sensation, so I threw them away. Exelsior!