Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Homeowner Kills Intruder

Homeowner Kills Intruder. Not much of a headline, is it? A regular dog bites man story, justice served cold, on the spot.
Loudoun County officials have identified the teenager who was killed after entering his neighbor’s home early Sunday morning as 16-year-old Caleb Gordley, a junior at Park View High School.

Caleb, who had been drinking with friends that night, got into his neighbor’s home in the 45900 block of Pullman Court through a back window, officials said.

Caleb’s home was two houses away. Family members say Caleb mistakenly entered the wrong home thinking it was his.

The homeowner, who authorities have not identified, heard his house alarm activate at about 2:30 a.m., officials said. When he went to investigate, he saw Caleb on his stairwell and shot him, officials said. Loudoun teen fatally shot by homeowner identified
Everybody knows we need guns on hand so homeowners can defend themselves. I doubt there will be any charges filed, after all there was an intruder in the guy's house; he has the right to defend himself, his family, his property. You might say it's lucky there was a gun handy, or who knows what might have happened?

We don't need to dwell on what a good kid this was, his accomplishments, the way people admired him, the hopeful life that stretched out before him into the future, the grieving parents, the friends who will always regret dropping him at the wrong place, the homeowner who has killed a child.

This is the way it's supposed to happen. A gun-owner defends his home. No problem. We are blessed to live in a country where we have the freedom to do these things.

Right?
The teenager had been drinking, and his friends drove him to his home in Sterling at about 2:30 a.m. Sunday, law enforcement officials said. But instead of walking into his house on the quiet cul-de-sac, they said, the teen entered a similar-looking red brick home in the same block.

Inside, the startled homeowner confronted the teen, authorities said, before shooting and killing him. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office described the shooting as a homeowner killing an unknown intruder, although officials released few details about the shooting.

73 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Americans who own guns are four times more likely to be shot themselves then Americans who don't own guns.

March 20, 2013 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nasty pri-randy is ten times more likely to say stupid things than any other TTFer

scientific studies have been done

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/chipotle-cancels-boy-scout-event-sponsorship_n_2909391.html

eat mor chikin!!

March 20, 2013 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how drunk do you have to be to not know your own house?

getting that drunk is going to be dangerous in many ways

they are many other ways to get killed when you're in that state

but your point is that this kid would have never been killed if the home owner didn't have a gun?

what about all the people killed by real intruders because they didn't have a gun?

a lot more of them than isolated incidents like this

maybe if there was a mandatory gun in every house, even very drunk kids would make sure they broke into their own house

March 20, 2013 11:56 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, good old bad anonymous. If his lips are flapping or he posts some unrelated words that's all the evidence he needs to believe he's right.

March 20, 2013 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Police were walking back and forth between the home of the teen and the house where he was shot, which are on the same side of the street and have just one house between them. Both are neatly kept two-story houses with green front yards and two-car garages; both were built at the same time — when the community was developed about a decade ago — and have similar designs and trim.

The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.

Caleb didn’t stop, and the home-owner fired again, striking and killing the teen, the official said.

The teen and his family moved into the house about a year ago, according to neighbors. Several neighbors said that they did not know the family well and that there seemed to be other people, possibly renters, sharing the house.

In recent years, neighbors said, several families and groups of people had lived there.

Loudoun County sheriff’s officials are reviewing 911 calls and interviewing friends of the teenager who was shot to death after he accidentally entered a neighbor’s home over the weekend.

Sheriff Mike Chapman said his office is working with the commonwealth’s attorney’s office in deciding whether to pursue charges or close the investigation. James Plowman, Loudoun’s chief prosecutor, declined to comment.

In Virginia, prosecutors say, citizens can use deadly force to defend their lives, but not solely to defend property.

Caleb was unarmed.

Virginia's House of Delegates has written into its law books centuries of common law allowing people to kill those who intrude into their dwellings and menace them.

One bill that shields people who kill or maim intruders from civil lawsuits passed 75-22 Thursday.

The more contentious of the two, however, protects people from criminal prosecution. It passed 70-28.

Critics said it's too broad, potentially conferring a license to kill over misunderstandings and petty provocations easily resolved without lethal force. They also said it's redundant because common law dating to 17th century England already protects people who defend their homes and families from threats.

Supporters dismissed the grim hypotheticals, saying it helps people be more secure in their homes.

Caleb is not a "grim hypothetical" -- he's a real dead teenager.

March 20, 2013 2:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This should come as no surprise. Brandishing a gun is a good way to get yourself shot.

"Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."

Typical of bad anonymous, thinks an innocent teenagers life is less important than red-necks having a gun so they can feel tough and important.

March 20, 2013 2:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 20, 2013 4:08 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I am not much for making rules for the comments section, but as Royal Benign Dictator of this blog I am going to issue an edict.

We have some transgender readers who comment here, and transgender people are sometimes referred to in the blog post. We do not have to agree about everything here but we can show respect. If you address someone or refer to them by the name they used before their transition, or if you refer to them with the wrong gender pronouns or put references to their sex in quotes, or otherwise mock their gender identity, I will delete your comment. And if it keeps happening I will ban you permanently. In fact, if I think you are being disrespectful beyond what I arbitrarily decide is appropriate I will delete your comments. This policy was established a long time ago.

JimK

March 20, 2013 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, Great and Benefient Oz, can you explain why gender identity is the only thing that deserves this respect?

Priya dishes out insults right and left, including highly speculative remarks about people's intelligence, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, social standing, et al, which is just fine but, oh, that gender identity is a sacred cow, protected above all things

this was the point made to Svelte recently, who thinks there's no need for pervasiveness to deserve discrimination protection

if that were so, the government would be in our faces 24/7

otherwise, you have unequal protection under the law

no need to respond that you can make any rules you want for your little blog

you can, and no one would want to take that right from any more than I would tell a store owner he couldn't hire and serve whoever he wanted

but you don't want store owners to have that right

the real point here is that your concern is unfounded and illogical and epitomizes a mentality we call the gay....AGENDA

March 20, 2013 5:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, I've never referred to you by the wrong gender, talked about you with he, him, or his in quotes, or refused to use your real name.

As for any insults I've aimed at you, you've certainly thrown back far more of the same at me with no one telling you you couldn't. Note your first unprovoked comment on this topic calling me stupid.

Jim doesn't believe store owners should discriminate against LGBTs in hiring or service, his restriction on you is consistent with his beliefs.

You claim you wouldn't tell a store owner he couldn't refuse to hire or serve an LGBT person. If you were consistent with your beliefs you wouldn't be complaining in the slightest about being told to refer to transgendered people by their chosen name and gender identity.

But instead you bitch and complain at length about Jim asking you to treat trans people the same way he'd ask store owners to treat us.

March 20, 2013 6:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Q: oh, Great and Benefient Oz, can you explain why gender identity is the only thing that deserves this respect?

A: Because I said so

Longer answer. You can raise racial stereotypes, but I will not allow you to call one of my readers a racist name or mock them for their race. You can complain about Muslims and atheists or whatever, you can say whatever you want about their beliefs, but you will not mock them for holding them. You can think whatever you want about gay and transgender people, about immigrants from any country, about any minority or "other" group you happen to resent today, you can disagree with them here on any level from the cerebral to the visceral, but you will not be mocking them for who they are.

You can play on my playground as rough as you like, as long as you play fair. And I am the one who decides what is fair and what is not.

JimK

March 20, 2013 6:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, its not like Jim hasn't told me there are certain things I can't say about you.

March 20, 2013 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prynn and Jennedy

you clowns miss the point

the reason Jennedy is so insistent on this is not because it's such a great offense, there are many more offensive insults thrown around here regularly

what's really going on is that's he's trying to create an environment where a questionable hypothesis is a given and to even question it is highly offensive

that hypothesis:

that you are whatever gender you happen to feel like

because, really, why is my saying what gender you are so offensive?

many people here have accused me of being gay

I'm not highly offended but, on the other hand, I don't see Jim jumping in to threaten to delete anyone who says it

come to think of it, I think he's said it himself occasionally

if someone says I'm something other than what I say I am, why is that any better than for me to say you're not really what you say you are?

face it, you two can't think beyond your fanatic advocacy

March 20, 2013 7:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, why are you still ranting about having to follow these simple requirements?

You want a society where business people can refuse to hire or serve people merely for being gay and don't have to justify it to anyone.

If that's the kind of world you want you should have no problem just shutting up and letting the owner of this blog accept or reject you on his own terms for any reason he desires.

But, that's not what you're about, is it. You want people to be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians however they choose but you think people should be required to provide you access on your terms. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't still be bitching.

What a profound hypocrite you are.

March 20, 2013 9:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, you know how you always say if one business refuses to hire or serve a gay or lesbian they should just go to a different business and keep quiet?

You aren't being refused service here, you're just being told to behave apropriately. If you don't like that then just keep quiet and go to a different blog for service. Free market baby - according to you that's what its all about.

March 20, 2013 9:18 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

First, anon, you don't get to argue about this. I administer this blog and if I don't want somebody here I simply wave my magic wand and they disappear.

Second, it may seem odd to you but I couldn't care less if somebody is gay or transgender. It's none of my business unless I am thinking of dating them, and I am not. I don't think they need special treatment, in fact I don't care what they do. They're just people.

I do not like bigots and will not provide a home for bigotry. I know this is not a distinction you are capable of, but I am saying it in case some day you look back and realize what I was saying.

You can say whatever you want about LGBT people here. You think they're faking it? Cool, say so. You think they're deviants? Whatever, you bore me. You think they can be cured? Come on, explain how that works and show us the evidence. Nobody is trying to prevent you from expressing yourself.

I will not have you personally insulting my guests here, hiding in anonymity. Again, I don't expect you to know the difference, but when someone has the courage to face a hard truth about themselves and then endure social pressures for a lifetime to live as the person they really are, and not what some troll thinks they should be, I respect that, and I will stand up for their rights.

Let me add, I am a straight white male, and, speaking for Us Guys, you are an embarrassment to the tribe.

Stop dissing my peeps and you can play on my playground. I don't have to allow it but for now I am.

JimK

March 20, 2013 9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you two really don't get my point

Jennedy can delete my posts if he wants to, I couldn't care less

I'm not trying to get him to change any blog rules

I'm just saying the hard line on this is not based on any concern for trans but simply trying to take an opportunity to refuse to countenance the expression of anyone unless they accept your position

the world is full of people who do the same thing and they make it a scary place

for example, Muslims who won't even talk to anyone who believes Israel has a right to exist

it's an old propaganda tactic

btw, not buying into the whole transgender argument is not bigotry

you oughta look the word up

on the restaurant issue, Prynn, the rough equivalent of no one, in any place that passes such a law, would actually turn down a buck from a transgender

we have very obvious trans we see around here all the time

no one cares

the reason to have such a law here in MC is not to correct any injustice but to have the government endorse the transgender theory, that you are whatever gender you feel like

thus, making the theory law

similar to Jennedy's propaganda ploy

it epitomizes a mentality we call the gay....AGENDA

March 20, 2013 11:15 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anon fails to understand the distinction between disagreement and insult, which Jim is making.

March 21, 2013 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert, I'll make it easy for you to understand

if someone here says I'm gay and I say I'm not, Jim could care less

if someone says a transgender is actually their birth gender and not what they say it is, this is a matter of great umbrage

how are the two situations different?

this has nothing to do with civility and everything to do with trying to consolidate an assumption that you are whatever gender you choose to be is correct

Jennedy wants to consolidate that assumption by simply excluding speech that doesn't affirm it, whereever he can

and, again, I'm not apeealing to him change his blog rules

I'm just pointing out that this is indicative of how the gay agenda operates

it's the gay modus operandi

March 21, 2013 11:13 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I'm not trying to get him to change any blog rules

I'm just saying the hard line on this is not based on any concern for trans but simply trying to take an opportunity to refuse to countenance the expression of anyone unless they accept your position".

If you weren't trying to get him to change his blog rules you wouldn't be constantly complaining about the rules and trying to push the boundaries on what he'll accept. Based on YOUR cherished rules for society its irrelevant why he asked you to not mock us. Just as you would tell a gay man that a business wouldn't accomodate to just shut up because its no problem for him to go to another business that will accomodate him you should just shut up and go to another readily available blog that will accomodate you as you see fit. Stop being a hypocrite.

Bad anonymous said "on the restaurant issue, Prynn, the rough equivalent of no one, in any place that passes such a law, would actually turn down a buck from a transgender".

That statement was both incomprehensible and irrelevant. I see now that you've been told not to bastardize my name in one way you've chosen to bastardize it in a different way - what are you, five? Why don't you throw yourself on the floor and flail your arms and kick your feet, that's about as mature.

Grow up loser. Constantly complaining about the rules you've been given is a childish demand that Jim change his blog to please you. Instead of wailing constantly about how this blog isn't accomodating you the way you like follow your own advice and take your business elsewhere.

Hypocrite.

March 21, 2013 12:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The good news just keeps rolling in:

Canada passes anti-discrimination law to protect transgendered people

A bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against transgender Canadians was approved by the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The Opposition private member's legislation passed by a vote of 149-137, 18 Conservatives ensured success by voting for what is right instead of following the anti-trans party line.

It was one of the first tests of the Conservative caucus' resolve on lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) rights in Canada at a time when Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has been mounting a strong defence of such rights abroad.

Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and Heritage Minister James Moore were among the Conservatives who supported the bill. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, most of his front bench and the vast majority of his backbenchers chose to be on the wrong side of history and opposed it.

March 21, 2013 12:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Where Canada goes on moral issues the United States is sure to follow...eventually.

March 21, 2013 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PM Harper has the good sense to know that unequal protection under the law is toxic to a society.

It may be one explanation why Canada is much more violent than the average American suburb.

Prynn, I don't for a second desire that Jennedy change his blog rules. It is helpful in that it demonstrates clearly the mentality we call the gay....AGENDA.

I notice you're not addressing my point, that me saying you're not trans when you say you are is no different than when TTFers say I'm gay when I say I'm not

That's actually very common for lunatic fringe gay advocates to say their opponents are secretly gay themselves

You don't address this because you know I'm right

"Based on YOUR cherished rules for society its irrelevant why he asked you to not mock us."

it's obvious why since he doesn't care about anyone mocking others

he's biased

"Just as you would tell a gay man that a business wouldn't accomodate to just shut up because its no problem for him to go to another business that will accomodate him"

I'd never tell anyone to shut up

I'm just saying not to involve the government in the dispute

complain all you want just don't try to bring in the SWAT team to force restauranteurs to make you a grilled cheese sandwich

there's no need for that

the avaricious chef next door will happily take your cash

March 21, 2013 2:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Prynn, I don't for a second desire that Jennedy change his blog rules.".

In that one sentence you betray the fact that that is precisely what you desire and are attempting to do.

Jim told you not to use trans people's names prior to transition or to mock trans people. Like a five year old you then mock our names in a slightly different way in order to test and push the boundaries of what you're allowed to do. Your intention is to keep pushing it a little farther day after day until you're back where you were before Jim's reinforcing of the rules yesterday.

You did this the first time he told you not to mock trans people's names and genders. You behaved for a little while but then just kept pushing a little farther and a little farther as time went on until you felt you could once again get away with putting people's gender in quotation marks and using their pre-transition names to mock them. This time you haven't even behaved for a day before you've started pushing it.

If you weren't trying to change the rules you wouldn't be criticizing Jim non-stop in a transparent attempt to goad him to ease up on you while you simultaneously try to push the boundaries under his radar bit by bit. Everything you've posted on this thread since yesterday is so you can eventually subvert the rules and get away with the mocking on this blog you hypocrtically think is your right.

You try to coerce business owners and blog owners to accomodate you on your terms while hypocritically demanding gays just go somewhere else when business owners don't want to accomodate them.

You're the "free market solves everything guy" and the "people have a right to refuse to associate with you" guy yet you're hypocritically not willing to abide by the rules here.

If you were at all honest and consistent in following the same rules you set for gays you'd stop commenting here and take your business to one of the many other blogs that will welcome your mocking of trans people.

Your hypocrisy and childishness are simply stunning.

March 21, 2013 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what we have here is another example of why this all has nothing to do with civility

Prynn insists I'm trying to change Jennedy's rules even though I said I'm not

How is that any different than if I say Prynn's gender is Prynn's birth gender and Prynn says its not?

it's just so obvious that this rule is simply designed to re-inforce the transgender theory, by treating it as a foregine conclusion

everyone reading this knows that, including those who rant on

March 21, 2013 5:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The only reason for you to keep harping on this is and making fun of our names is because you want to weasel your way out of the rules.

It doesn't matter what you think the rule is for, if you didn't want to change it you wouldn't be bitching about it non-stop.

If this was me complaining on a religious blog that their rules weren't fair or right you'd be screaming "They have a right to do what they want, they have the right to freedom of association, this is free enterprise, if you don't like it there's lots of other blogs that will accomodate you, go to one of them.".

March 21, 2013 5:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, you don't like the rules then stop trying to weasel your way out of them and take your business elsewhere. Jim doesn't have to justify himself to you.

March 21, 2013 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only reason for you to keep harping on this is and making fun of our names"

making fun? I'm just melding your first and last names rather than writing them out

it's the celebrity treatment, like Brangelina

you should be honored

"is because you want to weasel your way out of the rules."

are you kidding? I love the rules at this blog. they clearly delineate the BIG problem with lunatic fringe gay advocates

I occasionally break one so Jennedy will reiterate it and I get an opportunity to explain the mentality we call the gay....AGENDA

it's all in the game

"It doesn't matter what you think the rule is for, if you didn't want to change it you wouldn't be bitching about it non-stop."

"bitching"?

I do hope putting that in quotation marks doesn't break the rules

LOL. ROFL.

actually, not "bitching" at all, I'm simply taking advantage of an opportunity to show how bankrupt the gay agenda is

"If this was me complaining on a religious blog that their rules weren't fair or right you'd be screaming "They have a right to do what they want, they have the right to freedom of association, this is free enterprise, if you don't like it there's lots of other blogs that will accomodate you, go to one of them."."

would never do such a thing

at religious blogs they like nothing better than for someone to come post some faulty ideas

it gives them a chance to explain what's wrong with what they say

they live for that kind of stuff

unlike gay advocates, who want to create a fantasy world where everyone agrees with them

"Bad anonymous, you don't like the rules then stop trying to weasel your way out of them and take your business elsewhere."

well, it's false that I'm trying to weasel out

but you're being a bit redundant

no reason to get hysterical

so, I'm right

so what?

life will go on

"Jim doesn't have to justify himself to you."

here's a straw man for ya

I never told Jim he has to justify himself

this is a propaganda site, that's clear now

every American has a right to one

March 21, 2013 6:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You've done nothing but whine for the past two days how Jim should justify himself to you:


"if someone here says I'm gay and I say I'm not, Jim could care less
if someone says a transgender is actually their birth gender and not what they say it is, this is a matter of great umbrage how are the two situations different?".

The only reason for your constant harping about this is that you want to weasel your way out of the rules. If that wasn't your goal there'd be no reason for you to keep bringing this up. If you weren't trying to weasel your way out of the rules you wouldn't be mocking our names in a childish attempt to test and push the boundaries in the hopes that you can bit by bit work your way back to mocking trans people like you did in your first comment.

"at religious blogs they like nothing better than for someone to come post some faulty ideas".

I'm sure they would like that. Trouble is we come there and no matter how politely we debunk their arguments they delete our posts and if we keep posting they ban us outright.

If this was me complaining on a religious blog that their rules weren't fair or right you'd be screaming "They have a right to do what they want, they have the right to freedom of association, this is free enterprise, if you don't like it there's lots of other blogs that will accomodate you, go to one of them."."

Take your own advice hypocrite. Instead of trying to weasel your way out of the rules here take your business elsewhere.



March 21, 2013 6:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"would never do such a thing".

You constantly do that sort of thing. No one who's read more than a few of your posts is going to believe your laughable denials.

March 21, 2013 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only reason for your constant harping about this is that you want to weasel your way out of the rules. If that wasn't your goal there'd be no reason for you to keep bringing this up."

now, Prynn, I've explained the reason that I noted the inconsistency in Jennedy's position and it has nothing to do with an attempt to persuade him to change his blog rules

and "harp" is not the correct term either

I've simply taken advantage of the opportunities you keep giving me to note that the gay agenda has, as a primary tactic, the suppression of viewpoints it can't find arguments to counter

I find it amusing that you try to find religious websites to express you irrational hatred of religious belief

it's so interesting how atheists have become evangelists for their depressing worldview

I love to read the exchanges some time, let us know where you've been posting

btw, since you make it a practice to keep up with any negative ideas about religion, I was curious:

yoga is a religious practice of Hinduism where its believers think that maintaining certain physical poses will magically help them achieve certain powers of intution and wisdom

do you think its as dangerous as other religions?

just curious

March 21, 2013 7:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "now, Prynn, I've explained the reason that I noted the inconsistency in Jennedy's position and it has nothing to do with an attempt to persuade him to change his blog rules".

The only reason for bringing up this alleged inconsistency and asking him to justify himself is to try to goad him into changing his rules - its pointless to even mention it otherwise. If you didn't want him to change the rules you wouldn't have been harping on this for two days straight, you'd have happily accepted this restriction and gone on to something else.

That combined with your childishly transparent attempt to test and push the boundaries of the rules by mocking our names in a slightly different way than you were told not to is an obvious effort to weasel your way out of the rules as you've done in the past.

Not that its in any way necessary (because its painfully obvious you're trying weasel your way out of the rules) but I can prove you're lying when you say you're not trying to circumvent Jim's rules:

If that's the truth then you'll happily and eagerly make me this promise:

Do you swear on the blood of your god Jesus Christ that you'll never again refer to me or any other transwoman as a male directly or indirectly through implications such as putting quotation marks around she, her, her's, woman, female, girl, etc. and that you'll never again refer to me by something other than my current legal name?

March 21, 2013 8:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That promise is just for this blog.

March 21, 2013 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, Prynn, we'll have to bring this to an end

I'm taking off in the morning for a week and a half stay at an old sugar plantation in St Lucia in the Carribbean

mostly, I'll be chillin' on the beach with a rum runner, maybe doing a little snorkeling but I'll make sure to do some research on the local wines so I can say I was looking for some exotic grapes for my new winery and deduct the whole thing on my taxes

is this a great country or what?

hint: it's not Canada!!

March 21, 2013 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey Prynn, got an hour before I leave for the airport and just noticed you posted something while I was writing my comment last night

just to clarify, while I'm not trying to get Jennedy to change his blog rules, I do intend to break them again at some point

I do that strategically at chosen times to give me an opportunity to expose the shallow inconsistency and hypocrisy of the mentality we call the gay....AGENDA

OK, well you seemed mighty confused by all this so I hope that helps

I'll be back after Easter to get the new winery up and running

tanned, rested and ready to help lunatic fringe gay advocates understand how stupid they are, I will be

March 22, 2013 8:02 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Here's a nice little article I'm sure everyone will enjoy:

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/21/why-republicans-are-saying-i-do-to-gay-marriage/

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

March 22, 2013 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Don't snorkel after the rum runner.

When someone tells you they are insulted by something you say, and you persist in saying it, and insist that it is your right to say it, this, in my construction, is deliberate insult?

No?

March 22, 2013 12:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "just to clarify, while I'm not trying to get Jennedy to change his blog rules, I do intend to break them again at some point".

So, finally after insisting over and over and over he wasn't trying to weasel out of Jim's rules bad anonymous admits what we knew all along, that he was lying and that is precisely what he intends to do. And then in his total hypocritical and delusional detachment from reality he projects his wrongdoing on Jim and absurdly accuses Jim of being inconsistent and hypocritical.

Once again, we can see what an immoral low-life he really is. Of course the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and we've seen bad anonymous lie like this many times in the past so we know many more lies are to come in the future.


In keeping with bad anonymous's self-admitted lying nature he now tells us the lie that he's living a pleasant life of leisure. Enjoy your fantasies bad anonymous, they're a great deal more soothing than your real life where we all know what's keeping you away from here is much more along the lines of your health having taken a much deserved turn for the worse.

Karma's a bitch, LOL!

March 22, 2013 12:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Just to recap a few of bad anonymous's repeated lies on this thread alone just to make the obvious even more obvious:


Me:"Bad anonymous, you don't like the rules then stop trying to weasel your way out of them and take your business elsewhere."

Bad anonymous: "well, it's false that I'm trying to weasel out"
-----------------------------

Me: "The only reason for your constant harping about this is that you want to weasel your way out of the rules. If that wasn't your goal there'd be no reason for you to keep bringing this up."

Bad anonymous: "now, Prynn, I've explained the reason that I noted the inconsistency in Jennedy's position and it has nothing to do with an attempt to persuade him to change his blog rules"
------------------------------------

Me: "The only reason for you to keep harping on this is and making fun of our names is because you want to weasel your way out of the rules."

Bad anonymous: "are you kidding? I love the rules at this blog."
--------------------------

And now, in Bad anonymous's final comment he admits he was lying all along:

Bad anonymous:"just to clarify, while I'm not trying to get Jennedy to change his blog rules, I do intend to break them again at some point".
--------------------------------

There you have it folks, this is the guy that continually insists he's the honest and moral person and its the gays that are the bad people. A real peach, ain't he?

March 22, 2013 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Income inequality: $59 vs. $116,071 said...

Incomes of bottom 90 percent grew $59 in 40 years
During the same period, average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071

Pulitzer Prize-winner David Cay Johnston has highlighted yet more statistics that illuminate the spike in income inequality in the U.S. in recent decades. Flagging Johnston’s analysis, HuffPo noted Monday, “Incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans only grew by $59 on average between 1966 and 2011 (when you adjust those incomes for inflation)… During the same period, the average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071.”

Johnston offered a visual analogy for the disparity in a column for Tax Analysts last month:

The vast majority averaged a mere $59 more in 2011 than in 1966. For the top 10 percent, by the same measures, average income rose by $116,071 to $254,864, an increase of 84 percent over 1966.

Plot those numbers on a chart, with one inch for $59, and the top 10 percent’s line would extend more than 163 feet.

Now compare the vast majority’s $59 with the top 1 percent, and that line extends for 884 feet. The top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, whose 2011 average income of $23.7 million was $18.4 million more per taxpayer than in 1966, would require a line nearly five miles long.

March 26, 2013 9:35 AM  
Anonymous dazed and amused said...

this would only be an issue if the lower half was impoverished

here in America, even the poor live in paradise compared to most of the world and history

as long as basic needs and comforts are met and everyone has an opportunity to use their talents, there should be no gripe about people who have earned more

who are the richest men in America?

Bill Gates and Sam Walton

if the 90% have a problem with that, they can stop buying Microsoft software and stop shopping at Walmart and put these two into bankruptcy

but, the 90% won't because these are providing for the needs of the 90%

these people became rich by learning how to make others' lives better

in a capitalist society, you become wealthy by serving others

what model would be preferable?

March 26, 2013 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A little ditty about Charlton Heston's Cold Dead Hands

March 26, 2013 1:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I was justified when I was five
Raising cane, I spit in your eye
Times are changing, now we're winning that
But we're gonna laugh at you, the bigot's back

Eat meat on friday that's alright
Even like steak on a saturday night
You're a bigot at the social dos
You get high in the evening sniffing pots of glue

You're a bigot, you're a bigot
Oh the bigot's back
Self loathing gay, as a matter of fact
Your a bigot, you're a bigot
`cause Im better than you
Its the way that I move
The things that I do


March 26, 2013 3:09 PM  
Anonymous dazed and amused said...

wow!

when some people revert to childhood, the results are quite revelatory!!

March 26, 2013 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"dazed and confused" is still living inside the GOTP bubble. Open your eyes and see what income inequality is doing in your own suburban neighborhood.

Brookings Institution: Poverty Has Moved to the Suburbs

Once perceived as the domains of the middle and upper class, the suburbs have a new resident — poverty, assert researchers at the Brookings Institution.

The suburbs now house more poor residents than do central cities and they house a third of the nation’s total poor population, according to Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube, authors of the forthcoming book, “Confronting Suburban Poverty in America.”

Infrastructure created over past decades, designed to combat urban poverty, no longer fits the problem, they argue.

Suburban residents living in poverty grew to about 16.4 million people in 2011, an increase of almost 64 percent since 2000, according to Brookings Institution research. The increase was more than twice the growth rate of urban poverty.

Increasing suburban poverty has many causes, including job sprawl, shifts in affordable housing, population dynamics, immigration and a struggling economy, according to the researchers, who offer recommendations such as more and better transportation options, services and financial resources.

Western cities and Florida suburbs were among the first to see the Great Recession lead to significant increases in poverty between 2007 and 2008.

“I think we have an outdated perception of where poverty is and who it is affecting,” Kneebone told CNBC. “We tend to think of it as a very urban and a very rural phenomenon, but it is increasingly suburban.”

CNBC profiled Tara Simons, a single woman who moved to the suburb of West Hartford, Conn., for its quality of life and goods schools for her daughter. After a spell of unemployment, she found a job as a customer service representative earning $14 an hour.

She ended up behind on her utility bills, struggling with a payday loan and owing hundreds of dollars of credit card debt and $400 to her daughter’s lacrosse team. She and her daughter, now a high school freshman, moved to a cheaper apartment. Still, the $1,125 rent takes over half her take-home pay.


The USDA, Food and Nutrition Service reports:

Table A.21. Distribution of Participating Households With Selected Household Characteristics by the Race/Hispanic Status of the Household Head, Page 59 at Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Households: Fiscal Year 2011


Total Households receiving SNAP:

White, not Hispanic 36.6%
African American, not Hispanic 22.8%
Hispanic, Any Race 9.6%
Asian, not Hispanic 2.4%
Native American, not Hispanic 3.3%
Multiple Races Reported, non Hispanic 0.1%
Race Unknown 18.4%

Income inequality only makes the richer while the poor and former members of the middle class fall farther behind.

March 26, 2013 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Income inequality only makes the richer while the poor and former members of the middle class fall farther behind."

sounds like you are using poverty as an excuse to pursue resentfulness against successful people

reducing poverty is a worthy goal

eliminating income equality per se is an evil one

your stats are hyperbolic and we should seek a society that has equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes

it would be nice if most everyone could find a job

let's see, when was the last it was like that....

oh yeah, from the middle of Reagan's presidency until the beginning of Obama's

opportunity will again be available to all if we lower marginal tax rates and eliminate regulation

as the stats you provided show only too well, Obama's socialism isn't working

March 26, 2013 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"oh yeah, from the middle of Reagan's presidency until the beginning of Obama's"

Didn't the recession of the early '80s continue into Reagan's presidency and the financial collapse of the Great Recession happen during Bush's?



March 27, 2013 6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, Robert.

And let's not forget the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA from the biggest terrorism attack on our nation occurred about a month after Bush, who was vacationing at his Crawford Ranch chose to ignore his August 6, 2001, Daily Presidential Brief entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE U.S."

The Hubris of the GOP, particularly Bush and his neocons, is something to behold.

"opportunity will again be available to all if we lower marginal tax rates and eliminate regulation"

You sound like the GOP's most recent Presidential Loser Mitt Romney. Maybe we can put barbed wire around the dormitories corporations house underpaid workers in, like that factory in China Romney thought was so great!

He, like the Chinese, apparently enjoys keeping his slave laborers starving for crumbs.

But according to the Brookings Institute, it is our progressive tax code, with higher rates for higher earners, that keeps us from even worse income inequality. "The tax code alone won’t stop the expanding income gap, but can most certainly slow the quickly expanding inequality."

"...Brookings Papers on Economic Activity co-editor Justin Wolfers said of the findings, “It’s actually the rich are getting richer and staying richer. The poor, poorer and staying poorer. Now the tax system is somewhat helpful here. Yes, we have progressive taxes in the United States, and were it not for that, the authors show us, income inequality would have grown by more.”

The phrase “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” has never been more true, and stating that the middle class is shrinking is not just political rhetoric but a matter of fact that can have serious consequences on the economy. This isn’t the first study to confirm the growing gap in inequality, but what makes this Brookings study so compelling is its rare method — it is not a survey, but instead an analysis based on over two decades’ worth of actual tax data.

During the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney called the debate on income disparity a “bitter politics of envy,” adding, “I think it’s about class warfare.” What Romney failed to see were the serious implications that growing income inequality can have on the economy and society. When individuals and households can’t afford to purchase commodities, it affects businesses and stunts economic growth. The data presented in this study show that the attempt to close the inequality income gap is not an attack on the wealthy, but instead entirely necessary and in the best interest of society as a whole.

According to the Brookings study, “for men’s labor earnings, the increase in inequality was entirely permanent (100 percent), while for total household income, roughly three-quarters of the increase in inequality was permanent. [The authors] estimate that the permanent variance for men’s earnings roughly doubled in the 20 years between 1987 and 2009, while the permanent variance of total household income increased by about 50 percent over the same period.” Currently, the opportunity for households to work their way to a higher income bracket is more remote than ever.

The authors cited tax policy as a main contributor to this inequality. Despite a progressive tax code, Wolfers says, “the tax system is not enough to overcome the overwhelming economic force through this period, which is for income inequality to have risen, and so it’s still risen substantially even on an after-tax basis..."

March 27, 2013 8:17 AM  
Anonymous dazed and amused said...

"Didn't the recession of the early '80s continue into Reagan's presidency and the financial collapse of the Great Recession happen during Bush's?"

it's hard to hate Robert

he's so innocently gullible

Reagan inherited a mess from Jimmy Carter that was manifold times worse than 2008, double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates

before he came along, people were convinced the American era was over

and he made things better, developing a framework that lasted over a quarter of a century

what Obama inherited was low inflation, low interest rates and relatively low unemployment

unemployment shot up on his watch and has been very slow to recover

slower, by far, than any recovery in the postwar era

face it, from the mid-80s to 2008, most people who wanted a job could get one

since 2008, kids are going back to grad school and waiting for things to get better

the difference is Obama




March 27, 2013 6:59 AM Anonymous said...
That's right, Robert.

And let's not forget the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA from the biggest terrorism attack on our nation occurred about a month after Bush, who was vacationing at his Crawford Ranch chose to ignore his August 6, 2001, Daily Presidential Brief entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE U.S."

The Hubris of the GOP, particularly Bush and his neocons, is something to behold.

"opportunity will again be available to all if we lower marginal tax rates and eliminate regulation"

You sound like the GOP's most recent Presidential Loser Mitt Romney. Maybe we can put barbed wire around the dormitories corporations house underpaid workers in, like that factory in China Romney thought was so great!

He, like the Chinese, apparently enjoys keeping his slave laborers starving for crumbs.

But according to the Brookings Institute, it is our progressive tax code, with higher rates for higher earners, that keeps us from even worse income inequality. "The tax code alone won’t stop the expanding income gap, but can most certainly slow the quickly expanding inequality."


March 27, 2013 8:50 AM  
Anonymous dazed and amused said...

ooops, forgot the second part about the study from the liberal group

later

March 27, 2013 8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"what Obama inherited was low inflation, low interest rates and relatively low unemployment

unemployment shot up on his watch and has been very slow to recover"


What a moron!

Here's a simple factual visual depiction of where Bush left us, which was on the precipice of freefall into an economic abyss. See those elongating red lines on the left? That's what you are calling "low inflation, low interest rates, and relatively low unemployment" when any rational person can clearly see those line actually represent another failure of the Bush Presidency, the failure of his economic misleadership and our rapid descent toward the abyss.

Only you bubble-dwellers think Obama had anything to do with the Great Bush Recession. Rational people see the blue lines, which clearly show the improvement in the US's economy since Obama's leadership corrected Bush's erroneous course.

March 27, 2013 9:28 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Gullible Republican claimed:

“Reagan inherited a mess from Jimmy Carter that was manifold times worse than 2008, double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates

before he came along, people were convinced the American era was over

and he made things better, developing a framework that lasted over a quarter of a century”

Regan ushered in what the first Bush referred to as “voodoo economics,” because everyone could see it was doomed for failure.

Reagan got the economy going again after Carter because of a MASSIVE stimulus program that more than *tripled* the national debt. Most of this was in military and ancillary spending that scared the bejeebees out of the Russians. Regan also cut taxes which may have spurred some growth as well, but many of these were rolled back during his own administration because it was obvious that kind of deficit spending was unsustainable and totally irresponsible – at least to some people any way.

Reganomics or “supply side economics” became the defacto economic religion of the 90s – if lower taxes a bit and deregulating some was good, then obviously more of it would be even better. This led to a whole series of bubbles – the telecom bubble, the “dot com” bubble, the biotech bubble, the housing bubble, a commodities bubble, and a CDO / CDS bubble. While all this was going on, things for the most part looked great, lots of people employed and lots of their income taxes going into the government coffers. Government spending on important infrastructure (like roads, sewers and water systems) dropped in the interest of shrinking taxes and government spending at the same time. So for a while in the ‘90s everything looked peachy.

Bush II wanted to go to war and thought more of the same – cutting taxes and increasing military spending would work even better.

But then the reality of Reganomics, voodoo economics, “trickle down” economics, “supply side” economics or whatever you liked to call it started to kick in. The economy started to slide, despite heroic efforts by Greenspan to keep propping it up. He was totally oblivious to the fact that he was merely inflating the latest bubble in the in our out-of-whack economy.


Running late for work… part II tomorrow.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

March 27, 2013 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way to shock and awe "dazed and confused" with facts, Cynthia!

Facts are not the forte of "Gullible Republicans." They have spent years buying the SPIN their overlords dictate.

March 27, 2013 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

brilliant- and completely incorrect, Cynthia

I too have busyness to attend to and will demolish your arguments line-by-line this evening

for now, let's just all meditate on how inane your insinuation is that lower taxes and regulation cause "bubbles"

if so, I'd say let's all go flying with Glinda the Good Witch

"Have a nice day"

yeah, go ask a girl in a gingham dress to throw a pail of water on you

March 27, 2013 11:33 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I too have busyness to attend to and will demolish your arguments line-by-line this evening".

LOL, you mean you have nothing to back up your absurd claims so you'll tell one tired old Republican lie after another line-by-line this evening.

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Regan


Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

March 27, 2013 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I am hard to hate; but some people manage anyway.

March 27, 2013 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. "

And it upped his percentage of Hispanic voters from 35% to a whopping 37%.

The Hispanic Vote in Presidential Elections, 1980-2012
Pew Research Center
Posted on November 12, 2012 10:58:29 AM EST by ReaganÜberAlles

--1980
Jimmy Carter, 56%
Ronald Reagan, 35%
Dems +21

--1984
Walter Mondale, 61%
Ronald Reagan, 37%
Dems +24

--1988
Michael Dukakis, 69%
George H.W. Bush, 30%
Dems +39

--1992
Bill Clinton, 61%
George H.W. Bush, 25%
Dems +36

--1996
Bill Clinton, 72%
Bob Dole, 21%
Dems +51

--2000 Al Gore, 62%
George W. Bush, 35%
Dems +27

--2004
John Kerry, 58%
George W. Bush, 40%
BEST GOP HISPANIC VOTE PERCENTAGE EVER
Dems +18

--2008
Barack Obama, 67%
John McCain, 31%
Dems +36

--2012
Barack Obama, 71%
Mitt Romney, 27%
Dems +44

March 27, 2013 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Crawley said...

Good heavens, that Priya woman was certainly surly. I read her comments and thought of the old Monty Python movie, "And Now For Something Completely Different."

Not a proper blog commenter, is she? Best to ignore her, I suppose.

March 27, 2013 9:12 PM  
Anonymous dazed and amused said...

yes, Cedric, we know what you mean and heartily agree!!

March 28, 2013 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Start your own blog with your own rules for Morons, Cedric.

Nice little cowardly disguise to try to get out of your planned attempt to "ooops, forgot the second part about the study from the liberal group

later"


March 28, 2013 10:31 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Sorry I don't have time to write this morning folks; I'll just have to leave you with this link to an interesting article:

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/28/how-gay-marriage-won/

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

March 28, 2013 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Glen the Good Anonymous said...

Don't let the rudeness of the bad anonymous deter you, Cedric.

Make any suggestions you want to deal with the uncivil posters here.

March 28, 2013 12:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

1:24 comment made by Priya Lynn, not sure why it didn't post under my name.

March 28, 2013 1:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And now its gone.

What I said was :

Glen, Cedric IS bad anonymous.

March 28, 2013 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Glen the Good Anonymous said...

Don't fall for it, people. Just ignore the uncivil and they will go away.

March 28, 2013 2:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

We've tried Glen. If you ignore bad anonymous he just rants on and on to himself or pretends he's more than one person each congratulating the other on how "smart" he is.

March 28, 2013 2:57 PM  
Anonymous canny observer said...

The fastest-growing religious affiliation today is the lack of religious affiliation — the rise of the “nones,” as in “none of the above,” who now constitute nearly 20 percent of the population.

For some, this is an indication that America is finally on the path of secularization taken by much of Europe, where non-religious funerals have become common and half of Europeans have never attended a religious service. Much of modern sociology has been premised on the notion that modernization and secularization go together.

In America’s case, the hypothesis remains unproved. While Americans have become less attached to religious institutions, there is little evidence they have become less religious. In 1992, according to the indispensable Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Americans described religion as “very important.” In 2012, it was . . . 58 percent. There is a similar stability in the proportion of Americans who regard prayer as an important part of their lives.

It is Europe that remains the global religious outlier. America has about the same level of religious commitment as does Latin America. As Robert Putnam of Harvard University points out, “The average American is slightly more religious than the average Iranian.”

America is not a secularized country. But the relative decline of institutional religion has public consequences. While the number of the devout has remained steady, fewer of those in the religious middle identify with the organizations and values of the devout. What we are seeing, according to Luis Lugo of Pew, is not “secularization but polarization.”

On the level of politics, this trend aids cultural liberalism and the Democratic Party. About 70 percent of the nones voted for President Obama. They are more liberal than the religiously affiliated on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In fact, nones are now the largest religious category in the Democratic coalition, comprising 24 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.

This sets up some possible conflicts within the Democratic Party. Its second-largest religious group is black Protestants, among the most religious of Americans. How included will they — or liberal Catholics or progressive evangelicals — feel as Democratic ideology becomes more secular and secularizing?

Those cheering the trend of religious disaffiliation should consider some broader social consequences. The rise of the nones is symptomatic of the decline of many forms of belonging. According to Pew, ALL of the recent growth in the nones has come among those who are not married. This indicates a group of people distrustful of institutions, with marriage being the most basic of institutions. The unaffiliated donate less to charity than do the affiliated. They participate in fewer volunteer organizations. Individualism can easily become atomization. Whatever else you may think of the communitarian creeds, they help create community.

Can these creeds adapt to changed cultural circumstances and renew their appeal? Sociologists such as Roger Finke and Rodney Stark provide evidence that it has happened before. At the time of the American Revolution, institutional religion was ossified and only about one-fifth of Americans were church members. Around the Civil War, it was perhaps a third. Today is it is more than half. Over a period of rapid social and economic change, Methodists, Baptists, then Pentecostals found ways to attract new members. “The churching of America,” Finke and Starke conclude, “was accomplished by aggressive churches committed to vivid otherworldliness.”

In religion, it is easy to measure what is dying; it is harder to locate the manger where something new is being born.

March 29, 2013 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Crawley said...

I am quite heartened to see that my recommendation from yesterday has been taken up.

Jolly good show and the best of holiday weekends to all my comrades in courteous internet conversation.

Pip-pip.

March 29, 2013 8:32 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Personally, I think the conservative anons should remain just as obnoxious and anti-social as they always have been. Their abusive behavior has played its own special role in forwarding the GAY AGENDA. I doubt the cause would have moved as quickly as it has over the past 10 years without reasonable people being able to see first hand the way these folks treat the LGBT community.

Tood-a-loo,

Cynthia

March 29, 2013 10:37 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You're not fooling anyone Cedric/bad anonymous.

March 29, 2013 11:03 AM  
Anonymous blackbird singin' said...

I've got a funny feeling that Cedric, Glen and Dazed were referring to Priya and her defenders as the bad anonymi.

Just a funny feeling. They were appealing for little civility.

Not much to ask for!!

Unless you weren't born that way...


March 29, 2013 8:50 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I tried being quite civil here for years (been posting since’08, I think). I was hoping it would encourage the Anons to be civil as well; but that certainly didn’t happen. Sometimes they even make it quite clear that they would like to see me suffer a tortuous and ignominious death.

I think civility is great. There’s the opportunity for a more enlightened and intellectual discussion.

So what are the Anons going to say if, in the interest of civility, they stop referring to LGBT folks as "sexual deviants," mentally ill, disordered, fascist, “evil,” “out to destroy society,” and “only want to destroy marriage?” (Among other things.)

Seems like it’s gonna get awfully quiet here.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

March 30, 2013 1:08 PM  
Anonymous oops! said...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/

April 06, 2013 9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home