Constantly Adifferent: What Santa Looks Like
This week I was traveling, and in the airport I saw a television news show where a number of grown-ups in suits and ties and nice dresses sat at a desk discussing what Santa Claus really looks like.
The adults apparently were not aware of recent perfidiously published research of a Mountebank Professor from the Far East, who has been researching the legends of the Olden Days. In her research, the recondite Professor had discovered some old papers which had been hidden vagariously away and have been proven to be entirely chimerical, containing academically cozened information regarding the earliest known reference to Santa Claus. The following very, very old poem was written in a supposititious dialect believed to be intermediary between Old Norse and Central Tamazight.
The adults apparently were not aware of recent perfidiously published research of a Mountebank Professor from the Far East, who has been researching the legends of the Olden Days. In her research, the recondite Professor had discovered some old papers which had been hidden vagariously away and have been proven to be entirely chimerical, containing academically cozened information regarding the earliest known reference to Santa Claus. The following very, very old poem was written in a supposititious dialect believed to be intermediary between Old Norse and Central Tamazight.
The eldest in the land cannot recall
A time when elven bands did not yet dance
leaded by the joliest old elf
non but the laughing Samuel-ta Klaas.
Kinge or granpere none can say for certain
but only that he an his marry band
ande their team of happy flying reendaer
do dans and sing and play with humane children
moreso when the yule season be here
when they bring their gifties during drametime.
The elven folk have faces of mystery
they chainge wan might a graen-up human see
Every shade and color nature makes
the elves can be, led bye oldd Sam-ta Klaas.
A moonbeam dancing on the snowTis knewn that children have the gift to see
That blue starre, was that an elfen danser?
A raindrop flashing on a forest tree
A dark shaydoe playing under a blaid of grasse
Red sparks flying from the burning log
Everywhere are elfenkind, playing and hiding from graen-ups.
The ordinarrie world is majick
But ordinarie people can not see it
the elven dancing, be in day or night,
the tiny white-faced elves with ears a-pointie
clever black elves with curling magick shoes
elven boyes and girls in mistic clothes
and most mischievous, the little greenfellows
who nock over things an mayke fritefull naises.
At the front of the danse, with pype and beard,
all in red with face constantly adifferent,
Aild Sam-ta Klaas shaykes his big behind
and his big bellie shaykes as well and his feet
do a jig for Yule and to make the children happie.
Sam-ta and his elves and raindaere team
flie through the nacht with their bagg of gifts
bringing joie and toys and happyness.
Children wake to find the elves have visited
leaving cookies and good things to playe with.
posted by JimK at 12:13 PM
76 Comments:
"I haven't written in quite a while, but Megyn Kelly's uninformed, racist remarks goaded me into action, even in the middle of grading finals and papers. Here's what I sent her:
Dear Ms. Kelly:
As a scholar with two doctorates in the field of early Christianity (specializing in the Christian East), I was appalled to hear your remarks about the presumed race of both Santa Claus and Jesus.
You correctly stated that the mythical figure of Santa Claus is based on an historical figure, St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas was the bishop of Myra, a city near the southern coast of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). First of all, modern categories of “black” and “white” are just that – modern – whereas race was understood differently in the ancient world. St. Nicholas was not “white” if by white you mean European. He most certainly was not a pale-skinned, red-cheeked, obese, married man, as Santa Claus is typically portrayed in contemporary American culture. Rather, St. Nicholas was an unmarried, ascetic (i.e., thin through fasting), Mediterranean/Middle Eastern bishop, so the notion of the contemporary Santa Claus’ being “black” is no further removed from the historical reality than his being fat, married, and “white.”
Even more disconcerting was your equally inaccurate assertion that Jesus was white. Jesus was, of course, Jewish, and so was racially Semitic, at a time when there was very little intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews. This means that Jesus would have had black or very dark brown hair, dark brown eyes, and olive skin, with Middle Eastern facial features, including probably a large nose. He was most certainly not a white European. The portraits of Jesus that I have seen in Protestant churches and homes throughout the country depicting him with light brown or even blue eyes, light brown (almost blond) hair, and clearly European facial features is as historically inaccurate as any black/African Jesus.
Ironically, then, It appears that you are as concerned to make important figures such as Jesus and St. Nicholas/Santa Claus similar to your own cultural and racial identity as is Aisha Harris. Perhaps you should be more sympathetic to her position."
this whole argument is a little stupid
the Santa Claus myth morphed, or evolved, from Saint Nicholas but there has been so much embellishment that he is basically a fictional character
and that fictional character has always been depicted as white
Jesus, on the other hand, was an historical figure so it can be discussed whether he was actually white
your description is accurate, although in a world with racial categories, the one Jesus is in has generally been considered "white" unless the topic is Jesus
doesn't really matter though
btw, the story of the Magi has always been understood to mean that Jesus was for all races
"More than two-thirds of the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans still won't have health insurance at the end of Obamacare's first year of operation, according to forecasts by the 50 states.
The state projections could underestimate the true number of uninsured because the data was compiled before the disastrous Obamacare launch revealed major problems with its Healthcare.gov web portal.
According to the Urban Institute, which compiled the state estimates, about 63 percent of the uninsured will still be without coverage on Oct. 1, 2014. (See the accompanying map for state-by-state data)
The state projections contradict President Obama's promise that passage of the Affordable Care Act would assure every American of health insurance coverage.
It also appears that in some of the states where officials most enthusiastically embraced Obamacare, the plight of the uninsured will persist for years to come.
In a June 2009 speech before the American Medical Association, Obama declared that “we are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women, and children.
"We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without the coverage they deserve; or turns its backs on those in need.
"We're a nation that cares for its citizens. We look out for one another. That's what makes us the United States of America. We need to get this done.”
But the state projections suggest it won't be done in 2014.
In Maryland, for example, officials estimated that there are 800,000 uninsured in the state. But Maryland Health Connection, the state's Obamacare exchange, projected enrolling only 150,000 people by the end of 2014. Only 3,800 were enrolled by Nov. 30, 2013.
Nina Smith, a spokesman for Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley - who is considering seeking his party's 2016 presidential nomination - said large numbers of people will continue to be uninsured after 2020."
"JON KARL: Will people who buy insurance by December 23rd actually have their insurance policies go into effect by January 1?
JAY CARNEY: What I can tell you is we are working overtime to make sure that every 834 form is accurate, when it goes to be issued to the back end. Problems that existed, you've seen a lot of reports on how those back end issues have been addressed. Continue to be addressed. One of the processes here is to ensure that those who enrolled are in communication with their issuer to make sure they know when their premiums are due. And that's something that we're trying to facilitate. We're doing everything we can to make sure that everyone who has enrolled who pays his or her premium is aware of all the information they need to do that is covered on January 1."
After you let gays marry, what's next?
(CNN) -- Polygamy is back in the headlines.
Last week, a federal judge in Utah struck down the state's anti-polygamy law as unconstitutional. Fans of the "Sister Wives" reality TV stars, who filed the suit, are rejoicing in the news.
Next up, interspecies marriages.
"MIAMI, FL - When President Barack Obama shook hands with his Cuban counterpart, Raul Castro, at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service last week, American diplomats insisted the encounter held no significance.
“Sometimes a handshake is just a handshake,” said Roberta Jacobson, the US State Department’s top Latin America official.
But in nearby Little Havana, the heart of Miami’s 1.6m Cuban-American community, there was suspicion and dismay at Obama’s warmth towards Castro, 82, who was appointed president in 2008 by his ailing brother Fidel, now 87.
Rosa Maria Paya, 24, fled the island this summer, a year after her father, Oswaldo Paya, a leading opposition activist who demanded an end to one-party rule, was killed. She said his car had been repeatedly rammed by a vehicle with a Cuban intelligence agent behind the wheel.
“They tried to kill him the month before and this time they succeeded. They have never released the autopsy report. The rest of my family left after the intimidation and threats increased. There was a call to my house at 4am warning they would kill me.
“President Obama was shaking the hand of the killer of my father. People think that he is more reasonable than Fidel but they are mistaken. Violence has increased under Raul.”"
A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency’s daily collection of virtually all Americans’ phone records is almost certainly unconstitutional.
The White House echoed a long-held position Monday: There will be no amnesty for Edward Snowden.
"Mr. Snowden is accused of leaking classified information and faces felony charges here in the United States," said Caitlin Hayden, spokesperson for the National Security Council. "He should be returned to the U.S. as soon as possible, where he will be accorded full due process and protections."
Utah has gay marriage?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My health insurance company called my home this morning to verify my new ACA compliant health insurance policy, help me select my Primary Care Provider, and pay my bill by phone so my coverage is set to begin on Jan 1, 2014.
In spite of the many glitches with the Maryland healthcare website, particularly the Find a Provider function, a little persistence of phone calls to both my insurance company and the MD exchange, as well as walk-in contacts with Maryland navigators has paid off. My daughter and I are now signed, sealed and delivered to saving over $600/month on our health insurance premiums next year.
Since we are both healthy, we have both selected higher deductible and out of pocket plans, lowering our monthly costs. Even if we both meet our deductibles and pay the maximum OOP costs in 2014, we will still save over $2000 compared to continuing with our ACA-grandfathered current plan.
That $600/month savings includes both my daughter's $19 subsidized monthly premium for her own policy and my $290 unsubsidized monthly premium for mine.
The premium cost for our current 2013 "parent and child" plan, which we could have continued with next year, was set to rise to $973 per month in 2014.
I wanted to share our good news with TTF readers, who I am sure will be happy for us.
that's just wonderful
Obama is taking money from others and giving it to you
but you were already insured
Obama claimed this was needed to provide insurance to the uninsured not to redistribute from those over 4-times-poverty limit to those under
thanks for reminding us he lied
he should be impeached but we're going to do something much worse to him
we're going to give Repubs veto-proof majorities in both Houses and force him to sit in his dunce chair in the Oval Office, powerless to do anything until his debut on Dancing with the Stars in 2017
Robert says:
"These questions and comments are troll-like because their intent is to disrupt and antagonize, not foster discussion. Please, tell us under which bridge you hide, so we can warn our children not to cross it."
how many children you have, Robert?
why are you so disruptive and antagonistic lately?
you appear afraid of any fostered discussion
as we all have seen, homosexuals have every right that every other American has and no one has denied their rights to them
what you call "rights" are special protections and extra rights due because of your supposed victimization
calling people names, as you are doing, has not prevented anyone from seeing that
"Obama is taking money from others and giving it to you
but you were already insured
Obama claimed this was needed to provide insurance to the uninsured not to redistribute from those over 4-times-poverty limit to those under"
I make more than 400% of the poverty level and do not qualify for any subsidy. No one is giving me any money. I have reduced my monthly costs by raising my deductible and OOP limit and by changing from a Parent and Child policy to an individual policy.
My daughter, who does not make anywhere near 400 times the poverty level, is getting a subsidy.
How about your kids? Aren't they getting a full free ride until age 26 on your family policy while my 22 year old daughter will make monthly payments to be covered?
186
Obama sold ACA as a way to eliminate uninsured people
he is using it to transfer wealth and drive his social agenda
true Americans now consider him persona non grata
someone who was viciously ridiculed by TTF has died:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/harold-camping-dead-dies_n_4459716.html?ref=topbar
"186"
you're not their parent, Robert
teachers need to be taken down a notch
they have an inflated sense of self-importance with narcissistic tendencies
And a tendency to call people names, I've heard.
that's true
when you call me a troll that lives under a bridge, your latent narcissistic tendencies were evident
good catch, Robo
Pointing out that someone's an a-hole when its the truth doesn't mean you're narcissistic. Its when you call innocent people like gays and lesbians deviants, immoral, sick, and perverted you're saying something negative about yourself.
lazy Priya, Robo and I are narcissists so watch out...
or else...
we'll call you a name!!
that oughta shut her up!!
what will lazy Priya say?
not much that can be said, except to apologize for ignorance
You speak only for yourself, not Robert. You are correct to admit that you're a narcissist, but stop lying about Robert.
Bad anonymous said "that oughta shut her up!!" and then "what will lazy Priya say?".
His mind is so messed up he he can't help but contradict himself.
Priya, you lazy soul
when I said teachers were narcissist:
"teachers have an inflated sense of self-importance with narcissistic tendencies"
Robert agreed and added:
"And a tendency to call people names"
he's a teacher
he calls people names
he has just acknowledged that he's a narcissist
First ever Papal "selfie!"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/17/ann_coulter_liberalism_is_on_the_spectrum_of_mental_illness.html
University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’s study, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” published in the academic journal Social
the bias of social science:
"Science Research last year, caused a firestorm in the scientific community. Unlike most previous studies, Regnerus found that children of parents who had experienced a same-sex relationship fared worse than children of heterosexual parents on measures of social, emotional, and psychological adjustment as well as educational attainment, employment history, need for public assistance, substance abuse, and criminal justice system involvement.
The reaction to the Regnerus study was swift and harsh. Many of his academic colleagues said it was fatally flawed. Many questioned the motives of the author, reviewers, and journal editor. Did they have an anti-gay political agenda?
The controversy illustrates how tougher standards for assessing scientific worth are applied if a study produces results that are inconsistent with the scientists’ own political views. Suppose Regnerus had conducted an identical study, with the same methodological flaws, that had produced results consistent with previous studies, finding no differences between the children of gay or lesbian ("lesbigay") versus heterosexual parents. Would this one study (among the over 60 studies on lesbigay parenting) receive the same criticism, or any criticism at all, from the academic community? Would 201 scholars send a letter to the journal objecting to its publication of the study? Would the author’s former department chair publish an op-ed saying that she was “furious” about her junior colleague’s “pseudo-science”? Would academics make allegations in blogs and other forums about the integrity of the author, journal editor, and editorial review process?1 Would the professor’s university subject him to an intrusive investigation for possible scientific misconduct (of which it found no evidence)? And would similar attacks have been launched against other researchers who dared to question the scholarly consensus?"
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/december/scientific-groupthink-and-gay-parenting
"Obama sold ACA as a way to eliminate uninsured people"
And that most certainly is now true for people with pre-existing conditions and those who haven't had insurance since it got cancelled when they got sick.
"Forty-Five Thousand Americans Die Every Year Due To Lack Of Insurance. In September 2009, a Harvard Medical School study found that a "lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States," The New York Times reported. The paper explained:
Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States -- a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.
[...]
The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance -- as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.
The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure. [The New York Times, 9/17/09]"
"Twenty-Five Percent Of Adults Under 65 Say They Or A Family Member Have Been Denied Coverage Or Charged More For Having Pre-existing Condition. According to a June 2013 survey from the Kaiser Foundation, one quarter of respondents under 65 "say that they or a family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their pre-existing condition":
Americans with pre-existing medical conditions often face problems in getting and retaining good health insurance coverage, an issue dealt with directly by ACA in its "guaranteed issue" provision, which prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals on the basis of health status or pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014. The June survey finds that roughly half (49 percent) of adults under age 65 say they or someone in their household has a pre-existing condition, and many of them report problems related to getting and keeping insurance.
One quarter (25 percent) of these individuals (14 percent of all non-elderly adults) say that they or a family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their pre-existing condition. Further, nearly one in ten (9 percent) of these individuals say that in the past year, they or someone in their household has passed up a job opportunity, stayed at a job they would have quit otherwise, or decided not to retire in order to maintain their health coverage. [Kaiser Foundation, 6/19/13]"
"Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care By Health Plans In First Six Months Of Bush's First Term. According to data from the Census Bureau and a report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation analyzed by Families USA, "[M]ore than 7.5 million people experienced a problem with their health plan that resulted in a denial or delay of health care" in the month from President George W. Bush's inauguration to June 2001. Families USA wrote:
[A]pproximately 18.1 million Americans per year between 18 and 64 years of age experience a problem with their health plan that results in a denial or delay of medical care. [Families USA, 6/21/01]"
"Seventeen-Year-Old's Insurance Revoked After He Tests HIV Positive.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."
[...]
Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.
Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?" The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward. [Huffington Post, 9/17/09]"
"Woman Denied Coverage For Breast Cancer Because She Wasn't Diagnosed At Correct Clinic.
In June 2003, Shirley Loewe went to Good Shepherd Medical Center here with a softball-size lump in her breast and was diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer. She didn't know it, but she had just made a big mistake.
Ms. Loewe was uninsured. Under federal law, she could have gotten Medicaid coverage -- and saved herself a lot of hardship -- if she'd gone to a different clinic less than a half-mile away. But by walking through Good Shepherd's doors, Ms. Loewe unwittingly let that opportunity slip and embarked on a four-year journey through the Byzantine U.S. health-care system.
It was an odyssey that would take her to five hospitals, two clinics, two charitable organizations and two nursing homes in two states. She was denied assistance or care at least six times along the way, for reasons that ranged from not being poor enough to not being sick enough.
Ms. Loewe eventually got treatment, but at personal cost and great aggravation. [The Wall Street Journal, 9/13/07]"
"Woman's Double Mastectomy Denied Over Disputed Acne Treatment.
Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.
Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.
The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her medical history.
Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go ahead with the surgery.
[...]
Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage. The company said it had reviewed her medical records and found out that she had misinformed them about some of her medical history.
Beaton had listed her weight incorrectly. She also didn't disclose medication she had taken for a pre-existing heart condition -- medicine she wasn't taking when she originally applied for coverage. [CNN, 6/16/09]"
Earth has its warmest November on record
"An astonishing warm spell over Russia, up to 14 degrees F above normal, helped Earth achieve its warmest November on record.
Global temperatures were 1.4 degrees F above the 20th century average, 0.05 degrees F above the previous record from 2004 according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
“Much of southern Russia, north west Kazakhstan, south India, and southern Madagascar were record warm,” the National Climatic Data center writes. “Some areas of the Urals, Siberia, south of the Far East region, and on the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea had temperatures that were more than 8°C (14°F) higher than the monthly average.”
While large parts of the globe were abnormally warm, cool pockets focused in northern Australia, parts of North America, southwest Greenland, and parts of the Southern Ocean near South America. The U.S. temperature was 0.3 degrees below normal in November.
The warm November globally helped boost the year-to-date ranking from 7th warmest on record (through October) to a tie for 4th warmest (with 2002).
NASA’s independent analysis of global temperatures also concluded November 2013 was the warmest on record.
November marked the 345 consecutive month of above normal temperatures globally. The last cooler than average month globally occurred in February, 1985 (almost 29 years ago)."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous posted "Suppose Regnerus had conducted an identical study, with the same methodological flaws, that had produced results consistent with previous studies, finding no differences between the children of gay or lesbian ("lesbigay") versus heterosexual parents.".
The Regnerus didn't find any differences between the children of lesbian or gay parents and the children of heterosexual parents - it didn't study the children of lesbian or gay parents at all. What it actually studied was the children of people in broken heterosexual marriages where one partner had had one or more extramarital same sex affairs.
When pressed, Regnerus will sometimes admits that his study cannot support the claims that he makes that gay parenting results in worse outcomes in children — only two kids in his study were actually raised by gay parents for their entire childhoods.
When the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison. Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Regnerus categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care. As a result, so long as an adult child believed that he or she had had a parent who had a relationship with someone of the same sex, then he or she was counted by Regnerus as having been “raised by” a parent in a same-sex relationship.
The Regnerus study at 2012a at 75: As Regnerus noted, the majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite- sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex parents.
In sum, by conflating (as does the article posted by bad anonymous) children raised by same-sex parents with individuals who reportedly had a parent who had “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex,” and referring to such individuals as children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” the Regnerus study obscures the fact that it did not specifically examine children raised by two same-sex parents. Accordingly, it cannot speak to the impact of same-sex parenting on child outcomes.
What the Regnerus study showed was that children in mixed orientation marriages (where one parent is gay or lesbian and the other opposite sex parent is heterosexual) don't fair well. The vast majority of LGBT people and members of the mental health profession would agree its a bad idea for a lesbian or gay person to enter into an opposite sex marriage and have children, the infinitely preferable alternative being that lesbian and gays enter into same sex marriages and raise children if they so choose.
will respond to lazy Priya later today
I hate to do it too fast when one of the multiple personalities may just delete their posts anyway
Joke:
how many personalities does it take to control one lunatic in Saskatchewan?
to infinity and beyond
Your joke deserves a trip to the woodshed and a good whipping.
Bad anonymous said "will respond to lazy Priya later today".
Don't even bother trying bad anonymous, you can't rehabilitate that bullsh*t study and I'll just spank you again.
For once bad anonymous feels he has to briefly devote some time to the work duties he's paid to do but of course that's temporary, he'll be back to wasting his work time later today.
Priya is correct. Regnerus compared children who had a parent who ever had a gay or lesbian interaction with children whose parents had stayed together throughout their upbringing. They're not comparable things, and Regnerus's results are meaningless on the face of it. I assume all the well-educated anti-lgbt activists who use this study in opposition to gay marriage are aware of this, they're not being stupid.
What do you call it when you deliberately mislead people to make a political point?
I assume anonymous will take this as an opening to discuss the ACA. Resist! Resist!
In a new interview with GQ's Drew Magary, Phil Robertson -- star of "Duck Dynasty" and the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series -- opened up about "modern immorality" and the gay community.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Robertson was once a substance abuser, but in the 1970s he turned his life over to Jesus, according to the Christian publication, The Southeast Outlook. He has since been a devout Christian and strives to be a scholar of the Bible.
GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said:
Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about lesbians or the majority of Louisianans who support legal recognition for loving and committed lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for lesbian people and families.
Recently, Robertson and his family were named on Barbara Walters' "Most Fascinating People of 2013" list. He snubbed Walters' interview to go duck hunting instead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I wonder which personality did that
I had to start my response all over again
this is getting ridiculous
Bad anonymous has got a woody because the duck dynasty guy is a bigot.
K
I'm going to give it a coupla hours and see if that one disappears like many of lazy Priya's comments have a habit a-doin'
I see bad anonymous is struggling with his response to my post on the Regnerus "study" - the truth broke his brain and he can't think of any plausible B.S.
Hurry up bad anonymous, your workday is almost over and god knows you don't want to be spending time on the internet when you're on your own time at home.
no worries, lazy Priya
I'm working tonight so I should have plenty of time to counter your ignorance
do you promise not to delete any more posts today?
You can't counter the truth bad anonymous. The Regnerus study is such a blatant farce you have no hope of muddying the waters enough for anyone to think it says anything about children raised by same sex couples.
sad,
it's obvious that lazy Priya was too lazy to read the article
you might want to take outta you "busy" schedule to do that before I blow your undeleted comments to smithereens
LOL! Your delusion knows no bounds.
When you can't counter your opponents arguments just declare victory and run away.
Bad anonymous said "it's obvious that lazy Priya was too lazy to read the article".
Obviously not. Just as all the anti-gays have done with the Regnerus study your article attempted to dishonestly conflate children from broken mixed orientation opposite sex marriages and children raised by same sex couples. I made it clear that the Regnerus study says nothing about children raised by same sex couples.
smithereens, people, smithereens
you can tell lazy Priya is getting nervous from the multiple posts where one would do fine
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You're great at blowing hot air but pitiful at posting anything of substance.
Of course there's nothing you can say to rebut what I've posted so you just keep posting pee pee ca ca and making promises you can't deliver on.
Me I just like goading you into spending more of your workday f'n the dog.
Well, its been several hours since bad anonymous promised to blow my Regnerus comment to smithereens.
**crickets**
Bad anonymous might blow yet but as is always the case there'll be no smithereens.
See you tomorrow bad anonymous.
oh, I'm still here at the factory and I'm gonna blow your foolishness to smithereens before I trudge home
On Wednesday evening, A&E released this statement to Entertainment Weekly:
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."
Entertainment Weekly added that the rest of the family starring in "Duck Dynasty" will remain on the program.
Earlier on Wednesday, a representative from A&E submitted a statement to The Huffington Post from Phil Roberston in response to the controversy:
“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
"Democrat Mark Herring’s victory in the exceedingly close Virginia attorney general’s race, which Republican Mark Obenshain conceded Wednesday, ought to end any debate about two key questions regarding politics in the Old Dominion.
First, in statewide elections, it’s now beyond doubt that Democrats start with a significant advantage. It turns out the 2009 GOP landslide, led by Gov. Bob McDonnell, was an exception fueled by the initial, tea party-led backlash against President Obama.
Since then, Democrats have won five straight statewide elections: for president and U.S. Senate in 2012, and for governor, lieutenant governor and now attorney general in November. Democrats hold every statewide elective office for the first time since 1969.
“In a statewide election, this is a state with a bluish tint. Republicans can win, but they can’t win easily,” said Bob Holsworth, a veteran Richmond political commentator.
Minority and immigrant voters, who tend to support Democrats, are growing as a share of the electorate. Populous suburbs such as Fairfax County, which used to be up for grabs, are now reliably blue. Those that once leaned red, such as Prince William and Loudoun, now lean the other way.
“Democrats are doing far better with emerging voting blocs than Republicans are,” Holsworth said.
Second, to be competitive, the GOP needs to nominate candidates with more moderate views, especially on social issues. Republican support for low taxes and less government regulation is popular. But the GOP loses many voters because of its positions on issues such as abortion and immigration.
The party should pick its nominees via primaries rather than conventions. The latter are typically dominated by grass-roots activists with hard-line views.
Obenshain, a state senator from Harrisonburg, was supposed to be the Republican candidate most likely to win and prevent a Democratic sweep this year. He comes from a distinguished Virginia political family. He wasn’t as controversial as the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, or its candidate for lieutenant governor, preacher E.W. Jackson.
Furthermore, the GOP had a built-in advantage competing for a law-and-order position like attorney general. The Republicans have held the post since 1994.
Obenshain made it close. When he conceded, he was behind by about 800 votes out of 2.2 million cast.
He lost primarily because the Democrats were able to link his views to those of Cuccinelli, especially on social issues. A Herring ad pictured Obenshain riding in the same car as Cuccinelli. The Democrats called attention to Obenshain’s sponsorship of a bill that would have required women to report miscarriages to police within 24 hours.
Obenshain also seemed out of the mainstream because he opposed the historic, bipartisan transportation tax deal championed by McDonnell and House of Delegates Speaker Bill Howell (R-Stafford).
Republican Tom Davis, a former U.S. congressman from Fairfax, said the 2013 election “should be a wake-up call” for his party. He blamed its right wing for insisting on a convention that nominated candidates who couldn’t appeal to moderates.
“It was a rebuke of the Republicans,” Davis said. “They lost it because they have a very exclusionary process for recruiting candidates. They do not understand the changing demographics of the state, and they’re not talking about issues that people care about.”..."
"“It was a rebuke of the Republicans,” Davis said. “They lost it because they have a very exclusionary process for recruiting candidates. They do not understand the changing demographics of the state, and they’re not talking about issues that people care about.”...""
oh brother
a minute ago you said that Virginia is now a blue state
now, you're saying they were just rebuking extremist Republicans
make up your mind so we can discuss
btw, an election so close it needs a recall and is not settled for over a month is not a "rebuke" to anyone
would it have been a rebuke to Democrats if 401 people had voted Repub instead of Dem?
oh yeah, every time a Dem squeaks out a slim victory, it's an historical event and Repubs are doomed unless they compromise all their principles
please
Virginia generally votes much more conservative in its statewide state government elections, because they are held on off-years, when there are no federal elections, and, since conservative voters have an easier time voting, more conservative voters come out for elections that many people view as less important.
Even given that, Democrats won all three state-wide offices.
That is due, I think, at least in part to the extremist candidates that were selected in the Republican's convention process this year. Obenshain was the least extreme candidate the party offered, and he was the one which did most well.
Virginia is becoming less red, but is no means a liberal place.
It is worth noting that the Attorney-General-elect supports marriage and inclusive non-discrimination policies, and ran on that.
that was before Duck Dynasty came out against homosexual marriage, Robert
everyone agrees in Richmond, Norfolk, Staunton, Roanoke, Bristol, Lynchburg, Hampton, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg...
let's give Alexandria and Arlington back to DC and let 'em be a state
McDonnell's scandal had more to do with the result than some imagined desire among Virginians to see homosexuals slobbering all over each other in the local public park
Yesterday bad anonymous said "oh, I'm still here at the factory and I'm gonna blow your foolishness to smithereens before I trudge home".
**crickets**
You shouldn't make promises you can't keep loser.
There's no rehabilitating the Regnerus study, it never had any data on children raised by same sex couples and as such can never support the conclusion that the children of same sex couples have different outcomes from the children of heterosexual couples.
Of course when you have gays and lesbians marrying opposite sex heteroesexual partners the marriages fail and its bad for children - that's why its evil for you to keep demanding that gays and lesbians marry opposite sex partners instead of same sex partners.
You've obviously learned your lesson although you're not man enough to admit it. You've lost your war on gays and lesbians, hang up your keyboard before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
let me explain, lazy Priya
Santa made me and the other elves work real late last night and the tub o' lard was watching us like a snow hawk so I couldn't get a chance to sneak out a response, even though I was on the laptop assembly line
then, later, when I got back to the elf lodge, it was all I could do to get an egg nog with Mount Gay rum and then nod off and dream of sugar plums
here I am, back with the other elves loading violent software onto laptops for the kids
I heard Santa is going to a sale at Target later so maybe I can blow your argument to smithereens then
won't be hard since....
YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I quoted directly from the article when I posted my response fool.
I obviously did read it, you just didn't like me destroying it.
So now you've gone from "I'll blow your comment to smithereens later tonight" to "Maybe I can blow your argument to smithereens later". Let me save TTF readers the trouble - No you can't. I'm right, you're wrong and you're never going to overcome that with your room temperature IQ.
You often blow, but there's never any smithereens.
I've had enough of you making promises you never deliver on, I won't be back to read more of your pee pee ca ca.
nothing can change the fact that you did't read the article, lazy Priya
that's how you get in so much trouble:
lazy ignorance
weak attempts at mockery won't save your arguments from their fate as smithereens
it must be so scary to know that all your arguments will eventually become smithereens
At least Priya makes her own arguments and doesn't just post opinion pieces written by others, like the groupthink editorial you posted.
Your non-response shows Priya's cogent rebuttals defeated your stolen editorial bull oney and left you speechless, other than the usual foaming at the mouths you bubbleheads are so into.
FYI
"Federal prosecutors told Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell last week that he and his wife would be charged in connection with a gift scandal, but senior Justice Department officials delayed the decision after the McDonnells’ attorneys made a face-to-face appeal in Washington, according to people familiar with the case."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/prosecutors-were-ready-to-charge-va-gov-mcdonnell-but-final-decision-delayed-by-justice-officials/2013/12/18/32260fa6-67fa-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html
unfortunately, you too neglected to read the referenced post by me and you also, like lazy Priya, will be rhetorically blown to smithereens
sorry, nothing can be done
that's so sad, that another person has to know that their words and thoughts will ultimately become smithereens
OK, well, yesterday I posted the first few paragraphs of an article with a link to the full article
the article discussed the overwhelming bias in the field of sociology against conservative points of view
as an example, it used the REACTION to the Regnerus study last year
at no point in the article did the author make any argument supporting the study
it did, however, argue that researchers are intimidated from presenting any findings contradicting politically correct positions that are pre-assumed as valid
lazy Priya, not having read the article, flew off the handle and on to a broomstick, cackling on about the Regnerus study
but that was never the point of the article
the point was that no article supporting the politically correct agenda received any scrutiny similar to the Regnerus study
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"at no point in the article did the author make any argument supporting the study"
He can't support the study because he himself admits there are problems with it, and then he complains that the problems he admits exist were pointed out to the author.
In the editorial by Richard E. Redding you posted an excerpt from and link to yesterday, admits there are problems with this study as follows:
"Suppose Regnerus had conducted an identical study, with the same methodological flaws, that had produced results consistent with previous studies, finding no differences between the children of gay or lesbian ("lesbigay") versus heterosexual parents. "
Mr. Redding should know any study with the "same methodoligical flaws" as this study would be subjected to the same attacks against its validity.
Regnerus himself, in the BoxTurtleBulletin article Priya linked to, admitted what some of those "methodological flaws" involved sampling errors due to low numbers:
"A key priority, however, was always sample size. Curb it too much by slicing groups (wisely, even) into different categories and statistical power drops precipitously. With a much larger sample size, I would’ve done that. Was a judgment call with which some disagree….
...one of the key methodological criticisms circulating is that–basically–in a population-based sample, I haven’t really evaluated how the adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians have fared. Right? Right. And I’m telling you that it cannot be feasibly accomplished. It is a methodological (practical) impossibility at present, for reasons I describe: they really didn’t exist in numbers that could be amply obtained *randomly*. It may well be a flaw–limitation, I think–but it is unavoidable. We maxxed Knowledge Networks’ ability, and no firm is positioned to do better. It would have cost untold millions of dollars, and still may not generate the number of cases needed for statistical analyses. If randomness wasn’t the key priority, then we could’ve done it. And we’d have had a nonrandom sample that was no better than anything before it. So, while critics are taking potshots, they should remember that there’s a (low) ceiling to what’s possible here. "
Some of the "methodological flaws" the author himself admits are in this study include "sample size," which the author called "unavoidable," "flaw-limitation," and lack of "randomness" of the subjects.
The author readily admits it was not possible for him to have a large enough random sample of "adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians" so he faked it by using adult children of non-intact, sometimes lesbians parents. The least he could have done to try for some little bit of validity in his findings is include a group of adult children of non-intact intermittently living together heterosexual parents for comparison.
He also said, in spite of how this study has been used, "I don’t go into orientation of parents in this study" though that fact does not stop Mr. Redding from talking about "lesbigays."
IMHO, the differences Regnerus found in these adult children was a result of their parents infidelity, not orientation, which as the author himself said was not something he went into in this study.
Well bad anonymous, your response to me certainly did blow but there sure weren't any smithereens.
I said "Nonsense. People have been struggling to convert gays to straights for decades and there's never been a single verifiable example of it happening."
Bad anonymous said "to begin with, not having an example of something happening is not empirical proof that it's impossible that's simply a logical fallacy".
True to a degree, absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. However, when people have searched to extremes for such evidence and not been able to find it that's pretty strong evidence that its not possible, or at the very least extremely rare. One could make the same statement you did about conversion "therapy" about bigfoot but extremely few scientists would agree that bigfoot is just as likely to exist as not despite the absence of evidence for it.
Bad anonymous said "further, there is no real way to have such proof anyway and any example of such is quickly met with a line of circular argumentation from gay advocates let's say you have someone who was once a homosexual and now has no same sex attraction at all the lunatics would simply say the person was never gay to begin with how would it be possible to prove otherwise?"
False. Penile plethysmographs and no-lie MRIs can verify a gay person's claim to now be heterosexual. No one who's claimed to have changed orientation has ever been willing to put their claim to the test - more compelling (albeit circumstancial) evidence that no one has changed orientation.
Bad anonymous said "let's say a person has worked with a therapist and has reached a point where he can have a healthy relationship with women oh, the lunatics say he was always bi".
First, there's no reason to believe his claims that he's having sex with women, or if he is that he isn't fantasizing about men while doing it. Second, once again his claims can be proven with scientific testing and once again all "exgays" refuse to attempt to prove their claims BECAUSE THEY'RE LYING.
I said "The major mental health organizations have no dog in this race, they're just reporting what the science shows - it is essentially impossible for a person to change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions."
Bad anonymous said "science doesn't show that".
Of course it does. Schidloe and Schroeder proved that and the "success rate" for "reparative" "therapy" (assuming Spitzer's study did represent successes and he's now said it didn't) is optimistically estimated at .004%.
"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation."American Psychiatric Association fact sheet, 1994-SEP
"...[reparative therapy] " can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." American Academy of Pediatrics, 1993.
"...scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works." American Psychological Association, 1994.
And every other major mental and physical health organization has said that conversion "therapy' does not work and is potentially harmful.
Bad anonymous said "in the seventies, at a time when psychologists believed nothing of the sort, their professional association was bullied into changing its position".
Nonsense. It is impossible for a tiny group of people to force a major professional organization with the protection of law enforcement to change its mind. If it were possible it is inconceivable that in the forty years since, the organization hasn't tried to rectify the injustice and every other major mental and physical health organization would have also decided gayness is not an illness and is in no need of a cure. Further, anti-gay christian organizations (which have far greater numbers and influence than the gay community) have been attempting to bully the professional organizations into reclassifying gayness as an illness ever since and failed completely - that wouldn't be the case if it was possible to bully the American Pyschological Association into taking unscientific positions. The fact is that there never was any evidence supporting the idea that gayness was a mental illness, the APA just took the traditional stance by default. Starting with Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's there was a growing body of scientific research that showed gays were indistinguishable from heterosexuals in terms of mental health. THAT is why the position on gayness was changed. Subsequent research througout the seventies and eighties further verified this fact and further research started to taper off in the 90's as it became increasingly obvious that gayness could in no scientific way be considered an illness and in need of change.
Bad anonymous said "since, any professional who doesn't support the gay agenda is methodically excluded from the profession and marginalized".
Nonsense. The major mental and physical health organizations aren't beholden to the gay community, they go where the science takes them. If any "professional" has been excluded from the profession and marginalized its because they aren't basing their positions on science but rather basing them on prejudice - you know, the prejudice that comes from the bible which tells these people IN ADVANCE that their "science" must show gayness is an illness in need of a cure.
"In the editorial by Richard E. Redding you posted an excerpt from and link to yesterday, admits there are problems with this study"
exactly
that why it was either disingenuous of lazy Priya to respond to the article as if it was supporting the Regnerus study or, more likely, lazy Priya simply didn't read it
"Mr. Redding should know any study with the "same methodoligical flaws" as this study would be subjected to the same attacks against its validity."
Well, his point was that, in this field, that doesn't happen unless the gay agenda is contradicted. Further, this incident went beyond questioning the study results. Investigations were launched of the researcher, personal motives and integrity were questioned, the publishing journal and the peer review team were attacked, hundreds of professionals were recruited to denounce the study, et al
Do you have any evidence of a study supporting the gay agenda where this happened?
"Regnerus himself, in the BoxTurtleBulletin article Priya linked to, admitted what some of those "methodological flaws" involved sampling errors due to low numbers"
Nowhere in the article I linked was that contradicted. Don't why you are now bringing it up again. The Regnerus study is not being defended by this article. There is apparently a Pavlovian impulse among gay advocates: say "Regnerus" and immediately launch a spiel.
"IMHO, the differences Regnerus found in these adult children was a result of their parents infidelity, not orientation, which as the author himself said was not something he went into in this study."
well, that's only your HO, and whether or not that was what he chose to study, it still is significant that the homosexuality of parents had a negative impact on the kids
isn't infidelity more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals?
I said "Of course the Regnerus study was blasted, Regnerus made claims about same sex couples when he had no data to support those claims."
Bad anonymous said "of course, anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda must be attacked to the fullest extent possible anyone wonder why it was not just enough to disagree with the study?".
That's precisely what they did - DISAGREE WITH THE STUDY. The withering criticism was all based on the fact that the study was designed to generate the desired anti-gay conclusions, unprecidented in its fatal methodological errors, and conclusions were drawn that could never be supported by the data the study did generate.
Bad anonymous said "why was all the rest necessary? as an intimidation to other researchers, obviously".
If anti-gay christian "scientists" like Regnerus weren't discouraged from producing this farce by its radical departure from accepted scientific and research principles no other anti-gay christian "scientist" that wants to generate a "study" to reach forgone anti-gay conclusions is going to be discouraged either. Have no fear, nothing will ever discourage your side from producing biased rhetoric dressed up in the facade of science to further the goal of oppressing innocent people.
Now that, my dear bad anonymous, is how you produce a devastating rebuke to an ignorant comment (yours).
Regarding the Regnerus study bad anonymous said " it still is significant that the homosexuality of parents had a negative impact on the kids".
There's no way you could scientifically draw that conclusion from the Regnerus data.
We know from previous research the children from broken homes have worse outcomes than the children from intact stable homes. What the Regnerus study showed was that children in mixed orientation marriages (where one parent is gay or lesbian and the other opposite sex parent is heterosexual) don't fair well. The vast majority of LGBT people and members of the mental health profession would agree its a bad idea for a lesbian or gay person to enter into an opposite sex marriage and have children (as you always promote), the infinitely preferable alternative being that lesbian and gays enter into same sex marriages and raise children if they so choose.
"Do you have any evidence of a study supporting the gay agenda where this happened?"
I have evidence of entire organizations that were created solely to attempt to shoot down every study that finds gays to be competent and healthy.
NARTH was founded in 1992 by Benjamin Kaufman, Charles Socarides, and Joseph Nicolosi and all they have done ever since is try to prove change in sexual orientation can be accomplished via therapy.
PFOX was created by the FRC, a political lobbying organization, in 1996 and its formation was announced by Robert Knight at a press conference on October 9, 1996 as an anti-gay political lobbying organization, that spreads the falsehood that sexual orientation can be changed via therapy. The first President of PFOX was Anthony Falzarano. In 1999, when Mr. Falzarano accused PFOX of exploiting ex-gays for political purposes, he was replaced by Regina Griggs, the mother of a gay son she desperately wants to believe can become straight someday somehow.
Dr. Spitzer's retraction of his study, which also had a "methodological flaw" trying to come up with enough research subjects, so actual reparative therapists were used as subjects. Dr. Spitzer said "‘In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct." The retraction of his study was widely attacked by members and supports of both NARTH and PFOX.
By the way, PFOX still posts an outdated 2004 video of Dr. Spitzer, made eight years before he retracted and apologized for his "methodologically flawed" 2001 study.
In the future and in retrospect, Professor Regnerus will also have to admit "the critiques are largely correct" and if he has an ounce of scientific integrity, will apologize for his study's "methodological flaws".
"isn't infidelity more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals?"
I don't know about that, but I do know for a fact there are lot more heterosexual divorces than homosexual divorces.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous said "Do you have any evidence of a study supporting the gay agenda where this happened?"
Good anonymous said "I have evidence of entire organizations that were created solely to attempt to shoot down every study that finds gays to be competent and healthy.".
Don't forget the American College of Pediatricians, just one of the many tiny (a few hundred memmbers)anti-gay organizations formed with a name to encourage confusion with the massive reputable organizations like the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics. The American College of Pediatricians was formed by a small number of disgruntled anti-gay religionists who were angry about the American Academy of Pediatrics statments on the fact that gayness is not an illness and gay marriage is good for children and good for society.
They exist solely to provide anti-gay propoganda with a veneer of science and hope people will confuse them with the original large reputable organization.
Post a Comment
<< Home