The Seventh Sense

Yet This Is The Harangue

I'm warming up to the writings of Pastor Swank.  First of all, he's prolific.  Second of all, he butchers the English language like no other Renew America columnist (except for, of course, Kaye Grogan).

Take, for example, the opening graf in yesterday's column:

It is stupid for supposedly intelligent persons so flippantly to blame parents of children who murder or bring any other mayhem to society. Yet this is the harangue. Recall the massacre in Colorado.

If you're like me, you had to read that three or four times and you are still a little lost.  It's kind of like eating ice cream really fast.  You kind of know what's going on, but it doesn't matter because your head hurts.

By the way, if I ever decide to rename this blog, "Yet This Is The Harangue" is going to be one of my top choices.

But let's return to Pastor Swank and the supposedly intelligent persons who blame parents of children who murder flippantly (or whatever he just said):

"These parents are at fault."

"Someone needs to get to these parents and tell them that they have to control their children. I blame the parents!"

"What's going on with these parents of these killers? What's going on in their homes?"

"The parents must have known about the arsenals that were built up inside their own houses!"

And so it goes. . .on and on and on.

Gotcha.  People are always blaming the parents when their children go out and murder someone.  Can't imagine why.  Maybe it's because sometimes the parents provide the guns?

This is the height of hubris, of naivete'.

"Naivete", I understand.  But how does "hubris" (exaggerated self-confidence and overbearing pride) enter into it?

When I was younger and saw children acting up so as to be disobedient --

Rather than acting up so as to be ...obediant?

When I was younger and saw children acting up so as to be disobedient, I would say to my wife on occasion: "If those were MY children, I would do thus and thus."

"This naturally infuriated my wife when I used terms like 'thus and thus'.  'Why can't you be more specific?', she would harangue."

And how often have I heard adults of no children or young children make that same pontifical declaration.

Wait, Pastor.  You're asking me how often you've overheard something?

Have you said it?

Have I said a "pontifical declaration"?  Golly gosh, I don't think so, sir.

However, after having raised three children, I would never lower my intelligence so as to give forth with such nonsense moralizing.

No, Pastor Swank would never, ever, ever, ever engage in nonsense moralizing.

Further, such high-sounding statements only serve to add pain to parents who already are fearing for their lives because of what their adolescent children are threatening at home base.

What are they threatening at home base?  A sacrifice bunt perhaps?

I know that parents with teens out of control cannot dump those offspring on any agency of society.

Military schools all closed now?

Nevertheless, the brutal fact is that in too many homes in our culture there are indeed strong-willed youth who daily are so potentially treacherous that their own mothers and fathers fear for their very lives.

Diagram that sentence.  I dare you.

Many of these parents do not abuse their children, do not misuse drugs, are not alcoholics, are not indecent nor obscene nor irresponsible. They are at home.

Because ... what ...because drugs, alcohol, indecency, obscenity, and irresponsibility don't exist in homes?

They are bringing in the salary check to pay the bills.

Stir it up in a pan....

They have tried to create a lifestyle of morality and care.

Which obviously didn't work.

Nevertheless, sometimes there are offspring who simply reject all of that decency for their own selfish devilment — and such can include threatening their own parents' and siblings' existences.

Not only do those offspring give in to "devilment", but shennanigans and skullduggery!

When Cain killed his brother, Abel, was it Adam's fault? Did God rail against Eve?

Well, actually -- wasn't Abel's murder -- and indeed most of the bad things that happened in the Bible and beyond -- a consequence of being thrown out of Eden after Adam ate the apple?

No, Cain was responsible for his own misdeed; therefore, God chastised Cain alone.

Yeah, he went into the land of Nod and built a city.  Some punishment.

There are many Cains who have lived since, and too many alive today.

I'm looking at you, Michael!!

Therefore, for panel members, broadcasters and politicians to get on television to continually ask naively, "Where were the parents in all of this?", obviously is to reveal their own uninformed and insensitive lives.

Note to Pastor Swank:  "Where were the parents" is a legitimate question.  Asking legitimate questions is how one becomes informed.  Assuming, as you do, that the parents are totally uninvolved with their kids' choices, or are held captive by their out-of-control kids, is indeed making an uninformed assumption.

Those of us in the work of living and the study of counseling families know all too well that there are untold numbers of extremely concerned parents who simply cannot bend their children's wills toward the right. Those parents wish to God that they could; but they cannot because each child has his own final power of choice.

Hey, good point -- where is God in all this?

Further, and this is most significant: when a culture such as ours sets loose one violent movie, video, musical lyric, "entertainment" after another which proclaims blood and guts as a legitimate past time, then many of our children opt for all of that hatred and insanity rather than being appreciative of the loving homes from which they come.

Ah, blame Hollywood.

There is an extremely dark magnet which has been manufactured in our land by evil persons who want money from our youth rather than providing them with the good, kind and beautiful.

Oh, come on.  The Hansons?  Get real.

Anyway, Pastor Swank goes on like this for a few more paragraphs and then ends all Moses-like:

Do not then waste your words on how undisciplined and brainless scores of parents are when their children run amuck.   Instead, spend your energies on creating a society that has rid itself of its own violent allowances.

You know, Pastor, I really don't think parents are entitled to free rides.  Study after study shows that violence is inherited from parents and passed on.  Violent criminal offenders are more likely to grow up in households with violence (beatings, etc.).

Furthermore, parents teach their kids, directly or indirectly, how to resolve conflicts (or not resolve them, as the case may be).  And while some movies, TV shows, and video games certainly contain their fair share of violence, it is ultimately the parents who bear responsibility for what their kids are exposed to in the first place.  They also bear responsibility for teaching kids the difference between fictional violence and the real-world consequences of real-world violence.

I'm not saying this is easy.  I'm just saying that we can't offer blanket immunity for all parents, automatically assuming that they have no control over their kids' violent tendencies.  Again, I refer you to this recent news item.

A troubled teenager accused of plotting a school attack built up a stash of weapons with the help of his mother, authorities said.

Michele Cossey, 46, was arrested Friday on charges of illegally buying her home-schooled son, Dillon, a .22-caliber handgun, a .22-caliber rifle and a 9 mm semiautomatic rifle with a laser scope.

The parents were indulging the boy's interests because he was unhappy, not knowingly aiding a school assault, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor said Friday. The parents didn't know of the teen's plans, but "by virtue of her indulgence, she enabled him to get in this position," Castor said.

But what do I know?  I'm just haranguing.

Hal-Lead-Ween

Halloween might be really scary this year, thanks to China.

Exhibit A:

A US retail outlet on Tuesday pulled hundreds of sets of Halloween costume teeth from sale amid fears they could contain excessive levels of lead.

"Due to possible lead contamination, this product (Ugly Teeth) has been recalled," Factory Card and Party Outlet said in a statement issued on the eve of Halloween.

Described as a "horribly realistic Halloween accessory to make your teeth look hideous", the Chinese-made "Ugly Teeth" are designed to be worn in the mouth by children dressing up for Halloween.

The teeth were analyzed by a team from Ashland University in Ohio looking into lead content in children's products.

"Lead paint is a problem when it's ingested by a child, so to have lead on an item that is designed to go into the mouth -- that's what's particularly horrifying about these teeth," said Dr Jeffrey Weidenhamer of Ashland University in Ohio, the team leader.

"We analysed the paint on the surface of the teeth. The orange teeth were the worst in terms of having six to seven percent lead by weight in the paint," Weidenhamer said.

"That's about 100 times the US standard on lead in paint which is .06 percent," he told AFP.

Lead can cause damage to the brain and nervous system of children, behavior and learning problems, slowed growth, hearing problems and headaches.

Exhibit B:

The maker of Peeps — the fluffy, yellow, marshmallow chicks that have spawned a fanatical following — has tapped an overseas manufacturer to make candies for the first time in the company's history.

Just Born Inc. is making its Spooky Friends treats for Halloween in China.

That could be a scary thought for American consumers concerned about products made in China, which has been hit by a series of recalls of substandard goods and lead-tainted toys. An August poll by The Associated Press found that most Americans believe the U.S. government is not doing enough to ensure that Chinese imports are safe.

Yet Another Republican Sex Scandal

This one comes from Washington State.  It involves GOP State Rep. Richard Curtis, a lawmaker who voted against domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples and opposed an anti-discrimination law to cover sexual orientation.

So, if you been following the GOP follies lately (as reported here and elsewhere), you can probably guess what comes next.

Yup, the anti-gay Curtis apparently "engaged in mutual sexual activities" with a male escort/porn actor named Cody Castagna.

The legislator initially said that he was "helping out" Castagna with gas money (to avoid declaring that he was paying for sex). But that turns out not to be true maybe....

Curtis, according to a search warrant unsealed Tuesday, went to the Hollywood Erotic Boutique on East Sprague on October 26th at approximately 12:45 a.m. The store clerk, who had talked with Curtis, referred to him as "The Cross-Dresser" and said that during their conversations he confirmed he was gay and was married with children at home.

During his visit to the video store Curtis was observed wearing women's lingerie while receiving oral sex from an unidentified man in one of the movie viewing booths inside the store.

Afterward he met Cody Castagna, and they talked about getting together at Curtis' hotel room to have sex. Curtis left Castagna his cellphone number and went to Northern Quest Casino and receiving a call from him around 3 a.m., and planned to get together at the hotel a short while later.

The two met at the Davenport Tower around 3:34 a.m. and police reports confirm Curtis and Castagna had anal intercourse after which Curtis fell asleep. Castagna, according to court records, then allegedly took Curtis' wallet out of his jacket pocket and left the room.

Around 7 a.m. he called Curtis and told him he knew he was a member of the Washington State House of Representatives and was married, that he had taken pictures of Curtis with a camera on his cellphone and he offered to return the wallet in exchange for $1,000. In police reports it is claimed that Curtis offered Castagna that sum of money in exchange for having unprotected anal intercourse.

Curtis, during an interview with a Spokane detective, claimed that he gave Castagna $100 for "gas money" and insisted that the money was not payment for sex. During that phone conversation he claimed he only had $200 and left the money in an envelope at the front desk at the Davenport Tower for Castagna in exchange for the return of his wallet.

The attempt to get his wallet back proved unsuccessful as Castagna called Curtis back later on the 26th and demanded the remaining $800 from him. Unbeknownst to Castagna at the time Curtis had already contacted Spokane police and a detective was present with Curtis when Castagna called again.

When he contacted police, Curtis told detectives he wanted to keep the incident quiet and didn't want to press charges against Castagna and that all he wanted was his wallet back.

During the call Castagna not only demanded $800 for the return of Curtis' wallet but also said the money would buy his silence, implying that without the money he would expose Curtis' gay lifestyle to his wife. Curtis admitted to police that if details of the incident became public he would have to tell his wife and would need to hire a divorce attorney.

Following the phone call arranging for the return of the wallet police officers set up surveillance of the location where Curtis' billfold was to be dropped and subsequently recovered it.

Castagna offered a completely different view of the events that happened on October 26th in several interviews with detectives. Castagna claimed that Curtis had met him at the Hollywood Erotic Boutique and later at Curtis' hotel room offered him $1,000 in exchange for sex, adding that while he was in Curtis' room at the Davenport Tower Curtis rented two XXX-rated gay movies for the two to watch. After the two had sex, Castagna claimed that Curtis gave him his wallet as collateral to hold on to until he gave him the remainder of the $1,000.

He also admitted to detectives he had threatening to publicly expose Curtis to his wife.

And another GOP politician falls.

Josh Marshall offers some reasonable advice to other "not gay" Republicans:

If you offer to pay a guy $1000 to have sex with you, don't try to wriggle out of paying the thousand dollars.

More advice: if you get into a payment dispute with the guy you paid to have sex with you, contacting the authorities to get them involved to hassle the guy is a very bad idea.

Kucinich Gets The UFO Question

Damn. I wish I'd seen the Democratic debate last night -- just for that.

Cheerleader Gets Run Over By Football Team

Ouch:

Krugman: On Fearmongering

From the NYTimes:

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Klan vs. Klan

Why oh why can't white supremists just get along?:

CULLMAN, Ala. (AP) — Members of one Ku Klux Klan organization say they will assemble at the courthouse Nov. 10 to show their opposition to another Klan group that plans an anti-immigration rally there that day.

Ken Mier, who described himself as an investigator for the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and the national office of the Ku Klux Klan LLC, said in an e-mail to The Cullman Times that his group is against the tactics of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which held an anti-immigration protest last month in Athens.

“We are opposed to the ignorance and stupidity as displayed by the individuals that thumbed their nose at the area churches by continuing to use racial slurs, threats and avoided Christian deportment,” he said.

Now, that's a new one: Klan members protesting the ignorance and bigotry of rival Klan members. 

I say we give them all fully-loaded rifles, put them all in a huge warehouse, and close the doors.

Fire In The Dorm

That terrible fire that killed the college students becomes easier to understand when you see this compilation of videos.

You would think that college kids would know better than to play with matches and set things on fire within the residence halls.

You would think....

California Boy Is Al Qaeda, Apparently

Fox News and conservative blogs have been falling all over themselves trying to -- forgive the pun -- fan the flames of fear by suggesting that the California wildfires were intentionally set by (cue dramatic music) al Qaeda.  Read here and here and here and here and here and... all these.  While evidence suggested arson, nothing other than paranoia suggested that al Qaeda was involved.

So naturally, this comes as no surprise:

A boy playing with matches has confessed to starting a wildfire that destroyed 63 structures near Los Angeles, officials said on Tuesday.

The unidentified youngster, believed to be a preteen, was questioned by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department investigators on October 22, a day after the Buckweed fire started rampaging across 38,000 acres in the Santa Clarita area, 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

The boy "admitted that he had been playing with matches," said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore.

It was initially believed that downed power lines had started the fire.

The boy was sent home after confessing, and the District Attorney's office will consider whether to press charges.

You would think that those who pointed to al Qaeda would have egg on their faces, and maybe exercise more caution before they engaged in Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling speculation and fearmongering.

You would think...

FURTHER THOUGHT:  Is al Qaeda responsible for this, too?

Obama Implosion

He's making some very bad campaign choices, and putting off potential supporters.  I'm amazed, even within myself, at how the sheen as worn off, and what a spectacularly bad campaign he is running.  In a detailed insightful post, Chris Bowers explains the problems with the Obama campaign, and indeed, the candidate:

Obama seems to have shot his own coalition in both feet and both hands. Maybe he kept shooting it because it just wouldn't die. I don't think there is any need to worry about that now.

Obama consistently refused to stand up for the people who once formed the heart of his coalition. Further, instead of showing leadership during difficult congressional fights, Obama consistently talked about reaching across the aisle and forming consensus while the other side of the aisle was regularly shooting down consensus legislation on Iraq, FISA, habeas, SChip and much more. How much more hollow could that make his rhetoric sound, especially when he was in the Senate when that all happened? In short, he did nothing that was necessary to keep his coalition of African-Americans and creative class progressives together. In fact, it wasn't even as though he sacrificed one for the other, since he continues to trail Clinton among African-Americans. Instead, he sacrificed the more overtly and naturally anti-Clinton segment of his coalition and made no gains in other areas as a result. This is especially bad when one considers that Obama lost the half of his coalition among whom he was actually winning. This is especially, especially bad when one considers that he cut off the half of his coalition that forms a much larger percentage of the electorate in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Basically, it was political suicide for Obama to not stand up for this segment of the coalition, and to keep preaching to them about the need to froge unity with conservatives and Republicans. He actively brought down the coalition that, at first, it appeared he would ride to victory.

Barring a miraculous victory in Iowa, I think that Obama is done and Clinton is the nominee. I don't see how Edwards comes back with only $1.5M to spend on ads in Iowa. Further, Richardson hasn't made any gains in the state in four months, and everyone else trails Clinton by about 25% in the state right now. Seriously, I think it would take a miracle for it to change. From the start, Obama was the only one with a real chance, but now has just suffered too severe a blow with the white, progressive creative class that he needed to win the state. After five months of losing ground among this group, the vicious, deserved, and nearly blogosphere-wide criticism of Obama today seems like too much to overcome. It is the nail in the coffin for his campaign. He just can't win the primary without those voters, and I don't see how he gets them back now.

All true, which is why we see this (click to enlarge):

Note the Obama dip these past few months.  Conversely, Clinton seems to be running the right campaign.  As Yglesius writes:

It also might be worth noting in this regard that I think almost everyone would agree that Clinton's had the best-run campaign — free of mistakes, and seemingly drawing blood on those occasions when they've felt the need to attack.