Sex is the Answer to the Catholic Church's Sex Problem. Really.

On screen: The Shame of the Church
Also: The Catholic Church’s Rotherham


Here we go again...

The Church—and clearly not just in Pennsylvania—has descended into a nest of predatory perverts, largely but not exclusively homosexual, but child-molesters all. Even worse, its upper administrative reaches, the bishops, have conducted a cover-up under the guise of “compassion” and “protecting the Church,” denying, obfuscating, and lying about the extent of the problem—even as some of them were charter members of the racket. Their sanctimony is even more sickening than the sins they concealed, if such a thing is possible.

A grand jury in Pennsylvania has completed and published the findings of their investigation into 70+ years of child sexual abuse in dioceses in the state. It's brutal reading, which, when combined with a steady stream of past revelations about clergy raping and abusing children around the US and the world, demands reforms. Real ones.

Let's start with a disclaimer: I'm not Catholic, though I have many relatives who are, or who grew up in the church. I recognize no Papal authority. I'm unaffected by how the Roman Catholic Church conducts its affairs, except in the general sense of being horrified by its continuing descent into evil, and the trail of broken lives and severed relationships with God that result. But God damn it (literally), isn't it about time the assholes that run the institution actually do something about this?

I think we can start with two facts that are simply not open to debate:

1. The Catholic Church's priesthood and leadership has a severe and longstanding problem with sexual perversion. This can be taken as a given. Read the Pennsylvania grand jury report, if you can, and remember that it's just one example. It's not the first, and won't be the last that we hear of these awful crimes. Pretending otherwise is simply willful ignorance and accommodation with evil.
2. Men who are willing to live a celibate life are, by definition, sexual deviants. Given a large population of deviants, some degree of criminal deviancy is inevitable. 

By deviants, I mean it in the scientific sense rather than the criminal sense. Not all deviants are criminals, although the word does carry that stigma in common use. I simply mean that they are well outside the behavioral norm. But... men who attempt to suppress their sex drive are fighting against their very natures, and are indeed abnormal. Sexuality is a powerful force that will break through all attempts to suppress it, for the vast majority of men (and women). This is what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. ⁹ But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I won't speak for women, but I think I can speak for men when I say the overwhelming percentage of men cannot control themselves. The sex drive is going to seek an outlet. For a disturbing percentage of the Catholic priesthood, that outlet is little boys and young male teens (with them making up about 80% of all victims). Worse, the leadership of the organization obviously sympathizes more with the abusers than the victims, which makes them even worse deviants. They were probably raping little boys when they were younger, so of course they protect the next generation of abusers.

I like to play video games. Doom is one of my favorites, and the levels where our hero goes into Hell are very interesting from a graphical point of view and game play. But it's just a harmless game designer's vision of Hell. For a glimpse of the real thing, read this from the second link:

The Pennsylvania grand-jury report names hundreds of predator priests across seven decades of life in six Catholic diocese in the state. Some of the details in the report are so vile and lurid they would have been rejected from the writer’s room of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. They include priests “marking” their preferred boy-victims with special crosses, priests trading and compiling their own homemade child pornography. At one point in the report, a large redaction is made over what appears to be, in context, a ritualized and satanic gang-rape of a young boy by four priests.

Giving special crosses to compliant boys so other deviant priests would know who to rape. Holy. Fuck. This might be the single most perverted and evil detail I've ever heard of related to this whole scandal, and that's saying something.

Some will say that as bad is this all is, it's only a tiny percentage of the Catholic priesthood, and that all that is needed is to do away with the bad apples. Sorry, but no. That's a bullshit defense. 

My advice, for what it's worth: burn it all down. Start over. Here's how: 

1. Defrock any priest or bishop with even a hint of exposure to these behaviors. No counseling. No treatment. Get them out of the church - or alternately, offer them the chance to live their lives out in a monastic setting well away from the laity. 
2. Those whose crimes are within the statutes of limitations, where sufficient evidence exists, should be prosecuted, with the church's enthusiastic cooperation, from the laity if the church leadership does not provide it.
3. Immediate end to the use of settlements and NDA's by the church. Pass laws as needed to remove NDA protection for criminal behavior.
4. Establish a lay council to run the local dioceses and take bishops out of the organizational management of the churches, allowing them to minister to their flocks. The priestly hierarchy have proven themselves incapable of managing their own church. The laity needs to step in.
5. In other words, turn the hierarchy upside down, so the clergy serves the flock and not the other way around. 
6. Finally: allow priests to marry. Let young men pursue their vocation without having to put away their normal natures and desires. Paul is right. Listen to him.

The Catholic Church's denial of the negative effect of priestly celibacy is tiresome. The whole concept is a failure, and they need to admit that it has served them and their congregations poorly (to say the least). Men and women who want to serve that way are welcome to pursue a monastic life, if they wish. Most men won't choose it. Don't make them. Otherwise, this (from the first link): 

But as vocations cratered—if the Church could so lightly cast off centuries of rite and dogma, why should novitiates bother to sign up?—and the priestly ranks thinned out, new recruits had to come from somewhere. And an all-male order with easy access to children of both sexes was tailor-made for the molesters, who realized there was no point in hanging around schoolyards when the schoolyards would hang around you.

The best prescription to fix an organization run by sexual deviants is to remove the deviants and open the doors to people with NORMAL sexual behavior and values. Married clergy is the norm in almost all faiths. Sure, Paul praises the idea of celibate service to God, but remember, Paul is a saint. Few others are. Certainly too few to staff the clergy.

The alternative is to destroy your church. How any of the Catholic hierarchy can stand the thought of facing God after doing that is beyond my comprehension. 

Postscript: I wasn't going to bring this up, but since a Cardinal has, I'll link to it. Make of it what you will. The solution is the same as far as I'm concerned.

It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men. There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered.

Again, just some friendly advice to my Catholic friends: clean it out and rebuild the clergy with normal family men. 

Doing stupid things in stupid places with stupid people...

On screen: Florida Parking Lot ‘Stand Your Ground’ Shooter Won’t Be Charged

Yesterday I mentioned one of the key maxims of self defense: don't do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people. At least two, and probably all three are on display here. All handgun carriers need to think about this sort of thing and how it went down. This didn't have to happen: it was a completely preventable shooting that could have been stopped, had either party involved applied even the smallest degree of conflict deescalation.

I'll refer to the parties as victim and shooter for now, without necessarily making a judgement on who was right in this incident. Arguably, the shooter was the real victim.

Go watch the video at the link. I'll wait.It's only 25 seconds or so. Then we'll go over it.

Back? Good. So... is this a righteous shooting or not? The local sheriff declined to file charges, but threw the whole thing over the fence to the prosecutor's office. Given that, and the fact that the shooter is white and the victim is black, it's now political, and you can bet this one will wind up in a jury's hands.

Let's review the whole sequence:

1. Prior to the start of the security video, the victim parks his car in a handicap spot. This is a dick move at any time (I'm assuming he was not disabled). The victim goes in the store to buy something, leaving his family behind.
2. Shooter confronts the family about parking in the handicap spot. He's involved in an animated discussion with the wife/girlfriend. 
3. Shooter is a known customer of the store (and all around jerk), and frequently harangues people who park in the handicap spot. His behavior here is rude and uncalled for. He's escalated the situation far beyond what is appropriate. 
4. If I were going to guess, I'd say that the wife/girlfriend responded in kind. Fighting words were likely exchanged. No deescalation there.
5. At the 5 second mark, the victim comes out of the store, sees what is happening and strides towards the shooter. The shooter does not appear to notice him coming. At the 10 second mark, he issues a full body shove to the shooter, literally knocking him on his ass in a surprise attack. Note that he did not peacefully confront the shooter, nor attempt to get his attention or verbally engage the him to get him to back off. He went straight to violent assault. 
6. Important: between the time the shooter hits the ground and the time he looks up at the victim, the victim is still moving towards the shooter. Watch what happens between the 10-12 second mark. The shooter could legitimately conclude that the victim is about to beat him down further. We now have a real imminent danger situation for the shooter. He has no idea what the victim's intentions are, and has to assume the worst. 
7. The shooter draws his gun at the 13 second mark. Only at this time does the victim move back. We have no way to know his intentions, but it's highly likely that he stopped his attack ONLY because he realized he was facing an armed opponent.
8. The shooter fires at the 14 second mark, fatally wounding the victim. He's had less than 1 second to decide whether the attack was over.

Should the shooter have held back? There's no way to know. I wasn't there, and neither were any of us. If someone had done that to me and even gave a hint that more was to come, I'd have shot the guy too - but it would never have been an issue because it would never have escalated like that if I was involved. I don't blame the shooter for defending himself, but I do blame him for his part in creating the situation.

And the victim was simply asking to get shot. I'm convinced he was about to further assault the shooter, and would have if he didn't see a gun pointed at him. So what's the argument? It's OK to beat down someone who is rude to your wife, but it's not OK for him to shoot you in self defense? That it's OK to start a fight, but it's not OK for the other person to decide when it ends - by using force to end it?

No easy answers here. I'm glad I won't be on this jury.

The world is full of assholes, and unfortunately, these two ran into each other. One's dead, and the other has likely ruined his life. The lesson for the rest of us is that if you carry a gun, the next most important skills after gun safety and basic marksmanship are conflict avoidance and deescalation. You might save more than your own life.

Carrying Like an Olde Skule Dick

A private detective, that is. Like in the old black and white movies.

So I've been carrying a little .380 semi-auto mouse gun for a couple of years now. I knew it wasn't the long term answer, but I already had it, and it fit in my back pocket - until it didn't. Over time, sitting on a gun in a wallet holster was causing problems with my back and butt. Seinfeld fans will recall the episode with George's exploding wallet. Same thing.

Besides, the .380 is barely enough for self defense. I'm not sure it would do more than piss an attacker off, if it came down to it. I wanted something with a bit more punch.

I spent a lot of time reading and looking, and I decided that the right option for me was to carry a compact revolver. So I got one of these*:

Ruger LCR, 38 Special +P

First, the drawbacks:

1. Five rounds. Make 'em count. 
2. Reloading under pressure. I'd go with plan B - cardio. Run!

If you follow the Rule of Three, however, you'll know that nearly all defensive gun uses are over in three rounds, three yards and three seconds. If five shots isn't enough, you've probably broken one of the key self-defense rules: don't do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people.

If you can live with those drawbacks, revolvers have advantages over modern semi-auto pistols. Among them (in approximately my order of importance):

1. Reliability. You pull the trigger and it goes bang. There's no slide to work. There's no chance of a failure to eject or failure to load. It won't go out of battery even if you push it up against an attacker. You can also fire them from inside of a pocket, as there's no slide to get caught on clothing. And if you get a dud round, pull the trigger again and the next one will go bang. To be fair about it, malfunctions in modern semi-autos are rare, but in revolvers, they're virtually non-existent. If the shit hits the fan, you only have to remember to do two things: point it and pull the trigger. It'll fire.
2. Conceal-ability. While they're not much smaller than modern single stack 9mm semi-autos, their shape makes them easier to hide under your clothes. There aren't as many straight edges and angles to print through your shirt - or dig into your side. While some folks are OK with carrying openly (and it's perfectly legal here in OK), I prefer that nobody knows I'm strapped. Even here, it makes some people nervous, and besides, I don't want a bad guy to whack me first because he can tell I'm armed. 
3. Safety. Small personal defense revolvers normally have shrouded hammers and use a long double-action trigger pull, which means that you really have to mean it when you pull the trigger. Accidental discharges are rare with this configuration. The thought of putting a striker-fired semi-auto with a short trigger pull in my pants gives me unpleasant vibes in my nether regions.
4. Power. A 38 Special +P self-defense round is the equal of any 9mm. Someone getting shot with it is going to have a very bad day. Then there's .357 Magnum. It's no fun to be on either end of that round when it goes off. 
5. Shoot-ability. They're easier to hold because the grip can be shaped like your hand, and not the magazine that has to fit into it. You can get soft grips that absorb recoil. They have a consistent trigger pull. They manage recoil well. To me, they feel like an extension of your hand. 
6. Simplicity. Time tested design. No safeties or other fiddly bits. Easy to safety check. Easy to clean. No disassembly needed.
7. Style. Revolvers are cool. If you don't think so, then we can't be friends anymore.

Hey, thousands of old time cops and private detectives can't be wrong. It might be the right option for you too.


* I found mine at a pawn shop for $340 in very good condition! If you want something, look on Armslist and see if a local pawn shop has what you're looking for. I saved $160 off the price of a new one.

Dinosaurs, birds and England

On screen: Swift Injustice: The Case of Tommy Robinson

There's nothing about this situation that isn't revolting: 

• For nearly 30 years, British Pakistani Muslim gangs perpetuated a child rape ring in Rotherham, grooming and sexually abusing hundreds of mostly white English lower class underage girls. 
• Police and local government knew about it and covered it up. 
• Prominent Islam critic, independent journalist and all around provocateur Tommy Robinson attempts to cover the proceedings outside the court at a trial for suspects in the grooming and abuse ring. He's arrested, convicted, sentenced and dumped into prison in a matter of hours. 
• The media is ordered by the court not to report on the affair. 

From the linked article:

A kangaroo court, then a gag order. In the United Kingdom, where rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.

The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying. On various occasions over the years, I have been subjected in person to an immediate threat of Islamic violence: I have had a knife pulled on me by a young gang member, and been encircled by a crowd of belligerent men in djellabas outside a radical mosque. But that was not frightening. This is frightening -- this utter violation of fundamental British freedoms.

We have the Bill of Rights because of our English heritage and English common law. Having inspired our Founders to create those things, the English seem to have utterly rejected any semblance of recognition of individual rights. What in God's name is wrong with the Brits?

I've said on occasion that although the dinosaurs are long extinct, we can at least see a shadow of what they were by observing their closest descendants: birds. In the same way, I think it's safe to say that England - the real England - is dead and gone, and the closest we'll see to its glory is the USA, while it lasts. We're the birds.

An afterthought: if the Royal Family over there serves any purpose; if there is any justification for even having a king or queen - wouldn't it be appropriate for them to open their mouths, at least in private, to the political leaders of their country about where things are heading over there?

Number Four

On screen: Apple's iOS 11.4 update with 'USB Restricted Mode' may defeat tools like GrayKey

Here's a pretty flower to remind you of the danger (image from quozio.com)

If I could sit down and talk to a sitting Supreme Court Justice, I'd ask them if they thought this had any meaning left:

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It appears law enforcement has a new toy to break into your phone, and Apple has responded with changes to the lightning cable sync rules.

"To improve security, for a locked iOS device to communicate with USB accessories you must connect an accessory via Lightning connector to the device while unlocked — or enter your device passcode while connected — at least once a week," reads Apple documentation highlighted by security firm ElcomSoft. The feature actually made an appearance in iOS 11.3 betas, but like AirPlay 2 was removed from the finished code.

The change blocks use of the Lightning port for anything but charging if a device is left untouched for seven days. An iPhone or iPad will even refuse to sync with computer running iTunes until iOS is unlocked with a passcode.

Personally, I'd prefer a mode where the lightning port is unusable unless the phone is unlocked at the time of connection. Once a week is seven days too long. Make it a setting that I can change.

In our modern age, our phones and devices ARE our "persons, houses, papers and effects". Law enforcement and the courts have tried to play a game with this issue and pretend that our smartphones are some sort of exception to this. I think the courts need to come down hard on the state over this. I'm not unlocking my phone without a warrant. 

BTW, powering your phone off would be the smart thing to do if the law shows up - that way they can't make you unlock it with a fingerprint. Or just disable Touch ID.

I don't like the idea of mobsters, drug runners, creeps and terrorists being able to hide their misdeeds, but if that's the price of keeping the government out of my personal data, I'm willing to pay it. Unethical prosecutors make any trust in the justice system unwarranted. We've seen cops and courts come after people for sport, money or political reasons. The Bill of Rights exists precisely because of this potential for abuse. It's time to bring our personal technology under the Constitution's protection.

Is a Puzzlement

On screen: Berkeley student government proposes giving College Republican funds to Black Student Union

Puzzlement: not just for the King of Siam

There's rarely an idea, good or bad, that doesn't come back into style eventually:

The student government of the University of California, Berkeley, will vote today on whether to defund Berkeley’s chapter of the College Republicans and reallocate those funds to the Black Student Union.

As the king would say, "is a puzzlement". To wit: 

1. Why are there College Republicans in Berkeley? Wouldn't sensible people stay clear of that place? 
2. Why is there a Black Student Union? Is there a White Student Union?
3. When did "separate but equal" come back into style? Did someone decide segregation was a good idea again and not tell me? 
4. Who decided to let a bunch of leftist children decide how the university would allocate funding?

What dastardly thing did the CR's do, anyway?

Senator Rizza Estacio, a member of the Associated Students of the University of California, proposed the reallocation of funding on the grounds that the College Republicans’ behavior during campus events was in violation of school policy.

“Some of what this organization has done has broken regulations that we uphold to every registered student organization,”  Estacio told the student newspaper The Daily Californian. “I want to make it clear that if you break these rules, you are no longer eligible for our funding.”

Ah, I see. They broke "rules". I'm not sure which ones, because they didn't say, but they must have been serious rules. Probably worse than the ones against wearing black masks and rioting, though I can't imagine what. Evidently, no one else can either:

It is unclear which policies Estacio believes the group violated. Eugene Volokh, a lawyer and law professor at UCLA, told The College Fix via email that, according to Supreme Court precedent, a “content-neutral application of generally applicable and enforced rules is generally allowed; targeting a group because of its viewpoint is not.” The student government did not respond to requests for clarification on which policies the College Republicans may have broken.

At least they have one adult out there:

Reached via email, campus spokesman Dan Mogulof told The College Fix that “the Student Unions on University of California campuses are separate legal entities from the campus and therefore act with full autonomy and independence.”

“By the same token, senate decisions are not binding on the campus, so regardless of any decisions the ASUC senate may or may not take, UC Berkeley’s administration will continue to treat every single one of our 1000+ student organizations in an equitable fashion without regard for their perspectives or politics,” Mogulof added.

 
The more time passes, the more I agree with Mike Rowe: Dirty Jobs' Mike Rowe on the High Cost of College. The cost is more than just money - it's sanity.

On the other hand, it's so cute to see these children act like they're in charge of anything. They might as well enjoy the role playing now, because when I order my Starbucks, I get to call the shots (if you'll pardon the expression).

Want More Government? Here's More Government.

On screen: Just When You Thought Broward County's Failures Concerning The Parkland Shooting Can't Get Any Worse, They Do

And: An Investigation Into Broward County’s School Board & Superintendent

And this Twitter thread, from the author of the second link, a Parkland student

Background: Stoneman Douglas High School shooting


The gist of this post can be summarized almost completely by this excerpt from the first link:

1. The School Board after a $100 million dollar appropriation for school security in 2014, they failed to spend it, including a failure to modify the fire alarms to turn off if there is not a real fire, which would likely have saved lives along with other enhancements.

2. The School Board had a policy to keep students out of jail, going so far as to instruct school resource officers that when a felony is committed by a student that they could consider arresting them, not that they should arrest them, but they should just consider it as an option.

3. Cruz "was never arrested despite threatening to kill students, bringing bullets to school, and being involved in multiple fights."

4. No school board member or other administrative officials have been fired or required to resign for their malfeasance and disastrous policies to date.

Again, the mainstream media and professional journalists didn't pick up on this, it took a student journalist to be interested and persistent enough to dig this up, and it again destroys the blame the NRA narrative.

...

The sheer amount of fail before, during, and after the shooting is rather staggering. Verily, it takes a village to mess this up this consistently over and over again. So of course, instead of blaming themselves for this causal chain of events a mile long and years in the making, they decided to blame the NRA. 

While the media and gun grabbers have been using that reprehensible little douchebag David Hogg (he of the Nazi salute and armband fame) to advance their disarmament agenda, another Parkland student did the homework on the real fault(s) for the shooting. Read his Twitter thread above, and Medium article, if you can stand it.

If anyone want to know why I think less policing, less taxes and less government would be a good thing, have a close look at this situation and see how much throwing money and government management behind school security helped. If your answer is "not at all", then you and I just might be on the same side.

And of course, this is just another data point for how completely useless the news media is. It took a kid to do what they couldn't do. Or wouldn't. I'm not sure which makes them look worse.


Coda: then there's this, if you're not pissed enough: Parkland student ‘interrogated’ for shooting AR-15 at gun range

So get this - the school and police can't or won't lift a finger to stop a monster, but they're all over this guy for exercising his Constitutional rights in a safe and legal setting. Pretty typical, actually. Policing criminals and dangerous people is too much work. It's much easier to hassle the law-abiding.

And there's nothing the police and authorities can do that pisses me off more than that.

He’s a Seoul Man...

On screen: Trump's Seoul Train 

Let's start with this: 

Democratic expert on negotiations schools us deplorables

The Diplomad points out the irony of how the swell people failed with the Norks: 

We are now seeing the leaders of the two Koreas meeting, vowing to formalize the end of the war and to seek a way to denuclearize the peninsula. Huh? What happened? It must have been some tweet from Hillary or Obama, or some wise statement by Pelosi or Corbyn that did it. Gotta be. Or that Kim Jung-un, he's really just a pussy cat who loves his people and peace. Can't possibly be the man in the White House, because we all just KNOW that he's a clown and a loudmouth who doesn't know what he's doing, and thank God, that at least Putin controls him, or who knows what would happen, eh? 

Sorry, scoffers. Trump gets the credit.

It’s amazing what a president can accomplish when he stands on his feet instead of his knees. 

As James Woods pointed out, Trump will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize if this goes off, but they’ll probably give it to Kim Jong Un, because, well it’s Donald Trump, and they can’t even... 

I’m betting Iran begins to get much more reasonable sometime soon.