Vatican Weighs Reports for Abuse Rules

Most people have probably forgotten about the huge kerfuffle over Catholic priests putting "The Spirit of the Lord" into their charges in an improper manner. And the coverups by the church and shuffling around of these naughty priests to different parishes that had only one real effect and that was to keep them supplied with fresh targets.

Well the Church has not forgotten about it. In fact, they commissioned several reports from external agencies to analyze the problem and suggest solutions. These don't agree on much except that the policy of the US Church to defrock priests who have sodomized children is wrong.

Yah, that's right. They think that it's wrong to defrock a priest just because they buggered an altar boy. Seems that might send a bad message that the Church thinks said individual can't be rehabilitated. And firing them might just lead to more assaults because the individual isn't under supervision.

Hello? Vatican? Get your heads out of your asses (or your prepubescent toys' asses as the case may be). If a priest fucks a kid that should most definitely be a "Go directly to layman. Do not pass the altar, do not collect ablutions". What parishoner is EVER going to trust a priest who nailed a kid? And why should they? Or are you planning to quietly move the kid fuckers around to other parishes like you were doing before all of this blew up in your faces?

Defrocking the priest says nothing about the person not being capable of rehabilitation. It means they defied the laws of God, Church and Man and have lost any claim to the cloth. It might lead to other assaults? Only if you protect the bastard. The courts take a dim view of adults who screw kids and they are set up to "rehabilitate" these worthless pieces of shit.

When Jesus said turn the other cheek he wasn't talking about our kids' rear ends.

Posted by: Jim at 01:49 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Still having DNS difficulties where snoozebuttondreams.com isn't working for some people (including me at home). For now I've rebuilt the site using a base address of snoozebuttondreams.mu.nu so the site should work correctly for everybody who can actually get here no matter how they got here.

Pixy mentioned that it looks like there's a DNS server out there with a bad cache and it keeps propagating the wrong info. That makes sense as the .com worked for me at home yesterday for a short while and then it cut out again. Very frustrating and not really anything we can do about it.

For the time being I'm just going to chill a bit and play with Grow.

(Hat tip to Dopple-G for the game)

Posted by: Jim at 08:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

The 12th Bestofme Symphony is up at The Owners Manual and ready for your Monday morning reading pleasure. Gary has quite a performance for you, complete with a guest conductor!

Hosting: Would you like to host the Symphony? Send me a note.

Submit to the Symphony: Want to be a part of next week's edition? Check out this post for submission help. Entries should always be sent to bestofme@jpeacock.net regardless of who the Symphony host is.

Spread the word: Webloggers, please give Gary a hand by spreading the word a little linky love goes a long way.

Email Reminders: If you'd like to be sent a reminder about the Symphony, drop me a line at this address. It's not a mailing list, just me sending out friendly little reminders. There'll be one on Thursday or Friday to remind you to submit for the next Symphony and one on Monday with the location of the newly posted Symphony.

Posted by: Jim at 05:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

...so is the Cheddar X of our lives.

Similar to last week, one of the answers here is a bald faced lie. Can you spot it?

Update: Answer to the lie is at the bottom of the extended entry. more...

Posted by: Jim at 05:50 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Number 3 im sure its not natural to be that excited about work

Posted by: Jeremy at February 20, 2004 08:08 AM (hBMbi)

2 Who could restrain their excitement when there's a ping-pong table and a dart board? I'm talking ping-freakin-pong here!

Posted by: Jim at February 20, 2004 08:36 AM (IOwam)

3 I have to go with #9. I think Edwards' 'free year of college' idea chaffes you as much as it does me, and that you woul not seriously consider voting for hm, if for thothing else thn that reason.

Posted by: tommy at February 20, 2004 09:08 AM (MhJXW)

4 My vote is number 1 again. I'm sure you've done a good deed. Your a sweetheart, how can you not do a good deed. (does major sucking up count?)

Posted by: Tiffani at February 20, 2004 10:06 AM (xpNFK)

5 Education isn't on my radar for this election and Bush's rampant spending has taken away the disadvantage I'd normally apply to the Dem candidate for general fiscal matters. Plus Edward's a good ol' boy so my normal dislike of Noreast politicians wouldn't apply to him. I can just about guarantee that I've done some good deed sometime in my life. I mean, I was a boyscout and it's mandatory, right? I just have no memory of any good deed done for a stranger (excepting the courtesy/good manners stuff already noted).

Posted by: Jim at February 20, 2004 10:16 AM (IOwam)

6 I'm going for number 4 even though I did know you lived in arizona for a while ... what ... it could be a trick question!

Posted by: Rob at February 20, 2004 10:24 AM (kXZI6)

7 #6 is "out" if we count that whole PeakTalk-censored-my-post debacle, but "in" if we recall that it was mostly me bitching out Trey while you maintained your usual civility. None of the rest, however, seem like lies to me. Tricky tricky, as usual, but I'll stick with 6 for lack of any better candidate. Oh, and since you mention Edwards, did you see Allahpundit's campaign poster photoshops on him? My favorite was "Edwards '04: Yeah, I Guess."

Posted by: ilyka at February 20, 2004 11:40 AM (PTsag)

8 Methinks the Snooze doth protest too loudly... I'm going with Number 1 as well, so slide over Tiffani!

Posted by: Mike the Marine at February 20, 2004 12:04 PM (UJiSP)

9 I was thinking of that debate with Trey, actually. I don't think it could be considered a commentwar. Yes, it did pop up on a couple different blogs but it was over after a couple hours with a general concensus. And, as you pointed out, I maintained my decorum throughout. Mike - I shall attempteth to protesteth lesseth in the futureth.

Posted by: Jim at February 20, 2004 12:33 PM (IOwam)

10 hey man, say it don't sthpray it.

Posted by: Rob at February 20, 2004 12:38 PM (kXZI6)

11 I'll say #2's a lie. How could someone hurt you like that? A man with such integrity, virility, humility & comedy. Besides, you're the best teet sucker I've ever seen.

Posted by: MojoMark at February 20, 2004 01:28 PM (E+LQu)

12 My teat sucking was perfected with that one, too. Go figure!

Posted by: Jim at February 20, 2004 08:29 PM (saeHM)

13 Play fair, Jim--I shouldn't get points on that one. It wasn't your "intentional" lie, number one, and number two, a proper comment/blog war is never settled amicably within 24 hours (and with that one it was less). I'll just try to guess more smarter on the next round. Students of blogwars should see Olsen, Dawn; Slade, Madison; and of course, Esmay, Dean, but only if they have strong stomachs and absolutely nothing at all better to do for half a day.

Posted by: ilyka at February 23, 2004 09:45 AM (ULuzT)

14 I was trying to play fair! :-P Okay, with Ilyka surrendering her points that'll be 7 for 2 people. Mike and Tiffani both get 4 points. (Always round up to a whole number - you'll thank me.)

Posted by: Jim at February 23, 2004 09:57 AM (IOwam)

15 ha HAAAA!!! Back on top! Of the points, not Tifanni. Get your mind out of the gutter... or was that just me? Oh... nevermind.

Posted by: Mike the Marine at February 23, 2004 02:18 PM (Zw7Hl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If you got here through www.snoozebuttondreams.com or snoozebuttondreams.com then all is right in your snoozy world. No problems at all.

If you got here through snoozebuttondreams.mu.nu, go ahead and try to get to www.snoozebuttondreams.com. Did you get there? If so, you're fine too. If it didn't work then your service provider sucks as badly as mine and even though you can get around a bit on the index page the site overall is going to blow for you.

The problem is DNS propagation and how some servers are updated proactively and others are updated days later. The provider at work for me is proactive and everything works fine. My home provider (rot in hell, Charter!) is one of the lazy bastards.

It'll be cleaned up in the next 24 hours or so as even the layabouts are sort of mandated to get their shit together at the 48 hour mark.

Posted by: Jim at 10:14 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever get one of those "Everybody from X-place knows" or "If you're going to X-place you should know" email jokes that's been forwarded so many times that the brackets are so deep (>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>) it pushes the content into a single word column on the right? We got one the other day for the hometown and damn if it isn't accurate.

I shall temporarily ignore my Voluntary Southerner status and wax nostalgic as I present the much cleaned up list.

We, the people of Buffalo (and surrounding areas), hold these truths to be self-evident: more...

Posted by: Jim at 11:51 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 945 words, total size 6 kb.

Submissions are needed for the Bestofme Symphony. Last week's performance was a fine rally against recent participation dropoff. Thank y'all and let's do it again!

Send your submissions to bestofme@jpeacock.net and they'll be in Monday's edition at The Owner's Manual.

Remember, the only requirements are that you think the post is good and that it be at least 2 months old. Don't have your own blog? Who cares? Send in a favorite post from whatever author you'd like to.

The basics of the Bestofme Symphony.
We need you to host a Symphony.
Want to get reminder emails?

Posted by: Jim at 08:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Well it's a gorgeous day here. We're pushing 60 degrees with a very nice breeze so I'm taking the rest of the day off and going to the park to fly kites with the boys.

Cross your fingers and maybe Ilyka will show up to entertain y'all in my absence.

By the way - Munuviana will be moving to its new high powered home this tomorrow evening. The site won't look any different but there won't be any posting or commenting for the duration of the transit. Maybe 4 hours or so.

Posted by: Jim at 02:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

The Bull has made a terrible error. She has posted a lightbulb joke, thereby opening her comments to every bad lightbulb joke known to man. Or woman. What's your favorite lightbulb joke? Head on over and contribute.

POINTS: 1 point to the first person who can name my source for the title of this post. No searches, please.

Posted by: Jim at 11:20 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

URL: 81.9.106.157
Email: Anything fake. Particuarly fond of @mail.com
Name: Hero aka Acanty aka Creno aka Meban (very clever that last one. get it? it's "ban me". hahaha)
Crimes: Accumulated irritation over time. Too many fake IDs.

Posted by: Jim at 10:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Big Update / Rules Change: 20 April '04 - Instead of accumulating a scorecard throughout the month (which was nifty but ended up being work) a point will be given to each correct participant when the individual sham/share is closed. They'll also be coming out whenever I think of something apropriate instead of the semi-schedule of one or two a week. It was getting tedius for me and hopefully this will be enough to make it fun again. Other than these changes the rules noted below are still valid.

Update: Results to Shamming/Sharing #1 are in the extended entry.

I had this idea for something that might be cool - I got it from the Sex, Lies and Cheddar X post. Once or twice a week I'm going to post something about me. It might be true or it might be a lie. You guess if I'm shamming or sharing. When the next one is posted I'll give the answer to the previous one (so there will always be at least a couple of days for people to jump in on it). At the end of the month I'll tally up who's got the most correct responses and the best one(s) will get some points. I'm thinking maybe 5 for the top dog, 4 for the second, etc down to 1 point for the fifth finisher. It'll depend on how many people play along. Oh, and Lovely Wife, Dopple-G, others who know me in real life: If you know for a fact that the anecdote is true or false please don't guess. If you don't know, feel free to play along.

Sound interesting? Here's your first one to judge:

I have a scar above my left eye that goes through my eyebrow. I got this in a snowball fight in Buffalo, NY when I was but a lad. My opponent in the snowball fight used a chunk of ice and put a bit of snow around it and this missed blinding me by about a half of an inch. Because my face was frozen I didn't realize I was bleeding profusely at first and I chased him down and beat him thoroughly. I stopped when I saw all of the blood and thought I'd really hurt him. I went home and my Mom went into hysterics when she saw me literally covered in blood. He was bigger than me too, by the way.

Am I shamming or sharing? Lemme know. more...

Posted by: Jim at 09:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

You'll hear about this in 3 days everywhere else.

That terrible bathroom policy in that New Jersey school that's being commented on all over the blogosphere? The one nobody except me and the readers of ZeroIntelligence.net new about when it popped up on Monday? The one that is finally getting press today?

Well, it was changed on Tuesday. Everybody is commenting and reporting on a 2 day dead phantom. Boo-ya! I win! (Happy Dance)

The policy limited students' in-class bathroom trips to 15 per month, with another 15 trips for locker visits and other assorted uses.
However, the school administration announced a change late in the day Tuesday, and now students will be permitted to leave class 30 times per month for any reason.

Take THAT Opinion Journal!

If Mr.Taranto should happen to read this post I would just like to explain that by "Take THAT Opinion Journal!" I really mean that I love your work and read it every day and one day I aspire to such greatness.

Posted by: Jim at 08:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

(Guest-posted by the girl who drank too much coffee today.)

I don't like Bill Maher, frankly; I didn't like him very much before September 11 and I liked him less afterwards, and the final straw was when he was quite rude to an interviewer from my favorite animal charity (hint: it's not PETA?), despite being on record as a supporter of animal rights.

That said, my brother sent me a link to this piece, which pretty much nails my position on the whole gay marriage thing. My favorite bit:

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

[From S-Train's post] And this shouldn't be a liberal or consevative issue. It should be a human issue.

Sure, make it sound all simple and logical like that! Huh! Where's the partisan hatemongering? Where's the team of legal experts debating constitutionality? Where are all the hand-wringers moaning about what this might mean for the future of Western civilization?

Oh, right: You don't do all that.

Which is why I love this blog.

Ilyka: Umph. Calling people "hatemongers" for disagreeing and/or having concerns is a bit counteproductive in my experience. Just makes them dig their heels in harder.

Those I consider hatemongers have had the gloves off for a long time. Why'm I still wearin' my pair?

So long, social conservatives, and thanks for all the fish.

I've read your arguments. I've listened to your concerns. And I've noticed something: When you need, I mean really really NEED, the socially liberal folks on your side--when elections are close and winning isn't everything, it's the only thing--you have "concerns" that you're just "airing" in the "interest" and "spirit" of "liberal debate."

But when you think you have us by the short hairs, you move to make your concerns amendments.

Don't fuck me like that, darlings. More importantly, quit fucking yourselves--because that's what you're about to do. You're about to hand the country to a Democrat president because you can't keep from sticking your noses into what is essentially other people's business.

Here's all Bush had to do to win in a landslide: nothing. That's right, nothing. No Constitutional amendments. No statements on the issue whatsoever. If someone asked, all he had to do was state that he trusts the courts to uphold the Constitution, as indeed justices are sworn to do, and that now is not the time to focus on divisive domestic issues because, you know, there's a war on.

Yes, National Review would have shed bitter tears of "disappointment" that their "concerns" were not being "seriously addressed" by the "leader of the free world." (Look, Ma, I got sneer quotes!) But the middle, amigos--the middle that you need, whether you have the courage to admit it or not--the middle would have been sewn up tight. How tight? This tight.

Of course, it has been suggested in some quarters that the middle is already in pocket. To that, I have only this response:

"Dewey Defeats Truman."

Think about it.

(With thanks to Michele of A Small Victory for reminding me that I do not have this whole thing out of my system yet. Not even close.)

Posted by: Ilyka at 06:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 725 words, total size 5 kb.

Disjointed and caffeinated thoughts that most certainly do not come from your regular host, Mr. Jim Peacock, so throw the tomatoes at me, not him. 'Course, you'll have to wait until the site's back up, which is what I'm doing right now. The other thing I'm doing right now is taking advantage of Jim's kindness in giving me a guest login. I'm a real super-good taker-advantager. I'm knacky with the grammar, too, if you couldn't tell.

Anyway, Jim didn't write the following, I did, and you'll be able to tell right away because Jim, unlike myself, is normally coherent. more...

Posted by: Ilyka at 05:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1127 words, total size 7 kb.

Seems like everybody in the blogosphere is commenting on the school bathroom regulation story today. I did this story three days ago at ZeroIntelligence.net.

[sigh]

By the way, if you're interested in items like this one, there's at least one a day over at ZeroIntelligence.net.

Posted by: Jim at 05:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

I haven't really written about this issue for a couple of reasons. First, unless I somehow catch homosexuality from one of my gay friends it isn't likely to ever be an issue for me. Second, it's one of those issues where nothing that anybody says is really going to change anybody's mind one way or another. People have decided their position either emotionally or logically. There's nothing changing in the debate to affect a logical decision and you aren't going to change somebody's emotions via your arguments.

So why am I piping up now? Because I've heard "to preserve the sanctity of marriage" one time too many. Every time I've heard this particular argument I've cringed a little bit at the hypocrisy of the statement. I've run out of cringe room. (Plus the retort finally came to me earlier today at Trey's place.)

The people who are arguing for amendments defining marriage as being a union between one man and one woman do not care one whit about the sanctity of marriage. The people fighting for laws defining marriage as being a union between one man and one woman do not give a damn about the sanctity of marriage. The people who are fighting against any and all legislation that would make homosexual marriage legal couldn't give two shits for the sanctity of marriage.

Want to know how I know this? It's because if they actually gave even the slightest weight to preserving the sanctity of marriage they would be fighting for amendments, laws and legislation to bolster marriage instead of this hypocritical hogwash they are involved in.

Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? It's easy. Make that "til death do us part" portion for real. Make the marriage contract an actual contract. Make marriage a rare and precious thing instead of the "discard after use" recyclable it has become.

Imagine if marriage was permanent. First off there would be a hell of a lot less of them. People wouldn't be getting married for idiotic reasons any more. Britney would have stayed single. Rock stars and celebrities wouldn't count their spouses with sillhouettes on their car doors. People would be forced to actually deal with their partner and make things work. No quick outs.

So if you care about the sanctity of marriage stop putting your efforts into keeping people apart and start putting it where it should be: keeping marriages together. more...

Posted by: Jim at 04:38 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

I think Bull just qualified for Snooze Button Dreams guestblogger in the unlikely event that I ever get a vacation.

My belly hurts. No drinking while you click that link.

Posted by: Jim at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

So Snooze Button Dreams is getting simpler. Yay!

How's it getting simpler, you ask? Well, the recent redesign (and follow up tweaks) have removed some stuff that wasn't necessary. Specifically, the comment and trackback pop-ups are gone. When you hit the comments link it opens the individual post archive page at the point where the comments start. Same thing with the trackback link. Those pop-ups were extra pages that had to be rebuilt whenever a comment was left (or a trackback, as the case may be). They weren't needed since that info is already on the individual archive page anyway.

Cool, eh? Can we make this an industry standard?

The Snooze Point Leaders have also been tightened up. The top 10 are always displayed. Other point holders are there in a collapsed list. Don't worry, all of the links still count for Ecosystem stuff.

Special thanks to Harvey for finding a problem with the way we had trackbacks working. Harvey gets a Snooze Point!

Points: 4 points to the first person to name the movie that this post's title came from. The points are higher for this one (it's usually 2 points) because it's a lousy movie that nobody probably saw. No searching, please. After 24 hours this will drop to 1 point and you'll be allowed to search for it.

If you'd like to be notified whenever a post goes up with points available, just put your email address in that box in the Snooze Points section of the sidebar and click on that little submit button.

Posted by: Jim at 10:19 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Is there anything sexier than a babe and a wet t-shirt?

(Hat tip to Dopple-G)

Posted by: Jim at 09:49 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Apologize profusely and wipe it off.

Posted by: Jim at 08:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Elephants don't live in the jungle, so this is hardly likely.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 18, 2004 09:03 PM (jtW2s)

2 Well no, they might not live there but they certainly do vacation there. Didn't you ever see Tarzan?

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2004 11:37 PM (saeHM)

3 Egh - gross. I'd be more concerned as to what one is doing choking the chimp in the midst of one of natures most dangerous environments...

Posted by: Rob at February 19, 2004 06:10 AM (kXZI6)

4 Not true!We saw Muteral of Omaha's Animal Kingdom on sunday which happend to be about elephants.And those elephants live now in the jungle because they got driven of off the savannah. HA!

Posted by: LW at February 19, 2004 08:20 AM (saeHM)

5 Driving them off savannah is a bit excessive could'nt they have walked?

Posted by: Jeremy at February 19, 2004 09:12 AM (FTWUX)

6 Shot down in the blaze of glory...

Posted by: LW at February 19, 2004 09:17 AM (saeHM)

7 how the heck do you get 4 elephants in a car?

Posted by: Rob at February 19, 2004 09:36 AM (kXZI6)

8 2 in the front and 2 in the back. How do you know if an elephant is visiting your house?

Posted by: Jim at February 19, 2004 09:41 AM (IOwam)

9 Footprints in the butter....oh no,thats the fridge.

Posted by: LW at February 19, 2004 09:57 AM (saeHM)

10 all of this elephantine talk has put me in mind of the old management saying: Getting anything done around here is like elephants mating: It has to be done at a very high level with lots of snorting and hooting and it take 2 years to produce any results. Sound familier?

Posted by: Rob at February 19, 2004 10:03 AM (kXZI6)

11 That does sound vaguely familiar, Rob. The way you can tell if an elephant is visiting your house? There's a car in your driveway with three elephants in it.

Posted by: Jim at February 19, 2004 10:28 AM (IOwam)

Hide Comments | Add Comment