Grow up, OB.

Click on my name at the top of the post, and you’ll see my most recent list of posts. The subjects have been sexual abuse in the military, economic justice and the Catholic Church, hydroponic gardeners getting swept up in Teh War on Drugs, and more. Yes, there’s been a fair amount about LGBT stuff, but perhaps that’s because a historic pair of SCOTUS cases are nearing their conclusion, and it falls in the category of current events.

I’m a pastor, with a lot of compassion for a lot of folks — gay, straight, and otherwise. If you “have seen absolutely no indication of that,” that says a lot more about you than me.

And if you want a diary on something, write one yourself, rather than complain about what others choose to write about.

“Making commanders less responsible and less accountable will not work,” General Odierno said.

Is Odierno really going to go there? He wants commanders to be held more responsible and more accountable?

Well, if that’s what he wants, I assume his resignation and the resignations of the rest of the Joint Chiefs are on the president’s desk. That seems the least they can do after failing to stem the tide of thousands of sexual assaults.

And if they’re not there already, perhaps the president might request that they hurry up with their typing.

When you’ve got a black preacher unwilling to talk about something, that’s a sign that you’ve really hit a nerve. Was it “I’m not going to change my mind, so there’s nothing more to say” or more of a “Society is moving toward greater acceptance, and even if I’m not, I don’t want this issue to color how I’m seen”?

I was glad to see you mention Jeremiah Wright and Trinity UCC in Chicago as one of the black church leaders raising his voice in support of acceptance and inclusion of LGBTs.

When the Obama campaign distanced itself from Jeremiah Wright (incorrectly, in my opinion), the presenting issue was a quote taken out of context from a sermon on government and God. At the time, I wondered why more African-American pastors didn’t stand by Wright; after reading your book, I’m wondering if these other pastors were happy to see an LGBT-friendly pastor taken down a notch.

Any thoughts on that?

(Also, I was surprised that you didn’t include civil rights icon Rev. Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction at Obama’s first inauguration, and has since been an ever louder and more public advocate for LGBTs.)

Welcome Tony and Deena!

Tony, I’m only partway through the book, but am anxious to finish it. I’m a white Lutheran pastor in Kansas City, and just seeing the title reminded me of an African-American Methodist pastor I knew back in the early 90s. His son contracted AIDS and came out to him before he died, and it served as a huge wakeup call. The dad became a strong local voice for full acceptance of gays and lesbians as a result.

But the homophobia he encountered, especially from his African American colleagues, was stunning. He would sometimes drop by my office to vent at some of the more outrageous stuff he had to deal with, and a recurring refrain was “. . . and these are CHURCH FOLKS!”

From the Office of Government Ethics, I downloaded both the original form and the amended attachment, but PP’s folks are not making it easy to quickly see what was changed. The amended form includes a 16 page table listing various trusts, her roles with each (trustee, consultant, etc.), and her income, all sorted by the name of the trust. On the original form, I can’t figure out how the trusts are sorted — parts appear to be sorted by trust name, but other parts are not.

Kind of makes it hard on short notice to sort out what’s different.

But I’m sure that’s just an inadvertent clerical error, too.

I’m well aware that they refer non-constituents to their own reps/senators all the time, but no one until now has said that they are doing this because it would be against the law to deal with a non-constituent.

What law did they cite to you?

I find it hard to believe it’s against the law for McCaskill or Gillibrand to respond to a non-constituent. What law did these letters cite to you?

And turn it around for a minute. Are you saying that if McCaskill or Gillibrand put out a call for people to come forward to tell their stories of abuse, and they went on to deal with folks who live outside of MO and NY, they’d be breaking the law because these aren’t their constituents? Sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.

Similarly, lobbyists can walk into any office on Capitol Hill and make their pitch, regardless of who their actual senator or representative is, and I haven’t heard of a single arrest.

I can easily see how a senator or representative would brush you off because they wouldn’t want to step on the toes of whoever your senators are, or how they might feel they’ve got enough to do responding to their own constituents, but I have a tough time seeing it being against the law.

You might want to bring this case to Claire McCaskill or Kirsten Gillibrand (both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee) who have been pushing for addressing events like this, or go to your own senator/representative. Given the climate right now around sexual abuse in the military, having someone in Congress asking difficult questions of the DOD might get more attention than having a journalist ask them.

Hmmm . . . in the supplemental information page of NOM Inc.’s 990 (pdf p. 28), it says that Brian Brown and Neil Corkery also serve on the board of ActRight Action.

Going to ActRight Action’s 990 for 2011, on page 7 it shows Brown works another 6 hours a week for them — with no compensation.

Back to the calculator . . .

No days off: 12.29 hrs/day
1 day off a week: 14.33 hrs/day
2 days off a week: 17.2 hrs/day

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost get the idea that someone is double counting his work hours.

Interestingly, on page 7 of those two 990s, Brian Brown is listed as working 40 hours a week for both NOM, Inc. and NOM Education Fund.

*pulling out the calculator*

Let’s see . . .

If he never takes a day off, then 80 hours a week, divided by 7 days comes to almost 11.5 hours/day.

If he takes one day off a week, then 80 hours a week divided by 6 days comes to 13.3 hours/day.

If he gets a whole weekend off each week, then it comes to 16 hours/day.

He’s either very busy, or someone at NOM has serious problems with math.

My “great progressive Obama”? Where’d you come up with that?

I’ve called Obama many things, but “great progressive” has never been on the list.

Maybe in some cases speakers are chosen to further debate, but not in this case. As the president himself said in the stories linked to above, Ryan was chosen because the president and Weigel (and several bishops) see Ryan as the model of a good Catholic politician. The only challenge being put forward was by the president to the students: “You students should listen to him and be more like him, because he’s doing what good Catholics do.”

I — and perhaps St Benedict — beg to differ.

Yes, there was a small group of protesters that lined the street approaching the campus, but no disruption of the ceremonies or anything like that.

I’ve got to run, but before I go, I want to offer my thanks once more for this wonderful book!

Yeah — When I got to that part of the book, I did a double take, then a bit of Googling around to sort it out.

Different Plum Island.

That’s PI, New York, and this one is in Massachusetts.

Bill, when I look at today’s political battles over science — like HHS and the approval of Plan B over the counter, or the NIH and the CDC and various AIDS debates and research on stem cells — what would be one or two lessons that today’s scientists in government could learn from Carson?

Agreed. I almost spilled the beverage at my elbow when I read that!

“Hard to define” certainly fits with what I came away with after reading the book. Yes, there’s something very strong between the two of them, but you tried to be careful about what you could and could not claim beyond that based on the evidence before you. Though I want to know more, I’m grateful you would only go as far as you thought the evidence would take you.

I had the sense throughout the book that Carson was an introvert — much happier on her own than in the midst of a crowd, more delighted in having deep one-on-one conversations than in making grand public speeches, and more energized by quiet moments alone or with one or two others than loud and boisterous events with throngs of thousands.