Yeah, the sleeves are too short in all the menswear catalogues, except for my favorite, Fat & Dumpy Quarterly.  I don't understand why BB and their competition are all going for the "growth spurt" look.

While I sympathise with the proponents of gay marriage, my question is how does the Federalism argument work in light of the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act,  the 1882 Edmunds Act, and Reynolds v. United States?  Seems like the Feds have taken a keen interest in marital relations in the past. 

My wife's a nurse at a highly-respected research hospital.  She's sure that they'd have to close the hospital if they instituted random urine tests.  There wouldn't be enough doctors, nurses, or other staff left to keep operating.  If the Pollyannas who are arguing for the War on Drugs knew how many of the people they deal with on a daily basis have smoked pot in the last month, or how many of the professionals they employ did a line of coke at the weekend barbecue, they'd be ashamed of their position.  While I know where to get drugs, I stick to beer as my pleasure of choice, because, as my wife says, I'm a goody-two-shoes.

Because, if the source faces sanction, that just encourages other good priests to keep quiet.  We're already dealing with a community with a siege mentality.

I know some married clergy who are right awful buggers themselves.  Married clergy is not the answer.

And, to answer a question about why someone without courage and faith would become a priest, I respond thus.  I have seen too many clergy who have no spiritual inkling, who only enjoy the trappings and security of office.  Where else can you get a job where you have a house; car, clothing, food, and book allowances; a cook and a housecleaner; and you're automatically a CEO of a small corporation after one year of apprenticeship?  Plus, you can run your corporation into the ground and be given a new one to ruin?

there have been five conscientious priests ordained.  I pray for them every day, that they not be corrupted by the 85% lazy, unorthodox, and jaded of their seniors.  It will take a long time to rebuild Holy Mother Church, and the key will be cleaning up the Augean seminaries.  And that task has only just begun.

Now, I'm not attacking the ordination of gay clergy.  Some of the best priests I know are gay and celibate.  The problem arises that the unchaste homosexuals climb the corporate ladder and protect their kind.  That is where we see the bulk of the post-Vatican II problems; homosexual priests preying on post-pubescent males and protected by fellow homosexual clergy in the apparatus, who consider such antics as trifling matters at best, and conquests worthy of praise at worst. 

Another problem facing the church is the laziness and heresy of many of her clergy.  Now, I may just reside in the worst diocese in the U.S., but I would suspect that the vast bulk of our clergy are secular humanists, and I know that, with few exceptions, all consider evil merely the creation of a disordered psyche and that an incarnation of evil such as Satan does not exist.  Well, if you don't believe in Satan and Evil, how can you be expected to avoid temptations?

Finally, I have seen some fine young, and older, men ordained over the last few years.  I would say, out of eight ordinations in three years,

I see a number of Roman Catholics on here in high dudgeon over Prof. Rahe's remarks, but I'm a Roman Catholic, and I have to say this issue is the largest problem facing the Church since Diocletian.  I've worked with clergy for the last six years, and I'm leaving my industry now, so to Hades with most of them.  When I first started working in this job, my coworker was a gay ex-seminarian who had attended St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore.  His complaint about the school, and one of the primary reasons he left, was that "I'm a gay man, and seminary was too gay for me."  They even had a wing of the dormitory nicknamed "Vaseline Alley."  I confirmed that with a straight seminarian, who is now ordained, and an ordained priest.  My coworker is also still friends with an ex-seminarian who "has a thing" for bishops, and he rarely finds trouble finding episcopal companionship and is now HIV+.  It is no wonder that 70% of Catholic clergy, as anonymous surveys show, consider themselves homosexual.  It would be hard for a heterosexual to put up with the Lavender bull feces.

Easy.  I'd still browse the other feeds, which, per my prior comment, would be simpler to navigate if categorized.  My complaint is that the current follow function doesn't actually help me follow a particular individual.  I want one that works, so I don't have to click on James Lileks' profile, for instance, to find his latest posts and comments.  Heck, alerts when people you follow start a thread would be great, too.

Also, if I could actually follow people I'm following, that would be great.  I'd pay for a feed that consisted only of posts and comments from the folks I follow, so I don't have to waste my precious time hunting for their posts and comments.

I listen to the podcasts, and I catch up on the main feed every two or three days.  (I am disappointed that more folks on here don't talk about local and state politics; they are much more important than Federal, and local officials touch you much more than the Feds ever will.  I've been surprised that no one has been discussing our Lt. Gov. here in Virginia bolting the GOP and pondering an independent bid at the Governor's Mansion, especially with all the handwringing over the direction of the GOP.)  I try to read the Member Feed, but it is just a jumbled mess.  I know it would demand self-policing, but requiring member posts to be posted in one of a number of different categories would help me read more of what interests me.  I think I've only posted three times over the year and a half that I've been a member, so I would happily drop that, but I'd still pay to comment, and I'd pay a premium for certain podcasts.  I like the higher prices, but a la carte, idea.

Another thing about George Allen: he was the "Establishment" candidate.  But, of his grassroots primary challengers, only one was viable for the general, and he dropped out and endorsed Allen before the primary because, as he said, trying to get TEA Partiers to coalesce strategically around one candidate was "like herding cats."  So, you can blame both the "Establishment" AND the grassroots for losing the Senate race in Virginia.

Look, I studied history, so my math ain't too strong, but I do know one thing; there aren't enough bar sluts for every guy.

Unless those men are having sex with a smaller pool of exceedingly fast women.  My purely anecdotal observations of my unmarried, and some married, acquaintances' behavior in bars seems to point to a smaller pool of women who have disproportionate amounts of sex with different partners.  If 75% of the male population is having sex with multiple members of 30% of the female population, those select females are getting a workout, but the numbers will work.

Well, Romney ran ahead of George Allen because he was a big spender as a freshman Senator, so he didn't get as much TEA Party and fiscal conservative support, and couldn't shake his image as an overgrown, racist frat boy, which cost him votes in the middle that went to Romney.  Personally, Allen's loss hurt more than Romney's loss.