[Warning: This is a rant about the way homophobia reduces conservative pundits to blind, unreasoning fools. You may already know that. But this case is so outrageous I have to vent anyway.]
Mike Adams
Mike Adams is a conservative columnist exploiting a tragic, loathsome crime in order to prove the media gives special treatment to gays.
The least he could do is get it right.
Frank Lombard, a former Duke University administrator, adopted an infant son, who is now five years old. This summer Lombard was accused of molesting the boy, of drugging him, and of offering him up to be molested by others. Lombard has agreed to plead guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor.
It’s difficult for me even to type that, but Mike Adams has relished the saga. He began by using it to attack gay men who adopt children. Last July he ended an article with this sarcasm:
None of this article was intended to say that the adoption agency was negligent in allowing Frank Lombard to adopt two small boys. After all, they were only black children. It’s not like any good white children were put into harm’s way.
Nor was this article intended to suggest that gay men often adopt boys out of some sick sense of sexual perversion. I see gay male couples walking around with their adopted little girls all the time. Don’t you?
Actually, Mike, I do. Because my world is full of real people, not imaginary, demonized stereotypes.
But let’s talk about his most recent column. He accuses news station WRAL of giving Lombard special treatment because he’s gay. Apparently the station’s recent update to the story didn’t mention the child was a boy. Mike traces out the conspiracy:
But to acknowledge that [Lombards's child] is the son, not daughter, of Frank Lombard is to acknowledge that Lombard is gay. And the Gods of Diversity frown upon the notion that males can be victims of rape and that the perpetrators can be homosexual men.
And to acknowledge the race of the victim is to suggest that homosexuals might be capable of committing hate crimes, even if they do not play Lacrosse. Hate crimes legislation is supposed to protect, not prosecute, gay men.
Does it matter that Mike is completely wrong about hate crime legislation? Well, he’s a professor of criminal justice at UNC-Wilmington.
A professor. Of criminal justice.
So, yes, it matters: it makes him an idiot. But it’s not the main reason he’s an idiot
The main reason is that a moment’s search on Google reveals that WRAL has been quite willing to point out that the victim is Lombard’s son. Repeatedly. Which means Mike’s most basic claim is wrong, and his whole thesis is pure right-wing paranoia.
But Mike’s even more of an idiot than that. He writes:
And, finally, there should be no mention (yet) that [Lombard’s] son was adopted. The public, when confronted with such information, might use it to form dangerous opinions – such as the opinion that gay men should not be adopting little boys.
Ah, so here’s proof of the media’s pro-gay agenda. They don’t mention that Lombard adopted the child! Except, that, you know…they do. Mike writes a few paragraphs later.
WRAL finally mentions that Frank Lombard’s child was adopted.
How much of an idiot is Mike here?
- He claims that WRAL’s refusal to say the boy was adopted means they’re not willing to let the public form dangerous anti-gay opinions.
- He admits WRAL said the boy was adopted.
Hasn’t he just destroyed his entire case here? Does he realize that? Even worse, he doesn’t realize WRAL itself directly linked this crime to the gay adoption controversy. But that’s just the dumbass frosting on Mike’s stupidity cake. By the way, did we mention that Mike is a professor?
Idiocy is always offensive, aggressive idiocy all the more so. But I guess Mike figured he wasn’t being offensive enough (he was mistaken). He reveals that Lombard was an associate director of the university’s Center for Health Policy, and theorizes:
To reveal [Lombard’s] sexual orientation would raise certain questions, which might violate someone’s right to feel comfortable at all times. For example…“Is a homosexual man the best candidate available to help run a Center for Public Health and teach a course about AIDS at Duke University?”
Okay, let’s forget that Mike is blind to reality in his claims about WRAL. Instead, let’s focus on Mike’s eagerness to indict all gay men because of one sick criminal. If Lombard had been sexually abusing girls, would Mike have questioned with such gusto whether a straight man should run a Center for Public Health?
I guess we’ll never know. Except we really do. And I doubt Mike is even aware of his double standard. A while back I tried to combat this one-molester-means-all-gays-are-bad meme by finding stories about men who abuse girls. Try it: just google rape young girls. It was so horrifying I lasted about three minutes. But I guess Mike isn’t as sensitive as I am, because he’s rocking the Lombard case for all it’s worth, down to the level of critiquing a single news update just to get a column out of it. And mucking that up, as well.
That’s why we still use the word homophobia, despite all the conservative objections. Mike Adams truly is subject to a psychological demon that paralyzes his reasoning, cripples his research, and overwhelms his compassion. And he’ll never know it.
Adams is a living exemplar of the biblical warning that the Devil can assume pleasing forms. Adams is jocular, witty, engaging… and a horrible human being. Moreover, he is OBSESSED with homosexuality, and nearly as obsessive about making specious arguments.
I was pointed here by a post on his most recent movement to advance the causes of idiocy and xenophobia:
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/12/07/wral_white_rapists_and_lombard
Do sign up to post there. If you say something halfway intelligent or mildly empirically based, you’ll be attacked in a way you cannot even imagine. A whole web site of people who believe they are compassionate and good because they, you know, LOVE JESUS, but with so much hate for everything else.
I’m still waiting for the bellicose exploiters of rare racial incidents to bring their special brand of hypocrisy to this stage. White guy, black sexually exploited child – sounds as though it has the right ingredients for a full Al Sharpton or Jesse “I never met a white person I liked” Jackson war of racist terms and words, no?
Has anybody heard the racist rants coming forth on behalf of the boy? No, me either.
The moral relativists want their high moral ground and to shun the gaping rents in their emotional armour at the same time. It is funny about how diversion from the principles that have held societies together for over 35oo years creates these monumental hypocrisies – that no amount of blathering and arrogant umbrage can surpass.
The may be loud, they may have grown up in the USA, they may think they have “right” on their side as self-centred ego illusions do to people, but these strange folks are foreign to most of us, as is their arrogant and unsupported belief that there is something “normal” about their behaviour. It is always those who suffer from the delusion that are most loud, violent, and most point at others for its cause.
I noticed the same inconsistency, i.e., that Adams states that WRAL omitted the fact that the sexually abused son was adopted and then later stated that WRAL did mention it, but I didn’t think it substantially interfered with his point that this was a particularly egregious case of misconduct on the part of a trusted academic official, one that deserved national exposure.
Vent away, but ad hominem attacks detract from any argument. Anything that begins with “Mike Adams is . . . ” and concludes with anything but a supportable statement of fact is an example of such an attack. (I anticipate this type of argument coming my way soon . . .)
I don’t know about you, but I believe the Lombard case SHOULD be “rocked.” The concern that Adams highlights is that the existing system often works to conceal misdeeds of people it supports. And Adams’ comparison to the national exposure that the Duke LaCrosse case received clearly demonstrates that the difference in treatment between the LaCrosse players and Lombard is striking. The accused Duke students didn’t do anything criminal, but it was on the national scene for weeks, spawning reams of indignation. He’s right on that, I remember it. On the other hand, the horrific sexual abuse of a five year old boy by his adoptive father, a trusted academic official at Duke, has recieved almost NO exposure beyond the local. That’s a strange thing. It needs an explanation.
And independent of any explanation, should people know about this kind of thing? If so, how will they know about it if it remains hidden through neglect? I learned about it from reading Adams’ column. I remember the Duke LaCrosse case making the NYT but can’t find anything on Lombard. Hmmmm.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/duke_university/duke_lacrosse_sexual_assault_case/index.html
[Webmaster note: I'm afraid you're confused about the nature of an ad hominem attack. This particular fallacy has the structure: There's something seriously wrong with the man, so there must be something wrong with his argument. I'm doing the reverse: There's something seriously wrong with the argument, therefore there must be something wrong with the man.
Put differently, an ad hominem attack focuses exclusively on the person in order to avoid dealing with what the person says. In this piece, however, I deal with Adams' statements in great detail, and use his glaring errors to point out there must be something wrong with his powers of reason when it comes to homosexuality. Again, this is the reverse of the argument ad hominem.]
It is almost humorous to see you use the phrase “double standard”, as that is what Adam’s point was all along. In case you hadn’t noticed, Frank Lombard was a professor at Duke, the same university that had the tree accused lacrosse players. I’ll spell it out for you since you obviously didn’t get it.
The media immediately painted these lacrosse players as evil, even though there was no hard evidence. The prosecutor was very public with his talk of the trial, albeit a lot less public with the supposed “evidence” of rape. Why did the media love this story? Because it portrayed privileged white kids taking advantage of a poor black woman, even though she lied about the whole thing.
The Frank Lombard case shows a liberal white homosexual taking advantage a poor black child he adopted, which he actually did. Why is there no moral outrage? Why is the media not all over this like they were at the SAME university not a year prior? Why are they silent? Well, because this case is politically incorrect. The media does NOT want to show homosexuals as unfit adoptive parents. This is the true double standard, and if you don’t see it, well then you are pretty obtuse.
To “afriKa…”
The Bible also tells us, in several places, that homosexual behavior is an “abomination.” A nation that condones such abominable behavior, even lionizes it, is pretty far down the path of damnation. Jesus, by the way, affirmed this definitive and authoritative position when He said, “For assuredly I say to you, til Heaven and Earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.”
Too many have been changing the Law (God’s) and filling in their own.
I love Mike Adam’s colums. Someone has to fight these liberal idiots.
William basically said the same thing, but why doesn’t anyone realize that Adams is writing satire? Almost every single one of his columns is satire. Here he is comparing this Duke case to that of the Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape a few years ago. The players were essentially lynched in front of a national audience and found guilty by the media upon the basis of them being affluent white men. It was criminal the way they were treated, especially given that they were exonerated through DNA evidence and STILL put through the ringer. Their accuser was believed 100% because she was black and a woman, and it would have been “racist,” “sexist,” and politically incorrect to point out she was insane and a lier.
Adams is simply using satire – pointing out the absurd by using the absurd – to point out the absurdity of political correctness. You liberal types are so freaking thick.
Hey, “Waking Up Now” … go back to bed! Leave the thinking to adults. You obviously can’t think and read an Adams article at the same time.
–Apparently the station’s recent update to the story didn’t mention the child was a boy. Mike traces out the conspiracy:–
According to the column, which you helpfully provided a link to, Adams made it clear that the fact that the child was adopted (and is a boy) was not mentioned until far later in the story than it should have been. When you write a news story, you put the most important information first–that’s plain ol’ Journalism 101. His age is not important information. The fact that this is a crime involving race (as a black victim was deliberately picked for the reason that he’s black).
He does not say that the article (or other articles) refuse to mention race or gender. He says that the information is buried in the minutia of the story.
And, of course, he asked three vital questions:
-Are certain sexual practices both detrimental to individual health and prevalent in the gay community?
-Could such practices, if widely adopted (no pun intended), be detrimental to the public health?
-Is a homosexual man the best candidate available to help run a Center for Public Health and teach a course about AIDS at Duke University?
Rather than answer those questions, advocates have taken to smearing Adams.
Rather than HEARING the answer to those questions, advocates have taken to viciously smearing Adams.
You’re sickened that Mike Adams won’t shut up about a man with deviant sexual proclivities being put in positions of authority (and I don’t mean just his homosexuality–check out the first column again)? I’m sickened that when a child is pimped and raped your only thought is how to make sure this doesn’t hurt your favorite cause.
[Webmaster note: You seem pretty blinded yourself. You say these three questions are vital, but you don't explain why (saying "of course" is not an explanation). More importantly, you don't explain why these questions only arise when a homosexual is the criminal -- heterosexual men commit these crimes in far greater numbers, but that doesn't lead Adams to question whether straight men should be health educators. Of course, I made that point in my post, and if you weren't capable of seeing it then, I doubt you'll be capable of seeing it now.
And it's damned ironic that you're sickened that allegedly my only thought about this crime is how it fits into some sort of agenda. Besides the fact that it's not true, it's Mike Adams who is using this crime to advance his agenda, so he's the one you really ought to be sickened by.]
Oh please… if you want to talk about exploitation, trying looking in the mirror and be prepared to engage in this discussion honestly. I have followed this story, and the local media in Durham has provided cover from the get go, once Lombard was found out. In fact, were it not for those like Adams who shamed them into covering it, it would have been swept under the rug, as other similar incidents have been. What is shameful, is the fact that the numerous incidents of gay pedophile murderers who have been excused and provided cover by the media, especially after GLAAD and other gay orgs like the HRC started defending a despicable group like NAMBLA after the Jeffrey Curley and other cases, when they sent threatening press releases to news papers to discourage any thorough reporting on those crimes.
The idiot is the one who thinks that he or she can obfuscate by attempting to stereotype those who are speaking out against wrongs
[Webmaster note: "The idiot is the one who thinks that he or she can obfuscate by attempting to stereotype those who are speaking out against wrongs." Exactly. That's precisely what Mike Adams repeatedly does in his crusade against civil equality.]
Mike adams is satirist. he is also a christian who previously condoned homosexuality and every other liberal cause. early in his tenure he was given every possible award by the liberal establishment, and since his “conversion” to a more conservative outlook he has been attacked and harangued for speaking truth to power in the university community. but what is most important about Dr. Adams is that he is using his knowledge of the law, to take liberal hypocrites to task, particularly on college campuses where they are quick to pretend that they celebrate diversity while erecting un constitutional speech codes,and harassing “non-believers” in order to create a utopia of diverse-looking sheep who sing the same song. One of those songs is that Homosexuals( liberals), blacks(liberal), women(feminists) are oppressed and people shouldnt attack their beliefs because they have a right to feel comfortable all the time, therefore any story that might put these people in a bad light needs to be suppressed!
From above:
Rob [Webmaster],
Your powers of intellect, illucidation of facts, balanced perspective, selective critique and justification are truly amazing.
There are now three posts defending the Adams editorial as satire. If I understand this correctly, you guys are saying that Adams satirizes the tendency (a “liberal” tendency, according to David) to manufacture a flawed general narrative from a specific situation. For example, Adams might be satirizing the lacrosse scandal coverage suggesting that said episode exemplified widespread white exploitation of blacks.
If you believe this piece is satire, that means you interpret the questions (e.g. “Is a homosexual man the best candidate available to help run a Center for Public Health and teach a course about AIDS at Duke University?” ) in Adams’ third-to-last paragraph as absurd extrapolations from the Lombard case. They are–and on that at least you agree with the blogger here, and disagree with the rest of the glennbeckian boneheads gracing these comments in Adams’ defense. Glad to hear it.
The matter of whether or not the absurdity was intentional (i.e. whether or not Adams had satirical motivation) is a really minor spat once you acknowledge that the shit is indeed absurd. But if satire, its construction is inconsistent as the author lapses in and out of his satirical voice. If satire, its issue reduces to the largely manufactured and unoriginal right-wing mantra about the biased media; its target (the lacrosse scandal) is dated and has long since been played out by opinionators from every conceivable angle including this one; and it’s basically a confused and slipshod piece of writing. Adams is either a satirist who wouldn’t make a passing grade in high school English, or he’s a thick-skulled knuckle-dragging bigot. My firm bet is on the latter, having read his other work.
Hey, reader from Raleigh, NC here, and I can tell you that Adams’ argument about the so-called liberal media coverup has little merit. The news I was getting about this incident was, from the getgo, about a white, male, Duke University administrator who had drugged and sexually molested his black adopted son while his wife was away from home. There was no effort on the part of the news stations to muffle any of those facts, or if there was, it certainly didn’t work. The Lombard that I perceived was a complete monster. No doubt about it.
There’s also no doubt in my mind that a subhuman monster like Lombard does not and never will represent the whole of homosexual men everywhere. People who point to Lombard and scream that gay men shouldn’t adopt sons should be equally as outraged that straight men ever have daughters. As a straight female, I’d be outraged if someone told me I shouldn’t be allowed to have children because of the actions of these women.
Cases about men raping boys catch the public eye because they are racy and guiltily intriguing, horrifying as they are. I admit I’m not the best about keeping up with the latest news, but even I knew about the Lombard case. There was plenty of coverage.
Even when the crime of a man molesting his adopted son gets more local and national notice than, say, six women in the same area murdered by a presumably straight male, conservatives are awfully quick to claim that the liberal media downplays crimes committed by homosexuals to further some “gay agenda.” If anything, crimes like these get more coverage than usual, because who wants to hear about horrifying crimes committed by straight men? Those are boring, since they happen all the time.
Has anyone outside North Carolina heard about any of these tales of straight men raping and/or killing women? No? Nobody? I notice a distinct lack of public outcry when the crime being underreported is a straight man’s crime. I don’t hear anybody calling for the mass incarceration of all these depraved heterosexuals. No, it seems like it’s only when the criminal is gay that the public deserves to know the “truth” about this supposedly dangerous demographic. It’s a crying shame.
Dr. Adams is doing the Devil’s work? You can’t seriously claim that without any argument to back it up.
[Webmaster note: Well, let's see. Dr. Adams has accused gay men of preferring to adopt male children rather than female children because we wish to act out sexual perversion on them. Frankly, this makes Mike Adams not just an idiot but an actual source of evil because he is not only demonizing an innocent segment of the population, but distracting people from the true perpetrators of sexual abuse against boys, and in doing so, protecting those real perpetrators. So, yeah, it's pretty easy to make the case that he's doing the Devil's work.]
lol, so if one gay man turns out to be a criminal they must all be criminals?
That’s interesting, because the prisons are full of straight men and women, which would indicate all straight men and women are criminals too. D’oh.
Why do I get the feeling that I’m sitting in a chair bolted to the ceiling?
Mr. Adams is probably enjoying the attention, the insults and the hatred being thrown at HIM. It only increases his exposure.
I’m not going to even try to understand or criticize a mind and soul that thinks like him. There’s something going on in his own mind that motivates him to justify hatred, fear and ignorance. It was the same reasoning that made some people fly planes into buildings……its useless to try to comunicate.
My advice to those who recognize evil and hatred is to ignore them. Concentrate your energy and goodness into working with other people in various venues and methods to enact positive contributions to society. People like Mr. Adams usually don’t sleep well and self implode and fall by the wayside.
Sadly, creeps like Mike Adams have become more vocal and more truculent over the past few years because the culture first condoned and now encourages this sort of over-the-top ugliness. Besides the deliberately attention-seeking tone of the screed, the most salient point is how this fits in with the right-wing’s entire tactic of whiny grievance. Oh, those evil liberals. They’re persecuting us yet again.
The only answer is not to debate this kind of mental illness, but just tell it to shut the fuck up.
A question or two for Mike Adams: Should we stop all adoptions to prevent potential child abuse?
Are heterosexuals ever involved in the sexual abuse of their adopted children?
Can we possibly agree that ALL adoptive parents need to be carefully screened before and monitored after the children are placed in their new homes?
Greybeard, you need to read that scripture better and learn to understand what it’s referring to. It’s easy to say it’s an abomination but if you were actually studying scripture, instead of listening to some preacher in the pulpit doing what Jesus would NOT do (hate others), you’d know that in the context of location and time, the abomination was NOT towards loving people but those with false worship idols. Do your homework before you start making generalizations. If you’re going to talk about changes in the Mosaic Law, then talk about all the things that you do daily that are forbidden. What makes you think you’re not going to hell for those? More independent study and research would make your statements a lot more credible.
To Greybeard
“The Bible also tells us…”, “Jesus, by the way, affirmed this definitive and authoritative… ”
You are presuming that these sources are privileged and unassailable. To a growing number of critical thinkers, they are not. In fact, much of what comes from them is pure rot.
afriKa