If there's a reason to stay in all 4 rounds the water pourer will be experienced and capable of taking care of everyone. He'll have enough experienced helpers. Those who make the commitment will have done many sweats and those without experience will be asked to sit out this sweat.

No one would have a profound spiritual experience at a Catholic ceremony and decide to play at being a Catholic priest without the least study or training. No one would have a profound experience at a yoga class and decide to run their own yoga classes after that one experience without any study or training.

Yet this is what so often happens with Sweat Lodge ceremonies. Someone will go to one or two sweat lodge ceremonies and decide they are going to build a lodge and lead sweats.

Beyond offending those who respect these spiritual ceremonies usually no harm comes from it. But just as an untrained yoga teacher can push people beyond their limits or not be aware enough to protect them when they push themselves too far sometimes people can get hurt. Its rare but sometimes people even die in lodges with untrained leaders.

Even though I've tried to separate my criticism of the giver from the recipient its inevitable that criticism of one would be seen as criticism of the other.

In retrospect this post was perhaps so snarky that I inadvertently maligned Obama even though that wasn't my intention.

It seems to me that just potential is not quite enough. There should be some at least small accomplishment to give substance to that potential. Even Kissinger, who many complain about, shared the prize with Tho for signing the Paris Peace Accords which theoretically ended hostilities between the warring parties. The prize could be seen as encouragement for the parties to live up to the terms and spirit of the peace agreement.

I'm thinking that giving them the prize 5 years earlier for simply talking about peace for 9 months would have been premature even if seen as encouragement for them to reach a peace agreement.

I never said he should refuse the award. He's been very gracious and humble and I like the things he's said in accepting the award.

As for pride, that springs from one's own values not the values of others. I feel no pride in receiving accolades from others for something I've done that I feel is undeserving. Similarly if I don't feel my country has done something deserving of praise I would not be proud of my country simply because others praise her.

Again I don't mean this as an attack on Obama. He's done things I agree with and disagree with, he has his successes and failures. He didn't seek the award and he's handling it with humility. I don't expect one who wins the Nobel Prize to have achieved world peace. Yet even as an aspirational choice he's done less then others who have won the award.

But if you want to play that game, "tried badger me," should be tried *to* badger me. I'm always amused by how often I've seen people make spelling or grammar errors in comments attacking others for spelling or grammar errors.

I've never claimed to be perfect. In fact I think I'm a light weight blogger here in that I've never invested the time and energy to produce a deep, comprehensive, well researched blog. I may hit a point now and then with some well chosen rhetoric but I'm not up there with the big league players here. I don't think this little satire is worth 19 recs.

You're also light weight for the same reason. The difference is you spend your time calling the rest of us dullards and claiming for your self the title of leading intellectual at tpmcafe. I don't much like the constant insults directed at "people on tpmcafe," the patronizing way you address us, and the totally unearned pompous sense of superiority you exhibit here. That's why I don't much like you.

People often come to your blogs because your personal style is so antagonistic and insulting it pisses people off and sucks them in. Look at the many insults you directed at "people at tpm" in your original post.

I have many ideas but am generally hesitant to get in to a serious dialog with you since I don't like your debate style.

I think focusing on over population is misdirected. Population growth is leveling off or decreasing in most of the countries with a large carbon footprint. Also its not workable. If we need to have 0 families in the US to solve this problem then it is unsolvable and we'll just have to wait for the collapse and try to salvage something out of the ruins.

I don't know that there is a solution but each step on the path will extend the time available to find one. Massive public/private investment in the creation of wind farms, solar and geothermal energy won't eliminate all use of fossil fuels but it could make quite a large contribution. It would put people to work, lessen our carbon footprint, and lessen our trade deficit. With that extra time we need a massive investment in alternative energy research.

I have other thoughts on the subject, but I don't have the time or the desire to create a well researched blog to post as a comment on your blog. Especially when you didn't take the time and energy to create a well researched blog in the first place.

Then why didn't you do what you're expecting/demanding others do. Why didn't you invest the time to produce a definitive refutation his statement? Instead you said in essence what I and Quinn are saying.

You never ever made the case to begin with! You invoke the name Buckminister Fuller and presented nothing.

Please do write a few paragraphs

That's troll bait, It leaves you free to post any unsupported argument and puts the burden on the reader. "Nearly every problem discussed on TPM has, at its root, the issue of too many people." Prove me wrong. "The very nature of wanting genetic copies of yourself roaming the planet is the very height of selfishness, possibly be driven by narcissism" Prove me wrong.

Its the standard trick of the republicans. Obama wasn't born in the US. Prove me wrong. The Clinton's murdered dozens of people. Prove me wrong. Its McCaughey's favorite game. Make an unsupported argument, generally with an out of context quote, and expect others to spend their time researching and documenting to prove her wrong.

Do you see how easy it is to make unsupported statements and how time consuming it is to prove them wrong? If I had the time and the desire to research a topic I'd post my own blog. I wouldn't dance to your tune and be your monkey boy.

The job of an essayist is to come up with some ideas or points of view and proceed to support them with convincing arguments, evidence and documentation. Do you really think you've done that here? First, ct, prove your points. That should be done in the original post before the discussion begins. One of the causes of the disjointed and unfocused discussion is you never do that.

Perhaps he's just lazy or doesn't want to invest the time. Though you'd think that if it was an area of expertise he'd have some essays he's written on his hard drive that he could just edit for this format with little trouble. Had there been some posts that showed expertise in the subject area I might be more willing to accept the truth of his name dropping.

As it is what he's saying is, I'm right because I know X and that's a very poor argument to make in a debate.

What you're saying is: To prove one cares about the issue of overpopulation one must support making a meaningless symbolic gesture. If one doesn't support making a meaningless symbolic gesture it proves one doesn't care about overpopulation.

I reject that premise. I think its inane.

Or perhaps you've got some in or connection that isn't predicated on your own intellectual accomplishments.

But whatever. (shrug) Name dropping doesn't improve anyone's arguments. Contact with famous intellectuals doesn't improve one's intellect. It doesn't rub off when you shake their hand or brush against them. Name dropping, especially on the internet with a pseudonym, just makes you look small.

At his point the merchant argued that since he had rented the ass he had also rented the ass's shadow.

The driver replied that he had only rented out the ass and retained possession of the shadow of the ass.

Typical merchant class capitalist elitists. Always trying to take advantage of a poor laborer. Far be it for me to imply the height of a cliff is trivial in a piece meant to be metaphorical, but wouldn't our time be better spent arguing about an ass's shadow?

Its really simple. She's doing a personal cost benefit analysis and we are doing a societal cost benefit analysis.

Bottom line: with money and power, you can fight something. There is a big difference between the cases, however. There is stacking evidence that Polanski wasn't treated fairly by our legal system -- and you will find plenty of people recognizing that fact.

It seems just as obvious that he was getting perks for being rich and famous too. A plea bargain for 42 days for vaginal and anal intercourse with a 13 year old girl wasn't the normal sentence at that time.

If he was treated unfairly I see no problem with dropping the charge of jumping bail and just adjudicating the charge of raping a 13 year old girl.

You say that like you think I give a crap what you care about. (laughing)

WRONG!

Not wrong you ignorant moron. The plea bargain was agreed to after he was freed in 42 days from his 90 day conviction. It stipulated timed served not 90 days. He was not going to be sent back to prison to serve out the rest of the 90 day conviction. You do understand what time served means don't you?

That she wasn't a virgin is irrelevant. That she had sex once before with another teenager doesn't mean its either legal or ok for a 44 year old man to have sex with her. There's nothing grey about it. What are you saying, used, soiled, now open for all comers? Even if she had had sex with several other 40ish year old men it still wouldn't be legal for Polanski to screw her. He would just then be one of several men who should be jailed for raping a 13 year old child.

That's also how guilty people go free. Two sides of the same coin but you seemed to have trouble when I said that.

If this incident happened in Spain would you feel the same way? There the age of consent is 15.

Absolutely. I don't necessarily agree with every law. If I lived in Spain I'd be working to raise the age of consent just as many people have worked to raise the age of consent here. There was a time when the age of consent was 13 in some states. It changed and I don't look back wistfully to the good old days when 44 year old men could legally fuck 13 year old girls. Just as I don't look back wistfully to the days when slave owners like Jefferson could lay down their 13 year old slaves. That's changed too.

If I lived in Afghanistan I'd be working to make forced arranged marriages of children illegal. I wouldn't be trying to say since they can force children to marry older men in Afghanistan we should not be upset if it happens in America.

Everyone in the school knew she was Polanski's victim. There is still a stigma attached to women who are raped. In that media intensive environment the family agreed to a plea bargain of 42 days in a psychiatric institution, timed served, just to end the attention.

The judge wasn't going to accept that plea bargain as is a judge's right. I support that decision. Ct thinks its because the judge was biased. That's one explanation. The other is that the judge refused to grant the usual free rides and escape hatches the rich and elite so often get in this country. When Polanski left none of the issues were adjudicated so no one can be 100% sure. Except ct who is always right cause none of us know jack shit about anything.

One thing everyone agrees on, including Polanski. A 44 year old man had vaginal and anal intercourse with a 13 year old child. That is enough for me to decide that Polanski should serve more than 42 days. How much more would depend on a trial to determine the extent of that crime when the conflicting stories are adjudicated.

Its not just what the victim wants. There is also a societal interest. Punishment is meted out not just to do justice to the victim and punish the perpetrator. Its also meted out as a deterrent to other potential perpetrators. Its not a deterrent to crime to let some people who are clearly guilty go free. Its especially not a deterrent to the rich and powerful when they see one of their group get away with raping a 13 year old child.

This is pretty much your standard argument anytime someone disagrees with you. Its a crappy argument every time you use it.

Right, you're clueless so shut up with your stupid speculations and unsupported allegations.

not able to hold an adult conversation

You've been told over and over and time after time by numerous people here exactly how you're consistently unable to hold an adult conversation here. So spare me your asinine analysis of me. I don't much like you and I'm not going to pretend I do.