Friday - November 14, 2008

THE LAND OF THE RISING SCUM?  HATE TO THINK IT BUT MANY BRITS SADLY AGREE WITH LITTLEJOHN.

Welcome to Britain, land of the rising scum.... We’ve cornered the market on welfare layabouts, drug addicts and feral gangs.

By Richard Littlejohn
The Daily Mail

The first time it properly dawned on me that the game was indeed up was about 20
years ago in Blackpool, where I was covering the Labour Party conference.

As I made my way from the Clifton Hotel, opposite the main pier, past Yates’s Wine Lodge towards the Winter Gardens, at approximately 9.30am, I had to step into the road to avoid a family walking four-abreast on the pavement in the direction of the sea front.

They were all breakfasting on fish and chips from polystyrene containers, washed down with what I seem to remember was Irn-Bru, in the case of the children, and Special Brew, for the parents.

The whole family — mum, dad, son, daughter — was dressed in matching turquoise shell-suits and imitation designer-label trainers. They all had earrings. Each wore a baseball cap.

The father’s cap was distinguished by a plastic dog turd stuck to the peak, beneath a logo which proclaimed: ‘S***head.’

I can remember thinking to myself, as I watched them window-shopping at the pork butcher’s: ‘What chance have these kids got?’

The other thought which occurred to me was, given that the children were aged, at a guess, eight and six, and this was late September: why weren’t they at school?

Now I know what some of you are thinking. Don’t rush to judgment, Rich. They could have been a blameless, sophisticated couple, who had taken their children out of their fee-paying convent school for the day to treat them to a field trip to study the varied marine life to be found in the Irish Sea off Blackpool, and had decided to dress down for the occasion.

Feeding them fish and chips for breakfast was simply a way of giving them an authentic working-class day-trip experience to broaden their horizons and drum home the message that not everyone starts the day with organic muesli from Waitrose.

(Waitrose, a very upscale market chain. The family also owns large tracts of property, generations old.)

The novelty baseball cap could have been an ironic, post-modern take on the nature of unbridled consumerism or a witty protest about societal stereotyping.

Then again, they could just have been scum.

You know what? I’ve just thought about it again. I’m going with scum. Sorry, but there’s no other word for it.

For all I know, those children could have grown up to become brain-surgeons.

My guess, though, is that they’re both living on benefits in some scruffy council garret, halfway up a burned-out tower block, surrounded by raggedy children who look pretty much like they used to on their jolly outing to Blackpool.

Only the fake designer labels have changed.

We’re now on to second- and third-generation scum, sustained by a patronising and non-judgmental welfare juggernaut. We’ve always had what sociologists prefer to call an underclass. But not on this scale and never so visible.

A quick glance at the news is all it takes to confirm the worst. In Haringey, North London, the child of a dysfunctional ‘family’ is tortured to death under the noses of social services. When the tragic Victoria Climbie died in similar circumstances on the same manor, we were assured it would never happen again. I wrote at the time that it could and it would. It has.

(note to Drew.  am not posting the story or pix on the torture killing of baby but did snail mail the article and photos. I’m not used to being shocked, but I still am after seeing and reading .)

The £100,000-a-year, hatchet-faced harridan in charge of the social services washes her hands of the death, refuses to resign and boasts of providing a ‘three star’ service,
backed by pie charts, graphs and a perfect paper trail of criminal incompetence and wilful neglect.

Somewhere out there, there’s a baseball cap with her name on it.

Frankly, I can’t bring myself to read the details of this horrific case, other than to note that the father was an SS freak and the mother spent all day in pornographic chat rooms on the internet, when she wasn’t smoking in the street. What did they do for money? What do you think?

In Yorkshire, a ghastly-looking woman and her gormless boyfriend’s uncle are on trial for abducting her daughter and attempting to extract a reward for her safe return. They look as if they have stepped straight out of Little Britain, in which Matt Lucas and David Walliams’s Burberried chavs captured perfectly the gruesome reality of so much of our modern landscape.

(this is in reference to a woman who with accomplice had her own daughter kidnapped and cost the state over £3 million pounds in the search while she went on TV begging for her daughter’s return. The plan was to have the accomplice free the kid and then discover her and save her thus collecting some $100,000 in reward money. The child was kept tied to a long strap in an apartment for 24 days. )

The women are the worst of the lot, giving birth to a procession of bay-bees by different, transient fathers and expecting — nay, being encouraged by — the state to pay for their upbringing.

The Government’s preferred solution is to keep on throwing money at the problem, hiring legions of social workers and ‘parenting skills advisers’ to keep the scum in check, while importing hundreds of thousands of immigrants to do the jobs our indigenous idle are paid not to do.

It doesn’t work and things aren’t going to get any better. It’s at least 20 years too late.

The game’s up. 

Note to readers.  I have edited the story a bit and the rest is at the link to the Mail.
The situation really is as bad as described by this reporter.  And heaven only knows what isn’t discovered.  It just seems that for an island with some 65 mil onboard, the scale of horrific doings by some very bad people continues almost unchecked.  My brain can’t cope with or understand how any human being can use a 17 month old baby as a punching bag.  I can’t comprehend why the people who do this should not be put to death in the very same manner.  http://tinyurl.com/5mm2ze

The reference to Little Britain is a supposed comedy show with a couple of gays homosexuals, one of who is in drag and very gross in size and looks.  The left wing Guardian newspaper claims the show had become a huge hit with Americans.  I sincerely hope not.
It’s my understanding and I could be wrong, that after previewing in the states, it bombed.  Now then, an expression here that goes, “ he or she or it went down a bomb” means they’ve done well.  Maybe when the Guardian heard that LB “bombed” in the states they mistook that for success.
The lead is degenerate, disgusting and his schtick is a twisted scowl.  Note guy in pink dress on left.  That look is all he does.  Well, not exactly.  He and former boyfriend who got married, recently became the first queer couple to divorce.  Well ........ so much for loving vows..

Posted by peiper     on 11/14/2008 at 09:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Homosexuality • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - November 10, 2008

My reply II

Flapjawman sent me another email… here is my response.

This is actually a compliment. Consider, if you will, how few Mormons there are in the world, much less in Kalifornia.

Trust me when I say that there aren’t not enough Mormons in Kalifornia to sway the vote. Must be a bunch of other Christian churches, and otherwise decent folk, who thought that there was no right to be a sodomite.

But, we have the Temples… obvious targets for the mobs. Much like Lot in Sodom.

BTW, just what ‘rights’ are violated? Do not homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else? The right to marry someone of the opposite sex? The same rights as pedophiles?  The incestuous? Marriage as an institution has many restrictions. Note that the Left tries to violate them all. Woody Allen has violated all of them without even marrying the female.

No rights are violated. I can’t marry my sister. Why not? There’s no good reason for such a restriction, unless possible genetic problems with progeny are the issue. In this day and age, we can abort.

But that would not be a problem in a homosexual ‘marriage’. Progeny is not an issue for queers.

So, if progeny is not the issue, why have marriage at all?

Ahhh! Grasshopper! You’ve stumbled upon the goal of the homosexuals. Destroy marriage, and you destroy the civilization.

Posted by Christopher     on 11/10/2008 at 11:59 PM   
Filed Under: • Axis Of Evil • Democrats • Editorials • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - October 27, 2008

WELL, IF THE THEME BE HUMOR TO START THE DAY, HOW’S THIS. (and heaven help SF)

H/T J. Miller

( “not that there’s anything wrong with it” )Seinfeld

IMAGINE BEING A COP IN SAN FRANCISCO

Chief Heather Fong (left), the first SFPD female chief of police;

Theresa Sparks (center, former male), president of the San Francisco Police Commission, CEO of a multimillion-dollar sex toy retailer, and a transgender woman.

Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right, former female), the first transgender SFPD police officer.

Oh, Lord, please help us!

Posted by Drew458     on 10/27/2008 at 07:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 19, 2008

The Homosexual Agenda – What’s the Point?

A little trans-sexual . . . humor?

Posted by Christopher     on 10/19/2008 at 12:07 AM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff • Homosexuality • No Shit, Sherlock •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - September 16, 2008

Primary schools ‘should celebrate homosexuality’ And They Are!  Surprised?  Thought not.

So the subject of abnormal behavior can only be celebrated. What next?  I don’t think I wanna know.
This is no longer a sane world ppl.

Primary school classrooms should be a place where “queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated” in order to stop homophobic bullying, educational researchers have said.

By Urmee Khan
Last Updated: 9:49AM BST 16 Sep 2008

In a seminar at Exeter University this week, researchers from the No Outsiders project will discuss “pleasure and desire in educational contexts”.

No Outsiders is a taxpayer-funded organisation which aims to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals. The project currently operates in 14 primary schools.

In documents prepared for the seminar, project leaders have set themselves a goal of “creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated”.

“The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children’s bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.

“The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies.

“Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.”

During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have “challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice”.

The seminar will “question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom’ and examine ‘the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research”.

Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity.

The No Outsiders project is led by researchers from Sunderland University and is backed with £600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The group uses books, puppet shows and plays to teach children about same-sex relationships.

(well heck. why stop there? why not show the full monty and have porn movies. hey, how about live theater for the kids. these folks are plain stupid and maybe crazy as well. learn to “celebrate” queer and abnormal behavior?)

Project leader Dr Elizabeth Atkinson said the seminar had no connection with No Outsiders work in classrooms. “The seminar is part of a long-standing academic debate and has nothing to do with schools,” she said. “It has no connection with sex education.”

However, the proposed seminar has attracted criticism. Patricia Morgan, author of studies of family life and gay adoption, said: “The proposal is that primary school classrooms should be turned into gay saunas. This is about homosexual practice in junior schools. The idiots who repealed Section 28 should consider that this is where it has got them.”

Posted by Drew458     on 09/16/2008 at 09:54 AM   
Filed Under: • Education • Homosexuality • Sex • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - July 21, 2008

policeman ‘victimised’ over opposition to homosexual event

Please allow me to state at the top as it were, that I do not personally have anything against these folks except the following.
Certainly not all but a very vocal and perhaps large group want me and apparently this cop, to accept their queer (as in very odd) behavior as normal.

Christian policeman ‘victimised’ over opposition to gay queer pride event
By David Thomas
Last Updated: 8:31PM BST 20/07/2008

A Christian policeman is taking his own force to an employment tribunal over claims that it “harassed” him because of his religious opposition to homosexuality.

Graham Cogman, a constable with 15 years experience, is taking action against Norfolk Police as he claims he was victimised for refusing to wear a pink ribbon on his uniform to mark a ”gay homosexual pride” event, and for questioning the force’s stance towards gay queer acting men and lesbians.

The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any “homophobic behaviour”.

His case echoes that of London registrar Lillian Ladele, who recently won a tribunal after refusing to officiate at same-sex civil partnerships because of her religious views.

PC Cogman, a father of two, said reconciling his religious beliefs with his job was becoming more difficult because the force’s stance on homosexuality was at odds with his religious views.

“The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult,” he said.

“I am not undertaking this action lightly but I have to make a stand when things become so blatantly biased against me just because I hold a faith.”

His complaint stems from a circular email sent to officers in early 2005 encouraging staff to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month.

After receiving the email, PC Cogman sent a reply to his fellow officers featuring biblical quotations about homosexuality being a sin. He objected again the following year when a similar email was again sent to officers.

He was subjected to a disciplinary tribunal and fined 13 days’ pay.

A spokesman for Norfolk Police yesterday said that PC Cogman’s behaviour “fell well below the standard which we expect”.

“Whilst the force fully respects the officer has strong beliefs, it is only correct that he respects the beliefs and wishes of others,” he said.

“The force will not tolerate any form of homophobic behaviour.”

At the beginning of July, Islington registrar and devout Christian Lillian Ladele won an employment tribunal after claiming she was bullied and treated as a “pariah” for refusing to officiate over same-sex civil partnerships.

http://tinyurl.com/5sto5f

Posted by Drew458     on 07/21/2008 at 09:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Odd-Strange • Sex • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 14, 2007

No gay marriage vote for Massachusetts

Thanks to member pgrossjr for the tip.

BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” said a victorious Gov. Deval Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours Thursday to kill the measure.

The narrow vote was a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. More than 8,500 gay couples have married there since it became legal in May 2004.

I do not agree with the idea of “Gay Marriage” in the first place, but the gall of those who support it and didn’t think they had the votes to get it passed doing an end-run around the law and have the courts declare it legal really gets my goat.  It’s an abuse of the rule of law in the first degree.

But, when you keep re-electing the ilk in that state, you deserve what you get.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 06/14/2007 at 03:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Judges-Courts •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - April 19, 2007

Most Ridiculous News Story Of The Week

ATTACK OF THE KILLER LESBIANS
NEW YORK (NY POST) - April 12, 2007

One of them was “slightly pretty,” so the freelance film director decided to say hi. Next thing he knew, he was encircled, beaten and knifed in the gut right there on a Greenwich Village sidewalk - by seven bloodthirsty young lesbians.

“The girls started coming out of nowhere,” Dwayne Buckle told a Manhattan jury yesterday, describing the bizarre beat-down he suffered last summer, allegedly at the hands of a seething sapphic septet from Newark, N.J. “I felt like I was going to die.”

Buckle, 29, of Queens, took the stand in Manhattan Supreme Court yesterday to admit he was defenseless and terrified after his simple “hello” spurred a predawn melee on Sixth Avenue at West 4th Street.

Three of the original seven women are currently serving six-month jail sentences for attempted assault. But four others are on trial on first-degree gang-assault charges that could get them anywhere from three to 25 years in prison.

The accused ringleader - Patreese Johnson, 20, whom Buckle called the “slightly pretty one” - is additionally charged with attempted murder for allegedly pulling a knife from her purse and slashing Buckle repeatedly, lacerating his liver and stomach.

The women, in turn, claim they were defending themselves against a violent, anti-gay bigot, and counter that Buckle provoked them as he sat outside the IFC Center movie theater trying to talk pedestrians into buying his latest movie.

- More ...

GUILTY GAL GANG WEEPY WOMEN
NEW YORK (NY POST) - April 19, 2007

A gang of four tough-as-nails lesbians dissolved into tears yesterday when a Manhattan jury convicted them of gang assault for their savage beating of a straight man in Greenwich Village.

“No! No! I didn’t do it! I didn’t do it,” one of the four young New Jersey women yelled as she was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs after the jury returned a guilty verdict for the attack last August on filmmaker Dwayne Buckle.

The conviction sent some of their supporters running out of the courtroom in tears, and loud sobs drowned out Justice Edward McLaughlin as he ordered the quartet locked up until their May 17 sentencing. The chaos continued outside court, when some of their friends and family members threw water bottles and spat at photographers.

The jury acquitted three of the women of the top charge against them, gang assault in the first degree. Venice Brown, 18, Renata Hill, 24, and Terraine Dandridge, 19, were all convicted of second-degree gang assault, which carries a minimum of 31/2 years. The stabber, the 4-foot-11 Johnson, was acquitted of attempted murder, but convicted of first-degree assault, which carries from 5 to 25 years.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/19/2007 at 10:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Homosexuality • Outrageous • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - April 16, 2007

Pink Diplomacy

Have you ever wondered why the US and particularly the military have such a hard time convincing assholes overseas that we mean business and we will mess you up if you mess with us? Have you ever wondered why jerkwads like Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein and Ahmawhackjob openly defy us and thumb their noses at us right up until the moment the bombs start falling on their pointy little heads.

The answer is pretty simple - they’re getting conflicting signals from our State Department, which is sending openly homosexual diplomats (and their “significant others") overseas to represent America’s voice. Not that there’s anything wrong with being homosexual - other than the fact that in the majority of countries overseas, homosexuality is seen as immoral or at the very least, as a weakness.

Somebody at the State Department needs to wake up and realize that the rules that apply in San Francisco and allow network TV in the US to show ”Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” don’t necessarily apply in Teheran, Pyongyang, Riyadh or Damascus. It’s easy to forget that 90% of diplomacy is perception, not words.

At State, A Friendlier Workplace
(WASHINGTON POST) - Monday, April 16, 2007

Mark R. Dybul was sworn in as the new AIDS coordinator by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the ornate Benjamin Franklin Room at the State Department in a little-noticed ceremony last October. But that ceremony marked a bit of history itself.

Dybul is openly gay. His partner, Jason Claire, held the Bible as Dybul took the oath. And in acknowledging Dybul’s family in her remarks, Rice specifically mentioned his “mother-in-law.” “You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark,” Rice said. “Welcome.”

In stark contrast to the Pentagon policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the State Department acknowledges its gay employees, allows their partners to live in official residences overseas, helps them obtain foreign residence visas, and has sent out a cable to missions encouraging U.S. ambassadors to include diplomats’ partners in social and official functions.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/16/2007 at 12:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Politics •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 06, 2007

Equal Time

In the last 48 hours, since I posted the “Faggot Poll” below, I have received 37 e-mails from homosexuals accusing me of homophobia in every way, shape and form. A few of them demanded “equal time” to explain how “hurtful” and “demeaning” the word “faggot” is to them.

However, in the interests of “Equal Time” and under the rules of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, I present the following as a counterpoint to the whole Ann Coulter “faggot” kerfuffle. Happy reading ....

Available at Amazon.com - $11.86

Review:

Michael Thomas Ford garnered lots of laughs in 1998 with Alec Baldwin Doesn’t Love Me and Other Trials from My Queer Life. The follow-up collection of pieces from his syndicated column, That’s Mr. Faggot to You, continues Ford’s exploration of contemporary gay life. In the title essay, reports of a teenager who successfully sued his school district for failing to prevent physical and mental abuse by his classmates prompts Ford to recall his own traumatic high school experiences and leads him to recognize that, years later, “he is happier, more successful, and a great deal more attractive” than his classmates.

In other essays, he discusses the you-and-me against-the-world relationship he has with his black Labrador, proposes a new line of Christian-friendly action figures (including a Jonah and the Whale Play Set, “appropriate for bath-time use or fun in the pool"), and even manages, despite his uncertainties, to offer an adolescent nephew dating advice (concluding that “guy problems were guy problems, regardless of who the person creating the dilemma was or how many holes she or he had"). That’s Mr. Faggot to You is a humorous slice of contemporary gay life that’s bound at least to elicit a smile from any reader.

Cranky, bemused and extremely funny, Ford (Alec Baldwin Doesn’t Love Me) is brilliant even on potentially mundane topics like high school reunions ("Michael Thomas Ford is very proud to announce that he is still queer… [and] happier, more successful, and a great deal more attractive” than his former schoolmates) and the giving of advice to his 12-year-old nephew about girlfriends (it wasn’t so bad, once he mentally substituted Roberto and Jesse for Amber and Megan in the junior-high love triangle). Ford is peeved at a number of people, including Baptists boycotting Ellen, a certain senator from North Carolina and former ACT-UP leaders who now want gay men and women to be “just like everybody else.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/06/2007 at 05:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Satire •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Reader Survey Poll

G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author
_{WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - March 3, 2007}

Three of the leading Republican presidential candidates on Saturday denounced one of their party’s best-known conservative commentators for using an antigay epithet when discussing a Democratic presidential contender at a gathering of conservatives here.

The remarks by Ann Coulter, an author who regularly speaks at conservative events, were sharply denounced by the candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Their statements came after Democrats, gay rights groups and bloggers raised a storm of protest over the remarks.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Mr. Edwards’s aides responded with an e-mail message that attacked Ms. Coulter and urged supporters to donate to Mr. Edwards’s campaign. “John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. “Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.”

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/06/2007 at 01:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Homosexuality • Liberals • Politics •  
• Comments (27) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 28, 2007

It’s Not About Ewe

It’s “Hump Day” and we’re halfway to the weekend, gang. Time to ease up and coast into the finish line. What better way than a humorous editorial from Tom Purcell? Tom is the only man I know who can take a story about gay sheep and turn it into a statement about our “voyeur nation”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you. I’ll let him explain ...

_{Mike Lane - Cagle Cartoons}

A Wild and Woolly Affair
-- By Tom Purcell

Boy, are we a country with too much free time on our hands. Or should I say, what do a retired tennis pro, PETA, two research scientists and a herd of gay sheep have to do with each other? Plenty, according to the Toronto Star.

The paper reports that two researchers—Charles Roselli of Oregon Health and Science University and Fred Stormshak of Oregon State University—have been studying why eight percent of rams prefer to court other rams rather than ewes (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

The study had been proceeding quietly until fate intervened. You see, two university football players (you’re getting ahead of me here) were pulled over for speeding. They’d been drinking. They had, in the bed of their truck, something they’d swiped from the research center—a gay ram.

Once a story like that hit the wires, containing it was impossible. Pretty soon, people were asking questions about the research. Then animal-rights activists, gay-rights advocates and left-leaning bloggers raised a great hue and cry ("ewe" and cry?)

Former tennis star Martina Navratilova kicked off the frenzy. She wrote a letter to both universities demanding they pull the study’s funding. She said the research was “homophobic and cruel.” She said the money would be better spent promoting acceptance of all sexual preferences.

PETA had urged her to write the letter. PETA urged 14,000 other people to voice their complaints, too, and some of them protested and called the researchers Nazis. PETA said that encouraging one ram to mount another was—I’m not exaggerating here—tantamount to rape.

By this point, bizarre conspiracy theories were in full throttle. Some theorists said the researchers were really interested in breeding homosexuality out of humans (ewe-genics?). One credible newspaper, The Sunday Times of London, began printing such untruths (boy, was the wool pulled over its eyes) and later had to retract them.

The researchers finally cried foul. They said the purpose of their study was simply to determine which rams are likeliest to breed—useful knowledge to ranchers.

They said they weren’t trying to discourage homosexual behavior, anyway. They were simply trying to understand such behavior in rams. And if they were to find a biological cause, they argued, wouldn’t that promote compassion and acceptance for all beings that prefer the same sex?

Some of the attackers backed off—not because the researchers were convincing, but because it’s hard not to sympathize with two fellows whose career choice involves walking around with a clipboard and encouraging male sheep to get amorous with each other.

In any event, this incident is at once a sign of America’s greatness and, perhaps, a premonition that we may not be great for much longer.

Evil dictators are stifling freedom and torturing millions. Ethnic hatred and genocide are killing millions. Pestilence and disease are killing millions more. But we’re more attuned to things that don’t matter, such as “American Idol.”

And we’re at war. Western civilization is in a battle of wills with fanatics who hope to restore 6th-century values. They intend to get their hands on some frighteningly powerful bombs to make us bend to that will. Yet we worry more about Anna Nicole Smith.

And gay rams.

We have so much wealth and affluence, you see, we can fund university research studies of every kind. We can also fund touchy advocacy groups that use their means to cloud and confuse and obscure whatever is unpleasant to them.

America, to borrow from James Thurber, “has become consumed largely about small matters and ‘smally’ about great affairs.” We’re losing our ability to discern between what is and isn’t really important. That doesn’t bode well for a democracy.

Oh, well, at least the gay sheep story brought some needed levity. The Australians came up with the best headline:

“He’s Just Not That Into Ewe.”

---

_{Tom Purcell is a humor columnist nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons. For comments to Tom, please email him at Purcell@caglecartoons.com.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/28/2007 at 05:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Homosexuality • Science-Technology •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 06, 2007

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

OH, PUH-LEEZE! Don’t the homorons in Washington state have anything better to do with their lives? Get a grip, people! This is just plain stupid silliness and only serves to demonstrate a childish attitude and a complete lack of common sense. This stupidity shouldn’t even make it onto the ballot, much less be actually voted on. Grow up!

Wash. Initiative Would Require Married Couples To Have Kids
_{OLYMPIA, Wash. (KING-TV) - 02:34 PM PST Monday, February 5, 2007}

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled. Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot. Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/06/2007 at 12:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - February 05, 2007

Queer Eye For The Snickers Guy

I know most of you saw The Big Game yesterday and I imagine most of you saw all of the amusing little ads that advertisers paid bajillions to have aired. With that said, there is one commercial that is already causing a a major controversy among a certain vocal minority in our country. Can you guess which ad that was?

Was it the ads from Budweiser? Coca-Cola? GoDaddy? Sprint? Doritos? FedEx? Blockbuster? Taco Bell? ... Give up?

Well, the answer is none of the above. No, it turns out that a stupid candy bar has caused a great wadding of panties among homosexuals. There is much sobbing and wailing going on about how homophobic the ad was and how it will surely promote violence against queers (I can use that word nowadays, can’t I? After all, they use it in the title of the homosexuals’ favorite TV show!).

Here is a link to the Snickers TV ad. There you will find not only the ad but THREE other versions of the ad featuring two automobile mechanics caught in an embaressing faux pas. The page also includes interviews with and reactions from both Bears and Colts players as they are shown the commercial. You can also vote for your favorite.

When you get through looking at the silliness there then go to AmericaBlog, what seems to be a Liberal group grope with a decided anger at Mars, Inc. for airing the commercial. The first post expresses the complete and utter disgust at the ad and the homophobic attitude it apparently demonstrates.

As if that’s not enough a second post today is entitled, “Mars family, owner of anti-gay Snickers franchise, are top billionaire Republican activists”.

Now I don’t have a quarrel with John Aravosis, owner of the site (Bio: John Aravosis is a Washington DC-based writer and political consultant, specializing in using the Internet for political advocacy. He is the creator of StopDrLaura.com, Matthew Shepard Online Resources, and DearMary.com, among other activist Web sites. John has a joint law degree and masters in foreign service from Georgetown, where he studied under former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. John speaks five languages and has visited or worked in 28 countries.) but it seems to be to be a tad over the top as far as reactions go.

I’m calling “BULLSHIT” on Mr. Aravosis on this one. No one, and I mean NO ONE, actually takes Super Bowl ads seriously unless they are seriously looking to pick a fight at the drop of a hat. Those ads are nothing but contrived silliness, meant to attract attention to a product. Every person in this country over the age of twelve knows that.

So get a grip, John (and the rest of the homosexual crowd too). It’s all fun and games, buddy. Lighten up and quit trying to start a war where none exists. Liberal activists like John always seem to enjoy starting fights with peaceful folks here at home but have no stomach for a fight against true homophobic madmen in the Middle East. Now, why is that?

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/05/2007 at 03:33 PM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner