MAYBE WE ARE WAKING UP?
Poll: Bush approval ratings hit lowest point of tenure
WASHINGTON (USATODAY.com) — President Bush's job approval ratings have hit the lowest point of his tenure and the number of Americans with an unfavorable opinion of him has reached 50% for the first time, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.
Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling his job, according to the poll, while 51% disapprove. That is a four-point drop from Bush's approval rating of July 22-24 and 1% below his previous low of 45% in a poll taken June 24-26. Bush's approval ratings have now been at 50% or lower since mid-March.
The poll also puts Bush's unfavorable rating among Americans at the highest level of his presidency — 50%. Forty-eight percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of the president, marking the first time in Bush's tenure that his unfavorable rating is higher than his favorable rating. In contrast, a Gallup poll in late November of 2001, less than three months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, put Bush's favorable rating at 87% and his unfavorable rating at 11%.
Bush's previous low favorable rating came twice in October 2004, when 51% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the president and 46% had an unfavorable opinion.
The poll also indicated the public had a pessimistic outlook about the general direction of the country and the economy. Forty percent of Americans said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, and 58% said they were dissatisfied. Those numbers are close to the lowest measurements of Bush's presidency in April, when 38% of Americans said they were satisfied with the country's direction and 58% said they were dissatisfied.
On the economy, 32% of Americans said conditions were in excellent or good shape, with 67% saying they were in fair or poor shape. Fifty-three percent of Americans said the economy was getting worse, while 35% said it was getting better and 9% said it was about the same.
The poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,010 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 to 5 percentage points, depending on the question.
CNN has been running a story about "reparative" gay kids' camps regularly. I would rather see specials on Canada's recent legalization of gay marriage, which I see as a much larger, more important development than a few kids (20, I think?) at a "de-gaying camp". But to CNN's credit, Paula Zahn did ask some hard-hitting questions which challenged the goal of the camps. The following is from the camp's website--I've added a few comments in CAPS.
Exploring the Homosexual Myth
There is no such creation as a "gay" or "homosexual" person. (WELL THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IN MY MIRROR?) There is only homosexual attraction and behavior; accordingly, there can be no change from a sexual identity that never existed in the first place. (I THINK ANY MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS OF HOMOSEXUALITY WOULD BEG TO DIFFER, AND I"M A LITTLE MORE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THEM THAN A BIBLE-THUMPING FREAK.)
Adulterer? Fornicator? Swindler? Gossip? The Apostle Paul clearly said people who habitually and impenitently behave in such a manner "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-11). (DID PAUL OR ANY OTHER APOSTLE MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT LIAR? AND BESIDES, I DON'T WANT TO INHERIT ANY KINGDOM THAT YOU ARE IN.) These are actions that we all can get caught up in at one time or another in our lives. (AND HONEY, THEY FEEL FAGULOUS!) Nevertheless, if we are living a life dominated by any one of these or even several of them, God says it is possible for us to be sanctified by the washing of the blood of Jesus Christ (EW! I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BATHE IN ANYONE'S BLOOD!) and a willingness to submit to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit ( I CAN TOTALLY BE SUBMISSIVE, BUT NOT TO A GHOST WHICH DOESN'T EXIST), which comes through a process of conviction, repentance, and seeking forgiveness from God and others whom we have offended along the way. (YOU HAVE OFFENDED ME AND ANYONE ELSE WITH A BRAIN.) "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrigheousness" (I John 1:9). (I BELIEVE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS HAS A "T" IN IT, MORON! I HOPE YOUR SCRIPTURAL FACT-CHECK IS BETTER THAN YOUR SPELL-CHECK.)
If we know the truth about these matters (YOU DON'T!), then why do we accept the cultural definition of homosexuality? (BECAUSE WE'D RATHER ACKNOWLEDGE MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS THAN THOSE OF SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO DENOUNCE HARRY POTTER BEACAUSE IT CONTAINS MAGIC.) When non-Christians and Christians use the term "homosexual," they often think of a person who is innately different from other types of people. We wonder how someone might have become a "homosexual". ( WE DON'T "WONDER" IF WE ARE BORN THAT WAY.) Families and friends of those caught in homosexuality go deep into grief and despair (WELL,HAVING KIDS IS A GAMBLE. THEY COULD END UP RETARDED, HANDICAPPED, UGLY, CRAZY, OR PLEASE NO--EVEN GAY!!! AND A GOOD PARENT WILL EMBRACE THEIR CHILD WITH LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE!) because they cannot imagine how their loved ones go there, and they believe it is a lifelong prison from which there is no escape. (EXCEPT FOR A CAMP FOR THE "CAMP" AT WHICH YOU TRY TO CASH IN ON THE PARENTS" GRIEF AND SPREAD LIES AND DAMAGE THE POOR KID'S SELF IMAGE PERMANENTLY, BEYOND THE ABUSE THEY'LL GET AT SCHOOL ANYWAY!)
Think of it this way: Mr. and Mrs. Jones came into my office grieving over their son's ongoing homosexuality. They cried as I attempted to help them understand the real issues surrounding their plight. (YOU WANT THEIR COINS.) I asked them about their other children. "Well, John, our other son, lives with his girlfriend," they replied. In an attempt (FAILED) to bring some reality to them, I asked why they were not so concerned about John. (MAYBE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A THING WRONG WITH THAT EITHER.) The truth became evident; they knew that there was hope for this other son either to marry his girlfriend or to leave her and get back to a moral life. (PRESUMABLY AFTER STONING HER TO DEATH.) Their son struggling with homosexuality, however, was in their minds and heart destined to remain a "homosexual". (WELL, THE PARENTS HAVE A LITTLE SENSE, THEN.)
Three Decades of Living a Lie
For the past 30 years, the modern American culture has bought into a lie! ( AS COMPARED TO THE LIE YOU AND YOUR KIND HAVE TRIED TO PERPETRATE FOR CENTURIES! "MODERN AMERICAN CULTURE" IS WHAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH? I AGREE THAT BRITNEY AND REALITY TV ARE PRETTY CRAP, BUT WHAT YOU REALLY WANNA DO IS TAKE US BACK TO THE 1950'S. DOES APOSTLE PAUL ALSO RECOMMEND THAT WOMEN GET LESS PAY THAN MEN AND THAT BLACK'S CAN'T DRINK FROM THE SAME WATER FOUNTAINS AS WHITES?) We have been sold a bill-of-goods about the nature of homosexuality that is spiritually and practically untrue. The jury is still out on any form of biological or physiological causation of homosexual desires. The common belief among Christians and non-Christians is that homosexuality describes a person who has something inherently different about him or her. For many people, the word "homosexual" has become a noun.(SO HAS "EVANGELICAL"--AND YOU HATE-FILLED FREAKS ARE FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN HOMOS.) Many believe this is a descriptive word to help sort a certain person into a different category, a different type of gender, we might say. (ASTUTE OBSERVATION.)
Why the past 30 years? In 1975, the gay rights movement (ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD) began to market the words "gay" and "homosexual" to refer to an inborn character or to the identity of men and women with same-sex attractions and behaviors. Today, they have succeeded in redefining those words to suit their agenda in our culture. The body of Christ (even ministries seeking to help those caught in homosexuality) regularly buy into that deceptive definition, often without thinking about it. How many times have we used the term "gay," "orientation" or "ex-gay" to describe ourselves or someone else? Even in the church we talk about ministering to the "homosexual," immediately labeling an individual just as secular activists do. (SO YOU EVEN DISAGREE WITH MOST CHRISTIANS?)
What Difference Does This Make?
If we define homosexuality as an identity, and inborn characteristic or a hormonal imbalance, there is no answer or hope. If, however, we call it what it really is - a struggle with sinful desires and behavior - then throughout Scripture we're given ways to handle it.
If we use the false definition, where does one draw the line? Are you a homosexual because you have a homosexual thought for one moment in time? (NO. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD ADMIT TO FLEETING ATTRACTIONS TO THE SAME SEX AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES.) If not for one moment, then how long? A season? (OF WHAT? GOLDEN GIRLS?) A lifetime? Is a man or woman a homosexual who engages in one act of homosexual behavior or a series of encounters or relationships? (WHO CARES? SEX IS BEAUTIFUL, BABY--AND IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF THE B.T. EXPRESS, "GO ON AND DO IT 'TIL YOU'RE SATSIFIED".) Are those who engage in exclusive homosexual practice for a lifetime the only "true" homosexuals? (WELL, THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD INDICATION, DUNCE.) Often we have stumbled in our efforts to share the truth of freedom in Christ because we were wrestling with opponents over what makes a person a homosexual. Since there is really no such thing as a "homosexual," then we are chasing a mirage, a cloud, something we will never be able to grasp. (I AM UNABLE TO GRASP THE NOTION THAT A HOMOSEXUAL DOES NOT EXIST. AND YOU JUST COMPLAINED ABOUT PEOPLE USING "HOMOSEXUAL" AS A NOUN. WHY ARE YOU DOING IT?)
As we battle with proponents over the idea that "homosexuality equals identity," we lose ground by using their terminology. We lose more ground as we seek to put forward a solution based on the terminology of their lie. The truth is there are no homosexuals. (HONEY, TELL IT TO THE GUY I BLEW YESTERDAY. OK, THE TWO GUYS!)
There is no such thing as a homosexual! There are many individuals, however, who struggle intensely with homosexual temptation and addictive behavior. Once we get the message right, then we will be effective in ministering to those caught in this kind of deceptive bondage.
©2001 - Rev. John J. Smid
John is the Executive Director for Love In Action International and has worked with this ministry since 1986. John left his homosexual lifestyle in 1984. (OH, NOW I GET IT. YOU'RE A BITTER FAG WHO HASN'T GOTTEN LAID SINCE 1984. FOR OVER TWO DECADES, YOUR MOUTH HAS BEEN DROOLING FOR COCK AND YOUR CRUSTY FAGGOT-ASS IS CRINGING TO BE PLUNGED. YOU'VE BEEN TOO BRAIN-WASHED BY RELIGION TO UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE HOMOSEXUAL DESIRES, NO MATTER WHETHER YOU WERE BORN WITH THEM OR THEY DEVELOPED, ARE COMPLETELY NATURAL AND HEALTHY. SO YOU WANT TO RUIN EVERYONE ELSE'S FUN--YOU AIN'T HAVIN' ANY. THAT'S RIGHT. FUCK THOSE KIDS' HEADS UP LIKE YOURS IS. AN EX-GAY OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU CALL YOUR CELIBATE ASS IS SOMEONE WHO WOULD DENY THEIR OWN ESSENCE SO THAT THEY ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME OBSCURE SCRIPTURE AND WE ALL KNOW THE DANGER IN TAKING THE BIBLE LITERALLY. IT'S A BOOK WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S NO WISDOM IN IT, BUT DOLL, THERE HAVE BEEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF ENLIGHTENMENT SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN WHICH YOU CHOOSE TO SELECTIVELY IGNORE. I THINK YOU NEED TO CHECK OUT A DIFFERENT BOOK--A BOOKSTORE ACTUALLY. THE KIND WHERE A DICK COMES THROUGH A HOLE AND YOU GET DOWN ON YOUR KNESS AND--NO, NOT PRAY--YOU SUCK IT WHILE YOU BEAT YOUR MEAT UNTIL YOU NASTY NELLY NUTS EXPLODE, SWEET JESUS!)I N CASE YOU MISSED THIS EARLIER POST, HERE ARE A FEW PERFECT EXAMPLES OF HOW MANY PARTS OF THE BIBLE ARE COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS IN TODAY'S WORLD. I"D RATHER QUOTE THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION'S FINDINGS THAN SOME OLD BOOK THAT CONDONES SLAVERY AND STONING. IN FACT, THE AMA IS TRYING TO LIFT YOUTH GROUPS' (LIKE THE BOY SCOUTS) BANS ON GAYS IN ORDER TO LOWER THE HIGH RATE OF GAY TEEN SUICIDES--4 TIMES THAT OF STRAIGHT KIDS. ISN'T THEIR'S A HEALTHIER APPROACH THAN YOUR IMPOSSIBLE DREAM?
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27 How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10- 16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
You gotta subscribe to this free weekly newsletter.
Old Jokes' Home:
A man goes into a sex shop to buy an inflatable doll.
"Would you like male or female?" asks the assistant.
"Would you like Black, or White?"
"Would you like a Christian or Muslim?"
This question confused the man. "What has
religion got to do with it? he asks.
"Well," explained the assistant,
"The Muslim one blows itself up.
Stop fretting about the man next to you on the
tube with the rucksack - here are some fresh
alternative things to fill you with terror.
1. Rich Saudis have been buying up ecstasy in
London, and smuggling it back to the Middle
East. Rumour has it that the pills are given to
suicide bombers. So not only are they killing
people... they're enjoying themselves at
the same time! That doesn't seem fair.
2. Your mobile phones is melting your eyes.
Although the effect on your brain is minimal,
Israeli scientists have discovered that the
radiation from your phone may make
bubbles appear in the lenses of your eyes. Great.
3. Koalas, iguanas, and Komodo Dragons all have
forked penises. Actually, that's only really
scary if one of them is having sex with you.
4. Osama Bin Laden is trying to poison your
cocaine. Is nothing sacred these days?
DID WE BOMB OURSELVES ON 9/11?
And if we did bomb the Pentagon, did we also bomb the World Trade Center? How else would the 2 have been simultaneous? Watch this video and see what you think.
A kind reader sent me to a website which debunks the claims in this video and seems legit:
It also shows a photo of aircraft debris, of which the video claims there was none.
But the photograph could have been doctored! They're all out to get me!
The text from snopes.com
The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:
1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.
3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
Update: A video presentation unleashed on the Internet in August 2004 rehashes the same conspiracy claims. It can be found at a number of locations, including:
Last updated: 23 September 2004
This email was forwarded to me. I don't know if Middle Easterners are going to listen to voices of mercy from the same country that is declaring war on their neighbors, but seeing this photo makes me have to try.
I write this mail in English so I won't have to do it twice.
I send you a link to an online petition. It condemns the excecution last week
of two Iranian boys (Mahmoud Asgari aged 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18 years old)
because of their homosexual relationship. Attached is a picture of the boys,
minutes before they were excecuted.
Officially they have been convicted for the rape of a 13 year old boy. But
human rights organisations believe this accusation has been made up, in order
to prevent public sympathy for the boys. The 13-year old 'victim' was never
found, and the rape hasn't been proven.
Human rights groups claim the government of Iran excecuted more than 4000 gays
and lesbians over the past 25 years. That's more than one person every 3 days.
This must be stopped.
Please sign the form, and forward this message to as many people as possible.
It's easy to be sarcastic and and say it isn't going to help. But not doing
anything CERTAINLY isn't going to make a difference.
Here's the link:
Thanks for your help.
WHOOPS! I'M BUSTED ON #04!
Many of us (over 40) WAY over 40 or hovering near 40 are quite confused
about how we should present ourselves.
We're unsure about the kind of image we are projecting and whether or
not we are correct, as we try to conform to the current fashions.
Despite what you may have seen on the streets, the following
combinations DO NOT go together and should be avoided:
01. A Nose Ring and Bifocals.
02. Spiked hair and Bald Spots.
03. A Pierced tongue and Dentures.
04. Mini-skirts and Support Hose.
05. Ankle Bracelets and Corn Pads.
06. Speedo's and Cellulite.
07. A Belly Ring and a Gall Bladder surgery scar.
08. Un-buttoned Disco Shirts and a Heart Monitor.
09. Midriff Shirts and a Midriff Bulge./
10. Bikinis and Liver Spots.
11. Short Shorts and Varicose Veins.
12. Inline Skates and a Walker.
And last, but least..... My personal favorite:
13. Thongs and Depends.
Please keep these basic guidelines foremost in
your mind when you shop.
NO HUNKS FOR DRUNKS
Hey! Can someone get me an agent in England? I might snag a lucrative booze commercial thanks to this new ruling! It's quite ridiculous really. They are trying to disassociate sex appeal from alcoholic beverages by using unattractive, fat, balding guys, but we all know that when you've slung back a few, your standards drop way down anyway and you'll fuck anything. Or is that just me? But what's really kooky is: SINCE WHEN DO YOU NEED TO ADVERTISE ALCHOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ANY PART OF THE UK?
full article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1710050,00.html
Sorry Girls, The Hunks Are Banned
Drinks companies have been ordered to hire paunchy, balding men for advertisements to meet new rules forbidding any link between women’s drinking and sex. Watchdogs have issued a list of undesirable male characteristics that advertisers must abide by in order to comply with tougher rules designed to separate alcohol from sexual success.
Lambrini, the popular sparkling drink, is the first to suffer. Its manufacturers have complained after watchdogs rejected its latest campaign because it depicted women flirting with a man who was deemed too attractive.
The offending poster featured three women “hooking” a slim, young man in a parody of a fairground game scene. Harmless fun to lead its summer campaign, Lambrini argued.
But the Committee of Advertising Practice declared: “We would advise that the man in the picture should be unattractive — overweight, middle-aged, balding etc.”
The ruling continued: “We consider that the advert is in danger of implying that the drink may bring sexual/social success, because the man in question looks quite attractive and desirable to the girls. If the man was clearly unattractive, we think that this implication would be removed.”
The ruling comes after ministers’ warnings to the drinks industry to take measures to tackle binge-drinking or face legislation.
The new CAP code instructs that “links must not be made between alcohol and seduction, sexual activity or sexual success”. Romance and flirtation are not forbidden but adverts must not be aimed at the under-18s or use celebrities in a “sexy” or “cool” manner.
The Bacardi adverts that turned Vinnie Jones into a “party animal” would now be banned, and the measure could affect George Clooney’s £2.5million deal to advertise Martini.
The similarly desirable Brad Pitt reportedly earned £4 million for his recent Heineken advert, which was shown mainly in America. However, the family-sized Peter Kay will presumably be approved to retain his John Smith’s contract.
Lambrini’s makers complained that the ruling was offensive to a large tranche of the male population. Are Jack Nicholson, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery and Ray Winstone unattractive to women, the company asked? John Halewood, the Lambrini owner, said: “The watchdog makes some very understandable rulings to encourage sensible drinking but we’re not sure they’re qualified to decide for the nation who’s sexy and who’s not. “Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.” Lambrini has now recreated its advert employing a balding, male figure whose lack of pulchritude has proved acceptable to the watchdog.
THE HIDDEN HUMOR OF DEBBIE HARRY
OK, we all know she's gorgeous and a super-talented, ultra-cool rock star. But did you know that she's also total scream with a hilarious dead-pan delivery? Someone asked why on earth I went to see War of The Worlds. Well, it was partly because it was an excuse to hang with the Debster, who is close with my friend Miss Guy. Guy says that Debbie likes to act like she's scared of me. (Maybe she's not acting!) But I did have Christmas dinner at her pad in Joisey and so we are more comfortable around each other now.
But as a queen who came of age in New Wave's heyday, part of me is still ga-ga over even knowing her, and god knows she's still an inspiring fox with those alpine cheekbones and bee-stung lips. I never really believed that she was going to show up at Wigstock and gagged when she showed up backstage in a wig. So I tend to overcompensate for my nerves by acting iller than I ever would around anyone else. I just figure that like most big stars, she's experienced enough ass-kissing to last a lifetime and she would rather you would be yourself so there is a real exchange, not just fan-crazed drool. And trust me, she's just as ill as I am.
When we met at War of The Worst I was dieting (unsuccessfully) and told her that I was dying to hog some popcorn and candy. She said "Why don't you get one of those pacifiers that you can put in your mouth which stave off the cravings to put something in it. "I said "Well, Debbie, I don't think that would work for me but I know it works for your cunt." She said "No it doesn't."
One time I saw her approaching the opposite side of the street so I made sure I was in her path and started digging through a trash can while muttering and scratching my head like a homeless retard. She passed me, saw me, and kept on walking. Completely deflated by my flopping attempt at humor, I called "Debbie!" And she said "I just kept on walking cuz I didn't see anything out of the ordinary."
Wigstock 2001: She graced us with another performance at our last festival on the pier. after her fab performance of ATOMIC and the ensuing tumultuos applause, I told her that "As a way to thank you for joining us at Wigstock, I am prepared to fuck you." She said "Bunny! You say that every year and you never deliver."
She referred me to a friend who wanted to book me to perform at their party and I was pumping her for info about them and telling her "My act is dirty, and it isn't right for every crowd." She said "But what about that clown act you do for kids?" And I told her very seriously "Debbie, I do have a clown act that I do for kids, but I don't don't accept payment for it. I do it in order to molest the kids. It's something that I have to do, but it's not something that I would ever want you to see me do". And she said "Aw Bunny, you are so sweet."
Do you want John Roberts to reveal his views about a woman's right to choose abortion before the Senate votes on whether to elevate him to the U.S. Supreme Court? If you're like more than half of Americans, your answer is a resounding yes. Join us in demanding that Roberts let us know if he will uphold the protections for women's health guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, or if he believes this decision should be overturned.
Sign our Two Million for Roe petition today and be listed among millions on our "Roe Call."
100,000 MORE SIGNATURES NEEDED BY SEPTEMBER 1
This isn't just another ordinary petition, but an overwhelming show of America's support for women's health, safety, and privacy. And we need 100,000 more signatures for our "Roe Call" by the time the hearings begin in early September. Just think — if every one of you signs it now, we will surpass our goal of 100,000 ahead of schedule and will be well on our way to Two Million for Roe.
Sign the petition now and then ask 10 others to do the same. Go to:
Let's give them MORE signatures than they need. Remember, abortion rights are only one set that John Roberts could try to revoke. So keep on 'em! All this petition asks for is information about his position. DO IT NOW! It just takes a minute. THANK YOU! DO IT OR THAT SCARY OLD WITCH ELVIRA WILL COME AND GETCHA!
ARUBA BULLSHIT PART 2
its not bullshit wouldn't you want to be searched for if you went missing.. anything could have happened to this girl and the people in iraq are already dead.. wut they did is very honorable but there is nothing the us can do to help them now..
So many comment posts on my ARUBA BULLSHIT blog from June. Mybe I should make myself clear. I am sorry for the girl and her family and urge that the search continue. I am not an unfeeling monster. I'm a feeling monster, but I'm feeling like some of y'all aren't getting my point.
To Anonymous above: Yes, of course I would want to be searched for if I was missing, especially if I was dead (?). But did Anonymous really say that "the people in Iraq are already dead"? So we should care more about one possibly dead girl than 100,000 dead Iraqi CIVILIANS and soldiers on both sides??? And turn a blind eye to a grisly, unfair war which will kill many more of theirs and ours? Shouldn't that situation take priority in the media? Are you seeing nightly stories in which the dead American soldiers' families are interviewed? Nope, because the government doesn't want us to focus on the horrors of war. If we woke up to it as a nation, we would stop supporting it. Anonymous, why don't you care about the huge death toll in Iraq? Because our soldiers aren't being killed while on vacation? I can sympathize with this girl's family but still realize that she, like the national obsession that was the Laci Peterson case, is a smokescreen to keep your mind off the government's many dirty dealings. Natalee and Laci are like boogieman stories told to children to scare them from poking around in the dark.
I think quite a few of the comment posts on the Aruba blog don't know anything about me, but were just googling Aruba and my site came up. I actually think it's sweet that you are concerned about Natalee. I just wish that you cared as much about the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths in Iraq that could have been be prevented and which continue to happen.
Read my next blog entry if you don't believe that our news is slanted.
IF ONLY MJ'S TRIAL HAD BEEN HELD IN DARFUR...
My favorite quote from this biting op-ed piece in the NY Times which I found on www.huffingtonpost.com.
All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 26, 2005
Some of us in the news media have been hounding President Bush for his shameful passivity in the face of genocide in Darfur.
More than two years have passed since the beginning of what Mr. Bush acknowledges is the first genocide of the 21st century, yet Mr. Bush barely manages to get the word "Darfur" out of his mouth. Still, it seems hypocritical of me to rage about Mr. Bush's negligence, when my own beloved institution - the American media - has been at least as passive as Mr. Bush.
(Bunny note: Nicholas, Bush can barely get "nuclear" out of his mouth and it's in english!)
Condi Rice finally showed up in Darfur a few days ago, and she went out of her way to talk to rape victims and spotlight the sexual violence used to terrorize civilians. Most American television networks and cable programs haven't done that much.
Even the coverage of Ms. Rice's trip underscored our self-absorption. The manhandling of journalists accompanying Ms. Rice got more coverage than any massacre in Darfur has.
This is a column I don't want to write - we in the media business have so many critics already that I hardly need to pipe in as well. But after more than a year of seething frustration, I feel I have to.
Like many others, I drifted toward journalism partly because it seemed an opportunity to do some good. (O.K., O.K.: it was also a blast, impressed girls and offered the glory of the byline.) But to sustain the idealism in journalism - and to rebut the widespread perception that journalists are just irresponsible gossips - we need to show more interest in the first genocide of the 21st century than in the "runaway bride."
I'm outraged that one of my Times colleagues, Judith Miller, is in jail for protecting her sources. But if we journalists are to demand a legal privilege to protect our sources, we need to show that we serve the public good - which means covering genocide as seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise. In some ways, we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian genocide in 1915.
Serious newspapers have done the best job of covering Darfur, and I take my hat off to Emily Wax of The Washington Post and to several colleagues at The Times for their reporting. Time magazine gets credit for putting Darfur on its cover - but the newsweeklies should be embarrassed that better magazine coverage of Darfur has often been in Christianity Today.
The real failure has been television's. According to monitoring by the Tyndall Report, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year - and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings. NBC had only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS only 3 minutes - about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks.
Incredibly, more than two years into the genocide, NBC, aside from covering official trips, has still not bothered to send one of its own correspondents into Darfur for independent reporting.
"Generally speaking, it's been a total vacuum," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, speaking of television coverage. "I blame policy makers for not making better policy, but it sure would be easier if we had more media coverage."
When I've asked television correspondents about this lapse, they've noted that visas to Sudan are difficult to get and that reporting in Darfur is expensive and dangerous. True, but TV crews could at least interview Darfur refugees in nearby Chad. After all, Diane Sawyer traveled to Africa this year - to interview Brad Pitt, underscoring the point that the networks are willing to devote resources to cover the African stories that they consider more important than genocide.
If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur.
The BBC has shown that outstanding television coverage of Darfur is possible. And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station. When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads.
So while we have every right to criticize Mr. Bush for his passivity, I hope that he criticizes us back. We've behaved as disgracefully as he has.
(Bunny note: Nicholas, these news stations poll their audiences so they can focus on what they want to hear. Look on cnn.com and you'll see "most popular stories" near the headlines--for sheep-like idiots who need to be told what to care about! So we are just as much at fault as the news outlets. Is Darfur just so much farther away than Aruba that we can't comprehend tragedy there? Or is it because they aren't white like Natalee, Laci Peterson, Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson? C'mon you "caring" evangelical christians! What's more pressing? Genocide in Darfur? Or homosexual marriages? Or religious emblems outside courthouses? Or Terri Schiavo's fucking feeding tube? Or banning fiction like Harry Potter because of the witchcraft in it? You don't wanna hear about Darfur any more than you wanted to hear about Darwin! You wanna take us back to the fucking '50's! Well we aren't going, you bass-ackwards fuckers!)
50 CENT HAS GIRL IN STITCHES
Autographs are so passé. 50 Cent left a female
fan with a far more memorable souvenir when he
recently visited London. The charming rapper
took her back to his hotel from China White
and shagged her so hard that her vagina
was torn. A hospital visit was required to
stitch up the damage.
Bunny note: This is just awful--I'm so jealous!
>> Cum and get it <<
Why Royal food tastes so bad
Staff at Balmoral Castle tell us that kitchen
stewards always masturbate into the Blairs'
food when they come to stay with the Queen.
Blair: "Where's my dinner?"
Steward: "Just coming, Prime Minister!"
Bunny note: But why does it taste BAD?
OPERATION DESSERT STORM
Here's a post from the ever resourceful Craig's List. Don't believe me? http://atlanta.craigslist.org/cas/84635082.html
THROW A PIE IN MY FACE
I am a monogamus Atlanta Tranny who enjoys slapstick roleplay and messy fun. Yes, I like dressing like a pretty lady and getting splatted with pies in my face and on my outfit.
I Would love to maybe have some pie tossing sessions or some messy skits. (messy wedding, formal wear, business wear, etc. )
So ladies and (Respectful fun guys), if you have ever wanted to hit someone in the face with a pie, let me know and then let me have it.
THE BLONDE IN THE THUNDERBIRD
I caught Suzanne Somers' Broadway show the day it closed waaaay early due to bad reviews. I didn't read any of those reviews, but the show was a little tacky. OK, it was quite tacky. But I'll be damned if Suzanne isn't still adorable at 58. At one point she even put her hair in pigtails a la Chrissy on THREE'S COMPANY. Surprisingly, her singing voice was pleasing. But a little more "Come and knock on our door" and a little less maudlin' history would've been welcome. And some of the goofy humor fell flatter than her 58 year-old ass (in a leotard) has. She responds to canned voices a lot, and when her therapist's voice says "You apologize too much" Suzanne says "I'm sorry". You get the gist. But I did love it when she pulled out a light-up cart covered with all the items she's hawked on infomercials over the years, showing that she's a good sport who's in on the joke. The show will probably do better on tour.
That night I watched Tammy Faye Baker-Messner on Larry King. Honey, I can't decipher that gal's magic but it's in full efect, even as she announces that her cancer is back. She looked better than ever in a frosty blonde shag and a bright turqoise summer sweater. She's just so damned perky that she either really loves life or is a great actress.
And she was boosting the gays, saying that "God is love" and criticizing a church group who had cancelled a fellow evangelist because of his ministering to the gays. She was thrilled to have been to the Castro Theater in San Fran and got to "play the big organ"--missing, I'm sure, the sexual innuendo here.
I once emcee'd a Tammy Faye look-a-like contest in DC and the two of us shared a dressing room. She insisted on coming out at the end as one of the drag contestants. Of course the crowd went nuts! She was a hoot!
SCANDALOUS NEW ROVE LEAKS!
From www.shamelesspublicity.com, "where satire is fun"!
Karl Rove Comes "Clean"
Or At Least "Karl Rove" Clean!
In addition to “outing” Valerie Plame, Karl Rove has suddenly had a change of heart and publicly copped to spilling other secrets over the years. He’s such a gossip!
In a speech to the National Restaurant Association, he claimed that Colonel Sander’s 11 secret herbs and spices were all illegal which was why they were kept secret.
He told TV executives that the original title for Pam Anderson’s series “Stacked” was actually “Very Busty Policewoman.”
He told the recording industry that Britney Spears, Christina Agulera, and Jessica Simpson were all the same person.
He told movie executives that without makeup, Cameron Diaz bore a striking resemblance to Danny DeVito.
He told sportswriters that to save food costs Major League Baseball corked its hotdogs.
He told science writers that the real “Space Station” was actually only 6 inches high.
He told the bedding industry it was not really illegal to pull tags off mattresses.
He told his wife that the President was unknowingly waving to paid actors when boarding and de-boarding the Presidential helicopter.
He said the President could not use the word “de-briefed” without snickering and thinking about fraternity life at Harvard.
He told White House insiders that published reports claiming he was Bush’s brain were an insult; if such reports were true, he said, the President would have been a lot smarter.
A FAR CRY FROM CAMP CUPCAKE
by Sarah Stillman from www.huffingtonpost.com.
Just when I thought we’d be spared any more jokes about Martha Stewart making festive, quick-burning Yule logs out of freshly-shredded financial documents or gluing periwinkle seashells to her electronic ankle bracelet, I saw yesterday’s Huff Post headline--“Brace Yourself for Martha-Mania”--and sighed a big ole sigh.
On the heels of Stewart’s new book deal and reality TV show contract, I can’t help but notice how the mainstream media gets a twisted kick out of celebrity women’s incarceration. Earlier this month, when Judith Miller went to jail over Plamegate and rapper Lil’ Kim received 366 days in prison for perjury, the Washington Post ran a fashion (that’s right, FASHION) article about the two defendants’ hairstyles and wardrobe selections for their “sentencing walks”--as if they were strutting down a Calvin Klein runway instead of appearing before a federal judge. (In case you, too, aspire towards courthouse chic: Lil’ Kim boasted a blue Louis Vuitton handbag made of “$3,200 worth of goatskin and brass hardware that says ‘fabulous,’” while Miller clutched “a black shoulder bag whose most distinguishing feature was its ability to keep a multitude of writing tools within easy reach.”)
Popular coverage of Stewart, Miller, and Lil’ Kim (a.k.a. Kimberly Jones) and their entanglements with the criminal justice system have ranged from the cute-’n-comical to the absurdly offensive. But not once has the media approached this trio of high-profile female inmates as an opportunity to elevate the public discourse about the real issues facing almost 100,000 women in U.S. prisons and jails.
Instead of indulging in the details of Jones’ post-sentencing couture, those of us who share the privilege of ignorance about daily life inside prison walls could have been asking hard-hitting questions about the rap diva’s new home: Why do young women of color with significantly less dough than Jones comprise America’s fastest growing prison population? Why do incarcerated women in Jones’ home state of New York test positive for HIV at sixty times the national rate? What role does each of us play in promoting this current catastrophe of a criminal “justice” system--one that generates more than $40 billion in annual profits for corporations like MCI and Sodexho-Marriott?
And instead of printing several paragraphs about Miller’s “tortoise framed sunglasses,” “sensible pageboy” haircut, and “just-stylish-enough clothes” on Judgment Day, the Washington Post could have run an investigative piece on why the number of females imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses--predominantly blacks and Latinas--has risen a mind-boggling 700% in the last two decades. Or on why pregnant inmates in some states are routinely shackled during childbirth. Or on why draconian policies like California’s three strikes law and New York’s Rockefeller drug laws continue unabated, despite the havoc they’ve wreaked on individuals, families, and communities.
And finally, instead of hearing about Martha’s epic struggle to get a frothy cappuccino on the day of her release from the big house (Alderson Federal Prison Camp) to the even bigger house (her $40 million, 153-acre estate in Bedford, where she’s currently under house arrest), our nightly news might have informed us about the Herculean challenges accompanying the average woman’s transition out of prison. These hurdles often include: the struggle to stay clothed and fed despite the lifetime ban on welfare and food stamps for drug offenders; the search for shelter notwithstanding the blockade on public housing; the odyssey to maintain parental rights and heal intimate relationships; and the quest for decent employment in communities where poverty has been normalized, feminized, and criminalized.
I guess it’s a whole lot cinchier to sensationalize the stories of a few celebrity inmates than it is to address such grim realities in a nuanced way--or to actually allow incarcerated women to speak for themselves.
But the media’s distortions have consequences. As Anna Clark notes, “The lack of cultural language about women in prison translates into a de facto acceptance of the state of women’s experiences today.” And that state--rife as it is with sexual misconduct by prison guards, unmet healthcare needs, invasive strip searches, alarming technologies of seclusion, and a litany of other dehumanizing phenomena--is anything but acceptable.
So when you pick up the latest issue of Vanity Fair to find a luminous Martha on the cover (cuddled up to her new French puppy, Francesca), remember that not all women emerge from prison as thinner, kinder, more fabulous people with multiple book contracts and lavender-scented soap lines to boot. Consider, instead, the less airbrushed consequences of mass incarceration for women, families, and society as a whole...then ask yourself if it isn't time to imagine and invest in radical alternatives.
PAMELA A. ADMITS IT!
HX: Speaking of animals, you’re famous for dating rock stars and bad boys. Do bookworms ever turn you on?
PAMELA: Sure, though sometimes I end up with guys who can barely spell, much less read - I think I’m getting Lady Bunny’s leftovers!
For full article visit http://220.127.116.11/features/index.cfm?id=2526&cat=1&page=features&sub_page=weekly
(And someone please remind me not to wear a Bozo afro when posing with the world's premier sex-godess!)
I will be attending the PETA gala in LA on September 10th. This glittering affair, 10 years ago, was truly sensational, and I've never tasted better vegetarian vittles in my life. Or seen more celebs. Not tacky ones. Real ones like Paul McCartney, the B-52's, Chryssie Hynde, Elvira, Alicia Silverstone, Richard Pryor, Sarah McLaughlin, Kathy Najimy, Bea Arthur, Patricia Arquette, Todd Oldham, Jane Wiedlin from the Go-Go's and Pam and Tommy Lee.
Quite drunk from the never-ending supply of bubbly, after a demented go-go set to the B-52's live set with Pam, I was chatting with Pam and her then squeeze, Tommy. In my near stupor, I fancied that Tommy was interested in me. You know, sometimes a big-dicked stud just wants to plumb any depths it can. So I whirled away from him and coquettishly disappeared behind a curtain. Suspecting that he was looking after me, I then reappeared dramatically with a flounce of the curtain and yes, he was still looking my way. Bombed and sated with a belly full of gourmet veggie fare, I giggled all the way back to the hotel about how Tommy wanted me and how I could take Pam's man. These fanciful notions faded with the next day's hangover!
Seems like "outing" Valerie Plame was only for revenge against her hubby is only one of Karl's dirty tricks. This an excerpt from the Village Voice article GRIME PAYS by James Ridgeway. (Karl--I know you're reading my blog--I must admit that this particular dirty trick is kind of genius!)
FALL 1970: Rove pays visit to Chicago campaign headquarters of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running for state treasurer. Disguised as a volunteer, Rove steals official campaign letterhead and sends out 1,000 invitations to people in the city's red-light district and soup kitchens, offering "free beer, free food, girls, and a good time for nothing" at Dixon headquarters. When hundreds of homeless and alcoholic Chicagoans show up at a fancy Dixon reception, Rove succeeds in embarrassing the candidate. Dixon still wins the election.
To read more visit about the scumbag who has somehow tricked the nation into thinking that he and his are patriotic and pious, go to http://villagevoice.com/news/0529,ridgeway,66005,6.html
HAS BEEN CONFIRMED FOR THIS YEAR'S WIGTOCK FESTIVAL ON 8/27!
If you've never seen this nut, check out www.shirleyqliquor.com and check out her twisted movies!
ZSA ZSA UPDATE!
I worship Zsa Zsa. The name says it all: playful, exotic glamour! She makes me want to get a nose job and wear diamonds. I loved Eva, too, whose feathered ensembles on GREEN ACRES drove me out of my mind as a kid. But Zsa Zsa's nose was cut smaller and pointier than Eva's, and her haughty manner and kooky accent were a perfect vehicle for her humor. She lit those talk shows up! I recently caught her great-niece Paris's appearance on some daytime talk show. She sauntered out, waved half-heartedly, and smiled blankly. Within a few moments, she described something as "hot" in a bored voice. The studio audience practically beat the walls in approval. I don't get it. Zsa Zsa worked the same rich, blonde schtick but with great delivery and probably great writers. Here are a few of her classic bon mots.
A girl must marry for love, and keep on marrying until she finds it.
A man in love is incomplete until he he is married. Then he's finished.
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
Husbands are like fires--they go out when unattended.
How many husbands have I had? You mean apart from my own?
I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.
I never hated a man enough to give him diamonds back.
If I would believe what I read about myself, I would hate my guts too.
I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?
Macho does not prove mucho.
Personally I know nothing about sex because I've always been married.
To a smart girl men are no problem -- they're the answer.
I own an old 1960's Carol Channing comedy album on which she jokes that the Gabor sisters were in the audience, and that everyone has to laugh at every one of her jokes or the Gabors will come and hit them. Could this have been the blueprint for Zsa Zsa famous cop-slapping? Recycled shtick from the 60's? How genius and insane if that's true! Slapping your way into the headlines??? I love it, and the cop did turn out to be a wannabe actor, so who knows if the whole thing was staged. Although if it was, I doubt if Zsa Zsa-kins would have a flask in her front seat when arranging to be "apprehended." But why would she stage this? She hadn't yet come out with her work-out video. Who knows.
But one of my fav Gabor moments was a 90's tiff with 60's sexpot Elke Sommer. Zsa Zsa, who married a German nobleman, was in Deutschland riding a horse for some publicity stunt. Elke, who lives there, quipped that she felt sorry for the horse. (Zsa did get a little heavy.) Zsa Zsa and her hubby tore into Elke, claiming that she was a balding grandmother so poor that she was selling homemade beer steins at a local pub for a living. OUCH! Elke sued and won over a million.
Just the other day, Lypsinka was tickling me with one of Zsa Zsa's classic lines from QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE: "Von move and I'll keel you!" So naturally I was dismayed to learn that
Actress Zsa Zsa Gabor Suffers Stroke in L.A.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hungarian-born actress and socialite Zsa Zsa Gabor
suffered a stroke and underwent surgery in a Los Angeles hospital to remove a
blockage to an artery, her husband said on Thursday.
"She is recovering right now, and we have to see," Frederic von Anhalt told
Reuters. "The doctors are very optimistic that she will recover. The operation
The stroke was the second suffered by Gabor, who was also the victim of a 2002
car accident that left her briefly hospitalized with head injuries.
Gabor, who is believed to be in her 80s, came to the United States with her
sisters and mother just before World War II. She became famous for her glamour,
wit and temper in a career that thrived on her luxury-loving persona and
penchant for calling everyone "Darling."
Her movie career began with mainstream films such as "Lili" and "Moulin Rouge,"
both in 1953, before slipping into camp favorites such as "Queen of Outer Space"
in 1958 and "Won Ton Ton, the Dog Who Saved Hollywood" in 1983.
The German-born von Anhalt, who is the Duke of Saxony, is Gabor's eighth
husband. The couple married in 1986.
In 2002, Gabor was admitted to a Los Angeles hospital with serious injuries
when a car driven by her hair stylist struck a light pole on Hollywood's Sunset
In an incident she later parodied on screen, Gabor was also convicted of
slapping a motorcycle policeman who pulled her over in 1989 because the Rolls
Royce she was driving had an out-of-date license.
Gabor lists her birthday as Feb. 7 but has always refused to reveal the year of
her birth, believed to be from 1921 to 1923.
DICK OF DEATH
And I thought I was kinky! From the gossipy newsletter POP BITCH, which you can subscribe to visiting www.popbitch.com.
>> Clucking for a fucking <<
America's X-rated Animal Farm
There's a ranch in Washington State, America,
which has been offering its animals up for
sex with humans. Police visited it when a
man died in hospital after his colon and
internal organs were ruptured after sex
with an over-enthusiastic stallion. They
found a cache of hundreds of videos of man-
on-beast sex sessions hidden in a field.
The animals kept at the farm included ponies,
horses, goats, sheep, dogs and chickens.
Images of the bestiality were played over
the internet and men came to play with the
animals from all over America. Getting
shagged to death by the stallions seemed
to be the only downside - it's legal to
"do" animals in Washington State!
Dog-sex lovers have a great trick to stop getting
scratched in the act. Before getting Fido to
penetrate them, they put socks on the dogs paws.
(Bunny note: SOCKS! I can't even get them to sit still long enough to put a condom on them!)
>> Celebrity Diet Secrets <<
Does Karl Lagerfeld spit or swallow?
Karl Lagerfeld works hard to maintain
his super-skinny dieted body. He was
spotted at his office recently,
sitting at his desk, pulling out a
jar of Nutella and spoon from a drawer.
Karl then took a huge spoonful, swished
it round his mouth for a while... then
spat the chocolate spread back into the jar,
which he then locked back into the drawer.
YOU KNOW YOU'RE AT A GAY PARTY WHEN...
No, not when the hot dogs taste like shit--that's how you know you're at a gay BARBECUE! You know you're at a gay party when you see this:
Is the mainstream media trying to hide this? It's from late June but I totally missed it.
According to a brand new Zogby poll, the Bush administration is in its "last throes." These numbers - 42% in favor of impeachment, including 25% of Republicans - are astonishing because most Americans haven't heard of the Downing Street Minutes, the smoking gun that proves Bush lied. And most Fox viewers think Saddam ordered the 9/11 attack - and WMD's were found in Iraq. Let's collect 1 million signatures on our petition for impeachment!
President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.
Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible "bump" in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling...
More than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not
hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.
Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.
Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the "Blue States" that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.
A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.
"Under Bush, in the past five years, the U.S. has made zero new friends. But we have made a huge number of new and increasingly venomous enemies. And no, they don't hate us because of our malls, Dubya. They don't hate us because of our freedoms. They don't hate us because of our low-cut jeans and our moronic 8 mpg Ford Expeditions or our corrupt Diebold voting system that snuck you into office. They hate us, George, because of our policies. Anti-Muslim. Pro-Israel. Oil-uber-alles. Anti-U.N. Anti-Kyoto. Anti-planet. Pro-war. Pro-insularity. Pseudo-swagger. Bogus staged 'town hall' meetings stocked with prescreened monosyllabic Bush sycophants. Ego. Empire." -- SFGate.com columnist Mark Morford, April 22.
Impeachcentral.com is running a petition drive. Impeachbush.org is planning a march on Washington in September. Thefourreasons.org site argues that the Iraq invasion was unconstitutional. Afterdowningstreet.org asserts that Bush secretly decided to go to war and to mislead Congress in mid-2002."
WHEN TO STOP TANNING
SEE THE RICH CORINTHIAN LEATHUH?
MORE ON LUTHER
When A & E interviewed me for Rupaul's show, they asked me if I could name another black male star who was out of the closet. I could not, and neither could anyone else. Patti Labelle was asked the same question and apparently said "yes, well there's--oops, he's not out." I wonder if she meant you know who. Part of me feels like the emphasis should remain on his incredible music, but if the rich and powerful amongst us don't stand up, who will? The ones with nothing to lose? But then again, if, as he suspected, his fans would turn against him should he "come out", the world would be denied the sounds of a terrific singer. Hell, even David Bowie called Luther in to coach him on the phrasing and sing back-up on one of Bowie's greatest tunes, YOUNG AMERICANS. As he got muzak-ier over the years with recordings like DANCE WITH MY FATHER, I lost interest--except for his underrated MAW collaboration ARE YOU USING ME? But early on Luther sang lead for brilliant disco acts like Greg Diamond, Chic and Change, whose GLOW OF LOVE has to be one of the most beauteous songs EVER written. Maybe he judged it right to not let his private life prevent him form making music of this caliber--I've certainly enjoyed hearing and playing it. But then again, maybe he could have come out and done a world of good once he was established, which was over 10 years ago. But if he wasn't a fag, why did he ever DANCE WITH HIS FATHER in the first place?
Power of Hate
I would have gladly gotten down on my knees and blown Luther Vandross if it would have given him the courage to finally publicly come out. I would have also gladly bitch-slapped the long line of backstabbing backstage R'n'B homophobes who feuded with Luther throughout his illustrious career.
Ultimately it was Luther - who died on July 1 at the age of 54 - who should have stood up and battled back like he did from his diabetes-related stroke in 2003.
Instead, like so many closeted rock stars and matinee idols before him, Luther abdicated the right to dictate his own obituary.
"The lifelong bachelor never had any children but doted on his nieces and nephews," the Associated Press cowardly reported. "The entertainer said his busy lifestyle made marriage difficult; besides, it wasn't what he wanted."
Correction: It wasn't what his fans wanted.
When author Craig Seymour asked Luther (or Loofah, as his fans called him) about the gay rumours in his 2004 biography Luther: The Life & Longing of Luther Vandross (HarperCollins), Vandross laughingly replied, "You're trying to zero in on something that you are never gonna get. Look at you, just circling the airport. You ain't never gonna land."
Move over, Ricky Martin.
"Vandross likely felt confessing his sexual preference would destroy his crossover ambitions," The Village Voice reported last week. "He was probably right. But those same crossover ambitions forced him into an exhausting two decades of spin control, warding off AIDS rumours, never able to bring preferred company onto red carpets."
So Vandross sought career advice from openly gay disco superstar Sylvester (who died of AIDS back in 1988), advice he obviously never applied. Sylvester's backup singer at the time was disco diva Martha Wash, who also sang the duet I Who Have Nothing with Vandross.
"You can go any place you want," Luther sang. "To fancy clubs and restaurants. But I can only watch you with my nose pressed up against the window pane."
After Luther suffered his stroke in 2003, Wash told me how distraught she was ("He's a loving and caring human being"), as did Patti LaBelle, who burst into tears on stage when she dedicated her July 3 performance at Montreal's Place des Arts to Vandross (Luther was VP of LaBelle's fan club back in the 1960s when he was a teenager).
LaBelle sang at Luther's star-studded NYC funeral last weekend, at Riverside Church in Morningside Heights, after the funeral cortege wound its way from Harlem's Apollo Theater on 125th Street. The lineup also included Stevie Wonder; Aretha Franklin sang Amazing Grace.
Others in attendance were Oprah Winfrey, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Ashford and Simpson, Dionne Warwick, Roberta Flack, Teddy Pendergrass, Usher and Alicia Keys.
Clearly everybody in the house knew Vandross was a big-ass faggot. But only Oprah, Roberta Flack and Patti LaBelle have publicly and loudly stood up for gay rights.
Like LaBelle told me herself about the gay men in her own life, "Bless them. They're my glam squad. They are all my children. They look to me as a mother, a sister or a real good girlfriend. Because I am strong and I fight for their rights. I fight when I see a gay person denied like I fight for my children."
But LaBelle couldn't save Luther. Only Luther could save Luther.
Many in the black community are now furious the gay press has finally officially outed Vandross. It's tawdry and mean, they gripe, and completely unnecessary.
Instead, they want Luther to take his secret to his grave, as if his sexuality meant nothing in life. They prefer to neuter soul music's King of Romance so that big mouths like me won't spoil their bump'n'grind soundtrack.
Well, on behalf of Luther Vandross, I say screw you.
I saw Luther just once, in the early 1990s when he headlined the Montreal Forum with En Vogue (with whom he famously feuded...).
"When we walk down the street, we don't care who we see or who we meet," he sang as every diva in the house stood up singing my favourite Luther song, Power of Love/Love Power.
"Don't need to run, don't need to hide," he sang, "Cause we've got something burning inside - we've got love power!"
Now, again, Luther has been denied in death the love power he was denied in life.
I write a monthly column in Genre magazine and they've kindly allowed me to blog them a month after their release date. The column is called Furrocious--don't tell PETA! Here's my June article.
YAY, IT’S PRIDE SEASON AGAIN! Time to pour yourself into those rainbow Lycra shorts and throw on a low-cut, nipple-exposing tank top that’s three sizes too small. Yes, it’s time to primp, pluck, shave, pump up, douche, pre-lube and secure plenty of “party favors.” It’s time to get laid and get wasted—uh, I mean celebrate our gayness and renew our fight for equality. Celebrate and fight? Hmmm. Exactly what are we celebrating? The enormous setback that was Bush’s (re)election? Besides, aren’t we, quite frankly, already partying ourselves to death? How do we start celebrating when many of us never stop? I always used to think that the parade should be a day for celebration only. After all, in our quest for equality, we gays have come a lot further in a shorter time than women or blacks had in their quest. Even in the face of AIDS, bigotry and everything else we face, no one can throw a party like gays can, and hell, I’m proud of that! But let’s face facts: In today’s increasingly antigay climate, is a party more important than fighting for our right to party? Should we be more like the queens who instigated the 1969 Stonewall riot, the event which Pride festivals supposedly commemorate? I think it’s time to take to the streets afire with some of Stonewall’s sense of outrage! Let’s celebrate again when we’ve chalked up a few more victories. I won’t go into the recent setbacks in the fight for equal marriage rights, how AIDS cases are rising, the crystal meth problem and increasing media censorship. It couldn’t be clearer: Our situation is dire. And I’m sorry, but drunkenly waving a rainbow flag while cruising one day a year isn’t going to remedy it. We’ve got to become as organized as the religious right is, and push our agenda non-stop just to get back to where we were a year ago, let alone advance our goals. By all means, go to the parades. Wave those rainbow flags. Cruise. Party. Cruise some more. But after the hangover fades, why not try some easy ways to keep that feeling of Pride going all year long? 1. Make sure that you open your wallets/ purses to gay political organizations and charities—giving at least as much as you spend in a bar on a big weekend is a good guideline. Straights ain’t gonna donate to gay organizations, so if you don’t, who will? 2. Spend a fraction of the time you spend cruising or working out getting involved—whether it’s writing a senator, volunteering for a service organization or organizing your own! 3. While it’s a blast to join a huge parade in a major city and feel that intoxicating surge of gay power, there are many smaller communities where gays are still afraid to march. Maybe you could travel to one of these cities’ events. They might not be as cruisy— but then again there might be less competition! 4. Add a few worthy activist and newsy URLs to the hook-up sites on your favorites list, so you can stay informed. We are under attack, and no one is going to fight our battles for us. 5. Let’s band together and be a little more supportive of all segments of our own community. Just because someone doesn’t turn you on doesn’t mean you shouldn’t embrace them. Don’t forget who gave birth to the gay rights movement at Stonewall—it wasn’t the respectable, closeted fags who might have had the nerve to throw on a pink polo shirt once a year. It was the freaks and queens who suffered daily abuse with no closet to retreat to. Conservative gays allege that the press focuses on the more outlandish participants in the parades. Honey, get a decent look together and maybe someone will photograph you! 6. If you are a devout Christian like I am, you’ll recall that Gay Pride is a sin—I’m kidding! Now let me go write that check to some activist organization and pray that it clears before this article goes to print. Here are some worthy organizations to check out and donate to: Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org), National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (ngltf.org), Gay Men’s Health Crisis (gmhc.org), Lambda Legal Defense Fund (lambdalegal.org), American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org), The Trevor Project (thetrevorproject.org) and, of course, your local LGBTQ groups and community centers. After this year’s Pride festivities, wouldn’t giving something back make you feel a lot prouder than a hangover?
AND HERE'S JULY!
I can’t be the only person thinking, “I get hundreds of TV channels but there’s still nothing on!” How could that possibly be? Andy Warhol predicted the phenomenon years ago when he said, “In the future there will be 100 channels and nothing to watch.” Now there are more than 100 channels, oodles more than we had growing up, yet there’s a fraction of the enjoyable programming! Have our tastes changed so much? Maybe we’d watch indiscriminately when we were in our formative years but now we’re pickier. Or are the airwaves just clogged with trashy reality shows that totally suck? Unfortunately, it’s the latter. The moronic “reality TV” that rules the boob tube now makes Three’s Company look like Masterpiece Theatre. I grew up watching brilliant shows like All in the Family that could make you laugh, cry, and examine social issues of the day—all at the same time. But why should networks bother to spend money on writers to develop great characters and scripts when their audience is mesmerized by bug-eating contests? I think more often than we realize, networks choose reality TV because it’s cheap. This is no secret—the networks are the first to admit it. Blame the infomercial in the ‘80s for starting it all. TV stations, which used to shut down in the wee hours of the morning, learned they could air advertisements as shows. People actually watched, sending the message that they’d tune into any moving picture, no matter how poor. Or should I say soulless and money-obsessed? Take the horrific Gastineau Girls, about two rich bitches (Mom and daughter) whose existence on planet Earth serves no discernable purpose. On one episode, Mama Gastineau shows off an expensive bracelet from a new beau to her ex-beau who asks her, “Doesn’t that make you a hooker?” To which she responds that she’d only be a hooker if she accepted the gift after sex and she hadn’t slept with him yet. Whatever you say, hooker. Her dull and sullen daughter dreams of modeling and actually gets a gig but hates it because she didn’t realize what hard work it is. You sorry bitch! You only got the job ‘cuz you’re on TV, and then have the nerve to turn your snotty nose up at your dream job? Has it really come to this? Is this entertainment? Admittedly, some people lead lives so bizarre that they are indeed interesting to watch. Like Anna Nicole Smith! Fat or thin, that big ol’, bleached blonde Texan goddess could hold my attention if she farted while stripping and slurring on what appears to be a combination of booze and prescription drugs. (Oh wait, she actually did that!) But now you have total losers getting in front of a camera, thinking they have interesting lives. Hell, even Bobby Brown has his own show called Being Bobby Brown. He hasn’t had a hit in years, unless you count one from Whitney’s crack pipe. So the only reason that anyone would tune in is to see Bobby get high. Or go back to jail. Isn’t it kind of sad that that could form the basis of a show? Okay, I have to admit, some reality TV is thought-provoking. Seeing Jane Weidlin help a dwarf pee on The Surreal Life provokes such thoughts as, “What the fuck is this? Why would anyone like it? And how do I get off this planet?” But seriously, shows like Trading Spaces, Extreme Makeover, and Biggest Loser provide useful information on home improvement or plastic surgery. Some illustrate how different people would react to different situations, whether it’s dating or trying to live together on a desert island. But, personally, I’d prefer to see a professional actor heightening the drama of the situations with a script—ordinary people just aren’t as interesting! But it’s not all the fault of the networks. If we sit here and take it, they’ll continue to dish it out. Remember, entertainment can inspire and educate as opposed to bore and infuriate. It may be a little costlier for networks to develop meaningful programming, but viewers get shortchanged if they don’t. The odd thing is that while unreal “reality” TV is sweeping our nation, our national news channels, which ought to be “real,” are churning out Bush’s propaganda masked as news. The government won’t even allow images of wounded soldiers or caskets to be aired because this would underline the grim nature of the war. And that’s reality TV, not Paris Hilton clowning in a pigsty!
FROM GENRE MAGAZINE's JULY ISSUE
WAR OF THE WORST!
Terrific special effects in WAR OF THE WORLDS! They've actually managed to program Tom Snooze to appear human, even straight! This movie sucks as hard as Tom wishes he could. Admittedly great effects and art direction can't mask up for the rotten script and acting. And the plot/screenplay! It doesn't allow you to connect with story in any way. It's just doomsday, doomsday, doomsday with a last minute patch-up crappy ending. And such unlikeable characters! When the cute widdle baby girl whispers, after an explosion, "Are we dead yet?", the audience of 10 shouted "I hope so!" Or what about the scene when she wants big daddy Tom to sing her a lullaby but he doesn't know her first 2 requests? I hollered out "IT'S RAINING MEN!" cuz I bet he knows every word. Can't take me anywhere.
Obviously, early market research yielded lackluster results and the studio needed some hype to sell this crap. Hence, we have the Katie/Tom relationship--surprise, surprise!--SHE has a big movie out at the same time and is in need of a makeover (yucch! there's that word again!) to shed her DAWSON'S CREEK wholesome image and switch to full-grown siren. I actually hung out with her a few years ago and she seemed really sweet. She came to Wigstock at the height of DAWSON'S popularity and HX mag crucified her for not wanting to pose for pix. So they claimed that she had scarfed down all the performer's snacks! Doubtful. But they'd be more likely to satisfy her than Tom. They may be in love, but I imagine he'd have more fantasies about another famous Holmes--JOHN!
I wouldn't waste a dime on this crapola. It certainly won't join the classic status of the book or original film, which I admit, I'm not too familiar with. Maybe the new version is great if you know them better than I.
But I do fondly remember a WAR OF THE WORLDS disco song or even whole album that was played in England in the late 70's. Disco and outer space went hand in hand and even Sarah Brightman recorded a schmaltzily fun single (her first?) called I LOST MY HEART TO A STARSHIP TROOPER. I doubt if she performs it much these days.
BOMBED IN LONDON!
My mom phoned me to ask if any of my friends had been hurt by the London bombings. I told her not to worry, that my drunk-ass friends there get bombed regularly. But seriously folks, I told her I hadn't really called around hunting for tragedy. The death toll wasn't that high and I assume I'd hear about any bad news should there be any. Now I'm a southern drag queen who loves her momma, and I know that she was genuinely concerned about my many English friends. But there is a tendency to wallow in tragedy. There is certainly nothing wrong with expressing shock and horror over it, mourning the dead and memorializing them. It's only fitting.
I live near St. Vincent's Hospital where many of the 9/11 victims were taken. On a nearby fence, commemorative tiles have been hung by the families of the dead/wounded and well-wishers. I often see tourists pause to read or photograph them. A pottery shop around the corner cutely called OUR NAME IS MUD has even hung tiles coaxing people to their shop to create tiles of their own.
I have no problem with any of that.
BUT IS GRIEF THE ONLY EMOTION WE CAN FEEL AT ONE TIME?
Instant, unexpected loss of a loved one must cause chaotic, long-term grief for the victim's family and loved ones. I'm excusing them from the following diatribe so as not to appear insensitive. But for the rest of us, I think random mass murders should lead to feeling something else. Are we going to wallow in tragedy and do nothing to try to rectify the situation which is causing it? Wouldn't finding the root of the problem reduce the likelihood of it happening again?
For the root, we need look no further than the White House. Bush has stirred up a hornet's nest with his unjust crusade of a war in Iraq and one of the hornets just flew to London with it's deadly sting. WE ARE CREATING TERRORISTS! One of the bombers was 18 years old! Not subject to the pro-war news/propaganda in the US, muslims in every land are horrified by tales of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the recent one where detained, suspected insurgents were cooked to death in a metal box in the desert heat. Randi Rhodes mentioned it on her blistering AIR AMERICA broadcast yesterday, though I doubt if it got much coverage with this blasted spaceship dominating the headlines. But the tale of humans cooked to death must spread like wildfire in muslim news outlets or truthful non-muslim ones! If terrorism is the enemy, then why are we creating more of them with outrages like torture or this unjust war itself?
Don't get me wrong. In my constant slamming of Dubya's foreign policy--as opposed to his great domestic ones??!!??--don't think for a second that I condone muslim extremists with their barbaric, hateful attitudes towards women and gays. (I like to get stoned, but not with the actual stones thrown at me.) But as much as we like to joke about the fanciful promise made to the suicide bombers about the virgins they could screw in heaven, the truth is that some of them are crazy and will continue to attack us no matter what, but it's also true that WE have done our part to drive them crazy, and we continue to inflame them. We've been riding rough-shod over any country in our way or which has something we want for decades and the ill-will we've created is coming home to roost. Unfortunately, bombs set off by cellphones don't discriminate between war-mongers and peace-niks. Or even muslims, for that matter.
One emotion that goes hand in hand with the deep mourning of a large-scale bombing is fear. And even though the government did not raise the threat level after London's incident and stated that no new intelligence warned of new dangers on our shores, for the days following the attacks CNN has treated us to "security experts" who are lead by questions like "Could an attack like the one in London happen here?". Duh, I think a much worse attack already has--like, remember 9/11? Anything to keep us scared, so that we'll keep backing Bush out of fear for our lives? For some reason, the blank-faced moron with that kiddie's goat book in Farenheit 9/11, with his inept security which bungled warnings of 9/11 and his inability to sufficiently tighten airport security to stop even those amateurs who flew around the country with concealed metal objects to demonstrate how unsafe the airlines still are, THIS IMBECILE MAKES US FEEL SAFE?!? WHY?
Maybe we should try listening to the terrorists. We can't even seem to win a war against the terrorists who never were in Iraq, a poor country which couldn't even shoot a WMD anywhere near us if they had one, yet they are able to continue to confound our well-trained forces. (Ever think we mght not want an exit strategy because then we can't "protect" Iraqi oil? What's a few American soldier's lives in exchange for all that rich, black gold?) So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. A novel approach, but perhaps not as outlandish as it sounds. For some reason, after 9/11, everyone else was thinking "What do we do?" while I was thinking, just as I am after the London bombings, "WHAT THE FUCK HAVE WE DONE?"? To make them attack us like this? Hey, they aren't playing fair, but neither are we! After 9/11, Osama Been Forgotten stated that the attacks would continue until 3 changes were made.
1.That the US should stop supporting Israel's war efforts against Palestine.
2.That US troops should get off of Saudi holy land--this is akin, I guess, to us permitting an army of jihad warriors to be stationed outside St. Patrick's Cathedral.
3.That the US should lift the trade sanctions on Iraq so that among other things, Iraqi kids could obtain much-needed medicines. The sanctions were put in place because of supposed WMD's which it turned out weren't there--uh, but they still may turn up!
I AGREE WITH OSAMA ON ALL THREE OF THESE DEMANDS! I denounce his diabolical methods of making them, but it may have been his only way of getting us to pay attention to 3 big mistakes we've made in our foreign policy. And if his demands are reasonable and the alternative to meeting them is devastatingly cruel, why not admit that we, the US, is wrong?
Don't you dare think I'm saying we deserved 9/11 or that London deserved the bombings. I wouldn't even wish a fiery grave in a collapsing sky-scraper on Paris Hilton. But we've GOT to feel more than shock and horror and grief. We've got to feel enough inquisitiveness to ask HOW CAN WE STOP THESE ATTACKS? And honey, the answer isn't attacking and occupying an oil-rich nation which is unconnected to Al Qaeda and cooking it's citizens to death! Even if we have no sense of rectitude our self-preservation instincts should have kicked in after we're done grieving. Or we will all be doing a lot more grieving for the rest of our lives. No government, super-power or not, can fight everyone with a cellphone.
YOU OUGHT TO BE A "SHAINA" YOURSELF!
Here are a few excerpts from the 16 emails posted by Shaina as a response to my blog entry entitled ARUBA BULLSHIT (in the June archives).
God, forgive you for being so silly stupid and bad
I hope that your mother or anyone from from your family never go missing
please just close your mouth
HAVE RESPECT FOR THE MISSING GIRL FAMILY !!!!!!!!!!!!
you are lady bunny shit
crazy woman get alife
do you got some feelings?
there is a human missing
not a dog or an ant !!!!!!!
the militars in Ira they decided to be there, it's a pity they die but there are not missing their family know where they are.
Well, I must admit that I was a little thrown by the number and savagery of Shaina's posts. On one hand, I am delighted to use my blog to open up a dialogue with intelligent people with valid points. And I realize that I'm very opinionated and that my views are quite different from those of the average american's.
I'm also aware that some disturbed folks surf the net with little to do but spew hate. I was performing in DC on 1/2/05 and I did an interview with the local gay mag which mentioned my site. The article prompted one DC queen to write a letter so chock full of bitterness that I was almost tempted to fire back. The queen hated the club I was appearing in, it's high cover charge and said that "house parties were the thing in DC anyway". I was then told to "get my bleach blonde wig wearing ass back to NYC." I wanted to write him back and say that I was in DC for work and could care less about the cover charge which I didn't set--just don't come to the show if it's so odious to you. I could care less that house parties in vogue in DC and furthermore, I'm not wearing a bleach blonde wig--duh, I think you usually by the wig in the color you want it in, dunce, not fucking bleach it. But since he had raised no issues of importance, I decided not to tangle with this empty queen whose accusations were too nutty to dignify with a response.
But if you put yourself out there on the 'net and allow comment posts, you never know what you're gonna get. For the most part, the readers who have posted comments have been interesting and articulate and have avoided psychotic stream-of-consciousness insulting crap. They've even corrected me on errors and I've enjoyed poking around on their blogs as well.
Shaina, you ain't one of these folks. Someone sending 16 posts is probably in desperate need of attention, though in your case there's also a need for basic spelling lessons as well--"clouwn"???? Girl! Perhaps you find my that Aruba entry so insensitive that you are genuinely outraged and can't control yourself. (There's a medication for that and it's called arsenic.) But honey, you've missed my basic point. Of course the fact that a girl is missing is sad. Of course I have sympathy for her family. But my point is that ONE MISSING GIRL is incongruous with the amount of press coverage that she is/was getting. There were 53 Americans who died the day I wrote that post who were totally eclipsed by her story. I think their story is 53 times more important, especially since they died in vain in a mindless war which my tax dollars are spent on! No photos of the dead or their coffins or their families. They are just faceless casualties from Dubya's oil heist.
Shaina, THEY TRICKED YOU AND YOU FELL FOR IT HOOK, LINE AND SINKER! They wanted to tug on your heartstrings with the sad tale of this nice all-american girl's tragedy--so that you don't focus on the real one. The fact that the US is a killing machine that has not only killed our own soldiers, but over 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS, not soldiers, SHAINA, but women and children including, yes SHAINA, young women like Natalee, who like you, has a problem with spelling. She can't even spell her own fucking name right!
Having a different opinion than mine is fine and dandy, Shaina. But girl, you turned hateful. At first you seem to want to convince me of your viewpont, but then you switch to irrational insults. I'd like to comment on a few of them.
"PERSON" Are the quotes meant to cast aspersions on my humanity? You have a good point here. I prefer "CELESTIAL GODDESS" to person or human..
SELFISH BITCH Am I selfish because I care about someone different from who you care about? And more of them?
STUPID WOMAN Glad I'm "passing", honey.
DO YOU HAVE KIDS No, I only look pregnant.
NO (sic) EVEN MAN OR WOMAN No wonder I don't have kids, Shaina! ("You could have added go fuck youself" here. It's the luxury afforded only to the hermaphrodite.
SUPER UGLY I admit I'm not the world's greatest beauty, but I still look presentable enough to blow a cab driver for a free fare. Well, ok, half fare if it's dark enough.
I WISH I COULD TELL YOU ALL THIS IN PERSON An odd request which I hope is never granted.
YOU MUST HAVE AIDS!!! IF NOT I HOPE SO. And you call me insensitive! Shaina, really.
I REQUEST THAT YOU GO TO A THERAPIST BECAUSE I THINK YOU NEED SOME SERIOUS ANGER/DEPRESSION DRUGS. Look who's talking, bitch! Am I emailing you 16 times and wishing you had a fatal illness? And I do go to therapy, whenever my therapist is re-released from the psych ward and can work me into her schedule. But I'm happy to try any drugs you'd care to send. But, um, might you not need them yourself, Shaina?
I'm an atheist, but was raised a christian and I seem to recall that "god is love". However incensed you may be with my views--which I believe I have the right to express on MY site, no pious person of any religion would wish AIDS on anyone, or stoop to calling me ugly just because we disagree--outside of a kindergarden, that is.
Unfortunately, yours is the type of mentality that voted Bush back into office. It's right in line with Bush's own "You're either for us or against us" mentality with which he charged into Iraq. You're also on par with the small-minded religious right who dismiss all other religions except for their own peculiar cult--the way you dismiss my differing opinion--and decree that anyone who isn't saved is going to hell. Well, I'm not going to hell--I'm already in it with morons like you and Dubya--you voted for him didn't you?--calling the shots in a country which I'm trying to enjoy living in. I've never seen you, but inside, you, Shaina, are truly ugly. And if I haven't died from the AIDS you wished on me, in a decade or two, I'll be around to read the history books denounce Bush as the worst president in US history and expose the media of this time period as the most bullshit ever. Sorry that you'll have to wait until then to realize what an idiot you were. But then again, an idiot never really realizes much, do they Shaina? You "Clouwn"!