Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity

[chefmike]

Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity


Charles Roselli set out to discover what makes some sheep gay. Then the news media and the blogosphere got hold of the story.

Dr. Roselli, a researcher at the Oregon Health and Science University, has searched for the past five years for physiological factors that might explain why about 8 percent of rams seek sex exclusively with other rams instead of ewes. The goal, he says, is to understand the fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep. Other researchers might some day build on his findings to seek ways to determine which rams are likeliest to breed, he said.

But since last fall, when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals started a campaign against the research, it has drawn a torrent of outrage from animal rights activists, gay advocates and ordinary citizens around the world — all of it based, Dr. Roselli and colleagues say, on a bizarre misinterpretation of what the work is about.

The story of the gay sheep became a textbook example of the distortion and vituperation that can result when science meets the global news cycle.

The news media storm reached its zenith last month, when The Sunday Times in London published an article under the headline “Science Told: Hands Off Gay Sheep.” It asserted, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli had worked successfully to “cure” homosexual rams with hormone treatments, and added that “critics fear” that the research “could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.”

Martina Navratilova, the tennis star who is both openly gay and a PETA ally, wrote in an open letter that the research “can only be surmised as an attempt to develop a prenatal treatment” for sexual conditions.

The controversy spilled into the blog world, with attacks on Dr. Roselli, his university and Oregon State University, which is also involved in the research. PETA began an e-mail campaign that the universities say resulted in 20,000 protests, some with language like “you are a worthless animal killer and you should be shot,” “I hope you burn in hell” and “please, die.”

The news coverage, which has been heaviest in England and Australia, focused on smirk and titillation — and, of course, puns. Headlines included “Ewe Turn for Gay Rams on Hormones” and “He’s Just Not That Into Ewe.”

In recent weeks, the tide has begun to turn, with Dr. Roselli and Jim Newman, an Oregon Health and Science publicist, saying they have been working to correct the record in print and online. The university has sent responses to senders of each PETA-generated e-mail message.

Dr. Roselli, whose research is supported by the National Institutes of Health and is published in leading scientific journals, insists that he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones.

On blogs where attacks have appeared, the researchers point out that many of the accusations, like The Sunday Times’s assertion that the scientists implant devices in the brains of the sheep, are simply false.

The researchers acknowledge that the sheep are killed in the course of the research so their brain structure can be analyzed, but they say they follow animal welfare guidelines to prevent suffering.

The authors of the Sunday Times article, Chris Gourlay and Isabel Oakeshott, referred questions to a managing editor, who they said was traveling and could not be reached.

Dr. Roselli and Mr. Newman persuaded some prominent bloggers, including Andrew Sullivan, who writes an online column for Time, to correct postings that had uncritically quoted The Sunday Times’s article. They also found an ally in the blog world: a scientist who writes under the pseudonym emptypockets and has taken up Dr. Roselli’s cause. The blogger, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he said a public stand could hurt his career, said he had been cheered by the number of bloggers who dropped their opposition when presented with the facts.

Ms. Navratilova, who also received a response from the university, said she remained unconvinced.

“The more we play God or try to improve on Mother Nature, the more damage we are doing with all kinds of experiments that either have already turned or will turn into nightmares,” she wrote in an e-mail reply to a reporter’s query. “How in the world could straight or gay sheep help humanity?”

rest of article-
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=9768bd40a991ddee&hp&ex=1169787600&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

[Smog Boy]

Reminds me of the song, Long Haired Sheep Shaggers from Macclesfield. Oh well.

We already know you're a leftist faggot, sheepmike.

No need to justify your stupidity with science because no matter how you look at it, it's stupidity.

[chefmike]

It's tough out there for you bushevik chickenhawks nowadays, isn't it TFool?

The American voters registered their contempt in November.

Those that you grovel for not only lost the election, they barely escaped being tarred and feathered.

The pendulum has swung for you and your ilk, TFool.

Now hit the bricks, chump....

[b]It's tough out there for you bushevik chickenhawks nowadays, isn't it TFool?

As opposed to Marxist Chickenchickens? Nah, we got the presidency.

[Coroner]

what a paradox

[suckseed]

Hey TFan, man, I don't follow all the exchanges between you and chefmike, but obviously it's gotten pretty personal. You come out looking better when you leave out the vitriol, my brother.

Yeah I know. I've kicked it up to tell you the truth. We're going into Iran in the next 2 months and the level of appeasement with these people astonishes me. I'll chill out now.

[chefmike]

LMFAO...

We are "going into Iran"?

I think it's safe to say that fools like you, or the neo-con chickenhawks who engineered this ongoing cluster fuck, won't get away with invading any country for the time being...

That is, even if the busheviks that you grovel for hadn't already used our military resources via their backdoor draft.

Have you ever served in the military, patriot?

Go play with your GI Joe, jackass.

You know nothing of real war.

Or real patriotism.

You're damn right we're going into Iran. Now go cook something for the troops. You're used to it.

[mrironknee]

I think it's pretty obvious. The "Gay" sheep were molested by the ranch hands at a young age.

[Smog Boy]

Sounds like Brokeback Mountain wasn't about men in love (or whatever), it was clearly a gay thing those guys caught off the gay sheep.

Spooky if there's a deleted BB scene where one of them wears a wooly jumper and says "baa" during sex.

[chefmike]

TFool sounds even more agitated and delusional than usual...

I can understand TFool's anger over his claiming to be of Hispanic heritage...

Only to find out that the KKK frowns upon that sort of bloodline...

Or is it some past history with a studly Ewe that he is still conflicted by...

You can share with us, TFool...

Just let it out...

[suckseed]

damn, guys... :lol:

[Coroner]

What do mean by "we are going to Iran", TFan (whatever this T means)? Does this mean you´re finally leaving this board?? Now I understand the Republican politics.... you have to loose the war, not to win.... aahhh I got it now, sorry for missunderstanding the Republican party.

[specialk]

LMFAO...

We are "going into Iran"?

I think it's safe to say that fools like you, or the neo-con chickenhawks who engineered this ongoing cluster fuck, will get away with invading any country for the time being...

That is, even if the busheviks that you grovel for hadn't already used our military resources via their backdoor draft.

Have you ever served in the military, patriot?

Go play with your GI Joe, jackass.

You know nothing of real war.

Or real patriotism.


I'm sorry to have to admit this Chef, but the Tcup has it right on Iran.....we are going.

But every dark cloud has a silver lining. By year end Neither Bush nor Cheney will be in the White House..............Can you say ...President Pelosi??? :P

[trish]

8)

Can you say ...President Pelosi??? :P

Even in your guitar toting extended adolescence, I expected you to understand that this childish fantasy of children-growing older is mathematically and constitutionally impossible. :peanutbutter



If you Impeach Bush (You won't, but I'll humor you)

Cheney Selects another neo-con for Vice President (Buchanan, Newt, Rove, Wolfowitz) :peanutbutter

If on the .00001% chance the public stands for you impeaching Cheney

You just get Cheney's hand-picked Vice Pres as your new pres.

LMAO. I'm aiming for Newt Gingrich myself.

So go ahead. Pick your poison! I'd love to have Karl Rove for VP or even PRESIDENT?

We're going to confront the tyrants of the middle east and there is nothing you can do. Cut off funding and you don't have enough votes to override a veto.

Suck it up, losers! :peanutbutter

[trish]

we don't need to impeach the little whimp. we just put it into his head that it would be manly thing to do to invite the VP along on a hunting trip. Cheney gets blistering drunk...offs the pres...lands in jail...and viola...Pelosi is president. pretty cool, eh? 8)

we don't need to impeach the little whimp. we just put it into his head that it would be manly thing to do to invite the VP along on a hunting trip. Cheney gets blistering drunk...offs the pres...lands in jail...and viola...Pelosi is president. pretty cool, eh? 8)

Yeah well we live in world of rational men and women. Join us.

[trish]

Robinhood was a bitch ass LIBERAL

that's exactly why he's the hero and King Richard's brother is the ass-wipe.

Robinhood was a bitch ass LIBERAL

that's exactly why he's the hero and King Richard's brother is the ass-wipe.

That's a liberal CONSPIRACY!

[trish]

That's a liberal CONSPIRACY!


well yeah...we live in a rational world.

That's a liberal CONSPIRACY!


well yeah...we live in a rational world.

I told you so.

[Smog Boy]

We're going to confront the tyrants of the middle east and there is nothing you can do. Cut off funding and you don't have enough votes to override a veto.

Funniest shit I've heard all day.

[Somedude21]

On a more serious note, it does seem that we are going to be going into Iran at some point. We've (the US) already put out orders to either capture or kill any Iranian personnel found in Iraq. It's only a matter of time before tensions boil over into warfare.

Jesus. The more that I look at this, it looks like a World War III. And if Israel somehow gets involved? That's when the shit's gonna hit the fan.

[Smog Boy]

I'd love to know how Bush is going to get troops into Iran, seeing how stretched they already are and don't look at the Brits, we're up to our ass in Afghanistan.

Let's withdraw and let Israel nuke 'em all.

It does look like WW3 to be honest. Still doesnt mean we should bow to tyrants.

It's ok to be afraid, I am. I have family. I'm very happy in my life. But we can not appease. We can not repeat the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain. Or more people will die than necessary.

Cowards cry for "Give peace a chance" or "Peace in our time".

Really?

Maybe it comes to nukes. I'm in Socal, they'll come after us for sure. But we can not bow to tyrants nor live in subjugation.

In the words of Patrick Henry-

It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

[Somedude21]

I'd love to know how Bush is going to get troops into Iran, seeing how stretched they already are and don't look at the Brits, we're up to our ass in Afghanistan.

Let's withdraw and let Israel nuke 'em all.

Yeah. That would work out well in the end. >_>

But while going into Iran would overstretch our forces, we could always just destroy their military capabilities with some aerial and naval bombardment. Keep in mind that we still have air and naval superiority in the area. Also, depending on how the conflict with Iran will start (as in, if we can get them to attack us first--which is what I believe is what the US is trying to do), we will most likely get more support from the Western world for a forray into Iran.

Now...the pacification that would follow afterwards would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. I'm starting to think that we should leave Iraq to the Saudis, pull out most of our forces from Iraq and put them in Iran...however little that might help.

[Smog Boy]

Syria will no doubt join in (hey, it's something to do!). There's little point in artillery/aerial bombing runs, because that's done sod all except kill thousands of innocent bastards in Iraq. True we do have technology and have everything else, of course that didn't work in Vietnam.

I keep thinking of the the game in RoboCop, where the family sits around the table:

"Pakistan is threatening my borders!"
"That's it mister - no more military aid!"

NUKE 'EM.

In all reality, no one has the balls to throw nukes around (except that crazy fuck in N. Korea and maybe Bush), expect Mighty Clusterfucks due to being pushed over the breaking point and lack of decent kit and oil prices going through the roof and years of CNN news over the conflict and bin Laden's cronies burning flags.

Bush doesn't want to toss Nukes, but will in order to salvage stability.

Salvage. Don't you libs go quoting me out of context. Ah shit, I know you will. You have no principles.

Now...the pacification that would follow afterwards would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. I'm starting to think that we should leave Iraq to the Saudis, pull out most of our forces from Iraq and put them in Iran...however little that might help.

Yeah it would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

It amazes me to no end how the men in this world, are no longer men.

They are actually willing to abandon their friends. Those who share their values, under the threat of tyranny. This is not how a man should act.

Iran has done tons of posturing over the last 2 years, militarily. Iran's military is 2nd world. It's not to be overlooked, but it is to be taken seriously.

The real threat from Iran is unknown. Seriously, I think they are playing their hidden nuke threat too hard. Jihadists will pump up the media and scare people with the threat, but if they had even 1, they had it years ago.

They wouldnt hesitate.


The real American victory will come when rational Iranians, already dissatisfied with the Mullahs, topple their government.

Not to say Nukes wont go off before hand.

[chefmike]

Let's hear from a SANE Republican:

Walter Jones(R-NC) Meets Rudyard Kipling


"If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied."

Those bitter words do not come from some folk-singing anti-war protestor. They come from a conservative Englishman, Rudyard Kipling, in his collection, "Epitaphs of the Great War." And those same words were heard today on Capitol Hill from Rep. Walter Jones, a conservative Republican of North Carolina.


When he spoke, Jones was thinking about the Iraq war--but he was also looking ahead to a possible war with Iran.

The Congressman from the Third District of North Carolina is a remarkable figure. In almost all respects, he is an orthodox Southern Republican; his lifetime vote-rating from the American Conservative Union, over his seven terms in Congress, is 93 out of a possible 100. And so it was no surprise that Jones was one of 296 Members of the House to vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution on October 10, 2002.

But three years ago, Jones had his own moment of epiphany. At the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq, leaving behind a widow and three young children, Jones concluded that he had made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. Moreover, he concluded that he had been lied to by the Bush Administration. And he said so--frequently, publicly, loudly. The White House and the Republican Party establishment were not pleased, but since his Damascene conversion, Jones has been re-elected twice, by wide margins.

Now Jones has a new cause: making sure that the United States does not go to war with Iran without specific Congressional authorization. In other words, no "accidental" spillage of the fighting from Iraq into Iran. It's worth underscoring that Jones is no dove, nor even a Christian pacifist. He supported, and supports, the war in Afghanistan, and proudly represents the Marine bases at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, as well as Seymour Johnson AFB.

But the courtly Jones has chosen to put principle, as he sees it, ahead of partisan or personal loyalty. As he said at today's press conference at the House Press Gallery, "the Bible and the Constitution" guide him in all his actions. And so far, he said, with visible humility, the 600,000 people he represents agree with him as he prepares to challenge many of his fellow Republicans on the issue of presidential war powers.

Mindful of the war drums beating loudly--many from within the Executive Branch--in favor of a military confrontation with Iran, Jones makes a simple point: The White House must ask Congress for permission. To that end, Jones has authored House Joint Resolution 14, which would require the President to "receive specific authorization ... prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran." Six other Congressmen joined him today: Neil Abercrombie (D-HA), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), John Larson (D-CT), Marty Meehan (D-MA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX). The other four co-sponsors, who could not be in attendance, include Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).

But Jones is undeniably the leader of this particular effort. Representative Larson of Connecticut, who as Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, set a generous bipartisan tone by reaching across the aisle, figuratively, to say to Jones, "Walter, you deserve a great deal of credit, you have shown a great deal of courage." Then, Larson ripped into the Bush Administration for "doing away with 50 years of deterrence, diplomacy, and containment," leading to "the quagmire of Iraq."

Abercrombie of Hawaii was equally praising of Jones, and equally condemnatory of the White House. Abercrombie called the silver-haired North Carolinian "the conscience of the Congress," and then, like Larson before him, turned his rhetorical ire against "neoconservative ideologues promoting the agenda they had from the beginning--to go war with Iran and Syria."

Meehan of Massachusetts, who voted for the war five years ago, sounded a caustic note: The administration had "lied so many times," he declared, that Congress had no choice but to assert itself. Neal, also of Massachusetts, recalled the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, in which Congress authorized the escalation of the Vietnam War, as a mistake not to be repeated. The Bay State lawmaker reminded his colleagues, "Members of Congress don't serve under the President of the United States. They serve with the President."

Also speaking up for Constitutional procedure was Paul of Texas. One of just six Republicans who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002, Paul said it was "redundant," but nonetheless necessary, for Congress to assert its sole authority to authorize a war. "Isn't it sad," he lamented, "that we're introducing a resolution restating the Constitution?"

Gilchrest of Maryland, who earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star as a Marine in Vietnam, recalled being at boot camp at Parris Island when Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved. He and his fellow Marines simply assumed, he said, that politicians in Washington were wise and far-seeing. Since then, he added, he has learned to mistrust "end justifies the means" ideology.

The seven Members of Congress who assembled today agree on very little. Indeed, it's no sure bet that they would all oppose a hypothetical Iran war resolution; three of them, after all--Gilchrest, Jones, and Meehan--voted for the Iraq war resolution. Yet what brought these seven individuals together in support of House Joint Resolution 14 was their shared determination to make sure that the Executive Branch consults the Legislative Branch according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Of course, HJ Res 14 will not necessarily have an easy time becoming law. The Bush Administration will likely oppose any limitation on its war powers, and the Democratic leadership, for its part, seems reluctant to confront the President on Constitutional issues.

So that puts the burden on Jones & Co. And while Jones has relatively little power in the House, he has something that is nonetheless powerful: the courage of his convictions, steeled by the experience of signing thousands of condolence letters to those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. "I have hurt so badly," Jones said today, thinking back on the last five years since the pro-war vote that he now regrets. That intensity will keep him going, and it will surely inspire others.

And if the subject is inspiration, one's thoughts return to Kipling, to the same "Epitaphs of the Great War," which includes this sextain, entitled, "A Dead Statesman":

"I could not dig: I dared not rob/ Therefore I lied to please the mob/ Now all my lies are proved untrue/ And I must face the men I slew/ What tale shall serve me here among/ Mine angry and defrauded young?"

Whatever happens to Jones in the future, he seems sure of facing it with a clear conscience, unlike Kipling's Dead Statesman. Jones has cleared his conscience the only way he knows how--through prayerful repentance, followed by equally powerful determination. What Congress will do next, of course, is a far murkier question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/walter-jones-meets-rudyar_b_39022.html

[specialk]

Bush doesn't want to toss Nukes, but will in order to salvage stability.

Yeh ...like the stability the Iraqi people enjoy now after 4 years of Bush fucking things up......... :smh

[trish]

give me liberty or give me death!


i don't think Patrick would've stood for the Patriot Act or have been fooled by its name.

It's clear george wimp bush is itching to rush into Iran. but unlike Iraq, Iran is a huge country, with an educated population undivided by sectarianism. They have a large, well-trained and well-equipped military. Iran won't be the picnic Iraq is. we won't bring freedom to the region...just death and more instability. we're giving up our freedoms here for the false hope of freedom over there. our soldiers are dying for Halliburton's profits and bush's floundering legacy.

Congress should immediately cut the purse strings to Halliburton. Pull Halliburton out of Iraq and Cheney will no longer have a reason to be there.

Let's hear from a SANE Republican:

Walter Jones(R-NC) Meets Rudyard Kipling


"If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied."

Those bitter words do not come from some folk-singing anti-war protestor. They come from a conservative Englishman, Rudyard Kipling, in his collection, "Epitaphs of the Great War." And those same words were heard today on Capitol Hill from Rep. Walter Jones, a conservative Republican of North Carolina.


When he spoke, Jones was thinking about the Iraq war--but he was also looking ahead to a possible war with Iran.

The Congressman from the Third District of North Carolina is a remarkable figure. In almost all respects, he is an orthodox Southern Republican; his lifetime vote-rating from the American Conservative Union, over his seven terms in Congress, is 93 out of a possible 100. And so it was no surprise that Jones was one of 296 Members of the House to vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution on October 10, 2002.

But three years ago, Jones had his own moment of epiphany. At the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq, leaving behind a widow and three young children, Jones concluded that he had made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. Moreover, he concluded that he had been lied to by the Bush Administration. And he said so--frequently, publicly, loudly. The White House and the Republican Party establishment were not pleased, but since his Damascene conversion, Jones has been re-elected twice, by wide margins.

Now Jones has a new cause: making sure that the United States does not go to war with Iran without specific Congressional authorization. In other words, no "accidental" spillage of the fighting from Iraq into Iran. It's worth underscoring that Jones is no dove, nor even a Christian pacifist. He supported, and supports, the war in Afghanistan, and proudly represents the Marine bases at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, as well as Seymour Johnson AFB.

But the courtly Jones has chosen to put principle, as he sees it, ahead of partisan or personal loyalty. As he said at today's press conference at the House Press Gallery, "the Bible and the Constitution" guide him in all his actions. And so far, he said, with visible humility, the 600,000 people he represents agree with him as he prepares to challenge many of his fellow Republicans on the issue of presidential war powers.

Mindful of the war drums beating loudly--many from within the Executive Branch--in favor of a military confrontation with Iran, Jones makes a simple point: The White House must ask Congress for permission. To that end, Jones has authored House Joint Resolution 14, which would require the President to "receive specific authorization ... prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran." Six other Congressmen joined him today: Neil Abercrombie (D-HA), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), John Larson (D-CT), Marty Meehan (D-MA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX). The other four co-sponsors, who could not be in attendance, include Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).

But Jones is undeniably the leader of this particular effort. Representative Larson of Connecticut, who as Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, set a generous bipartisan tone by reaching across the aisle, figuratively, to say to Jones, "Walter, you deserve a great deal of credit, you have shown a great deal of courage." Then, Larson ripped into the Bush Administration for "doing away with 50 years of deterrence, diplomacy, and containment," leading to "the quagmire of Iraq."

Abercrombie of Hawaii was equally praising of Jones, and equally condemnatory of the White House. Abercrombie called the silver-haired North Carolinian "the conscience of the Congress," and then, like Larson before him, turned his rhetorical ire against "neoconservative ideologues promoting the agenda they had from the beginning--to go war with Iran and Syria."

Meehan of Massachusetts, who voted for the war five years ago, sounded a caustic note: The administration had "lied so many times," he declared, that Congress had no choice but to assert itself. Neal, also of Massachusetts, recalled the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, in which Congress authorized the escalation of the Vietnam War, as a mistake not to be repeated. The Bay State lawmaker reminded his colleagues, "Members of Congress don't serve under the President of the United States. They serve with the President."

Also speaking up for Constitutional procedure was Paul of Texas. One of just six Republicans who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002, Paul said it was "redundant," but nonetheless necessary, for Congress to assert its sole authority to authorize a war. "Isn't it sad," he lamented, "that we're introducing a resolution restating the Constitution?"

Gilchrest of Maryland, who earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star as a Marine in Vietnam, recalled being at boot camp at Parris Island when Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved. He and his fellow Marines simply assumed, he said, that politicians in Washington were wise and far-seeing. Since then, he added, he has learned to mistrust "end justifies the means" ideology.

The seven Members of Congress who assembled today agree on very little. Indeed, it's no sure bet that they would all oppose a hypothetical Iran war resolution; three of them, after all--Gilchrest, Jones, and Meehan--voted for the Iraq war resolution. Yet what brought these seven individuals together in support of House Joint Resolution 14 was their shared determination to make sure that the Executive Branch consults the Legislative Branch according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Of course, HJ Res 14 will not necessarily have an easy time becoming law. The Bush Administration will likely oppose any limitation on its war powers, and the Democratic leadership, for its part, seems reluctant to confront the President on Constitutional issues.

So that puts the burden on Jones & Co. And while Jones has relatively little power in the House, he has something that is nonetheless powerful: the courage of his convictions, steeled by the experience of signing thousands of condolence letters to those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. "I have hurt so badly," Jones said today, thinking back on the last five years since the pro-war vote that he now regrets. That intensity will keep him going, and it will surely inspire others.

And if the subject is inspiration, one's thoughts return to Kipling, to the same "Epitaphs of the Great War," which includes this sextain, entitled, "A Dead Statesman":

"I could not dig: I dared not rob/ Therefore I lied to please the mob/ Now all my lies are proved untrue/ And I must face the men I slew/ What tale shall serve me here among/ Mine angry and defrauded young?"

Whatever happens to Jones in the future, he seems sure of facing it with a clear conscience, unlike Kipling's Dead Statesman. Jones has cleared his conscience the only way he knows how--through prayerful repentance, followed by equally powerful determination. What Congress will do next, of course, is a far murkier question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/walter-jones-meets-rudyar_b_39022.html


tl;dr

give me liberty or give me death!


i don't think Patrick would've stood for the Patriot Act or have been fooled by its name.

It's clear george wimp bush is itching to rush into Iran. but unlike Iraq, Iran is a huge country, with an educated population undivided by sectarianism. They have a large, well-trained and well-equipped military. Iran won't be the picnic Iraq is. we won't bring freedom to the region...just death and more instability. we're giving up our freedoms here for the false hope of freedom over there. our soldiers are dying for Halliburton's profits and bush's floundering legacy.

Congress should immediately cut the purse strings to Halliburton. Pull Halliburton out of Iraq and Cheney will no longer have a reason to be there.


Yeah well we're used to liberal doomsdaying around here.

Nice try. See you you next time.

[Smog Boy]

How did we go from gay sheep to WW3 and the Apocalypse?

[chefmike]

Because the gay sheep are obviously Republicans.

[yodajazz]

As the (new) representative of GAS, (Gay Association of Sheep), I am here to inform you, that further attacks upon our character will not be tolerated. We have been discriminated with obtaining jobs, by farm owners. We have been misunderstood by many. But calling us Republicans has gone too far. We have never done many of the things that they have been associated with such as starting wars for profit and repressing the working man. We at GAS, love working men and women who buy our products. We are an ancient species, who have a tradition of being peaceful. However, we will be getting fatter in the future, thanks to future lawsuits. We will be getting back to you, Chef Mike!

[chefmike]

As the (new) representative of GAS, (Gay Association of Sheep), I am here to inform you, that further attacks upon our character will not be tolerated. We have been discriminated with obtaining jobs, by farm owners. We have been misunderstood by many. But calling us Republicans has gone too far. We have never done many of the things that they have been associated with such as starting wars for profit and repressing the working man. We at GAS, love working men and women who buy our products. We are an ancient species, who have a tradition of being peaceful. However, we will be getting fatter in the future, thanks to future lawsuits. We will be getting back to you, Chef Mike!

LMAO

[yodajazz]

Because of my recent post, I was contacted by GARYS, Gay Alliance of Republican Young Sheep, (several members read this forum). They did tell me that liberal media bias did not report that Saddam Hussein was allergic to wool, thus he was extremely dangerous to sheep, and had to be eliminated. Secondly, to fight experimental research against sheep embryos, a benefit will be held soon. It is a $500 dollar a plate meal, featuring leg of lamb entrees. They did further state, that they were told, that no actual sheep would be harmed to produce, the benefit. I will inform readers of the time of the actual event as a courtesy to them.

[chefmike]

So what does GARYS (Gay Alliance of Republican Young Sheep) have to say about the rumor that Liz Cheney's baby was in fact not fathered by Ann Coulter, but by an actual GARYS member?

The sheep in question is known to call himself a 'white male' from Canada. :lol:

While others claim that the GOP sheep in question goes by the alias of 'TFool'. :P


Baaaaaaah... 8)

[BeardedOne]

I'm too tired and lazy to look back through the posts at the moment, but has it been mentioned why there are no lesbian sheep?

Seems that when a ewe wants to get it on, she just stands still and waits to be mounted.

Imagine two lesbian sheep, standing absolutely still, at opposite ends of the pasture.

:lol:

Kinda like two passive players in the scene, sitting on opposite sides of the bed saying "You go first!", "No, you go first!", "No, you! I insist!"

[chefmike]

Actually B1...

The whole Liz Cheney lesbian GOP sheep thing falls into the same pasture.

So to speak...