> > > PositivlyFab@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > Warning !!!!!
> > > > Don't sit too close to the tv set or have the volume on too loud she
> > > > could cause mental defects or biological malfunctions, which would then
> > > > make you a biological error.
> > >

> > "Jim Gray" <jgray@altoona.com> wrote
> > > Procedural question for the Inner Council of the Great Homosexual
> > > Conspiracy: Would this last bit mean we'd have to send her all the
> > > toaster ovens?  Do we have the distribution systems in place for this?
> > >
> > > Jim (proud to be a member of the GHC) Gray
> > > --

Lord dk wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > I regret to inform you that you have been summoned to appear before the
> > Ultra-fabulous High Council of the Great Homosexual Conspiracy.  You are
> > charged with divulging information, specifically about the toaster oven
> > benefit program, that could harm the movement.  Please, just come forward
> > and not force us to organize a manhunt (something many of the High Council
> > are waaaaay to tired of doing).
> >

> In my defense, I would like to cite the case of Degeneres vs. Robertson,
> in which the fabulous Ellen did divulge and propagate this aspect of the
> Conspiracy on national television.  As the results of that case show,
> Ms. Degeneres was not punished by the GHC and therefore, under the
> application of equal stature under law and the principle of Previously
> Divulged Secrets, I hereby file for leniency and/or acquittal.
>
> Thank you, your honors...
>
> Jim (although if you want to apply the Decorating Punishment, my house
> could use a new look) Gray
 
Dear Mr. Gray,
 
I am pleased to report that the Ultra-fabulous High Council of the Great Homosexual Conspiracy has reviewed your case and decided that no action will be taken.  The CHAS has been given stand-down orders (although they will continue surveillance on case #Pink666 - aka Poke the Pope).  Although Ms. Degeneres was not initially found guilty, I should point out that the case was appealed.  She was reprimanded subsequently and sentenced to appear in a string of second rate romantic comedies.  The sincerity of your defence, however,  and the fact that you seem like a nice guy swayed the Council and they have established a Cat Out of the Bag clause for dealing with further incidents like this.  We regret the inconvenience.
 
Lord dk

Through the Looking Glass

Please, if you trust me, read on.

I haven't been fortunate enough to hear her Dec. 21nd rant. I will be listening closely either by replay on the local station or broadcast.com. If, however, she even comes close to saying anything that would violate our Canadian broadcast regulations, I will submit a formal complaint to the federal commission.

No, this is not censorship, it a matter of rights. The right to object when a public figure takes it upon themselves to demean and slander any segment of society.

Ok, where do I start. The best way to describe it is that today, she jumped into a different category, onto a new level for me. As a result, I am more firmly convinced that yes, she is dangerous. Because of the people who hang, unquestioningly, on her every word, she is a threat to anyone who objects to the concept of living under the rule of a theocracy.

Something piqued my interest concerning her AMA rant. I went to her web site and scanned the appropriate articles. A dissection of specific points may follow, but what immediately interested me was the groups that she cites as authoritative opposition to the AMA stance.

The Consortium of State Physician Resource Councils. Wow, sounds pretty impressive doesn't it. As she stated, "over 2000" doctors who oppose the AMA." In fact it is stated twice on her site. "The Consortium is a network of 14 state organizations representing more than 2,000 physicians across the country. " and then "The Consortium of State Physician Resource Councils is an association of more than 2,000 doctors who are dedicated to advancing evidence based medicine in public health policy. " Evidence based?

Ah, but there's the rub. Only 14 states out of how many? And please try, just try to find any substantial presence on the internet. (Please, a medical advocacy group who can't put up a web site?) It took me close to an hour to find anything substantial in order to start putting the parts together.

I first found a reference to a resource council at www.alabamafamily.org.

PRC Mission Statement

To help develop medically-related family policy in an honest, efficient and positive manner.

The council will fulfill its mission by:

Influencing local and state school boards and community groups, educating the general public, and being an advocate for the spiritual renewal of our people;

Serving as a resource for pro-family leaders by helping them to identify and address the needs and concerns of the family as it relates to the medical field;

Assisting both physicians and pro-family organizations as they work together to mold public policy and strengthen families in Alabama;

and Developing a statewide network of Christian physicians for mutual support and encouragement.

Well, it doesn't sound too bad (right) until you you want to join:

To be a member of the Physician's Resource Council, one must be:

1. A resident of the state or professionally active in the state.

2. Committed to biblical family values and to faith in Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Savior.

3. In support of the purpose of the Alabama Family Alliance.

4. In agreement with the Physician's Resource Council Mission statement.

5. Of good standing in the community and medical profession.

Please note 2.

I followed other links which lead to other organizations of the same elk (sic). The all have similar names, Family Coalition, Family Association etc. The are all Religious Right organizations. I even found a page that gives advice about how to witness Christ to your patients and co-workers

"The Consortium of State Physician Resource Councils is an association of more than 2,000 doctors who are dedicated to advancing evidence-based medicine in public-health policy. Now, an important phrase to keep in mind is " and dl argues that these organizations are fighting against others with social agendas.

I question why it is not stated up front that the organization she uses as a defence is essentially a religious organization pursuing their own agenda.

Now, it's on to The Medical Institute for Sexual Health as cited on her web page as a major critic of the AMA. Try finding them on the web. They are listed by Focus on the Family as The Medical Institute. www.medinstitute.org (ya, first url I tried!) There is nothing on their site that makes direct reference to a Christian philosophy (apart from mention of non marital pregnancies - a common medical term). They are, however, one of the most cited sources of literature on both the abstinence pages and those of the RR. (Memories, like the NARTH that runs through my mind, misty water coloured memories, of the way we distort....)

I could go on but all this has just confirmed for me that she is a mouth piece for the RR. She is either incredibly ignorant or just honouring the knife that butters her bread. Either way, my opinion of her has sunk lower than I ever thought it could.

Lord dk the Courteous