gays, haircuts, nooses. some denial required.
All of the hysteria over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speaking at Columbia University is so tiresome for so many reasons....
So says Glenn Greenwald, who despite the topic, can't seem to find the space to utter a single word about the savage executions of gays in Iran (much less their overall plight.)

Notwithstanding my penchant for "gallows humor," I'm irritated enough by all of this that I'll even supply a picture of an execution of gays in Iran:

gayexecutions.jpg

All things considered, I'd rather spend my eternity in hell with them than the madman whose moral cluckings and posturings placed the noose around their necks.

Meanwhile, moral clucker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that there are no gays in Iran:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad skirted a question about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran on Monday, saying in a speech at a top US university that there were no gays in Iran.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Ahmadinejad said to howls and boos among the Columbia University audience.

"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it," he said.

Gay Patriot's Daniel Blatt (linked earlier by Glenn Reynolds) disagrees:
At the same time that his government is busy executing gay people, Ahmadinejad has the temerity to claim that they don't have "homosexuals" in his land. I wonder then who it is that the government has been executing. Or maybe he believes this policy has been so successful that he can now declare his nation free of homosexuals, just as the Nazis, once they deported and murdered the Jews of the various regions they conquered, could declare them "Judrenrein" (free of Jews).

Gay people can disagree whether or not state courts should accord same-sex unions the same recognition they offer to different-sex couples who opt for marriage, but we should be united in opposing a regime that executes our fellows; whose leader brazenly claims that there are no gays in his country.

Can you imagine the outcry if some social conservative claimed there were no gays in various regions of the United States? The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) would be issuing a variety of statements. Indeed, in reacting to the Iranian leader's statement today, a blogger at the Huffington Post even went so far as to suggest American social conservatives have found a "soul-mate in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." It seems the only way some on the left can spin this story is to twist it to denounce American conservatives.

It's not surprising at all. (As I've argued repeatedly, the left is at least as opposed to sexual freedom as the people they denounce on the right.)

Roger L. Simon has more:

he still was well received in the audience. How in the world could they do that? Let us see now if the supposedly pro-gay left wakes up and sees where the danger really is. I'm not holding my breath. They didn't wake up in the 1930s - why should they now?
I'm not holding my breath either. Feminists who once condemned the veil now allow that it might be "liberating," and gay activists in Berkeley dismissively compared the systematic murder and torture of Palestinian gays to what "happens in every western society, including in San Francisco." And what about the cowardly treatment of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn?
The Human Rights Campaign has been quick to issue press releases and organize vigils when it connected the killings of gay people to a climate of hate. Yet now, when an openly gay candidate is murdered after being demonized by establishment politicians and journalists, HRC is silent. And the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which considered the Persian Gulf War a vital gay issue, sees no relevance when a man who stood a good chance of becoming the world's first openly gay head of government is savagely cut down.
Had Fortuyn been on the left, he'd have been made into a martyr. As it is, so few people even remember him that I feel obliged to bring his name up in blog posts like this one. Ahmadinejad and his poisonous anti-gay version of Islam were exactly what Fortuyn was trying to stop -- and what the left and the gay left dares not criticize.

As for the merits of Ahmadinejad's claim, he must not be watching his own state-run Iranian government television.

Otherwise he might have seen this:

guyswomen.JPG

Or this:

homohaircutsIran.JPG

The full video is here.

And while it never managed to find its way into the government video, what about this?

CulturalTies.jpg

Just kidding, folks. I'm sure there are no gay ties.

(Some things really aren't funny. I guess that's the whole point of gallows humor...)

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and the comment about the photoshop, which I hasten to add was very respectful.

Welcome all!

UPDATE: Alas, I see that civility does not exactly reign in the comments section below! I should probably remind new readers (as well as those unfamiliar with this blog) that my primary purpose here was to highlight what I perceive as inconsistencies -- even outright silence -- displayed by some left-wing gay activists in the face of a horrid regime that dictates that gays be executed. I don't think it's necessary to point out that I am not in favor of censorship, but a few people seem to think I do. Where they might get that idea I don't know, but if my goal was to censor people, I'd probably be censoring or disallowing comments, wouldn't I?

UPDATE: "Ahmadinejad was right, you see? There are no gays in Iran. Just ask the Queer Studies Department."

So says Andrew Sullivan, noting that this statement from Columbia's Queer Studies Department echoes Ahmadinejad:

....we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms "same-sex practices" and "same-sex desire" in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad's presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world."
No doubt Ahmadinejad is now devoting a lot of thought to the complexities.

MORE: While I do appreciate the incoming traffic from leftie blogs like Instaputz, the comments reflect the presence of new readers with brand-new impressions of this blog -- some of which are comical. The idea that I am pro-Saudi was especially amusing, considering that there are few blogs anywhere as anti-Saudi (or as opposed to current U.S.-Saudi policies) as this one. How many posts does it take for me to credentialize my anti-Saudism?

Those are only a very few among many. I've also written a number of posts complaining about a Saudi madrassa in my neighborhood. Why, I've cheered military helicopters for flying over it.

What more's a blogger to do? Ridicule the king and Bush?

posted by Eric on 09.24.07 at 10:46 PM










Comments

Glenn Greenwald -- is there anything he's not a traitor to?

Ellison Ellensburg Wilson   ·  September 24, 2007 11:12 PM

No gays in Iran? There aren't many Jews in Poland to this day.

AlanR   ·  September 24, 2007 11:31 PM

As for Green Glennwald, being a traitor is like eating potato chip. You can't stop at just one. He's even a traitor to himself, evidently.

JorgXMcKie   ·  September 25, 2007 12:05 AM

Of course there are no homosexuals in Iran.

They hung the last few the other day.

M. Simon   ·  September 25, 2007 12:56 AM

Not to be confined to the left, I heard Pat Buchanan the other morning on MSNBC propose a dialog with the new Hitler from Iran.
All Chamberlain like, you know.
But then what should we expect from one of Michael Savage's pets.

Frank   ·  September 25, 2007 2:36 AM

Greenwald should have standing to declare something "tiresome," though, being perhaps the most tiresome creature on the interwebs.

Jim Addison   ·  September 25, 2007 3:09 AM

If only Sock puppets could be executed...

AntiCitizenOne   ·  September 25, 2007 6:06 AM

Ha! Sock puppets. This is way off topic, but did you ever see the sock puppet porno movie that "The Man Show" guys did several years ago? Absolutely hilarious. The "money shot" was done with that spray "Silly String" stuff.

Letalis Maximus, Esq.   ·  September 25, 2007 8:15 AM

Colombia U deserves the 'Lil Dude from Iran, the left deserves him, Greenwald deserves him (and should vacation in Tehran). The idiots on the left hate so much that they would sleep with the devil to to win a straw-man arguement.

Greenwald, antiAmerican loser living in some 3rd world country, is as relevant as Jimmy Carter.

George Dixon   ·  September 25, 2007 8:28 AM

Are you seriously suggesting that because Greenwald claims the hand-wringing over The Latest Hitler speaking at a US college was overblown (it was) -- that makes him a traitor?

Are you really that stupid?

The event was fantastic. A bunch of college-aged New Yorkers laughed the guy off the stage.

Good for Columbia for not listening to the hysterical shrinking violets on the right.

Blue Texan   ·  September 25, 2007 9:58 AM

Blue Texan has it right. The Columbia students and professors put the little tyrant in his place.

This is how democracy works, you little pukes. The real traitors are the cowards who shout down opposing voices like Greenwald and others who make the obvious point that the hysteria was overblown.

And if you want to get upset about oppression in the middle east, ask Bush why he cozies up to a far more intolerant regime in Saudi Arabia. Details like that are terribly inconvenient for the wingnuts, though.

Charles Giacometti   ·  September 25, 2007 10:26 AM

I can recall when Chinese government officials used to say that there were no homosexuals in China? I used to ask the Maoists I knew: "Well, maybe thats true, but then, what do you suppose the government of China did with them all?"

Chocolatier   ·  September 25, 2007 10:30 AM

This is how democracy works, you little pukes.

Really?
You ought to look up the term "democracy" and get a more robust understanding of the term. Because a dictator speaking at a university has as much to do with "democracy" as me tying my shoe, idiot.

The real traitors are the cowards who shout down opposing voices

Funny how I don't hear silly leftists like you saying things like that when conservatives have objects thrown at them or the stage is rushed when they speak?
Now why do you think that is?

The Ace   ·  September 25, 2007 10:38 AM

Hey Blue Texan, you just don't get it. Ahmadinejad may have been laughed at once or twice, but he was also applauded over and over again. And the event will be reported in the Arab world as a huge victory.

Read this to understand just how not "overblown" this event was:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-at-columbia.html

peterike   ·  September 25, 2007 10:40 AM

Oh no! What ARE we to do? The state-controlled media in the Middle East won't report the truth! The sky is falling!!!

Pathetic.

Blue Texan   ·  September 25, 2007 10:58 AM

First, how funny is it that a guy who's blog is adorned with a Greek statue is railing about gays in Iran and Glenn Greenwald, who happens to be gay?

Second, I'm wondering how much of your right-wing febrily bloviated rage at Ahmadinejad is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that he stood up in front of a hostile audience and let them have their say about him, unlike certain, errrrrr, well-protected Presidents I could mention?

When you start being honest about this administration, we on the left will start taking you seriously. Until then, enjoy your fantasies!

actor212   ·  September 25, 2007 11:00 AM

I wonder how many of these wingnuts have served their country? They all like talking the talk, but I bet none have walked the walk. They really are, as Blue suggests, a bunch of sniveling pussies.

Oh, The Ace, your response was pure non sequitur, so don't expect me to answer. Raise your game, brother.

Charles Giacometti   ·  September 25, 2007 11:11 AM

Only a traitor would actually excercise their Freedom of Speech®™.

Comrade Rutherford   ·  September 25, 2007 11:15 AM

How long ago in our country was it illegal to be homosexual ?

John Ryan   ·  September 25, 2007 11:58 AM

It is not Ahmadinejad that "placed the noose around their necks", it was the intolerance of their religion. When a theocracy considers gays are sinners, their plight is not difficult to foretell. I applaud Eric for highlighting the plight of homosexuals, not just in Iran, but overall.

nal   ·  September 25, 2007 12:03 PM

Ohh yes Ahmadinijad is sooo brave facing words in the free-est nation on the planet. Tell me, lefty twits, how do his critics fair in Iran?

Tell me, enlightened leftards, is this guy being brave when he hangs gays and kills teenage girls for being "immoral"? Does your new hero allow the same freedom of speech for dissenters in his country that we allow here? Can you behave any more stupidly in your moral equivalence?

That you leftasses can't see this for the propaganda play that it is speaks to your naivete and failure to recognize totalitarianism for what it is.

It shouldn't take having Ace or anyone else to "come clean" about anything to acknowledge what an evil man this is. But, then again, if your the type that thinks W is worse, no amount of meds will cure that, I'm afraid.

Useful IDIOTs indeed.

SGT Ted   ·  September 25, 2007 12:04 PM

Saudi Arabia executed gays as recently as 2000, and still routinely flogs and imprisons them. We have more recent pictures than that of Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah. Where is the wingnut outrage over that?

Idiots.

Charles Giacometti   ·  September 25, 2007 12:08 PM

Sgt Ted, likely a Sgt only when he plays with GI Joe dolls, weighs in with a barely literate post that addresses nothing of what we said.

I would suggest you try again, GI Joe, but the second pass will be even more off topic than the first. No one is defending the little tyrant, and no one is saying anything about Bush, except how he supports one totalitarian state (Saudi Arabia). The point, you hysterical little twit, is that you and your ilk have burst into tears over a talk at a university. Rather than heat your little 90-IQ brain into a boil over why we are laughing at you, ask yourself why you live in such incredible fear? That is the real question.

Charles Giacometti   ·  September 25, 2007 12:16 PM

The best part of this goons trip is that it's getting conservatives to defend homosexuality.

Brent   ·  September 25, 2007 12:22 PM

Off topic, but..

...How about a REAL DEBATE about the Iraq war?
Cheney/ Bush v Feingold/ Gore.
May the best ideas win.

nah, just kidding.
No American should really know what is happening in their name.
After all, it's the new Primetime TV season!

Robert   ·  September 25, 2007 12:37 PM

Well, I'm glad you care so much about homosexuality in other countries.

How about the one we're in,Iraq?

There's plenty of serious anti-gay violence and discrimination in nations WE'RE ALREADY IN. I think we should focus on what we can do before we use our legendary tolerance to go bomb Iran.

DU

The Mechanical Eye   ·  September 25, 2007 12:40 PM

The conservatives are just jealous that they can only burn crosses and drag homosexuals behind pick-up trucks....they would love state sponsored executions of gays here in the US...Dobson and Falwell have both said as much.

madmatt   ·  September 25, 2007 12:54 PM

When you get Blue Texan and Charles Giacometti frothing in the comments, you know you've hit a nerve.

Wilson ellison   ·  September 25, 2007 1:02 PM
...they would love state sponsored executions of gays here in the US...Dobson and Falwell have both said as much.

Mad Matt, I call BS on you unless you can provide links!

Mary in LA   ·  September 25, 2007 1:06 PM

I would suggest you try again, GI Joe, but the second pass will be even more off topic than the first. No one is defending the little tyrant, and no one is saying anything about Bush, except how he supports one totalitarian state (Saudi Arabia). The point, you hysterical little twit, is that you and your ilk have burst into tears over a talk at a university. Rather than heat your little 90-IQ brain into a boil over why we are laughing at you, ask yourself why you live in such incredible fear? That is the real question.

Hahaha. Wow! Who was it that burst into tears? Who writes rambling, incoherent posts?

Ding Ding! You're right, it's Charles!

Dude, which "side" are you on here? Are you saying that it's no big deal that Bush (and by extension all his wingnut cronies here) cozies up to Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries that allow the execution of gays, while simultaneously railing against ONE liberal commentator who happens to be gay for supporting Columbia in allowing the little freak to speak?

Fact is, wingnuts are massive hypocrites and SGT Ted was making that point here.

Anyone happen to notice the earlier post linking to the LA Times article? The one that chronicled the lives of gays in Iraq, post invasion --- sorry, LIEBERmanATION.
Something tells me that gay rights in Iraq aren't first and foremost on the minds of all the new champions for gay rights on this blog.

Regardless, Eric's initial post was just a bunch of bullshit in the first place.

Tell me, Eric - since the wingnut base has already accepted that Iran is part of the "axis of evil", and that we have been more or less at war with them since the 1970s, is Reagan a traitor for allowing arms sales (among some other real atrocities) to them in the 1980s?

Being a wingnut means never having to acknowledge the inconvenience of their past screw ups.

KC   ·  September 25, 2007 1:12 PM

Being a wingnut means never having to acknowledge the inconvenience of their past screw ups. - KC · September 25, 2007 01:12 PM

If only they were as adept at policy both foreign and domestic as they are at photoshop and war cheerleading.

Marco   ·  September 25, 2007 1:49 PM

Wow. Pretty amazing comment section. Easy to tell most of the above are not Classical Values readers and have no idea what this site is about.

But then, it doesn't matter, I suppose. All conservatives are alike and all are responsible for every statement made by anyone who is deemed to be right of center. And none of them, least of all the author of this essay, are gay. Oops, I mean all of them ARE gay; closeted, self-hating gays! Except for the ones who support gay rights, who, of course, do it only occasionally, strategically, as part of a lager project to undermine gay rights.

We all know that!

tim maguire   ·  September 25, 2007 3:26 PM

What's funny is the immediate move to kill the messenger and discredit Greenwald with the sockpuppet meme.

He could argue circles around any of you on the issues. That he's also gay must really burn your arses. (pun intended)

Charles, The Ace is not only a walking non sequiter but a true purveyor of hate, a person so wrapped in the flag that I'm thankful he can't unfurl himself to fulfill his destiny of killing libruls..

I'd post that on his site but he doesn't like differing points of view (something they'll claim in every thread is a hallmark of the left)

Angryflower   ·  September 25, 2007 3:46 PM

Enlist. Cheeto-stained piece of chickenshit.

That way you can serve under General "ass-kissing little piece of chickenshit".

horatius   ·  September 25, 2007 4:40 PM

I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't:

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/bet_wetter_nation

When will the crybabies on the right finally, finally just shut up?

KC   ·  September 25, 2007 4:42 PM

Oops, I mean all of them ARE gay; closeted, self-hating gays! Except for the ones who support gay rights, who, of course, do it only occasionally, strategically, as part of a lager project to undermine gay rights.

No, I'm not a regular reader here, but you need to learn how to argue a point coherently.

"Except for the ones who support gay rights, who, of course, do it only occasionally, strategically, as part of a lager project to undermine gay rights."

-Nice strawman. However I'd love it if you could find me a couple of prominent republican presidential candidates who openly support gay rights. That means RIGHTS, not the right to live and work amongst us. While you're at it, find me a prominent Democrat who is publicly ANTI-GAY RIGHTS and then goes and 1)molests boys, 2)solicits sex in an airport stall and pleads guilty 3)Seeks out young men on websites and through personals.

You see, it's the hypocrisy on the right that is just plain disgusting. These are the people OPENLY SAYING that being gay is a sin, working to deny them rights, and SIMULTANEOUSLY being closeted gays themselves. OH WAIT! Nevermind! They aren't gay - they just had a momentary lapse of reason, conscience, and their personal relationship with GOD AND JESUS.

KC   ·  September 25, 2007 4:49 PM

Tell me, enlightened leftards, is this guy being brave when he hangs gays and kills teenage girls for being "immoral"? Does your new hero allow the same freedom of speech for dissenters in his country that we allow here? Can you behave any more stupidly in your moral equivalence?

SGT Ted

The problem with your rant, Sgt Studenko, is that we are describing how AMERICA should act - not Iran. America should allow the debate because open debate is what makes us strong and envied around the world. Everytime the guy from Iran speaks, people realize how silly he is. he should be allowed to speak, because he will be laughed at. That is what we want: the world knowing what a nutjob he is. If you were proud of your country and felt it was strong you would not care who spoke. Beacuse bush has so frightened you big, strong types, you are deathly afraid of WORDS. You should be ashamed. Its called the first amendment nimrod!

Tom   ·  September 25, 2007 6:34 PM

"Glenn Greenwald -- is there anything he's not a traitor to?"

America, for starters.

Robert   ·  September 25, 2007 6:49 PM

I shall try, however unlikely I am to succeed, to explain to our conservative brethren a couple of important points.

1) I don't have to agree with you, or think the same way you do, or even consider your opinions valid in any way, for you to speak at a college. Ann Coulter gets to peddle her seething rage and angst to ollege students. Why not a tyrant from the Middle East? The White House has had members o the Taliban over, but Ahmadinejad at Colombia is over the top? Oh, please.

2) Listening patiently to someone with whom you violently disagree, until you have your opportunity to speak, is quintessentially American. Anyone who can't or won't grasp that has fundamentally lost touch with what America is about.

3) Please, please stop asking why should let him do here, what he won't let them do there. That is the same atrophied thinking that only considers more American dead a waste if we lose. Winning makes the dying worthwhile. Wow, that's a powerful lot of ignorant, there.

Finally, to the author of this blog: If you want to chastise folks about civility, and you're all about inconsistency, then maybe you should have mentioned something about the mental midgets who accused an opinion columnist of treason because of a political column. That's just pathetic.

Officious Pedant   ·  September 25, 2007 7:14 PM

When I first started reading Blogs and comments I would get angry at the inane statements and pointless insults in the comments sections. Not anymore. You weren't here yesterday, you won't be here tomorrow and you didn't add anything of value today. To re-write phrase...I hear your keyboard clicking but all I read is blah, blah, blah, Haliburton!

Gregory   ·  September 25, 2007 7:40 PM

Eric, you really must keep this comment thread, maybe make a post out of it! F'ing priceless! ROTFLOL

urthshu   ·  September 25, 2007 7:44 PM

It looks to me like this little walled garden of wingnuttia, complete with its blessing from Instacracker, was invaded by some people with common sense. This led some the wingnuts to reply with bizarre, nonsensical remarks, replete with "ROTFLOL."

Gregory is right about one thing, though. We are here today laughing at the sight of a bunch of gutless authoritarians peeing their pants, and we won't be back tomorrow.

Max Klein   ·  September 25, 2007 9:46 PM

Eric, was there somewhere in your post where you defended our relationship with the al-Sauds? If so, I missed it, though others obviously didn't.

Sean Kinsell   ·  September 25, 2007 11:25 PM

Good point Sean. I'm sure the Saudis would deny the "phenomenon" of homosexuality too. We can be selective in our human rights outrages. However, Iran with an atomic weapon will cause alot of pants peeing.

Gregory   ·  September 26, 2007 3:44 AM

So if the Right is so outraged by the Iranian president's remarks denying that homosexuals exist, will they themselves admit that homosexuals exist in America and give them equal rights under the law? Is this blog on the record as supporting gay marriage? If so, I fully support the point!

ervington   ·  September 26, 2007 5:03 AM

The logic here is that free speech is okay only under specific conditions having to do with how much you agree with or approve of the speaker.

Greenwald's publisher, Salon, is running this story with a photo of the same Iranian hanging today:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/26/iran_gays/

Wasn't the right wing in America fighting for gay sex to be an imprisonable offense as far back as... 2003?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Wasn't the president of the United States going from state to state in our country in 2004 getting cheering crowds riled up by suggesting that allowing gays the same right to marriage that straights have would be such an insulting perversion to the institution of marriage as to destroy it completely?

The right in America seems to love to point to even more rabidly right wing regimes and say, "See? We're not THAT bad about our civil rights abuses!" But what keeps them from being THAT bad? The left in America.

Ahmadinejad was given a democratic forum in which to be asked real questions by Americans who weren't reading off a pre-approved script. Americans invited him to show his true colors, he did, and he was practically laughed out of the house, rightfully so.

Be interesting to see Bush agree to such a forum some day... Unimaginable, but interesting to think about.

kevin   ·  September 26, 2007 8:51 AM

Kevin,

Fat chance on seeing Bush do the same.
He's a republican. Republicans know what they say is complete bullsh**.
That's why they don't like to debate on a level playing field.
They know Americans would see through the bullsh** they spout and laugh them off stage.

BTW, Ahmanijad (sp?) knows who the Saddam supporters really are. They're conservatives like Reagan, Rummy, and the Bushes.
Why else would they offer Saddam support after he used WMDs.
(Calling those against the Iraq war "Saddam lovers" is what's called "projecting" in psychology).

Robert   ·  September 26, 2007 10:24 AM

Who knew the heavy metal scene in Iran kicked so much ass? Tehran Rock City!!!

talleyrand   ·  September 26, 2007 10:50 AM

So... the right-wing is pro gay rights now?

Me no get it.

Candice   ·  September 26, 2007 12:13 PM

Why do people on the right find it necessary to toss around the word traitor when they disagree with somebody? It dilutes the impact of whatever they say because they can't be taken seriously. Being a real traitor brings a high price. Just ask Benedict Arnold or Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. I do hope that all of you righties disparaging I'madinnerjacket's claim of no homosexuals in Iran will now argue for their complete inclusion into American society -- and that means allowing them to marry, too.

Slaughter   ·  September 26, 2007 1:14 PM

The Radical Right are now pro-gay because Rupert Murdoch told them to be. Nice. Very nice. And as soon as we're bombing kids in Iran, then it'll be back to denying gay people human rights. I'd put money on it.

Frank   ·  September 26, 2007 8:45 PM

Two of the first three comments call Greenwald a "traitor." Any response to that, Mr. Civil Blogger?

You state, ludicrously, "As I've argued repeatedly, the left is at least as opposed to sexual freedom as the people they denounce on the right..."

Just what is your point about gays in Iran anyway? As opposed to gays in Saudi Arabia or Iraq?

Speaking of the right-wing agenda to liberate gays in Iran through bombing, how is it working out for the liberation of women in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The "classical value" you represent is sophistry - complete with photoshop.

putnam   ·  September 26, 2007 9:00 PM

Goddam. This blog has been pwned

Randy   ·  September 27, 2007 12:35 AM

Speaking of gay, I find the statue you have of a probably 13 year old boy, at the top of the page, Ancient Greek men would educate and have sex with. Good touch.

ken   ·  September 27, 2007 10:35 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits