Muppets Perverted says US conservative group

Kermit condemned for being undressed

This is not satire, Luvs.  In fact, I really wish it were satire, but nonetheless it has had me in tears and pissing myself laughing.

The US conservative Christian group, One Million Moms, infamous for their homophobia and taking on Ellen DeGeneres and Modern Family, now have a new target in their sights; The Muppets.

The new ABC show, which is an adult-targeted spin-off of the 1970s shows Sesame Street and The Muppet Show has come under attack from 1MM – because Kermit the Frog doesn’t wear any pants.  I kid you not, you read that correctly.  1MM are claiming the new show, which is actually aimed at adults on a nostalgia kick, rather than kids, is immoral and perverted.

“1MM (One Million Moms) suspects there are going to be a lot of shocked moms and dads when they discover that the family-friendly Muppets of the 1970s are no more. It appears that no subject is off limits,” state the group in a petition calling for TV network ABC to cancel the show, “Kermit doesn’t wear pants.  The puppet characters loved by kids in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond are now weighing in on abortion and promiscuity.  Many parents unknowingly will let their children watch an episode only to find out its perverted nature too late, unless they are alerted ahead of time. 1MM and others need to get the word out to families to avoid this program at all costs.“

Okay, to use a wide old Scots saying, haud the bus.  Firstly, Kermit has NEVER worn pants.  Not in Sesame Street, not in The Muppet Show, not ever.  If they’ve only just noticed that now, then given that two generations have now grown up loving Kermit and the rest of the Muppets (I adored Gonzo), they’re more than a tad bloody late.

Secondly, the ABC show is not aimed at children at all.  It is aimed at an adult audience who are nostalgic for the Muppets.  Storylines are to include Kermit’s break-up with Miss Piggy and Fozzie having a relationship with a woman.

ABC have made it perfectly clear that the new show is aimed at adults, by airing an ad for it with Kermit stating “Finally, a network TV show with full frontal nudity.”, which is no doubt what got 1MM’s backs up in the first place.  It is then up to parents to prevent children from watching the new show, not down to 1MM or any other moralists to seek to ban it and prevent others from watching it.

But then, it is nothing new.  The Muppet Show of the late 1970s was not aimed purely at children either.  It was a spin-off of Sesame Street, meant for adults and children alike, and actually contained a good deal of innuendo from characters and many guests alike, as well as some risque comments among the heckling from Statler and Waldorf.

Where’s HIS pants?

No doubt 1MM would like a return to wholesome American values of the past, when there were children’s characters like, ermm, Donald Duck – who went about in a jacket, a sailor’s had and guess what?  NO PANTS.  Same with Winnie the Pooh.  Would 1MM then ban anything by A A Milne?  Know what?  I honestly reckon they would.

That’s before we even get onto America’s favourite drag queen, Bugs Bunny, who very often appeared dressed as a woman, and even flirted with Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam in a number of cartoons.

And just what did the vast majority of these cartoons show children?  Characters beating up and bombing each other, thereby teaching children that problems can be solved by violence.  Strangely enough, I do not hear 1MM complaining about that.  Of course not; violence in children’s shows has nothing to do with the conservative Christian obsession with the human body and sex, both of which they see as dirty and sinful.

Puppet shows have contained adult references since the art form began.  And they and cartoons are but extensions of many children’s stories and nursery rhymes which have very adult undertones and origins.  Just what do you imagine Jack and Jill were doing up that hill?  And of course, there is NOTHING at all suggestive about Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf – or her being rescued by the axeman with his huge chopper, is there?

And children’s shows have always and always shall contain moments of adult humour, thrown in for mum and dad to get a harmless giggle at.  Very few kids will even understand these references, and will wonder what their parents are suddenly splurting their tea and laughing at.  Such as this classic moment from Warner Bros cartoon Animaniacs, which is a particular favourite of mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xmAC9Qu908

For 1MM to single out an adult nostalgia version of the Muppets is therefore not only ignorant of the facts, it is actually highly hypocritical.

Oh and were they not ridiclous enough, “One Million” Moms has a Facebook page which has a total following of – nine.

You’re getting there, “One Million Moms” – only another 999.991 to go.

Viscount Cornbury: The Crossdressing Consul

Just being true to his Queen.

In colonial days in the British-occupied Americas, each colony had its own assembly to discuss and oversee the crown’s business (i.e. raping resources, subjugating indigenous people, taxing settlers, etc) in the colonies.  These unelected bodies of British landed gentry met frequently and opened with all the pomp and circumstance of the opening of a parliament.  Each was presided over by a governor.

The Honourable Edward Hyde, titled Viscount Cornbury and Third Earl of Clarendon, was appointed Governor of New Jersey and New York in 1701, and when he opened the New York Assembly of 1702, he certainly made sure it was a colourful occasion.  For in walked Viscount Cornbury – wearing a beautiful hooped gown, an elaborate headdress atop a female wig, and carrying a ladies fan, in the same style that Queen Anne carried.

Despite the infamous English “stiff upper lip” and the gentry’s usual politeness of saying nothing, there was open consternation at his choice of dress, and some lords told Cornbury straight to his face that they were far from happy with him.  Their words were met with derisory laughter from Cornbury, who replied “You are all very stupid people not to see the propriety of it all. In this place and occasion, I represent a woman, and in all respects I ought to represent her as faithfully as I can.”

Cornbury had already made many enemies brown-nosing and bribing his way up the ladder, and was widely regarded as a cad.  He certainly had delusions of grandeur, as he liked to be referred to as His High Mightiness.  Quite bold for a man who had been in debtors prison when he inherited the Earldom of Clarendon upon his father’s death.  In 1688 he had married Lady Katherine O’Brien, daughter of Lord Ibracken in a clandestine ceremony and apparently very much against her father’s wishes.  There is evidence he bribed his way into his governorship.  During his tenure he was accused by his detractors of misappropriating £1500 meant for the defence of New York Harbour.  It was also bizarrely claimed to have invited guests to feel his wife’s ears, to discern just how “shell-like” they were.

Now that he had appeared publicly in female attire, he merely supplied his enemies with more ammunition.  He was described as “a fop and a wastrel”, a “pervert” who “spent half his time in women’s clothes”, and with unsubstantiated sensationalism which modern red top newspaper reporters would be envious today, some claimed that he lurked behind trees, dressed as a woman and would “pounce, shrieking with laughter, on his victims”.

Lady Katherine died in 1707 and Viscount Cornbury apparently attended his wife’s funeral dressed as a woman.  That was the final straw for the colonists.  Many had already complained about Cornbury, and now petitions to Queen Anne came flooding in.  She promptly removed him from office, ordering him back to England.

In 2000, author Patricia U Bonomi claimed in The Politics of Reputation in British America that there was no proof Cornbury had ever dressed as a woman and all the claims were based upon rumour.  However, were that true, just how did such a rumour get started?  Are we to doubt the word of those who attended the opening of the New York Assembly of 1702 and saw the proof with their own eyes?  Or those who were so angered at Cornbury attending his wife’s funeral dressed as a woman that they were moved to petition Queen Anne?  Add to this the portrait (above) of Lord Cornbury in female attire, which hangs in the New York Historical Society to this day.  Phillip Davenport-Hines, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, insists that the portrait of Cornbury is a true likeness of the time, and has dismissed Bunomi’s claims as “inconclusive”.

I think we can all agree therefore that Viscount Cornbury was indeed fond of celebrating ‘his queen’; and I’m not talking about Anne here.  You know what I mean, doncha, girls.

One of the greatest ironies is that as manly as Cornbury looks in that portrait, if you’ve ever seen a painting of Queen Anne, you’ll realise that he was quite a looker compared to her.  Anne was one of the most unattractive queens to ever grace the British throne.

And were all the above not enough, get ready for the postscript.  The title of the man who was appointed to replace Cornbury was – Baron Lovelace.

Oooh, but then, don’t we all, dears?

If bigots walk out, kick them out permanently

State school should expel transphobic students.

It is probably just as well I never entered politics, dears.  I hate to think just what sort of authoritarian junta I would be dictator of.

Having said that, a story from the USA just makes me plain angry.

At Hillsboro High School, Missouri, 200 students walked out of the state-owned school after one trans girl asked to use female bathrooms, instead of the gender-neutral ones she had previously used.

The story, which appears in Pink News, is somewhat convoluted, as it is claimed that she asked to use female changing facilities.

Lila Perry, 17, came out as transgender last year, and was apparently asked to use the gender-neutral changing rooms.  Having lived as a girl from the age of 13, she asked to be allowed to use the female bathrooms, which appears to have been allowed.

The result was a walk-out by students in protest, and Perry had to be locked in the Principal’s office for her own protection.  The protest appears to have been fuelled by parents claiming that she was receiving special treatment.

However, other students, of the school’s Gay / Straight Alliance, who supported Lila also walked out in counter-demonstration at the way she was being treated by fellow students.

For her part, Lila told reporters “It wasn’t too long ago white people were saying I don’t feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a black person and history repeats itself.  I wasn’t hurting anyone and I didn’t want to feel segregated out.  I didn’t want to be in the gender neutral bathroom. I am a girl, I shouldn’t be pushed off to another bathroom.”

The students returned to class after two hours.

A written statement from Superintendent Aaron D Cornman stated that the school district “respects the rights of all students and appreciates the fact that the students we are educating are willing to stand on their belief system and to support their cause/beliefs through their expression of free speech.”

The statement went on to say the district accepts students “no matter race, nationality/ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. We will promote tolerance and acceptance of all students that attend our district while not tolerating bullying/harassing behaviors of any type in any form.”

So, what are we to make of this?  Well, Lila Perry says she merely wanted to use the bathrooms (toilets this side of the pond) corresponding to her identified gender, as is the right of every cis person, and should equally be the right of every trans person.   And of course, this highlights the fact that a great many trans people don’t want to use gender-neutral facilities – because they’re not bloody gender-neutral.  Why is that so very hard for some people to understand?

Suddenly that’s been extended somehow to changing facilities.  I am not seeing any proof that Lila ever asked to share female locker rooms. And of course, we see that bigoted parents are behind the lot.

The school district says that they will not tolerate bullying or harassment of any form.  Then let them live up to their word.

If students choose to walk out of a state school in protest at a trans girl, then that’s fine.  It should be easy enough to lock doors when they walk out, identify them, and expel the lot of them.  To do any less is pandering to transphobic bullying.

And given the auld Scots saw “Fools and bairns speak at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside”, these transphobic students are learning their bigotry from their parents.  So, time for them to be investigated by the authorities for instilling hate in the minds of their children.

Honestly Loves, you really wouldn’t want me to be in politics.  I would make it so hard on bigots – of any kind – they would be scared to even fart too loud for fear of action being brought against them.

Homophobic County Clerk Jailed For Contempt

Kim Davis refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay man

Seems you CAN fight City Hall.

Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, USA has been jailed for Contempt of Court for refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, despite it being part of her job to do so.  As she is an elected official, she could not be dismissed from her post.

Mrs Davis consistently refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, stating that her religious beliefs as a Christian prevented her from doing so.

One gay couple managed to capture her on camera stating that she would not issue them with a marriage licence.  She then continued to refuse to marry same-sex couples.  When told she must, she stopped issuing licences altogether, arguing that by doing so she was not discriminating against anyone, but continued to draw her salary.  She even appealed to the US Supreme Court, stating her religious freedom meant she did not have to issue same-sex marriage licences.  They refused to issue her a stay.  Earlier this year the US government ruled that all states must recognise and comply with same-sex marriage.

On 3 September US District Judge Dave Bunning found her Guilty of Contempt of Court for failing to comply with several orders, including one he had issued, and placed her in the custody of Federal Marshalls.  Davis had said earlier she was prepared to go to jail over the matter.

Three Deputy Clerks in the same office have likewise been ordered to comply with same-sex marriage, or they too shall be jailed.

Kim Davis and her deputies are trying to claim that as they are devout Christians, forcing them to issue same-sex marriage licences is an infringement of their First Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of religion.  They do not appear to be too intelligent, as they are failing to realise that by refusing to issue such licences, they are enforcing their beliefs upon same-sex couples and are thereby infringing their First Amendment rights.

It is doubly damning as they are employed in public office posts, and the US Constitution guarantees a wall between church and state.  Davis and her cohorts were therefore acting totally illegally and unconstitutionally by refusing to issue same-sex marriage licences by basing their actions on religious belief.

Kim Davis and her deputies of course base their beliefs and actions upon what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, in the Book of Leviticus;

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)

Notice here that this verse mentions sexual relations between men.  Neither this verse nor any part of Levirate Law says anything about two men (or two women) marrying.  Indeed, contrary to what the bigots may think and try to claim, nowhere in the Bible does one find marriage defined as one man / one woman.  In fact there is no definition of any kind of marriage anywhere in the Bible.

Kim Davis and her deputies therefore could easily have issued marriage licences for same-sex couples without for one moment compromising their deeply held religious beliefs.   That they refused to do so can only mean they are either ignorant of the Bible, hiding behind the Bible to promote their own homophobia, or far more likely, both.

Levirate Law, in the very same chapter of Leviticus, has plenty to say on the question of adultery, however;

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, KJV)

And why do I bring the question of adultery up, dears?  Well, let’s just have a look at the track record of the oh-so-pious and righteous Kim Davis;

• She married her first husband, and then had twins fathered by another man.
• She divorced her first husband, and married another man, who was not the father of the twins, but who adopted them.
• She then divorced her second husband and married the father of her children.
• She then divorced her third husband and remarried her second husband.

So much for the sanctity of marriage.  So much for being a ‘good Christian’ and adhering to the Bible.  Seems to Kim Davis that it’s okay to discriminate against gays, yet she herself has flouted the selfsame law – on several occasions – which she claims prevents her from marrying same-sex couples.

It’s called hypocrisy, Kim dear, which is one more reason I am happy to see you rot in jail and I do hope a hefty fine follows.  Step down from your job, Luv; you are obviously unfit to hold it.