What’s not to love?

Regular readers know that, while we often kid about Yosef or Justin Darr being the hottest conservative writers on the web, there is room for only one in our Hall of Flame. We speak of course of none other than Brian Cherry, whose last article reviewed on Sadly, No! was Marriage, Normal Behavior and the Gay Lifestyle. In that column, Brian had many un-gay things to say about gays, including this:

If you lived in their cultural, you would be working hard to co-op another more palatable identity as well. Pity them.

Well, we didn’t know then (nor do we now) whether we live in the “homosexual cultural.” We do know many homosexuals, and some of our neighbors are gay, but it’s just hard to know where a cultural really begins, isn’t it? In any case, that was then. This is now:

The Nazis are Back… and This Time They are Pink

Oh Brian, we just know this is going to be yet another serious, well-researched, coherent column for The Rant, with that patented “admittedly conservative slant.”

What is a Nazi? Well to anyone who is a recent graduate of the public school system a Nazi is someone who flies the American flag proudly, gets uneasy when thinking about how it is legal to pithe a baby as it exits the womb and doesn’t believe that how one chooses to use their genitals qualifies them for an additional set of rights.

What have we learned today? Well, for one thing we learned that Brian did not graduate from the public school system. We also learned that the new and proper way to refer to homosexuals is “people who choose to use their genitals in a certain way.” Whether this means that Puppetry of the Penis is gay, we don’t know. In addition, granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples means giving them an extra set of rights. (Well, at least compared to the unmarried Brian, a man who has, we’d guess, been told by countless women that he can’t use his genitals in their company, not that way, this way, or the other.) Remember dear readers, next time you find yourself with your partner enjoying a “special moment of privacy,*” you should be asking yourselves: “Would Brian Cherry approve of this particular way of using our respective genitals?”

Nazis began humbly enough as a radical political party that was in the extreme minority among the German people. Initially they didn’t have much going for them besides a keen eye for fashion and some really interesting ideas on what to do with people who didn’t agree with them.

If there’s one thing people appreciated back in the Nazi’s more humble days, it was their terrific use of colors. Didn’t Mein Kampf shock the world mostly for its chapter titled Hellgr?n ist das neue Schwarz!?

These numbers are backed up by the Oxford University’s 1997 addition of the “International Journal of Epidemiology” where it they have concluded the gay lifestyle reduces life expectancy by at least twenty years.

This isn’t Brian’s first attempt to use scientific research to back up his argument. Much as was the case last time around however, he displays seriously limited reading comprehension skills. (A private school education doesn’t buy as much as it used to.) What did the International Journal of Epidemiology have to say? We suspect Brian saw an article titled Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men somewhere (IJE 1997:26, pp. 657-661.) You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the article really doesn’t say what Brian says it does:

Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. … In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue…

There really is nothing like extrapolating from a mathematical model based on 12-year old data from a single Canadian city to make a sound argument. And it really is even more awesome when the main conclusion of the study (8 to 20 years) is misstated as being at least 20 years. Brian dear friend, please come to the service counter for a swift kick in the balls. (Or is that not the certain way in which you would normally use your genitals?)

There are scores of other sources that prove that homosexuals are perpetrating their own special brand of genocide on each other.

Amazing then that you couldn’t find one to quote. As for Brian, he then goes to reveal that after some column or other, he received emails that suggested conservatives shouldn’t have civil rights, and another suggested that they (conservatives that is) should be sent to concentration camps. Which leads Brian to this:

Can judgment of homosexuals as a whole be based on these emails? Of course not. That would be almost as silly as an entire population defining themselves by who they choose to stick bits of their anatomy into.

Of course — that would be totally silly! Almost as silly as having your column bear the title: The Nazis are Back… and This Time They are Pink. In order to conclude that homosexuals are the new Nazis, it turns out that you first have to find two gay writers who have argued killing conservatives:

Richard I say is an author, psychologist and is considered one of the leaders in the Gay movement. In a letter he wrote to the NY Times he states that those who don’t see things eye to eye with the homosexual community “should be quarantined and denied employment”. […] Gay Author James Robert Baker describes the murder, torture and mutilation of conservatives in his book “Tim and Pete”. […] When questioned about what he would do if he were diagnosed as HIV positive Baker is quoted as saying, “I don’t think I’d just take AZT and hug a teddy bear …. I think I’m capable of acting out some of the scenarios described in the book.”

So there you go! QED! Q-E-D!

[Homosexuals] may not be able to build death camps, but we are always one activist judge appointment away from an erosion of our freedom of speech or any other civil liberty they find inconvenient.

And you know all homosexuals want to build death camps because some of them said things that a man of simple intellectual means took seriously and interpreted, presumably with the help of his genitals, as meaning just that! (Give credit to Brian for not writing sentences like that though.)

Will a bunch of well dressed thugs with rainbows on their armbands instead of swastikas perpetrate another holocaust? Unlikely. [!] If it ever does happen at least we can be sure the gas chambers will smell like CK for men.

Brian, can we be totally honest? Go fuck yourself.

* Many years ago, our then-girlfriend and ourselves were in a hotel in Japan. A plumbing problem in the bathroom forced us to call maintenance, and within a minute a maintenance fellow and the hotel’s assistant manager came to our room: one to fix the problem, the other to apologize. When we ran into the assistant manager the next morning, he told us “I am sorry to have had to disturb you in your special moment of privacy.” (And no, you really can’t make up stories like that.)

Link thanks to The Dark Window.


Comments: 23


Wow, Seb, Brian is quite a find! I googled him and found this article by Brian on wrestling in which he seems to have a (poke your genital) thing for Mel Gibson and at the end of which there is an amazing picture of what looks like Brian in an S&M leather mask. A must read (and see)!


ooh, Seb, Brian The Viking will get all hagar the horrible on you for this!

I’m fascinated by Brian’s perm. With the viking book and his robust “prose” (and heavy metal hair), do you think it’s possible that Brian became so homophobic because he’s embarassed that he used to headbang so enthusiatically to Rob Halford’s searing, white-hot …melodies? I wonder.


There is something so sweet about irony, it nearly brings me to the point of le petit mort.

His last name is Cherry.

There must be a God.


Mr. Cherry will live in agony until he discovers the truth behind his intense fascination with other men’s penises and buttocks.


This reminds me of a discarded Bush campaign slogan.


Remember dear readers, next time you find yourself with your partner enjoying a “special moment of privacy,*” you should be asking yourselves: “Would Brian Cherry approve of this particular way of using our respective genitals?”

Here in the Land of Lincoln, we must also ask ourselves if Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes would approve. All too often, the answer is “Sadly, No!”

btw, I don’t know why you’ve been silent about Keyes. He can hold his own (Woops! Sorry about the double entendre, Alan.) with anyone when it comes to wingnuttery. We of the Democratic persuasion are enjoying his insane pronouncements immensely, while Republicans who are not completely crazy (we actually have some in Illinois) are tearing their hair out.

our then-girlfriend and ourselves were in a hotel in Japan. A plumbing problem in the bathroom forced us to call maintenance . . . . When we ran into the assistant manager the next morning, he told us “I am sorry to have had to disturb you in your special moment of privacy.”

Couldn’t you and the then-girlfriend interrupt your special moment of privacy, disentangle your body parts, and throw on some clothes before the hotel people arrived?


According to Alan Keys, Frederick, I’m a “selfish hedonist”. That’s quite a shock to me-it’s Saturday night and I’m sitting at my computer listening to an oldies cd and waiting for my laundry to dry. woo hoo, what a wild man am I.


Puppetry of the penis? I’d pay good money to see penis puppetry! I’d even declare myself a lesbian if the only people allowed to view puppetry of the penis are gay people!


Could it be that you and your girlfriend were in a “love hotel”, the sort that really is for moments of privacy that, in places in Japan, can be most difficult to find?


Puppetry of the penis? I’d pay good money to see penis puppetry!

I don’t know where you live, Donna, but perhaps Puppetry of the Penis is coming soon (so to speak) to a venue near you.


Just thought of that Neil Diamond song “Cherry Cherry”:

Baby loves me
Yes, yes she does
Ah, the girl’s outta sight, yeah
Says she loves me
Yes, yes she does
Gonna show me tonight, yeah
She got the way to move me, Cherry
She got the way to groove me
She got the way to move me
She got the way to groove me . . .


We’re of like minds, Frederick; I referenced that song in a comment I posted to the previous (May 20) entry on B. Cherry.


Bill, I don’t think Keyes makes a distinction between the level of hedonism.

*You* could be living your life at a low rate of only, say, 1.5 or 2 hedons per diem, due to lack of resources, while someone like k.d. lang could be revving at 10 or 12 hedons, with someone older like Ian McKellan perhaps tootling along at a more moderate 7 or 8 hedons a day – and heterosexual party boys and girls like Colin Farrell and Britney could be maxing out the hedonistic calculus at 15 or 20 (at until they crash and end up in detox) – It’s irrelevant.

The fact remains that by virtue of the fact that you’re not sacrificing your bodily essence and energy in the generation of offspring, *anything* you enjoy is automatically and categorically selfish – including having a nice mug of hot chocolate while you read a new book, or playing Minesweeper, btw – while the pleasures of fertile heterosexuals are not.

So what if the human race is in no danger of extinction, to understate, and one might argue that the selfish thing would be to insist on replicating one’s own specific DNA rather than providing for someone unlucky enough to be without a caregiver? Alan Keyes hath spoken!

(Has he said anything about the selfish hedonism of us happily-single people, does anyone know?)


bellatrys, I am unclear on the paramaters of selfish hedonism in Keyes’ eyes. A narrow reading of Keyes’ remarks would interpret selfish hedonism as just extending to gays. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune reads Keyes’ remarks as encompassing all sexual activity not aimed at procreation. That would sweep up the vast majority of sexual activity, including masturbation (self or mutual), oral sex, anal sex, man on dog sex (paging Sen. Santorum), intercourse using any sort of birth control, and intercourse where one partner is known to be infertile (yes, sexually active post-menopausal women and their lovers are selfish hedonists, too). No word on what non-sexual activities or desires (say, being a filthy rich Republican who cares about nothing except paying less taxes so he can get even richer), if any, Keyes regards as selfishly hedonistic.


Frederick, if Keyes is being internally consistent, then yes, that does follow, and is similar to (but not identical with) the traditionalist positions of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas on sexual ethics. Since he’s nominally a co-religionist of mine, this makes a certain amount of sense.

OTOH, Keyes is clearly as near a radical solipsist as it is possible to be outside a straightjacket – yet at the time he’s savvy enough to command a following, so clearly he also has (an ever-decreasing imo) sense of what side his bread is buttered on, and knows not to alienate *all* his sponsors

Full-disclosure: I used to know people who worked on his presidential campaigns. They were devoted, true believers. I recently learned they had, after the campaign, to *sue* him to get their backpay, while at the same time he did not pay his bills and yet paid his own salary out of campaign contributions.

It seems, then, that he is highly-selective about his ethical concerns, because in those aforementioned philosophers there is vastly more on the nature of social responsibility and justice and the ranges and limits of individual liberty versus the common good. You’re *not* going to get a blanket endorsement of personal arms, nor a simplistic veneration for past laws, nor a wholesale rejection of nuance, out of Aquinas or Augustine, period.

Keyes comes off as someone who has perhaps scanned through all of Einstein, fixed on the one line E=MC2, and now goes around putting all physical objects around him in squares and declaring that this will create mystical energy force-fields if the squares are kept constantly in place.

Oh, and he’ll Align Your Constants for the modest fee of $5000, payable up front, out of the goodness of his heart. Trust him, he’s an Einsteinian scholar…


Nooooo! We don’t want him! We can barely stomach Drudge and Sullivan as it is.


Sorry, Bill S, I’m afraid you’ve got Mel Gibson, too. All his machismo is just overcompensation for the dread that he can barely conceal, that people will “think” he’s gay, just because he’s an actor and can’t help doing bondage scenes with military guys in his movies…


Bill S: Are you a leader in the gay community? Have you advocated doing terrible things to conservatives? The management is looking for a non-representative representative of homosexuals, in order to draw baseless conclusions about homosexuals. Please contact us. 😉


That would sweep up the vast majority of sexual activity, including masturbation ? oral sex, anal sex, man on dog sex, ? birth control, and intercourse where one partner is known to be infertile

Yes, pretty much, except for the last part (i.e. infertile couples). Keyes is being perfectly consistent with the views of very traditional, conservative Catholics, the kind who think that the Pope is too lax and worldly. God intended sex for procreation ? no contraception and no kinky stuff either. The only permissible sex is the kind that makes babies.

Of course they have to do some fancy stepping when they try to explain why natural family planning (basically, the rhythm method) is OK, or why it?s OK for barren or post-menopausal couples to have sex. In fact, if you read the full transcript of the interview with Keyes, when he?s asked this not unreasonable question he starts babbling about how barren couples are ?adopting the paradigm? of married sex.

Oh, and Bob and Liddy Dole can too have children according to Keyes in the same interview, they just have ?incidental problems? (like, Liddy?s ovaries have sold the house, cashed in the 401k and moved to a retirement condo in Boca Raton). So that?s OK then.

And Keyes? point of view is actually a fairly moderate one in these circles. Judging from some of the more rad-trad Catholic blogs, the idea of barren couples having sex whenever they feel like it, for no reason, is troubling to some of these people. I?ve actually seen it suggested that barren couples should practice self-discipline by following the rhythm method as though they were fertile. Think about it — if you were a woman who wanted but couldn?t have children, could anything be crueler than forcing you to keep track of your monthly cycle in the pretence that you were able to conceive?


How does one “pithe” a baby? And WTF does that mean?


>Mr. Cherry will live in agony until he discovers the truth behind his intense fascination with other men’s penises and buttocks.

Maybe he gets a–um–tingle of excitement when he wipes his buttocks.

BTW, this is hilarious


In answer to your questions (Sept. 5, 11:36 PM), Sadly No! :
1. No, and I doubt I could become one. Charlie Brown had better leadership skills, and fashion sense.
2. It depends-define “terrible”.
3. I read, and reread the third sentence, and I still have no idea what it means.


(comments are closed)