I’ve got an old joke for you, one that my Dad heard during WWII in North Africa:
Camel (image by Ltshears)
A soldier has been serving in the desert for a long time, and has become increasingly antsy as his body craves sexual release. He notices that his fellow soldiers seem much more relaxed than he is. Finally, he overcomes his shyness and approaches one of his mates to find out why the latter isn’t sexually frustrated. “Ah,” says his mate. “The secret out here is to find yourself a nice camel. You’d be amazed at how good that can feel.”
The soldier is horrified at the thought but, eventually, his urges overcome him. He finds himself a nice camel, rather pretty and clean-looking for a camel. He then heads out into the desert with her for some privacy.
Once in the middle of nowhere, he realizes he has a small problem: he can’t reach the camel (think Chihuahua approaching a Great Dane). Eventually, our young soldier gets a bright idea. He’ll take the camel near a sand dune and then position himself on the sand dune. In his mind, the problem is solved. What he discovers, though, is that camels don’t stand still and he finds himself chasing his camel lady through the dunes.
Suddenly, he spies an exquisitely beautiful, half-clothed young woman staggering through the desert towards him. “Help me!” she cries. “If you can save me from this terrible desert, I’ll do anything for you. Anything.”
The soldier looks the young woman over carefully, and then politely asks “Would you please hold my camel for me?”
Here’s another story for you, but it’s not a joke. It’s a true story about the state of modern academia. Peter Singer holds an endowed chair at Princeton. His books include Should the Baby Live?: The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Studies in Bioethics)
Peter Singer (image by Todd Huffman)
The moral abyss Singer creates with his euthanasia musings is highlighted by the fact that his animal liberation writings make him a founding father of the animal rights movement — a movement that’s come to full flower in PETA insanity (which analogizes the death of chickens to the death of Jews in Hitler’s gas chambers). Singer explicitly believes that a healthy animal has greater rights than a sick person. Singer has also made clear that he has no moral problem with bestiality, provided that the animal consents. (I love the mental image I have here of a cow or sheep carefully perusing a written consent form, before marking an “X” on it with her hoof.) This last “ethical theory” has put Singer at odds with the same animal rights movement he was so instrumental in creating.
If you’re wondering now why I’m waffling on about bestiality, which is not normally a subject that concerns this blog or its readers, it’s because the Senate has been busy. A few days ago, in response to the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the mandate that the military provide a welcoming environment to homosexuals, the Senate (with almost complete unanimity) passed a bill repealing the military law on sodomy. Doing so is a logical step to take given prior changes in the military code of conduct.
But one really has to ask why the Senate also repealed the law against bestiality. As far as I know, the Senate hasn’t provided any answers. Although I don’t see our young men and women in arms suddenly rushing out to enjoy carnal relationships with camels, sheep or any other convenient (and possibly promiscuous) livestock, there is still something . . . umm, what’s the word? Unseemly? Unsavory? Unnatural? Creepy? Unwholesome? Well, there’s something just wrong when one thinks about the United States Senate green-lighting behavior that is normally reserved for risqué jokes and bizarre ethical discussions held far, far out on the wacky spectrum of liberal philosophy.
Sheep (image by George Gastin)
As for me, while bestiality is nothing new, I’m hard put to think of any society, outside of Princeton University, that has ever put its imprimatur on bestiality — except, if our Senate has its way, for the United States Military.We’ll see now what the House does with this quirky little add-on to the realm of acceptable behaviors in the U.S. Military.
Cross-posted at Bookworm Room
Important stuff like this, they can accomplish. Stupid, immaterial stuff like the deficit, go pound sand. Whatever we are paying these idiots, it is way too much.
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Bestiality
“there is little basis for any Shari’ah prohibition of bestiality/zoophilia as the Qur’an and the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari and Muslim) do not prohibit this unnatural practice, furthermore the references we have examined outside of the two Sahihs are considered weak. “
Here we go. That is why Congress allows bestiallity. Paving the islamic way of American society.
It is an attempt to return to the days when men were men, women were women, and the sheep were scared half to death.
Now that homosexuality is outed in the military, they are making these new laws so the soldiers can have sex with each other in the foxholes. It gives new meaning to the old question “Would you share a foxhole with him?” In fact, we would do well to dispense with the term “foxhole” altogether and use a new term, “sheephole”. Have I said too much already?
As an interesting aside, the military definition of sodomy was pretty much anything other than missionary position. I have no idea why they would repeal bestiality though.
Islam. That’s why.
Will Obama sign this law?
We are staring at the abyss; to even think bestiality is ok is not only sick, twisted, pervert etc. but simply inhumane.
We are approaching a stage where humans can be considered in literal sense ‘animals’, behaving like they do in the most utmost disgusting way. Sahme on those who even think that to be ok.
Do we live in Sodom, or is it Gomorrah?
Finally, after getting back to his base, the soldier asks one of his comrades, “Have you have much trouble with camels and, umm, obtaining relief?”
His comrade says, “No, why? Most of the camels are so familiar with the route to the whorehouse in the next village, that you just climb on and you’ll be there in no time.”
The US Senate, where men are men and the sheep are nervous.
The repeal of Article 165, Uniform Code of Military Justice, happened because of the way it was written in the first place. (This was explained to me by a friend; Army veteran with JAG experience.)
Homosexuality, sodomy*, and bestiality* were lumped in under the same article as “offenses against good order”. The problem with doing it that way is that under Congressional guidelines, an Act of Congress cannot repeal or alter only a part of one of the Articles; it can only repeal it as a whole, or replace it with a new version with the provision that is no longer to be enforced removed.
(*Two words I never expected to use in a PJM post, I assure you!)
What happened in this case was that the Senate repealed Article 165 in toto (as the law requires), but did not replace it with a rewritten version minus the prohibition against same-sex relations (which would have been the correct procedure).
I can only assume that whoever drafted the bill was unfamiliar with the provisions for alterations to UCMJ. (Aka DNRTFM- Did Not Read The F**king Manual.)
As for the 93-7 vote, most of those who voted in favor are now falling back on the “I didn’t read it before I voted on it” excuse. IMHO, this is getting as tiresome as “I didn’t know it was loaded”.
Considering what we pay these yutzes every year, and how little they actually do other than criticizing the rest of us for our “lack of enlightenment” in-between bouts of campaigning for re-election, the least they could do is have a member of their (oversized) staff tasked with reading such things beforehand, and maybe even spotting the Rocks and Shoals before they run us onto them.
clear ether
eon
“I didn’t read it before I voted on it”
To coin a phrase, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
not reading it before voting is malfeasance of office. penalty – loss of all material goods, tar and feathers, dump in mexico (sorry, mexico).
Let’s get one thing straight, however: The “Military” did NOT do this, Congress did. The UCMJ is solely a responsibility of the legislative branch, and the various services that administer it are only responsible for enforcing it. Most commentators will have it that the military was responsible for “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, and the ban on gays in the service. It was not–That was Congress. Granted, much of what Congress does with regard to the UCMJ is influenced by the services, but it is still Congress that makes the laws.
Which is precisely why the Ivy League “Holier than thou” bans on military recruiting were so much BS. If they wanted to actually do something about that, they should have banned Congress members from coming on campus and/or put a ban on interning in the Federal government.