Just to show that I’m not all about the rants, check out this animated Bayeux Tapestry.
Saxon grave ‘couple’ may have been two men, says the Telegraph.
The amazing discovery shows the “couple” lying side by side in the grave with one’s arm across the other.
But the discovery has left experts with a 1,000-year-old mystery.
They know that the body pictured on the right is that of a man, over 6ft tall but they believe that the body on the left is also that of a man as well.
First they thought the couple were a man and wife united in death. But now they believe they could be two men who were ‘brothers in arms’, possibly warriors, who died together and were buried in the one grave.
“There were no artefacts buried with them to give us any clues. It is a bit of a mystery really.”
Is it really so difficult to countenance the idea that they might just have been a couple? Gay men aren’t an invention of the modern era. If they looked like lovers, maybe they were lovers.
I do love the bit where they say ‘They are exceptionally tall – both over 6ft. The one on the left has got some female traits to it but it does seem to be male’.
He said the key was to “break the link” between people coming to the UK to work and gaining citizenship, which increased the population.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused the Anglican church of allowing its “obsession” with homosexuality to come before real action on world poverty.
“God is weeping” to see such a focus on sexuality and the Church is “quite rightly” seen by many as irrelevant on the issue of poverty, he said.
It may be good to “accept that we agree to differ” on the gay issue, he said.
However, and speaking outside the conference hall to the BBC, he said he sometimes felt ashamed of his fellow Anglicans as they focussed obsessively on trying to resolve their disagreement about homosexuality while 30,000 people died each day because of poverty.
“We really will not be able to win wars against so-called terror as long as there are conditions that make people desperate, and poverty, disease and ignorance are amongst the chief culprits,” he said.
The man rocks.
(Apparently American politics is the new procrastination. Can you tell I’ve started back at uni? Expect more magazine covers at some point, probably when assignments are due). Anyway, onto my point…
Resurrecting The Ayers Attack: Palinizing As Campaign Strategy:
Palinizng a month out from Election Day is a dangerous game and risky game. It erroneously presumes that the electorate does not get insulted when politicians change the subject from how to benefit Americans to how to benefit their own candidacy. It also presumes that the electorate is just as gullible as it was in 2000 and 2004, where personality trumped policy as the driving force at the polls.
It’s a risky tactic. But risk has become common currency for the McCain campaign. Yet in fully embracing the twin Republican tactics of diversion and delay, the McCain campaign continues on the road of self-parody, blithely forging ahead, becoming increasingly irrelevant, muttering personal attacks and gibberish and hoping that such babbling is accepted as “leadership” by the American people. The entire strategy is so erratic and so transparently desperate that on that front, the McCain campaign would fare better if it simply read out of the phonebook from now until Election Day.
Former US Army Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski writes, “Palin Can Launch Us Back in Time“:
The fierceness of a pit bull, which Palin is trying to use as proof of her ability to serve as the vice president, is ridiculous at best and sadly ironic. Pit bulls are senseless and out of control when angry; they are certainly far from being of good mind, rationale, organized or focused. Her personal comparisons to Hillary Clinton are insulting to Clinton. Senator Clinton did not stoop to use of her sexuality as a means of attracting votes or attention. She is articulate and stays on message, whether in the primaries or campaigning for Obama. Hillary’s supporters, men and women, accepted her for her experience, her credentials and her qualifications, deservedly so, unlike Palin who is trying to steal mileage on the shirttails of Hillary. You can easily recollect memorable events of Hillary’s campaign, but you will not remember her parading about or flirting with her supporters or the media. She did not behave in such a manner. Her wardrobe aside, Hillary Clinton was competing on a level playing field and behaved accordingly, like an intelligent, confident and capable candidate. This is what women hope for and seek to achieve. Sarah Palin’s behavior sets our progress back by decades and encourages the fashionable use of sexuality as the tool to measure success.
Palin, however, is a dangerous choice and her style goes against the grain of feminists and women everywhere. We spent years seeking equality, and ask only for a level playing field where we can find credit for our accomplishments and capabilities and the opportunities to compete fairly. Sarah Palin can launch us back in time and remove years of progress, albeit slow and incomplete. She encourages men and women to be drawn first to the sexuality and beauty of a woman before making a decision about her credibility, intelligence and leadership.
If reading the article makes you mad, then send it on to American friends and reward yourself with a singalong to ‘Hey Sarah Palin‘.
I love the quotes at the end of the A Word A Day emails:
Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it. -Andrew Young, author, civil rights activist, US congressman, mayor, and UN ambassador (b. 1932)