Some things just don’t need comment. Here is an article on a Religious Right website describing the new theory of why some males are homosexual – soy is “feminizing,” so says Jim Rutz on WorldNetDaily.
An excerpt:

“Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because “I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t homosexual.” No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can’t remember a time when excess estrogen wasn’t influencing them.”

The funny thing is, I remember a report coming out of one of the Religious Right anti-gay groups (Focus-on-the-Family, perhaps???) a few years ago. They were reporting that “research” demonstrated that gay men have above-average penis size, and that the result was embarrassment and fear over the “deformity.” This pushed them to avoid women and heterosexual relationships and to be with “like” people. Okay, well, I suppose their “research” and the conclusions drawn could be debated. Now, we see the new most current “research” showing small penile size and homosexuality result from the same source – soy products. Who is right, hum? I suspect neither.
Read all about it here.
I suggest all of us now boycott all soy products until God changes the formula so that it stops making heterosexual guys gay!
Via: Dappled Things

I was listening to Condoleezza Rice this morning. She was commenting on, actually criticizing, some of the conclusions and suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton Report.
She commented specifically on Baker’s suggestion that we talk to our enemies – like Iran and Syria.
Baker and Hamilton have compared the current situation with the former policy of talking to are enemies, like our former arch-enemy the Soviet Union. Rice believes the comparison is invalid, for various reasons. One thing she suggested about former policies of engagement with the Soviet Union was that our goal concerning the Soviets was centered on changing their behavior. Likewise, she suggests that the refusal to talk to countries like Iran or Syria is intended to illicit the same result – a change in their behavior.
I was struck by her repeated use of the word “behavior.” The goal of the present administration is to force these countries to change their behavior. The next thought that came to mind was the intent of the Religious Right to change the behavior of American citizens. Their intent is to change “homosexual behavior” into “heterosexual behavior” or at least no sexual behavior, to change “pro-environment behavior” to “pro-business behavior”, to change abortion behavior, fornication behavior, and adultery behavior – lots of other kinds of behaviors, too.
All laws are for the purpose of changing behavior for the well ordering of society. All law is morally determined in some way or another. However, this present administration, supported and encouraged by the Religious Right, is intent on changing (or forcing the change of) the behavior of our citizenry. They are intent on changing the behavior of whole other countries.
The question that doesn’t seem to come up a lot, or at least in public, is WHY people or countries behave in certain ways. To understand why, it seems, would go a long in better understanding how to respond and react. To understand necessitates talking and LISTENING to the other person or country. There are reasons why people and countries behave in certain ways. Some of those reasons of legitimate and some aren’t. In the development of foreign policy, or even domestic laws that emphasize one moral position over another, to talk to the “enemy” will only benefit the cause a peaceful existence. I think Baker and Hamilton are right. We need to talk to even our enemies.
The problem is that those with their hands on the levers of power do not believe talk and listening are appropriate with some. There is no reason to talk to domestic or foreign “enemies.” They already know how people and nations aught to behave, so there is no point in listening to why or how or to think that they might misunderstand or be wrong. How about changing our behavior – why do we not ask why, talk and listen? It seems a wiser course of action and behavior than to bomb and invade and demean others. In the long run, this may be our best course of action against international terrorism!