betsy

THE CASE AGAINST COLLEGES TEACHING DISCRIMiNATION AGAINST MEN Emasculation of America This website describes the discrimination against men being taught in higher education. It identifies the male-prejudices, female-biases, and sex-stereotyping students learn in our colleges, and later spread culture-wide in their roles as professionals. It explains how this information then creates and sustains an unrecognized culture-of-discrimination against men. Finally, the site describes how a tacitly and loosely coordinated minority of activists maneuver and pressure decision-makers and the populations of organizations in education, government, business, and the media to advance their cause and interests. These topics are pursued in the context of three complaints filed in 2005. The first was against St. Louis Community College (StLCC); the second with, and then against the U.S. Dept. of Education (DOE), Office of Civil Rights; and the last with the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division. The complaints address the denigration of men, elevation of women, and gender-typecasting students learn in certain classes and textbooks at StLCC, as well as the prejudiced views and practices the DOE exhibited in handling the claims against StLCC. They further indicate that males are similarly discriminated against on most American college campuses. Thus if this case is successfully prosecuted it could be precedent-setting throughout education. Using our colleges as a frame of reference, this case also offers insight into how the discrimination is spread within organizations, and how it is ultimately disseminated to the public. An introduction to the complaints and brief example of the information being taught in our colleges available in the Media Release. Please read the Release before proceeding. Doing so will allow you to begin evaluating the nature and effects of this sort of material for yourself. More extensive excerpts are also reported on the first page of Second StLCC Complaint (see blue lettering). How do the excerpts from the College’s textbook compare to the major gender-balanced research? In general, such studies consistently find that, in their intimate relationships: (1) the sexes perpetrate equal physical violence and http://emasculationofamerica.com/

Bolding is mine. I interpret it to mean that Betsy in fact does think that men are being robbed of their power by women. This is a really disturbing line of thought. Are you saying that men should be in power, and that if women have any control in their lives it is because their men aren't man enough? I want no part of that world. Here's another thought - maybe power shouldn't be that big a part of a relationship. Two equal partners, choosing freely to be with one another, rather than one being dominant and one submissive. I think you are confused. Blackdog and I were talking about the attainment of power....not human relations. We're talking about power in a significant sense, not whether we can get along with our husbands. Some husbands can be domineering....just like some wives can. It is their personal characters that make them that way, not their gender. Furthermore, you're taking the quote out of context. I reposted it below for your benefit. The "in that case" refers to "But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned. " If men do hold power because of gender....well, nobody can change that gender, unless they do it by EMASCULATION! I don't think that gender is the factor involved in power. That's the point.

Yeah? So the author finds me sexually unattractive. So what? Oh-oh. Systemic depopulation...NWO...removal of right to bear arms...so-called men left behind unable to defend themselves or their women after the removal of real men in military to foriegn wars...UN taking over... So very polynewbish. Its all bunk betsy. Care to explain to me why it's all "bunk?"

I got off on a tangent with Blackdog. You're right, I did open it as a gender issue...and that is really the topic I'm concerned about. The emasculation of the "post-modern" male. Nobody is arguing that power is not predominantly based in masculinity. Masculinity and gender are two different concepts. I'm saying that gender is NOT a factor for the attainment of power. You can be male, female or anything else, and still attain power. That most persons with power are male is not due to their gender. It is due to the qualities they possess....those qualities needed to attain power.

THE SYSTEMATIC EMASCULATION OF MEN Nancy Levant April 6, 2007 NewsWithViews.com Like him or not, Carey Roberts doesn’t mince words, opinions, or facts. He’s one of those pesky and abrasive truth tellers that makes one breathe between the teeth or, in other words, makes one think even when cultural pressures demand that you don’t. Political feminism is a beast. It is a dictatorial movement that demands gender behavior, gender roles, and gender servitude. It is not a movement based upon concern for women, but is wholly dedicated to 1) depopulation indoctrination and demand, and 2) the control of masculinity. Let us begin by saying that 1) women are beaten and murdered by men in every cultural and in every country in the world. This we know. We also know that women kill women, men, and children in every cultural and country in the world, and that men perpetrate these same crimes upon other males in every culture and country in the world. People are not passive creatures. We also know that women in other cultures and countries are not treated in the same fashion as they are treated in the United States, but that has far more to do with the fact that American males did, in fact, value their female counterparts, coupled with their cultural norms, Christian traditions, and constitutional laws, in a far more sincere and reasonable manner. In the great scope of world history, American men have fared beautifully in the treatment and respect of women due to the aforementioned reasons. In a global context, American women have had better treatment, rights, and cultural equality than most of the world’s women. Somehow, this fact is persistently ignored by America’s radical feminist fringe. The fact that American women do have cultural respect, opportunities, and gender equality, is a uniquely and contemporary American tradition, and due largely to the genuine acceptance by American men of their female counterparts. Both genders have a very unique and a very good thing going in the United States – at least we use to. But I am very certain that the emasculation of males in this nation, by the very powerful and very globally funded and backed feminist lobby, has very ulterior motives. It simply cannot be argued that depopulation is a key aspect of the global government’s mission. In fact, massive global depopulation is mandated by many, many decrees, commissions, think tanks, and movements. Genocide continues, unabated and globally, and century after century. “Disease” has become high science, massively funded, and continues, generation after generation, to be used as a lethal weapon. Many pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous to pregnant females. And new drugs have been engineered to all but eliminate menstrual cycles and to render men infertile. Genetically modified food has also been used to render men infertile. Religious suggestions to be fruitful have also been slated for political extinction, for as we know, too many commoners are problematic for the greed and sustainability of the elite. Political depopulation strategies have been used to lower populations in resource-rich Third World Countries as defense and take-over policies, and we cannot forget Goals 2000, the 1974 report during the Carter administration, which promised that the U.S. would lower its population by multi-millions by 2050. So please, people, let us not continue to believe that “history” is accidental or by coincidence. History is orchestrated, planned, and funded at the expense of all tax payers who, pathetically and historically, pay for their manipulated demise time and time and time again. The closing of American military bases, coupled with the homeland exiting of all American military men and women, is by no accident. Our military personnel are United Nations forces. First and foremost, get that through your heads. Secondly, consider that laws and pending legislation have now rendered non-military men, who remain on the homeland, virtually powerless. Their jobs left the homeland, the right to private arms is constantly being challenged and degraded, and any outward signs of aggression are fast becoming criminalized on all levels. Traditional and biological masculinity is rapidly becoming a crime – and not just in the United States of America. Remember that global governance is global law. But why attempt to change the nature of human males? Let’s think about this. We know that men are more aggressive than females. We know that men are physically more powerful than females. We know that men have traditionally acted in defense of women and children, burg and community, state and nation – and particularly so via the mandates of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which were written SPECIFICALLY to address homeland security due to violations of law, insurrections, and/or invasions, and specific instructions for MEN on how to defend and protect all of the states in the nation. Now, if men are culturally emasculated, redefined, and rendered incapable of bearing arms, what happens to the legal defense of this nation – especially given the fact that the American military is no longer the American military or present on the homeland? If it is illegal for men to act defensively, to bear arms, to get mad, or to have opinions other than those crafted by social engineers, men are then rendered incapable of defensive (and Constitutional) duties and tendencies. See how cleverly this works? Now, back to the feminist movement – as Carey Roberts has so courageously taught time and time again, the radical feminist movement is a political movement to emasculate men and to brainwash women. Mr. Roberts, you have always been right on the money. Political intent is never by accident – never. And the feminist movement, globally funded and created by the pathologically arrogant greed of dynastic social engineers, is but one effort to render impotent the sovereign United States and its Constitutional traditions. And sadly, terrifyingly, the men in this country have been severely damaged – financially, emotionally, intellectually, and defensively. And American women? What can one say? Incapable of bearing children, maybe? However, they do have silicon boobs, fake fingernails, fake tans, bleached teeth, anti-depressants, credit cards, monumental debt, abortion rights, and starvation diets. They have daycare centers, Socialist indoctrination schools for their older children, and pre-military physical regimens called competitive/select sports for their children’s after-school care. What more could they want? Better ask the feminist movement. They will tell you exactly what women want. © 2007 Nancy Levant - All Rights Reserved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing). She is an opponent of deceptive governance and politicians, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System. She is also a nationwide and lively radio personality. To book an engagement with Nancy Levant, send an email request to: http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy82.htm

MANLY NO MORE ________________________________________ Posted: November 3, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern "I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. "Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It's outrageous!" The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store and was itching to move on to Home Depot. Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he'll have a few spoiled, cranky kids in tow and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He'll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe's a "learning experience" for the brats – one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He's not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he's safely androgynous and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable. I've often wondered whether decades of emasculation – legal and cultural – have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho. "A new study has found a 'substantial' drop in U.S. men's testosterone levels since the 1980s." The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid. The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since "testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels." The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment. Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman's propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women's sedentary routines – they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty of plowing). Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and "bang-bang you're dead" are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like "One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads." The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as "The Dangerous Book for Boys" proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again – the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun – or so my husband tells me.) Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out. Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more likely to divorce (and get custody), never marry or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation. Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female "pedagogues" have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they'll often insist that they be plied with "Kiddie Cocaine." Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia and death. Writing for the PBS's "Frontline," Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that "despite 60 years of stimulant use with children … some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found." (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?) When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken "girlie-men," such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon have replaced deep-voiced, macho men. Tom Brokaw, for example. Women say they look for partners who are "sweet and sensitive." If they're having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they're breeding out testosterone. Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one's essential nature be producing less manly men? The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men? Just asking ... Ilana Mercer is the author of "Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture." She is an analyst and blogger-at-large for Free-Market News Network and a media fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an independent, non-profit economic policy think tank. To learn more about her work, and to contribute to Barely A Blog, visit IlanaMercer.com. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=52755

I gave a few samples what I'm on about... I'll provide several interesting articles....

I said: "The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women. But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned." Read the above closely. It's assuming that the attainment of power is distributed according to the ability to attain power. How elementary can it be?

Is that all you have to say? Let me hear YOUR OWN VIEW then (not Blackdog's or August's or Peter's or anybody else's).

Minister of Broadcasting? he-he-he....there's so many ministers....it's hard to keep up! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

actually, it would be more accurate, to proclaim that is the way you think,"MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL", since you seem to imply men should dominate women cause they have a male sex organ and thereby, they are entitled. My husband of more then 20yrs is quite comfortable and happy, in our long term committed marriage devoid of male dominance, but based on equality! and no religion involved either! Whhhaaaat? Where on earth did you get that? <blink> Ha-ha-ha....I get it....ha-ha-ha...we're not on the same page at all! Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Anyway, I'm happy for you and your husband. 20 years is tough to survive in this day and age. Me and my husband had also been together practically the same lenght of time as yours. Both of us believing it is a till-death-do-us-part commitment, no matter what. Cheers!

It's not surprising, coming from the CBC. What we Christians should do is write the Minister of Broadcasting and demand that Christians get equal time on this station....since we are also paying for it. That is of course, if we don't mind keeping that kind of company. On second thought, let's just ask the minister to axe the CBC.

Well unless the man is simply intending to rape his woman,(take what he wants) he dam well better be nice! and that seems to be what you are inferring, no , subservience of woman to a dominant male??? Can I assume you like the S & M style of sexual relations??? rofl!!!!!!! What???? Do you have issues with your sexual orientation? Lol! Btw, sex is not the only item in a relationship. You seem to fall into the category of those who think MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL. That put you smack in the middle of radical feminism. N'est-ce pas?

That's not logical. If there's a correlation between males and power, it does not follow that all or most men would have power. It's not absolute. Rather, those that have power would tend to be men. You cannot deny that, historically, men have had more power and more access to power than women. You can't deny it because you've already conceded that point. Clearly gender is a factor. It is the ability, ie. skill, intelligence, timing, among many others - that constitute the requirements for power. All these qualities are independent of gender. Are they not? If they are not, then clearly men have them in greater abundance than women. Perhaps these qualities also constitute superiority. We'll leave that up to you. The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women. But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned. If that is the case, women will gain power only when and if men let them. And that's where we are now. Liberal men have willingly let themselves be emasculated, for their own liberal reasons. The result, probably unbeknown to them, is the abdication of power. If those qualities required for power are independent of gender, those in power attain their power without reference to gender. If they are dependent on gender, then men are clearly superior in their abilities vis-a-vis power. You can't have it both ways. To the extent that men have these qualities in more abundance than women, you might consider it a GENDER BIAS. But there's nothing you can do about that. It's the way it is. If it's a gender bias, it's a gender bias! Just like breasts or penises. It's the ability of the person that makes power attainable. Not gender.

It's pretty safe to say that, historically, power has tended to lie with males. Hell, you acknowledge as much: Clearly there's some correlation between power distribution and gender. So what's the connection? It may be clear to you....but it's not clear logically. If it was a gender co-relation, most men would have power. And virtually no women would. There are only a small proportion of men who have power. There is an even smaller proportion of women who have power. Power is attained by skill, ability, cunning, ambition, opportunity, timing, and no small amount of luck! Apparently more men have these attributes than do women. Gender is not a factor for any of those characteristics. Or are you saying it is?

Geez, you make it sound like that's a bad thing. you know caring for one's 'queen bee', could have alot of 'fringe benefits' for men. ;-) ;-) nudge, nudge So, men have to pander to women to have these "fringe benefits?" Only emasculated men to testosterone-enhanced women. ;-) ;-) nudge, nudge

Gibberish. On the one hand you say the distribution of power is unrelated to gender, yet, on the other, acknowledge the distribution of power is divided on gender lines. If power has nothing to do with gender, why the inequality? Your own alaysis logically leads to the conclusion that gender is the factor. We can't keep discussing these issues when logic seems beyond your scope. Hints: Men have power does not equal ONLY MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal men have power BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. Does not equal ALL MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal NO WOMEN HAVE POWER.

Because the article is reporting on a lawsuit that has been filed. -k Kimmy, I fully understand that, and that's what makes it fishy, the article itself. Reeks of an agenda. Let's see, where to begin , what type of 'credible', news release, would not have a response at all, from the school or the teacher? In fact in reading the article it doesn't even appear the news source, attempted to contact the school or the teacher, or it would have been noted in the article. Therefore it is a completely one-sided article. Secondly if the concern was over an r-rated move, the fact that it is a "gay-themed" movie is not even necessary to be mentioned. Would it have been acceptable by the grandparents and further the paper, if it was an r-rated movie? That had heterosexual foreplay/sexual inference in it??? Let's face it ,an r-rating is given if the "F word" is in the movie, inferred sex is not even necessary to get an r-rating. But duly noting the fact that it is stated as a "gay-themed" movie, in the article, the lack of any sort of basic journalistic balance, makes it pretty obvious, that, the whole problem is not that it is an r-rated movie, but that it is a gay themed r-rated movie, and the article is written to raise the ire of homophobic christians. Which, looking at the responses, from the self-proclaimed 'right-wing/christian/homophobes', (they can pick their own self-prescribed label) bait taken, hook and all.! You gotta be kidding me! How you and co-horts can expertly turn the tables around and attack those who show outrage over this incident. Why such rabid reactions? Uhmmm let's see....maybe the accused were just following the legal counsel of their lawyers not to make matters worst by giving any statements to the press? Anyway... If Miss Buff had shown any movie with the same kind of sexual depiction as that of this Brokeback Mountain, wouldn't you be wondering why??? If you take off your blinders for a minute, quit bashing christians and concentrate on the REAL ISSUE....wouldn't you be wondering what the heck her MOTIVE was??? Especially when she warned her students: "what happens in Ms Bufford's class stays in Ms Buff's class." From that statement alone, we know that she knows what she's doing is not acceptable, to say the least. Did the word SEX PREDATOR ever entered your mind???? That showing these kinds of movies could be a prelude to seduction of these minors??? Of course, no matter what...it's obvious, she is "selling" the theme of this movie. For what purpose, that's the question. Is she just another radical bent on promotion of acceptance of gays......OR is she a sexual predator?? In this day and age when sexual abuse of children and minors are so prominently in the news, any sensible adult would question this action of the teacher which had apparently the approval of the principal. Why you'd choose instead to defend the teacher automatically...to the point of launching a precision knee-jerk attack on CHRISTIANS with your heat-guided missile....is baffling. I wonder what other movies this Miss Buff would've been showing to these young students if no one had exposed it right away! Investigators should be checking on the backgrounds of these two individuals! Check on every minors they've had contact with in the past. And how these two accused (principal and teacher) had known each other, their relationship....outside the school. And here's another thing you could accuse me of "gay-bashing".....judging from the kind of movie Miss Buff had chosen to show these 12 year-olds, what are the chances the next one would've been most likely lesbian-themed with the same graphic sexual contents...rather than Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet? I bet if Miss Buff happened to be a heterosexual man who decided to show a lurid sex-themed movie.....you'd be screaming PEDOPHILES!! I would've said it's hypocrisy and double-standard. But nah....it's just plain tunnel-vision bias! Coming from those who'd been propagandized...and had swallowed everything.... hook, line and sinker!

besty:"In my view the act of sodomy is un-natural!" "And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual sex is still considered pornography! " as is heterosexual sex, but, betsy only singled out ,one kind of sexuality, homosexual. if her claim was wrt pornography, she would not need to make this distinction. Hence she makes clear her bias, against homosexuals. What actually causes a movie to be labelled pornography is the explicitness of the sex, taking place in the movie.not the "who's doin' who" aspect of it. btw: I like using all the xxx's it makes it more fun for me , okaY? Holy mackerel! And why would I be talking of heterosexual sex....when the issue is about this movie Brokeback Mountain being shown to school kids in class? Do you know what this movie is all about? It isn't about heterosexuals having a sex romp, is it? If they had shown Tiffany Does Dallas instead, I'd still disapprove of it being shown in the classroom. Hetero or homo....porn is porn! And yes, I do find sodomy un-natural! As someone jokingly quipped: "why, are you born with a tube of K-Y jelly in your hands?" Anyway, seriously, with the mention of sodomy....why would you assume that only homosexuals practice that? Ha-ha! You may have a point. What is sodomy? Is it homosexuals, heterosexuals, or is it a class act of its own? What I find contemptible is the obvious way this Ms Buff had miraculously chosen...of ALL kid-friendly movies available under the sun...a HOMOSEXUAL movie! For the very obvious reason of being a PROPAGANDIST! I bet you and company would be spitting and cussing if Ms Buff had instead shown the Passion of Christ! But what I find most contemptible is the way some people...too blinded by their own bias... would automatically jump to label anyone who'd dare say boo! Get real!

He panders to the radical, leftwing feminists who go far beyond wanting an equal say, and who want no part in being mommas and looking after children. Equality isn't their agenda.

Um okay, are you referring to me? If you ACTUALLY read my response, I addressed, the NO r-rated movie to minors issue. The reason I mentioned the gay bashing as contemptible, was based on some of the responses. Particularily Betsy's. Gay-bashing my foot! That's usually the case when someone happens to think differently from you! In my view the act of sodomy is un-natural! My view on it does not change just because you think it's just the most natural thing! And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual sex is still considered pornography! In my view, it still is!

uh huhAs I predicted earlier, the more interesting aspect of this isn't the lawsuit itself, but rather what political mileage hacks will attempt to make of it. -k You mean like this one: Yes I gotta agree with you. It's hilarious. And it's even the second post! Lol!

No they haven't. Yes they have. Nya-nya-nya!

Geez, you make it sound like that's a bad thing. I suppose to a liberal man, it's not. Being a drone anyway...

Assuming that God even exists, you equate the church to God and the rules of the church to the rules of Gold. If you look back at the actions of the church, its priests and what its members have done in its name, you will find them very un-Godlike. Oh I already have, and I couldn't give a damn what the church tells its own membes to do, but I resent it trying to influence legislation which will go beyond its own membership. So you find it "un-godlike." As I've said....your opinion is immaterial. I resent the liberal secularism that uses its power. So what's the difference? Vote! Vote for an upstanding guy like Chretien.....now there's a "christian" you could be proud of.