This "film" as does the material used (guy, aberrant behavior, unquestionably the result of the guy's mental illness which was undoubtedly not caused by his employment nor the industry in which he was employed -- a person does not become quite this disturbed overnight, nor over the course of the history of a work environment that is in generally acceptable terms/environs as his was) is just another toss in the malignment of Christian (and especially, Catholic) morality.

Unsurprisingly, the toss always originates in the same general state of things (I'll be blunt but I realize I'll also be maligned for being this blunt -- it's a blunt issue here, this story, this film, no doubt about it): homosexuality.

They troll, they complain, they bully, they taunt, they harass, they malign, they deface, they beset the morality involved that isn't what they prefer. This film, such as it is -- haven't seen it, don't plan to, but I've read a few other articles about it in addition to what the Anchoress writes -- this film is another tentacle of those actions that seek to call good goals as ruin. It's just a case of what their vehicle is in what method...an individual, an enterprise, an organization, a theology, a book, a creed, it's just a case of what the target is that's encouraging others toward goals that don't suit certain demands toward otherwise.

The worst intolerance I've ever read and heard originates from homosexuals upon mostly Christian morality and especially about the Catholic Church and those affiliated with it. This film may be mere tangent and not specifically stated as targeted such, but, targeted such it is.

The "blame Bush" resentments target the Religious Right, or, rather and again, Christian theology. All the rest, the other subtle changes and memes, are tangents but still target the same message and presence of Christ. He is the object of their desire of an Earthly nature and of their animosity of a spiritual nature, unfortunately.

There is no one more disgusting and petulant than an intollerant liberal faggot. Even the guy that has cut my hair for years agrees word for word. Need I mention for you stupid liberals trolls his sexual orrientation?

Clearly the filmmaker is a Liberal/Democrat with an anti-Bush/anti-military-industrial complex agenda but the article says nothing about the protagonist/"victim"'s political leanings.

'Oddly enough, ultraconservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh sided with the zoos. In the film, we hear his voice during a broadcast, asking: "Can it be disputed, given the evidence, that the horse was a willing participant?"'

http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2007/story/0,,2081396,00.html

F

So sarcasm is lost on Adrian. That is the lesson for the day, boys and girls.

Jeff Gannon, 'Rod Majors', Ted Haggerty, Mark Foley, half the GOP staffers on the Hill .... what sayeth they about the 'agenda'?

Sean Hannitty think Jeff Gannon and Rod Majors are fine examples of Americans.

Oddly enough, ultraconservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh sided with the zoos. In the film, we hear his voice during a broadcast, asking: "Can it be disputed, given the evidence, that the horse was a willing participant?"'

Given that Limbaugh is given to sarcasm with regards to liberal views, I somehow gather he is doing his usual round of "showing absurdity by being absurd". I'd like to see the whole monologue first.

Hell, I could be sarcastic and say not only was the horse willing, but was begging for it with that "come-hither" nicker.

Ah, a little digging:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012207/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html

By the way, some of these audio interviews[for "Zoo"], two of the three men who were involved did not want to appear on camera. They're just audio interviews. "Devor and his writing partner, Charles Mudede, live in Seattle and were stunned, as were many in the state, by a story that broke in 2005 about a local man who died after having sex with an Arabian stallion." We talked about this story on the program here. In the State of Washington, it's perfectly okay to have sex with a horse as long as it can be shown the horse enjoyed it -- or better put: it's perfectly okay to have sex with a horse as long as you can't prove that the horse didn't enjoy it.

I think Rush's thoughts can be summed up here:
Look, in Utah we've got a documentary on bestiality. In New York we've got a stage show on Broadway about teenage sex. Does it include masturbation or not? Okay, does that occur on stage? Is that what you're telling me? (interruption) You gotta be kidding me? It's the last act? All right. Whoa. The front room might be a dangerous place to sit -- and then in Atlanta you've got the masturbation room at Atlanta Hartsfield International -- and Robert Redford wants an apology from us?

So sarcasm is lost on Adrian. That is the lesson for the day, boys and girls.

Someone send him a Tom-Tom Go.