Paris high fashion Caption Contest!

This is the 108th world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic:

Rick Owens fashion show model wears model

The above pic was taken at designer Rick Owens fashion show on Oct. 1, 2015, which kicked off Paris Fashion Week. (Source) Last year, Owens’ show featured a penis-baring dress for men.

You know the drill:

  • Enter the contest by submitting your caption as a comment on this thread (scroll down until you see the “LEAVE A REPLY” box), not via email or on Facebook.
  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM! :D
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

As Monique hung on for dear life, she suddenly remembered she had forgotten to take her Beano that morning….

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015.

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, go here.

Seen any pics that you think will make good fodder for our caption contests? Send it to us at:

Thank you!


Catholic Diocese publishes homily by priest calling for approval of homosexual marriage

Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of creation,
God made them male and female.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The Catholic Voice, which identifies itself as “the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland” in northern California, has seen fit to publish a heretical priest Dan Danielson’s homily calling for the approval of homosexual marriage.

Below is the homily, “What are we to make of the Supreme Court ruling and marriage?,” in its entirety, including the illustrative photo of two sodomites chosen by Catholic Voice‘s editor.

Catholic Voice: A publication of the Catholic Diocese of Oakland

October 5, 2015   •   VOL. 53, NO. 17   •   Oakland, CA

Letters from Readers

Gay rights supporters celebrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington June 26 after the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that the U.S. Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry. (Jim Bourg/Reuters)

What are we to make of the Supreme Court ruling and marriage?

By Rev. Dan Danielson

The Catholic Church has lost the battle to allow the marriage of same-sex couples throughout the United States.

The Supreme Count of the United States, on June 26, ruled against the Church and others who supported Proposition 8, the California initiative that said marriage was between a man and woman only.

What are we to make of this whole scene as Catholics? Though I’ve had some struggle with myself about doing so, I want to try to address that issue.

There are some basic things that have to be made clear up front.

A homosexual orientation is born, not made. No one simply chooses to be “gay.” Studies have shown over and over that this attraction and orientation toward people of the same sex is not the result of particular environments or family structures. A person discovers him or herself to be “gay.” They don’t decide to be thus oriented. In our culture, why would anyone ever choose to live such a difficult life?

Being someone with a homosexual orientation, whether male or female, does not make one bad. It is not sinful or wrong. It is not a mental aberration. It simply IS. And as quoted above, in God’s own image, He made all people, without exception.

Every human being is a son or daughter of someone, is a brother or sister of each of us. And as such they are worthy of the same great respect, love, understanding, care and dignity to which we are all entitled as children of God.

That means that all forms of discrimination, abuse, disrespect, prejudice, hatred, insulting remarks are to have no place among us. Often such behavior really reveals the latent insecurities about the abuser’s own sexual identity.

All human beings, including those who have a homosexual orientation, are welcome to be members of the Christian community. We desire them to be “at home” here, to know that they are loved and respected here, that they have nothing to fear here — from any of us.

The issue that requires us to deal with this further, is the sexual activity of people with a homosexual orientation.

Again there are some issues that need to be clarified here:

The issue of chastity is an issue every human being has to wrestle with. The task of integrating this powerful aspect of humanity into the rest of our lives is a struggle for most everyone. And who among us can say that they have always made the right decision and have nothing to look back on with some shame?

All people face the struggle of “becoming chaste” with the help of God. Random acts of sexual encounter, using another human being in that way, can never be condoned or approved of, whether that person is “gay” or “straight.” And such acts have always been seen by the Christian Church as wrong.

The Church believes that the marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment in which to raise children. It is the foundation of all societies in our modern world. That is why the Church has fought to maintain that definition of marriage.

But we all know of heterosexual marriages that are miserable places in which to raise a child and many of us know of homosexual couples who raise children with great love, attention and devotion. So while the Church’s teaching is certainly in general correct, it does not work out that way in many instances.

When all is said and done, no one is the judge of someone else’s conscience. And we cannot set ourselves up to judge the stable relationships of homosexual couples, whether those relationships are called domestic partnerships or marriage by our civil laws and our society.

Indeed, there are things in many of the long-term relationships that homosexual couples have that are truly admirable, as they would be in any long-term relationship — fidelity, self-sacrificing love, care in times of sickness and disability among them. These relationships are not to be simply condemned as sinful.

The Catholic Church is not going to be performing religious ceremonies or marriages for homosexual couples. That is clear. And the Church is not going to simply accept that any relationship other than a committed relationship between one man and one woman can properly be called marriage.

But neither are we going to go on a rampage of ignorance and hate. We are going to accept all our brothers and sisters, wherever they are in their journey toward the God who made them in His image and likeness. We are going to love them as God loves us all and accept them as God accepts us all — without judgment or superiority, conscious of our own faults, failings, blind spots and at times — accommodated consciences.

May the Lord who made us all in His image and likeness, lead us all safely home together — one family, one Lord, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all. To Him alone be glory and honor now and forever. Amen.

(This was Father Dan Danielson’s homily, slightly edited, at Mass on June 28. He is the former administrator of the Diocese of Oakland and retired pastor of the Catholic Community of Pleasanton. He currently lives at Corpus Christi Parish in Piedmont.)

~End of Catholic Voice article~

Not only does Danielson’s homily directly contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church, by the logic of his twisted reasoning, we must also not “set ourselves up to judge” adulterers, polygamists, pedophiles, bestialists, rapists, murderers and (fill in the blank). After all, Danielson tells us that “no one is the judge of someone else’s conscience.”

What purpose, then, is the Catholic Church’s sacrament of Confession?

Since this heretical homily was published in the official newspaper of the Diocese of Oakland, we can only conclude that Danielson’s preaching has the approval of Bishop Michael Barber and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

Shame on you, all.


California legalizes euthanasia

After two tries, Democrats Death Eaters who dominate the California legislature finally have their way:

Euthanasia by the clinical name of “physician-assisted suicide” is now legal, signed into law by Death Eater Gov. Jerry Brown.

assisted suicide

Steven Ertelt reports for LifeNews that on Oct. 5, 2015, California became the 4th state to legalize “assisted suicide,” following Oregon, Washington and Vermont — all “blue” states.

In his signing message, Brown said he signed the bill because he wouldn’t want to be in pain in his final days — regardless of the fact that pain relief is readily available without killing patients.

Carol Tobias of National Right to Life said this about the new law:

“The so-called ‘right-to-die’ movement promotes these laws as simply ‘another medical option’ at the end of life, but their real goal is euthanasia on demand for any reason. There are no real safeguards. It is a well-established fact that nearly every terminally ill patient who desires death is suffering from treatable depression. In Oregon, fewer than 6% of patients have been referred for psychiatric evaluation before obtaining life-ending drugs. Rather than treat clinically depressed patients, the Oregon system, and the system that would be established by the California bill, indicates that you instead help the patients kill themselves.

Ironically, the bill was passed during a special session of the California State Legislature, which was originally called to address cost savings for the state’s MediCal program. Indeed, there are many who would see doctor-prescribed suicide as a “cost-savings” measure. Writing about the bill’s passage in The New York Times, Ian Lovett quoted Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics program at the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine:

…[Kheriaty] said that low-income and underinsured patients would inevitably feel pressure to end their own lives in some cases, when the cost of continued treatment would be astronomical compared with the cost of a few lethal pills.

The California bill is modeled after Oregon, which, in 1994, became the first state in the nation to legalize doctor-prescribed suicide. Proponents argue that such laws are necessary to provide “compassionate aid in dying for terminally ill patients,” and point to safeguards similar to Oregon, but there are no real safeguards.

It is a well-established fact that nearly every terminally ill patient who desires death is suffering from treatable depression. In Oregon, fewer than 6% of patients have been referred for psychiatric evaluation before obtaining life-ending drugs. Rather than treat clinically depressed patients, the Oregon system, and the system that would be established by the California bill, indicates that you instead help the patients kill themselves.

The pro-life legal group Life Legal Foundation notes that the manner in which the law was passed invites a lawsuit to overturn the law. The bill, ABX2-15, was introduced during an extraordinary procedure by which the Governor can call the Legislature into session to enact legislation that cannot wait until the next regularly scheduled term. Governor Brown convened an extraordinary legislative session on June 19, 2015 to secure funding for Medi-Cal to provide for millions of new Medi-Cal beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act.

Supporters of physician-assisted suicide, which were not successful in passing legislation during the regular session, exploited the extraordinary Medi-Cal session to advance their agenda behind closed doors. Legislation allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs is highly controversial and opposed by disability rights groups, hospitals, physicians’ groups, as well as by Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Life Legal Executive Director Alexandra Snyder said, “We expect our state legislators to uphold the State Constitution and not bend the law to further their own ends. Californians have a right to an open, deliberative, and transparent legislative process when it comes to law and policy changes that are literally a matter of life and death.”

While the California Constitution permits the Governor to issue proclamations to convene extraordinary legislative sessions, the Legislature is prohibited from enacting bills that are not the specific subject of the proclamation. In this case, Governor Brown’s proclamation expressly states that the purpose of the extraordinary session on Medi-Cal is to “stabilize the General Fund’s costs for Medi-Cal” and to “provide rate increases for providers of Medi-Cal and developmental disability services.” The Legislature was specifically tasked with enacting legislation to expand access to Medi-Cal services, increase oversight, and “reduce the cost of providing health care services.”

Brown himself has stated that the extraordinary session was not the proper vehicle for ABX2-15 and has recommended that the bill be taken up during the next session.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells that people need to know of the dangers associated with assisted suicide:

“Does legalizing assisted suicide show care and concern to someone who is living with psychological pain? Recently, Dr Will Johnston wrote about a young adult patient who became suicidal after watching a video about Brittany Maynard, the California woman who moved to Oregon to die by assisted suicide. He said, “A primary risk associated with depression is suicidal ideation. The data indicates that legalizing assisted suicide does not reduce suicide, rather it appears to have a suicide contagion effect.”

Other experts on assisted suicide and euthanasia say lawmakers are ignoring problems in other states that have passed it. Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, said this about ABX2-15:

“The bill is sold as giving people choice and control at the end of life. Yet the bill’s language is stacked against the patient and applies to people with years, even decades, to live.The bill applies to people with a ‘terminal disease,’ which is defined as having less than six months to live.  Most people thinks this means ‘dying.’ However, in Oregon, which uses a nearly-identical definition of terminal disease, an 18-year-old with insulin-dependent diabetes is ‘eligible’ for assisted suicide. Doctors are often wrong at predicting life expectancy. Sadly, this bill encourages people with years, even decades, to live to throw away their lives.

In my law practice, I started out working in guardianships, wills and probate, and saw abuse of all kinds, especially where there was money involved (where there’s a will, there are heirs). The California bill sets up the perfect crime: your heir can actively participate in signing you up for the lethal dose and once the lethal dose is in the home, there’s no oversight –not even a witness is required. If you resisted or struggled, who would know?

Hippocratic Oath

The Netherlands and Belgium show how physician-assisted suicide can be and is being abused, resulting in doctors killing people who are not terminally-ill, including the elderly, the young, the mentally ill, and babies. See:

See also “Why you should be concerned that the largest U.S. nursing association endorses socialist Bernie Sanders for President” (Hint: Sanders is pro-euthanasia.)

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV


California state scientists reject Jerry Brown’s contract offer

If these scientists really don’t like their pay, they are quite free to negotiate a 5 percent-plus raise for the next three years with a private employer.

kick the can down the road

Sacramento Bee: California’s state scientists have resoundingly rejected a new contract with Gov. Jerry Brown that would have given them a total 15 percent in salary increases over three years but included a new requirement that they begin contributing toward retiree health benefits.

Nearly three-quarters of ballots cast voted against ratifying the deal, according to the union. The results frustrated, at least for the moment, the administration’s attempt to implement Brown’s plan to begin saving for future retirees’ medical care, a debt currently pegged at roughly $71 billion.

math is hard

The vote also underscored the dissatisfaction of scientists who have long complained about earning 70 percent of what those holding similar governments jobs are paid.

Patty Velez, who chairs the bargaining team for the California Association of Professional Scientists, said in a press statement that the contract “was far short of what is needed to bring an equitable and satisfactory conclusion to these negotiations.” California Department of Human Resources spokesman Jim Zamora said that the Brown administration’s bargaining arm would have no comment.

A centerpiece of the now-rejected contract would have put the union’s 3,000 members into a pension-style fund to offset retiree health-care costs. Employee contributions to the fund, which the state would have matched, would have incrementally increased to a total 2.8 percent of salary by mid-2019.

The terms also required 25 years of service to become fully vested in the retiree health-care program, five years longer than current employees must wait. And the amount of the state’s health-care subsidy for those future employees in retirement would have been substantially reduced.

Brown wants to build similar terms into all the contracts covering the state’s 180,000 or so unionized state employees. The administration can impose those conditions on its non-union employees. The changes to retiree health benefits and requiring employee contributions for them are key elements of the governor’s plan to begin whittling down obligations for retiree medical costs that, unlike pensions, are not offset by investments.

Union leaders knew that they had a hard sell when they announced the tentative agreement last month. Their members last year had rejected one contract and then accepted another less-lucrative, short-term deal, believing that once Brown won re-election in November he would spend more freely on salaries.

But as talks dragged on past that contract’s expiration date a few months ago, it became apparent that money was again snagging the negotiations. During the final week of talks, about 100 scientists staged an unsanctioned march at CalHR’s Sacramento headquarters. A few days later, Velez announced the new tentative agreement with a near-apology, acknowledging the deal “still falls well short of closing the huge salary gap between scientists and their engineering counterparts at the state, as well as scientists at the local level and in the private sector.”

Of the ballots cast, 72 percent rejected the agreement, according to the union. By state law, the scientists will continue to work under the terms of their expired contract. Velez said negotiators plan to return to the bargaining table. A date to resume talks has not been set.


I bet the majority of these scientists believe in global warming yet a $71 BILLION debt doesn’t scare them.

See also:


UT prof. says campus carry will ‘shut down’ dissent, free speech

Right, because every firearm owner I know uses it to shut up people.

The good professor

The good professor

Campus Reform: A professor at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) is concerned that a recently enacted law allowing concealed carry in university buildings will “shut down dissent and free speech,” according to an interview with The Trace on October 5. The law, which was enacted in May, will allow students with concealed carry permits to bring firearms into classrooms.

Lisa Moore, an English professor whose courses cover “not exactly light topics” including “feminism, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and birth control,” believes that having armed students in class will create an unsafe environment. And if students are unsafe, they will be unable to have “an honest conversation” about controversial issues.

“We oppose guns in our classrooms as a direct assault on our free speech rights,” claims Gun-Free UT, an organization co-founded by Moore to protest the recent legislation. According to Moore, professors will “have to look at ruling out anything—any subject matter—that might seem provocative” because, “we don’t want someone who will, when they’re uncomfortable, be able to shoot off a firearm.”


Moore says some faculty members plan to give everyone an A to avoid “pissing someone off if they’re going to be armed.” Others are eliminating classroom discussion altogether because “they don’t want things to get heated.”

Moore, who teaches an early British literature course, thinks that firearms in the classroom will inhibit her ability to teach her students with the “skills to negotiate difficult issues” such as writing from the 14th and 15th centuries which tends to bring up “religious controversies.”

Concealed carry has been a reality on UT’s grounds for two decades, according to the university, though students were not allowed to bring the guns into campus buildings. Furthermore, Texas law includes restrictions which will still keep guns out of the hands of most students; licenses are restricted to persons over the age of 21 who have received training. The University of Texas estimates that fewer than 1 percent of students have concealed carry licenses.

While Moore has never seen a student bringing a gun to her class, she has “had some experiences that made [her] very grateful students weren’t allowed to carry guns on campus.” In her 20+ years at UT Austin, she has seen her office vandalized and at least one desk overturned.

One semester, she taught her class in an “undisclosed location, with an armed guard stationed nearby,” after a mentally ill student was removed from her class for disruptive behavior. Moore has brought up the law in “all of [her] classes” and claims that students are scared “almost universally.”

Moore isn’t the only person at UT concerned about campus carry. UT Chancellor Adm. William McRaven has asked if having guns on campus “will somehow inhibit our freedom of speech.”


T-Mobile data breach alert!

I have a membership in LifeLock.

Just received this notification from LifeLock about a massive data breach of T-Mobile:

T-Mobile data breach

What You Should Do:

  • If you do not conduct business with T-Mobile, no further action is necessary.
  • If you have done business with T-Mobile, please click here for more information.


‘It’s covering up some shady sh-t’: Clinton server employee

Ya’ don’t say.

Hillary Clinton what difference does it make

NY Post: An employee of the computer company that maintained Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ­email server was questioned if he was part of a coverup, according to documents ­released Tuesday.

“This whole thing really is covering up some shady s–t,” the employee said in an Aug. 19 company email obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The concerns by the Colorado-based Platte River Networks employee were aired after the Clinton camp ordered a reduction in the data stored during each server backup. The limits were ordered after the State Department contacted the former secretary of state in summer 2014 to inquire about her private email records.

In October, the department sent a formal request to turn over documents.

The employee was so suspicious that he sent an ­email to a colleague asking for a copy of the email from Clinton Executive Service Corp. to document “their directive” to limit the number of emails stored.

Clinton maintains she turned over more than necessary.



Kitten massage therapist =^..^=

H/t maziel