And the one time - one time! - I ask for something in return, you let me down. Worse, not only did you let me down, you made my score go down to a pathetic 7.6.

This sad-sack Menudo reject has the same score as me!!!	So does this creepy-looking motherfucker! Man, this guy gives me the creeps!
So does this future cult leader with the horse teeth, crazy eyes and plucked unabrow!	This asswipe with the ever-so-stylish backwards baseball cap and the posters that were cool in the 4th grade…has a higher score than me!
So does this scary date-rapist!	So does this semen! I mean seaman! No, I mean semen!

And this self-proclaimed retarded frat boy who's about to blow his
brothers in some fucked-up hazing ritual…has a MUCH HIGHER score than me!!!

I ask you: why would you do such a thing? Why do you spit on me? What have I done for you, sans try and make your lives better, happier, richer?

The only reason I can come up with is that you are mean, evil people. You are mean and evil, do you hear me!
And because you have disappointed me so, I feel no obligation to do anything for you. Therefore, you get no column this month. Those of you who rated me highly, I apologize. But don't hold it against me; hold it against your mean-spirited brethren.

Instead, I'm including some columns by noted humanitarian, inspirational speaker, and all-around saint Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Maybe they'll help you. God knows you need it.

"SOMETIMES I surprise even myself. Listeners to my radio show will remember that last year I was ranting about a study published in a reputable American Psychological Association journal which concluded that child molestation was not always harmful to children and, in some cases, might even be beneficial. Well, a lot of professionals and politicians jumped on that one, and that so-called research has earned the ignominy it deserved.

However, in the course of my on-air musings about the state we are in as a country, where morality is the butt of jokes and credible professional journals publish studies that advance the cause of pedophiles, I laughingly said, "What's next? Bestiality as innocent fun?"

Brace yourselves. Showing up in two leading fashion magazines this winter is a multi-page advertising spread for a couturier that pairs the obligatorily skinny woman in provocative poses with an enormous dog in a studded leather collar. Lest the not-so-subliminal message in this advertising campaign be lost, there are pages of "playful" encounters between them.

The first shows the model, clad in a dress slit up to her posterior, bending over the dog and putting a leather mask over his head --- the mask and the spiked collar being well-recognized accoutrements of sadomasochism.
Turning the page, we find this girl and her dog in a rather compromising position -- she, on her haunches; the dog on its hind legs, draped over her back. She is clutching the dog's fore legs, which are wrapped around her shoulders -- one paw tucked inside her open jacket, under which she is nude. The model's eyes are closed, and she has a blissful look on face.

It's harder to read the dog's face, even though he has changed his leather hood for a spiked muzzle.
The last photo shows the woman seated, bent double over her knees and holding onto her ankles.
Since very little dress is showing, I guess this ad is selling her shoes, which are definitely suitable for kinky sex, complete with spike heels, ankle straps and rhinestones. The dog obviously likes them, too, as he is licking her feet. The model's expression is ecstatic, if not downright orgiastic.

So, here we are. The leading women's fashion magazines have accepted these ads that sell clothes by not-so-subtly depicting bestiality and sadomasochism. Do they really believe their readers would find this appealing? How many women do you know that long to have sex with their dogs?

As a nation, we have become so desensitized to the immoral and the reprehensible that ads like these can run in not one, but at least two (that I know of) national women's magazines. And run without any public commentary by other media. No published criticism of these ads or the magazines that ran them has reached my eyes and ears.
But I did get a letter from a woman in Minnesota, along with a copy of a letter she sent to one of the magazines, calling the editors to task.

She wrote: "I do not expect your company to be responsible for all that is wrong in the world, but it is not beyond your power to exclude immoral advertisements in order to take a stand against this horrible kind of behavior. Your magazine reaches millions of people, and to print this ad was to condone the behavior. You should be ashamed."
And isn't that just the point? What has happened to shame? It seems to have gone away along with other honorable concepts such as right and wrong, moral and immoral, acceptable and unacceptable. And our society has literally lost itself without these guiding principles.

But if society is going to be "found," it's going to be by people like Jennifer, who wrote to the magazine and canceled her subscription. I hope she rallied others to do so, as well. Remember that free speech cuts both ways. The First Amendment protects us all, so you can exercise your right of free speech by speaking up, by fighting for righteousness.

WE HAVE A REALLY SERIOUS ISSUE in this country, and most of you are scared to address it because when you do, you are made to feel evil and bad.

I know. I am routinely excoriated for having a different opinion. So I understand how difficult it is to stand up for heterosexual marriage. But if we don't, pretty soon what we commonly understand and cherish as "family" will be gone.

There are two events I want to bring to your attention. One involves our president, who proclaimed June the month of "celebrating homosexuality." I think he must be nuts. He designated a whole MONTH to celebrate this? You only get a DAY if you're Irish. Right? Do we have a month to celebrate heterosexuality?

President Clinton's proclamation said that businesses, families and all of us should "celebrate" the fact that some people cannot or will not mate with members of the opposite sex, be married and have children. In my opinion, that is not something to celebrate. It's very sad, and I have great compassion for homosexuals.

An interesting aside is that Clinton began his proclamation by saying, "in the year of our Lord, 1999." Where is the much-treasured separation of church and state? And imagine invoking Jesus' name in the same breath as he celebrates behavior specified as sinful in both the Torah and Christian bible!

So that's No. 1 -- this astonishing proclamation that directs Americans not to accept homosexuality, not to tolerate it, but rather to CELEBRATE it!

Here comes No. 2:

Human rights campaign leader Elizabeth Birch and her partner, Hilary Rosen, who is a lobbyist for the Recording Industry Association of America, recently adopted male and female twins born Jan. 7 in Texas. There is no specific legislation in the state of Maryland, where they live, that prohibits placing children in homosexual households. The two women have proudly announced that the children will be raised by nannies.

Do we not have sufficient empirical evidence that fatherless homes are not the best environment for raising children? And these particular babies aren't even going to have an attentive mother, either! How could any adoption agency give twins to two lesbians who don't even want to care for them when there are heterosexual, committed couples waiting for babies to adopt and dying to stay home and parent them?

Talk about the power of ideology run amok! That the government permits a child to be robbed of a father to satisfy the political demands of gay activists is an outrage. Since when do people have a "right" to practice deviant sexual behavior and bring innocent children into their homes? The answer is that "rights" are not involved here. There is only the RHETORIC of rights and the cover of tolerance that sends everyone, including the president of the United States, running for cover, uncaring that our children are paying the price for our cowardice.

These actions, by adoption agencies, politicians, even clergy, advance the activists' goal of changing the definition of marriage from a man and a woman in the sight of G-d to any sort of arrangement between any two people. Are we going to just let these events go by and not fight to preserve traditional families, which are the foundation of our civilization and our society?

We all just want to put gas in the car, go to work, see a movie, get some sleep. We worship convenience and self-gratification, so America has a million and a half abortions each year. Just suck the little babies down the sink. They are so inconvenient. And we sit by and allow this to happen in the name of freedom of choice. What about responsibility? Can't we see what's happening to our children year after year as we stretch our definition of liberty to the breaking point?

If the welfare of our children is not the No. 1 priority, ideal and goal of this nation, then the nation will disintegrate. I talk to a lot of people in government, psychology and psychiatry every day who are afraid to stand up for the importance of the traditional family to the welfare of children. They are silent not because they agree with the homosexual agenda, but because they are afraid of the militant activists among homosexuals.

And the irony is that the activists use THEIR so-called fear -- "everyone is out to kill us" -- when it's those opposed to homosexual marriage and adoption who live in fear. This includes numbers of nonactivist homosexuals who write to let me know they agree with many of the things I say, but beg me not to use their names on the air for fear of retaliation of some kind.

This has gone too far. We cannot continue to sacrifice our children on the altar of "freedom" and "diversity," no matter what the president of the United States proclaims."

E-mail: Filthstar@aol.com

* article care of drlaura.com