Constant Comment. Yes Please.

Yes! At last! It's today! Johnny's commentary on the Senior Men's free skate at Nationals, Groups 3 and 4, is expected to be up on Ice Network at 12 noon EST!! If you haven't already subscribed, you can still do so here—worth every penny. Plus your subscription will give you access to all the premium on-demand footage in the Ice Network video archives from the 2011-2012 season thus far—so if

You have read this article David Ingogly / he still won / I think Shannon is saying stop it but why would we want him to stop / Improv-Ice / Johnny Weir / so excite to hear his commentary gems with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/constant-comment-yes-please.html?m=0. Thanks!

Council of Europe states that ‘Euthanasia must always be prohibited’

Last Wednesday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a non-binding resolution concerning Advanced Directives, Living Wills, Power of Attorneys and Consent to Treatment under the title: Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients.

This resolution did not specifically concern the issue of euthanasia, nonetheless Article 5 of the resolution states:

‘Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.’

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States.

This statement follows a similar decision on January 20, 2011 by the European court of Human Rights which found that the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Even though this is a non-binding resolution, it does make it clear that euthanasia is an act that must always be prohibited.

Read the commentary about this resolution by the European Center for Law and Justice.

From Alex Schadenberg’s Blog

You have read this article Euthanasia with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/council-of-europe-states-that.html?m=0. Thanks!

Giveaway: Win Chelsea Crew Booties From NET A LA MODE!

I'm so stoked to announce that Marie a la Mode has teamed up with online boutique NET A LA MODE to offer one lucky reader a pair of these adorable Chelsea Crew Dorris wedge booties!

From offering international fashion labels to articles on the latest trends and dressing tricks on how to multi-wear a favorite piece, fashion styling truly comes to life at Canada's latest online shopping destination NET A LA MODE. NET A LA MODE offers an extensive collection of women's fashion labels including BB Dakota, Mink Pink, Gentle Fawn, Kensie, Cheap Monday, Whitney Eve (just to name a few!) at moderate price points for the trend savvy consumer. NET A LA MODE is also a virtual stylist with their LOOK A LA MODE section where shoppers are able to view head-to-toe outfits with the total price tag, the 3 WAYS TO WEAR IT section and the PERSONAL STYLE FINDER where customers choose different criteria such as "body type", "style", "height", and "type of event", and items corresponding to the search criteria are featured. How great is that?! NET A LA MODE ships to Canadian and US residents.

For your chance to win the Chelsea crew booties featured above, please read the rules carefully below:

1. You must be a follower of Marie a la Mode via Google Friend Connect or Bloglovin'. Visit NET A LA MODE and in the comment section tell me how you would style the booties with the clothing offered on their site. (1 entry)

***For bonus entries:

2. Re-tweet this giveaway (+2 extra entries)

3. Follow NET A LA MODE on Twitter (+1 extra entry)

4. "Like" NET A LA MODE on Facebook (+1 extra entry)

5. Follow Marie a la Mode on Twitter (+1 extra entry)

6. "Like" Marie a la Mode on Facebook (+1 extra entry)

This contest is open to Canadian and US residents only. Sorry to my international readers. : (

The winner of the contest will be announced Monday February 13th. Good Luck!

*CONTEST IS NOW CLOSED*

You have read this article fashion / Giveaway with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/giveaway-win-chelsea-crew-booties-from.html?m=0. Thanks!

US Nationals! Honey Badgers, Eyebrows, and Husbands

Johnny enjoys the action at the 

US Figure Skating National Championships 

with fellow skater Derrick Delmore. 

Photo courtesy of Super Agentress Tara Modlin! 

Bonus Ashley Wagner in the far left of the photo. 

(Super bonus: Wedding ring! 

So please click twice for super-size view! 

Because today is Johnny and Victor's 

one-month anniversary. ♥)



Wow! What a weekend!

Beginning with

You have read this article Johnny Weir / NBC needs to hire him to commentate the minute he retires / never thought I'd use those 2 tags in the same post without sarcasm / this is my quad salchow please enjoy it / US Figure Skating with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/us-nationals-honey-badgers-eyebrows-and.html?m=0. Thanks!

Christian GP in appeal against home office for unjust sacking

The Daily Mail this weekend has run a long feature on Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, which is well worth reading.

Dr Raabe, a Christian GP from Manchester, was sacked by the Home Office from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) last February for failing to declare that he had co-authored a paper in 2005, while he was living in Canada, suggesting that there was an association between homosexuality and paedophilia.

The German-born doctor has since been granted permission for a judicial review against Home Secretary Theresa May, which is set to commence later this year.

Dr Raabe, who is being represented by leading human rights lawyer James Dingemans QC, hopes to win back his committee post and, in so doing, stand up for Christians, who he believes are becoming increasingly marginalised and excluded from public office.

The Home Secretary has come under pressure from a variety of sources to offer an apology to Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, but has so far declined.

The paper in question summarised scientific evidence, which was in the public domain, and it was one paragraph, mentioning homosexuality and paedophilia together, which apparently caused the Home Office ‘embarrassment’.

The offending paragraph states: ‘While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there are a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles.’

However, the Home Office had also made essentially the same point in a document it published, which states (2nd para, page 14): ‘Twenty to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10 per cent mixed.’ (See also here)

As I have reported previously there are actually a significant number of articles in peer-reviewed journals supporting Dr Raabe’s view.

I also noted that a major review on the subject of paedophilia published in 2007 and available on line, which reviews all 554 papers published on Medline on pedophilia, also acknowledges that the jury is still out on the matter:

’The main evidence in favor of a relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality is the common cause of fraternal birth order and postnatal learning… It seems to be questionable logic to view these two conditions as completely unrelated.’

That Dr Raabe should be sacked from his role as a drugs advisor on the basis of his expressed opinions on an entirely unrelated issue (homosexuality) is itself at very least unfair.

But the fact that the data he quoted were actually derived from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles (including one quoted approvingly by the Home Office itself!), and on a matter where experts agree that there is a diversity of learned opinion, makes his dismissal both outrageous and inexcusable.

In a democratic and multicultural society people should be free to hold, express and act in accordance with their beliefs and convictions rather than being pushed out of public life.

Dr Raabe has been treated appallingly by the Home Office. I wish him all the very best in his appeal.

You have read this article Civil Liberties / Homosexuality with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/christian-gp-in-appeal-against-home.html?m=0. Thanks!

Sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually

The costs of sexual freedom and relationship breakdown to the taxpayer and wider economy total some £100 billion annually; about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.

This is the astounding conclusion of the latest ‘Cambridge Paper’, ‘Free sex: Who pays? Moral hazard and sexual ethics’, by Jubilee Centre researcher Guy Brandon.

Rather than addressing fundamental moral issues around sexual freedom, Brandon employs a utilitarian approach and attempts to quantify its financial impact. He argues that sexual freedom ‘represents an enormous moral hazard and, as a result, unsustainable and unjust public expenditure’. Furthermore, these costs are imposed on society as a whole, rather than borne solely by the individuals most directly responsible.

He first surveys the ‘changing landscape of sexual freedom’. The average age of first intercourse has fallen from 21 in the 1950s to 16 now. The divorce rate has risen from 4.4 per 1,000 in 1970 to 11.1 people per 1,000 in 2010. Forty years ago 85 per cent of first unions were marriage but now 85 per cent are cohabitations. Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) in England rose 74 per cent between 1998 and 2009 and abortions increased from 54,819 in 1969 to 189,574 in 2010.

These trends are familiar to all of us with an interest in these issues but what financial burden do they bring?

Arguing on the basis of the link between sexual freedom and the breakdown of subsequent relationships Brandon attempts to quantify the total financial burden by estimating both direct and indirect costs.

STIs are estimated to cost the NHS – and therefore the taxpayer – more than £1 billion per year. There are also longer-term costs. HIV treatment is now estimated at around £0.5 billion a year in the UK. Teenage pregnancy costs the NHS £63 million per year, and a further £29 million for infertility and other complications arising from chlamydia alone. 96 per cent of abortions are paid for by the NHS, at a cost of £118 million.

Breakdown Britain claimed that family breakdown directly costs the taxpayer £24 billion per year but the Jubilee Centre’s own analysis has shown that the figure is almost twice as high, £42 billion. Much of this comes from payments of tax credits and lone parent benefits, housing benefits, and the health, crime and educational impact of relationship breakdown.

This sum – nearly £1,400 per year for every taxpayer – is equivalent to 6 per cent of public spending for 2011.

This represents one-third of the Health Care budget, or roughly the same as the entire Defence budget or the interest on the national debt.

But £42 billion is only the immediate cost to the taxpayer of relationship breakdown. There are even larger indirect costs to the economy from absenteeism, domestic violence and educational underachievement.

Brandon estimates the annual cost to the economy of lost working hours following divorce at £20 billion, which includes both straightforward absenteeism and presenteeism (when people attend work but are distracted and unproductive due to stress).

Domestic violence costs the taxpayer £4 billion per year, and a further £3.4 billion in lost economic output. The additional ‘human and emotional costs’ are £21 billion.

Finally, there are the unquantifiable future costs of educational underachievement, worklessness, addiction and mental health problems that Breakdown Britain identified as going hand-in-hand with relationship breakdown.

Children who grow up in dysfunctional households frequently do not have the same life chances as those with more stable backgrounds. Brandon estimates, on the basis of an Australian study, that this reduces GDP by £6 billion annually.

Although the personal financial impact of sexual freedom can be high, it is often comparatively limited and the costs fall instead on the taxpayer. The UK Treasury does not make the link between the vast costs of relationship breakdown and its drivers, David Cameron’s emphasis on the family notwithstanding. Public policy barely acknowledges the existence of the problem, let alone the scale.

Brandon does not give direct references for his estimates of the financial cost of smoking, obesity and alcohol.

However, a BBC investigation in 2007 estimated the annual cost of obesity to be £2 billion to the NHS and £7 billion to the UK economy.

A 2009 Oxford University study funded by the British Heart Foundation estimated that smoking cost the NHS £5 billion annually and another Oxford study the same year estimated the cost to the NHS of alcohol-related sickness to be £3 billion.

These estimates for tobacco and alcohol costs do not include the wider indirect costs that the Cambridge paper has considered for sexual freedom and relationship breakdown.

Brandon concludes that the moral hazard that arises from our society’s uncritical endorsement of sexual freedom results in massive public costs. He argues that there are three ways of containing such an unsustainable liability, and unpacks the third preferred approach in some detail.

The current ‘Big State’ approach factors in the costs of sexual freedom, thereby actually increasing moral hazard and pushing the financial implications of individuals’ choices – totalling many tens of billions of pounds – onto the taxpayer and wider economy.

Harsh legislation to reduce sexual freedom, similar to Sharia Law, is an even less attractive option.

The third solution, found in the biblical model, is to effect a cultural change and foster greater accountability for sexual choices, strengthening extended families by increasing rootedness and giving them joint financial interests.

In this the Christian sexual ethic of faithfulness and stability has not only spiritual justification but offers a pragmatic answer to a failing culture that generally views Christian standards as hopelessly out of date.

The paper will undoubtedly stimulate debate and arouse controversy and is well worth reading.

You have read this article marriage / Sexual Health / Sexuality with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/sexual-freedom-and-relationship.html?m=0. Thanks!

Holocaust Memorial Day – 27 January 2012

Most when remembering the holocaust will think of six million Jews but apparently this was only the final chapter in the story. What ended in the 1940s in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belsen and Treblinka had much more humble beginnings in the 1930s in nursing homes, geriatric hospitals and psychiatric institutions all over Germany.

I have previously written about lessons we can learn from the grisly history of the Nazi doctors.

Dr Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist who worked for the Office of the Chief of Counsel for war Crimes at Nuremberg, described the process whereby doctors were instrumental in the euthanasia programme as follows:

'The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.'

With the advantage of hindsight we are understandably amazed that the German people and especially the German medical profession were fooled into accepting it. The judgement of the War Crimes Tribunal in 1949 as to how they were fooled was as follows.

'Had the profession taken a strong stand against the mass killing of sick Germans before the war, it is conceivable that the entire idea and technique of death factories for genocide would not have materialized...but far from opposing the Nazi state militantly, part of the medical profession co-operated consciously and even willingly, while the remainder acquiesced in silence. Therefore our regretful but inevitable judgement must be that the responsibility for the inhumane perpetrations of Dr Brandt (pictured above)...and others, rests in large measure upon the bulk of the medical profession; because the profession without vigorous protest, permitted itself to be ruled by such men.' (War Crimes Tribunal. 'Doctors of Infamy'. 1948)

Six million Jewish men, women and chlidren...'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'(George Santayana)

In June 1947 the British Medical Association published a statement on ‘War Crimes and Medicine’ which it later submitted to the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in September1947.

The statement included the following:

‘The evidence given in the trials of medical war criminals has shocked the medical profession of the world. These trials have shown that the doctors who were guilty of these crimes against humanity lacked both the moral and professional conscience that is to be expected of members of this honourable profession. They departed from the traditional medical ethic which maintains the value and sanctity of every individual human being.’ (emphasis mine)

The statement majors, as one might expect, on the atrocities carried out by German doctors during the Nazi holocaust, but returns again and again to general principles about respect for life:

‘The doctors who took part in these deeds did not become criminals in a moment. Their amoral methods were the result of training and conditioning to regard science as an instrument in the hands of the State to be applied in any way desired by its rulers. It is to be assumed that initially they did not realize that the ideas of those who held political power would lead to the denial of the fundamental values on which Medicine is based. Whatever the causes such crimes must never be allowed to recur. Research in medicine as well as its practice must never be separated from eternal moral values. Doctors must be quick to point out to their fellow members of society the likely consequences of policies that degrade or deny fundamental human rights.’ (emphasis mine)

But most interesting is the document's conclusion:

‘Although there have been many changes in Medicine, the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath cannot change and can be reaffirmed by the profession. It enjoins…The duty of curing, the greatest crime being co-operation in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion.’ (emphasis mine)

The BMA was once strongly opposed to abortion. But it has chosen to discard its own ethics. A vigorously pro-abortion position has now been wholeheartedly embraced and is ardently defended by its present leadership.

Seven million British unborn babies who would now be men, women and children...'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.

You have read this article Abortion / holocaust with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/holocaust-memorial-day-27-january-2012.html?m=0. Thanks!

The case of ‘Martin’ – grandstanding by lawyers and the BBC

Lawyers for a stroke victim who wants help to end his ‘intolerable’ life can continue to act on his behalf without fear of prosecution or disciplinary action after a High Court ruling today.

They successfully urged two judges in London to grant them a declaration which will protect them and third parties, including doctors, during preparations for a ‘landmark’ judicial review action brought by a man in his 40s with ‘locked-in syndrome’.

Making the order, Lord Justice Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Charles, described it as a ‘tragic’ and ‘exceptional’ case which raised ‘thorny legal and ethical issues’.

The claimant, who cannot be named but was referred to as Martin in court, suffered a ‘massive’ stroke three years ago at the age of 43, and describes his life as ‘undignified and intolerable’.

He is unable to move, is able to communicate only by moving his eyes, requires constant care, and is entirely dependent on others for every aspect of his life.

When his judicial review application is eventually aired at the High Court, Martin will challenge the Director of Public Prosecution’s policy on assisted suicide, which he argues is insufficiently clear and fails to have regard to someone in his position.

He is not requesting a change in the law but is asking that the DPP amend his current guidance so that professionals would not face criminal and/or disciplinary action if they helped him end his life.

Under the Suicide Act 1961 assisting or encouraging a suicide is a crime carrying a discretionary sentence of up to 14 years. But in each case the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must decide whether there is enough evidence to bring a prosecution and whether it is in the public interest to do so.

The public interest test is decided on the basis of applying a number of criteria published following after a public consultation in February 2010.

Under one of these criteria the DPP is more likely to bring a prosecution if he believes that the assister is ‘acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority...’

This clause has led medical insurance firms to urge doctors to exercise great caution when dealing with suicide cases and the matter is also the subject of a consultation about to be launched by the General Medical Council.

The Medical Defence Union’s advice to its members remains that ‘doctors approached by patients for advice about suicide should not engage in discussion which assists the patient to that end. Members who are faced with requests for help from patients, including for example the provision of medical reports, should contact us for advice.’

The Medical Protection Society (MPS) – which provides indemnity, legal and professional support to around half of all doctors in the UK – says that ‘doctors who have even the slightest suspicion that their patient may be planning an assisted suicide should proceed with extreme caution and not comply with requests for medical or travel reports’.

The judges today granted a declaration for the ‘broad purpose’ of ‘stating that the solicitors may obtain information from third parties and from appropriate experts for the purpose of placing material before the court and that third parties may co-operate in so doing without the people involved acting in any way unlawfully’.

Part of the order means that law firm Leigh Day & Co can communicate with Dignitas for information about its services and also take steps to ‘identify one or more people or bodies that might be willing to assist Martin’.

The judge said it ‘seems plain’ from the DPP's statement of policy that his wife would not be at risk of prosecution, should she assist him but she has made it clear that she ‘does not wish to play any part in hastening his death’. No other family member is willing to help him end his life.

Martin had ‘turned to solicitors to see whether there are lawful means by which he may achieve his wish’.

Lord Justice Toulson said the solicitors had made the application for the ‘protection’ of themselves and others they intend to approach, but ‘ultimately for the protection of Martin so he can obtain the advice and information he needs to have his application properly presented’.

The order they argue would provide ‘clarity’ for the solicitors and others.

It is hard to see why this case, which challenges the DPP’s policy about whether doctors and other professionals assisting with assisted suicide are likely to be prosecuted, should be getting such high profile news coverage.

It is currently at a very early stage and does not change the law in any way. All that has been granted in effect is permission to gather evidence to bring a case before the courts.

However, the fact that it has been seized upon and given such high prominence by the BBC, in what appears to be nothing other that a carefully calculated publicity stunt, speaks volumes about our national broadcaster’s ongoing commitment to cheerleading for assisted suicide and their blatant and consistent disregard for international media guidelines aimed at curbing suicide contagion.

Martin’s lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, also seem to be milking the case for all the publicity they can get. Quite why we needed all this hype and fuss just around gaining permission just to bring a case is rather odd – I suspect it is mainly just a bit grandstanding.

You have read this article Assisted Suicide / locked in syndrome with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/the-case-of-martin-grandstanding-by.html?m=0. Thanks!

Update on assisted suicide and euthanasia from Care Not Killing

Falconer Commission

Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying reported on 5 January 2012 predictably recommending a change in the law to recommend assisted suicide (and not euthanasia) for mentally competent adults with less than twelve months to live. CNK played a prominent role in discrediting the Commission with 40 media interviews. CNK has also created four videos about the Commission here.

MPs debate Care for the Dying

David Burrowes MP headed up a Westminster Hall debate with a positive reflection of how we should care best for the elderly in our society. The debate highlighted the desire among the 20 MPs attending for the debate about end of life issues to be framed around the provision of excellent palliative care rather than any measure to introduce assisted suicide. Richard Ottaway MP will talk in March to MPs from the Commons Backbench Business Committee arguing for a change in the law.

Margo Macdonald to reintroduce new Bill

Margo Macdonald MSP has announced that she is going to try again to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, just over a year after her last failed attempt. She has unveiled a new consultation on the issue and among her proposals is a suggestion that ‘licensed facilitators’ would need to be present when someone is at the point of ending their own life to ensure that lethal drugs are ‘taken correctly’.

Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) adopts non-binding resolution

A vote on the resolution for ‘Protection of human rights and dignity by taking account of previously expressed wishes of patients’ was a clear statement against euthanasia by this European Political Institution of 47 member states. The resolution strongly states, ‘Euthanasia in the sense of intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.’

Tony Nicklinson in court

Tony Nicklinson, a 57 year old man paralysed from the neck down, has begun a court battle to allow doctors to end his life, in an assault on the Murder Act 1965. Such a change would have far reaching implications by potentially removing legal protection from large numbers of sick and disabled people.

Euthanasia of woman with advanced dementia in Netherlands sounds warning to Britain

A 64 year old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has been euthanised in the Netherlands – even though she was no longer able to express her wish to die. The case shows that legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia in Britain would be a recipe for the abuse and exploitation of elderly, dying and disabled people.

Dignitas figures overhyped

An article in the Daily Telegraph attempted to make news of a slight rise in the number of Britons registered with the controversial Swiss suicide facility. These deaths, around 20 a year, represent a tiny fraction of the 500,000 natural deaths that occur in Britain annually.

A new milestone in irresponsible media reporting

In December an international media platform was given to a new case of assisted suicide involving a media personality who was dying of cancer. The story broke virtually every international guideline on media suicide portrayal and marked a new milestone in irresponsible media reporting.

‘Life’ sentences for murder are necessary to deter would be mercy killers

The Homicide Review Advisory Group advised in December a revision of sentences for murder under the murder act 1965. Further developments await.

Debate at Festival of the Dying

Dr Peter Saunders and Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE will be debating Debbie Purdy and Dr Philip Graham with Jon Snow at the Southbank Centre’s Festival for the Living on 28 January.

Further Articles

•Lessons from Stephen Hawking and Kathryn Higham about assisted suicide.
•Overview of assisted suicide in the United States
•GMC consultation due for guidance on dealing with complaints of assisted suicide
•Why legalising assisted suicide also inevitably legalises euthanasia

You have read this article Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/update-on-assisted-suicide-and.html?m=0. Thanks!

Portrait of the Artist: The Starbucks Series

In the Creation of Great Art, Great Sacrifices Must Sometimes Be Made.

The following brief dramatic series of picspam covers less than 60 seconds of (endless) rehearsal time in the life of a three-time US champion and two-time Olympian.

(As always, please click any photo twice for full-size view.)






Holiday Dreams on Ice rehearsal.

Day 1.

Hour 12,956.

Johnny casts a longing glance at ...

You have read this article #WeirSochi2014 / #WeirWorldPeace2012 / a man and his Starbucks / BTW did you vote / cannot wait to hear his dulcet tones and razor-sharp insights from the ICE Desk / David Ingogly / Johnny Weir / vote vote vote with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/portrait-of-artist-starbucks-series.html?m=0. Thanks!

Peter Tatchell comes clean that homosexuality is neither biologically determined nor fixed

Many people think that homosexuality is a biological characteristic like race or sex – biologically fixed and genetically determined.

They think this because this is the view that has been successfully propagated by the gay rights lobby for decades in order to provide a justification for arguing that ‘homophobia’ is a form of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.

This belief has also been behind moves to treat discrimination against 'practising' homosexuals as a human rights issue by pretending that homosexuals are a biological category like 'women' or 'asians' whose distinctive features are genetically determined rather than just a group who have simply made a certain life-style choice.

But in fact the strength and direction of erotic attraction, although relatively stable in some people, can be quite changeable in others – it is often not fixed at all.

Similarly identical twins often have different sexual orientations proving that, although sexual orientation may have some genetic influences, it is not genetically determined. There is, in other words, no such thing as the gay gene.

Sexual orientation is much more accurately thought of in the category of a conditioned (and often variable) preference than a determined biological condition.

Most researchers now accept that sexual orientation (the predominant direction of sexual attraction one feels) is the result of a complex interaction in which nature, nurture and choice all play a part. But whether one acts on those feelings by having same sex relations is actually a matter of personal choice (see my previous blog on the difference between same sex feelings, orientation, identity and behaviour).

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states, ‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

And in a recent Huffington Post article, ‘Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight’, gay rights activist Peter Tatchell affirms the fluidity of sexual attraction.

First he affirms the reality of bisexuality:

‘We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is an fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.’

Then he challenges the traditional view that gay and straight are distinct categories:

‘Research by Dr Alfred Kinsey in the USA during the 1940s was the first major statistical evidence that gay and straight are not watertight, irreconcilable and mutually exclusive sexual orientations. He found that human sexuality is, in fact, a continuum of desires and behaviours, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the population shares an amalgam of same-sex and opposite-sex feelings - even if they do not act on them.’

He then goes on to quote Kinsey’s (grossly inflated) assessments of the incidence of homosexuality whilst acknowledging that they ‘have since been criticised as out-of-date, exaggerated and unrepresentative’.

Tatchell also acknowledges that ‘evidence from sociology and anthropology (shows) that the incidence and form of heterosexuality and homosexuality is not fixed and universal, and that the two sexual orientations are not mutually exclusive. There is a good deal of fluidity and overlap.’

‘What's more,’ he adds, ‘although scientific evidence shows that human sexuality is significantly affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormones - other influences appear to be cultural, including social expectations, peer pressure and the availability and opportunity for sexual release. These influences channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others.’

In fact he even goes so far as to suggest that some homosexual identities are formed as a result of people reacting to perceived prejudice in others:

‘Gay and lesbian identities are largely the product of homophobic prejudice and repression. They are a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the right to have those relationships has to be defended - hence gay identity and the gay rights movement.’

Tatchell, despite these admissions, grossly inflates the true incidence of exclusive homosexuality.

The best evidence (1,2,3) actually suggests that only a very small percentage of men (1-2%) and women (0.5-1.5%) experience exclusive same-sex attraction throughout their life course. It appears that more men and women experience mixed patterns of sexual interest. This includes shifts of interest from one sex to another at various points in their lives or attractions to both sexes at the same time.

Tatchell is right though in saying that bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than exclusive gay/lesbian and if defined in terms of same sex behaviours in past year, may be as much as 5% in men and 11% in women aged 15-44 (4).

Sexual attractions are therefore best understood as lying on a spectrum rather than in terms of a simple dichotomous binary categorisation. Survey data suggest that mixed patterns of sexual desire, including attraction to both sexes at the same time, appear to be more common than exclusive same sex attraction, especially among women.

So what?

Well, like many, I am getting rather tired of the term ‘homophobic’ being used as an accusatory label to tar anyone who does not accept, approve and celebrate same-sex sexual relationships and believe that homosexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race or sex.

There are a large and growing number of people (I call them ‘homosceptics’) who neither hate nor fear ‘gay’ people but simply believe that sex outside a lifelong exclusive heterosexual marriage is morally wrong and the fact that we have certain feelings of sexual attraction does not mean that we should therefore act on them.

These people are also highly sceptical about the key presuppositions on which the gay rights movement has based its campaign, such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Tacthell’s arguments above, and the findings of recent research, confirm that these beliefs are actually more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’.

But Tatchell, by suggesting that gay and straight are not distinct categories at all, has also pulled the rug out from under the feet of the gay rights’ movement.

Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ in spite of the evidence to the contrary you may well believe that people who don’t are ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy. And you might feel justified in branding everyone who does not share your views as 'homophobic'.

But if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, then you should accept that you have adopted these beliefs in the face of, in fact in spite of, the evidence.

And if so you should stop using divisive labels, and accept rather that there are some people who believe with good cause that to treat homosexual orientation as a fixed biological characteristic like race or sex is to confer upon it a status that it does not and should not have.

References

1. Dickson, N, C Paul, and P Herbison. ‘Same-Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood’.Social Science & Medicine 56, No. 8 (2003): 1607-15.

2. Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

3. Savin-Williams, RC, and GL Ream. ‘Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood’. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36 (2007): 385-94.

4. Last year, two important reports have been published in the United States. The 2011 National Health Statistics Report (NHSR) is a nationally representative, multi-stage study that investigates a wide range of sexual attractions and behaviours (A. Chandra et al., Sexual Behaviour, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). A review from the UCLA School of Law combines data from nine recent surveys (G. J. Gates, How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?, The Williams Institute, UCLA, 2011)

You have read this article Homophobia / Homosexuality / Sexuality with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/peter-tatchell-comes-clean-that.html?m=0. Thanks!

Styling: Brittany

dress - BCBG from Shades of Grey, ring - my own

dress - Factory from The Bamboo Ballroom

Some off-shots:

blouse, shorts and bra - my own

dress - Mink Pink, from The Bamboo Ballroom

pink dress (in the third line) - Wren from Shades of Grey

photographer: Harvey Miedreich

photographer's assistant: Yves St. Bass

hair: Amy Laing @ Ponytails + Horseshoes

makeup: Jane Holowchuck @ Ponytails + Horseshoes

stylist: me 

model: Brittany from Mode Models

clothing provided by Shades of Grey, The Bamboo Ballroom and my closet ; )

Just wanted to share with you a creative shoot I styled for photographer Harvey Miedreich and Mode Models. I hope you all have a great weekend! I have an amazing giveaway coming up on Monday so stay tuned for that!

You have read this article Harvey Miedreich / Mode Models / Styling with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/styling-brittany.html?m=0. Thanks!

Diane Abbott throws hissy fit over abortion counseling

A shadow health minister has resigned from a cross-party group of MPs which had been set up to lay the framework for a public consultation on how counselling should be provided for pregnant women.

Labour MP Diane Abbott, who was in the news earlier this month over allegations of racism following an outburst on twitter, has claimed that the government wants to make provision for groups other than abortion providers to offer counselling and that the committee is being used a 'front' for pro-lfe MPs.

But Tory MP Nadine Dorries, who is in favour of women receiving independent counselling, said Ms Abbott's comments were ‘nonsense’ and that Ms Abbott had ‘no clue’ about what had gone on at the group's meetings because she had only attended two out of three events, being late for one and sleeping through another.

The government will shortly launch a consultation on pregnancy counseling and has given indications of being open to the possibility that women might be given an offer of counseling independent of abortion 'providers'.

Health Minister Ann Milton, who was chairing the group, has said, 'It's disappointing when anyone walks away from constructive talks on such an important issue. Talks are continuing encompassing the wide range of views on abortion. I believe we have all been encouraged about how constructive they have been and how well the meetings are progressing.'

Abbott's resignation has thrown the pro-abortion lobby and abortion providers into overdrive and the MP, in an apparent attempt to manipulate the political process, has thrown her toys out of the pram and stormed off in a huff.

But in so doing all she has done is draw attention to her unwillingness to participate in democratic debate and fight her corner.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the charity BPAS which receives millions of pounds of taxpayers money every year to perform abortions, has accused the health minister of 'blatantly' disregarding the abortion industry's advice.

Abortion providers, like BPAS and MSI, which carry out over 110,000 abortions a year, gained a stranglehold over abortion provision during the last government and now receive £75 million pounds annually from the NHS for providing this 'service'.

They have recently been granted permission to advertise on television so that they can grow their market share even further.

After having things their own way for so long it seems they are reluctant to relinquish any control of the abortion pathway to give women who opt for it any choice to explore alternatives to abortion through other counselling providers.

You have read this article Abortion with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/diane-abbott-throws-hissy-fit-over.html?m=0. Thanks!

A Special Message from Johnny...

Johnny in Punta Cana, 

January 2012.



I wasn't actually going to blog today because I'm merrily working on picspam for tomorrow, but then late last night Johnny posted the above photo to his Facebook fan page along with this beautiful message for his fans:


I love you guys. Thank you for making so many of my dreams come true and supporting the people I surround myself with. I can't tell

You have read this article #Weir2013 / #WeirSochi2014 / #WeirWorldPeace2012 / ♥ his Tarzan look / he's not only the Readers' Choice he's the people's choice always / Johnny Weir / thank you Johnny for your sweet note / we love you with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/a-special-message-from-johnny.html?m=0. Thanks!

Celebrities and their Pets!

From everyday people to Celebrities to Presidents, Pets are a big part of North American culture.  Pets are our friends.  Pet owners are always talking about their pets.  It usually makes for a great conversation topic.  Let’s take a look at some Celebrities talking about their pets. 

Question 1:  Do you have any pets?

Halle Berry: Yes, I can't imagine my life without animals. I have two dogs and three cats. Coming home and finding them all lined up at the door waiting for me has got to be one of the sweetest joys of my life.

Question 2:  How many pets do you have?

Miley Cyrus:  I have aaah lots of pets.  I have horses. I have how many dogs do I have. I can’t even count.  Aaah I think like 6 dogs.  I have 2 cats.   I just got a turtle that I found. And I got to keep him.  A turtle. And I have a pet chicken. And a bird. This is my lovebird. I actually have a couple of birds but this one is mine.  So I have lots and lots of animals. And I…we love them.  And we take very good care of them.  And just want to make sure that they are happy cause every animal deserves a good home.

Question 3: What is the name of your pet?

Mariah Carey:  His full name is Jackson P. Mutley, but I call him Jack. He's such a star! He's been in my videos and built up his own fan base.

Question 4: What is your pet like?

Hilary Swank: I bring my dogs on set with me, and my little dog Karoo is smart as a whip. She knows where the craft-services [food] tables are, so anytime I can't find her, I know she has found her way to that area. She's a funny dog.

Conversational Speaking Practice Adaptation

Question 1:  Do you have any pets?

Answer 1:  Yes, I can't imagine my life without animals.

Question 2:  How many pets do you have?

Answer 2:  I have aaah lots of pets.

Question 3: What is the name of your pet?

Answer 3:  His full name is Jackson P. Mutley.

Question 4: What is your pet like?

Answer 4:  My little dog Karoo is smart as a whip. (smart as a whip = very intelligent)

Practice Example ideas:

Ex. 1

Question 1:  Do you have any pets?

Answer 1:  Yes, I can't imagine my life without animals.

Question 2:  How many pets do you have?

Answer 2:  I have a dog.

Question 3: What is the name of your pet?

Answer 3:  His name is Marley.

Question 4: What is your pet like?

Answer 4:  My dog is so friendly and smart.

Ex. 2

Question 1:  Do you have any pets?

Answer 1:  Yes, I can't imagine my life without animals.

Question 2:  How many pets do you have?

Answer 2:  I have 2 pets. One dog and a cat.

Question 3: What are the names of your pets?

Answer 3:  The dog’s name is Rusty and the cat’s name is Tiger.

Question 4: What are your pets like?

Answer 4:  My dog is energetic and my cat is cuddly.

Listen to Miley Cyrus Talk about her pets!

 To all the pet lovers out there, Have a great week!

Alex
Celebrity English
http://celebrityenglish-alex.blogspot.com/
http://www.myspace.com/browse/people#!/573390781
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100002654569713
https://twitter.com/CelebEnglish
http://www.youtube.com/user/blogalexg
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top

You have read this article actress / Alex / blog / cats / Celebrities / Celebrity English / dogs / famous people / Halle Berry / Hilary Swank / Interview / Mariah Carey / Miley Cyrus / pet lovers / Pets / singer / women with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/celebrities-and-their-pets.html?m=0. Thanks!

Monty Python, the Australian Open and same-sex marriage

In Monty Python’s Life of Brian the members of ‘The People's Front of Judea’ are sitting in the amphitheatre (see video).

Stan (far left) has just announced that he wants to be a woman and is explaining why.

The dialogue runs as follows:


FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: ... I want to be one.
REG: ... What?
STAN: I want to be a woman… I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!?!?!
STAN: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But you can't have babies.
STAN: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
(STAN starts crying.)
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Stan is seeking a right, having babies, which he cannot exercise, because he is not actually a woman. But he fails to recognise this reality and instead claims that he is being oppressed.

At the Australian Open, there was talk of a coordinated protest against former champion Margaret Court’s opposition to same sex marriage (she is now an evangelical Christian pastor), and a Facebook campaign to wave rainbow flags on court.

But in the end it was just the British player Laura Robson who showed her colours by wearing a rainbow coloured headband.

Robson seemed slightly befuddled by the ensuing international media coverage she received, but concluded: ‘I wore it because I believe in equal rights for everyone.’

Robson’s unspoken presupposition, which is shared by many, is that in a free society, equality demands that every activity should be open to everyone.

And yet Robson was herself participating in a tournament, the Australian open tennis tournament, that was clearly not open to everyone, and for which only very few people were able to qualify.

Many activities other than tennis tournaments are open to some people but not to others: attending university, visiting a foreign country, applying for a job, casting a vote, entering a private club, playing a round of golf or visiting Buckingham Palace.

Similarly virtually all rights are balanced with restrictions – not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, own a firearm or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. You must fulfil certain requirements.

We all accept these restrictions largely without question. Not everyone has a right to participate in these activities.

This raises the question as to why some gay rights activists, politicians and members of the public are seemingly unable to understand or accept that marriage, as a special kind of relationship, is available for some people but not for others.

Introducing ‘same-sex marriage’ would confer almost no additional legal rights: same-sex couples have these already thanks to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship. These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not 'one size fits all'.

But the leaders of Britain's major political parties, including prime minister David Cameron, seem not to grasp this and are wanting to lump civil partnerships and marriages together.

When asked this week by Archbishop Peter Smith what additional rights marriage would give same sex couples that they did not have already under the Civil Partnership Act, Home Secretary Theresa May was not surprisingly unable to give an answer.

And yet during their meeting Mrs May said that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage regardless and that the consultation was merely to help with the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the legislation.

But marriage – like any of the activities listed above – has never been open to everyone. In order to marry one must be legally ‘free to marry’, that is, aged 16 or over and single, widowed or divorced and there are also restrictions on who, you can marry. You cannot, for example, marry certain close relatives, marry more than one person or marry someone of the same sex.

This is because marriage is a human institution bound by legal contract – with a specific legal definition, ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde vs Hyde;1866).

Calling something 'marriage' that is not marriage, in order to appease a vocal minority, does not make any sense.

It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to accept that it is not open to everybody.

A same sex relationship, however committed or permanent, is not marriage and should not be called marriage. To fight to have a same sex relationship called marriage – when marriage is actually something quite different – is not unlike Stan fighting for his right to have babies when he is not actually a woman who is designed to have babies.

It is not a struggle against oppression but a struggle against reality.

You have read this article marriage / same-sex marriage / Sexuality with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/monty-python-australian-open-and-same.html?m=0. Thanks!

"With Eye on 2014 Olympics..."

Johnny, 

December 2011. 

Photo © David Ingogly.

Please click photo twice for full-size view.
Or click here, then click again,
for super-size version.



Disclaimer re: the following: Just my opinion, my thoughts only, for what it's worth, as far as I know, void where prohibited, your mileage may vary, not intended to substitute nor replace the advice of legal counsel, if you experience the

You have read this article #Weir2013 / #WeirReady / #WeirSochi2014 / David Ingogly / Johnny Weir / six or seven months gaaaaah thank Weirsus we still have 2000+ HDOI photos to carry us through / we may now need to ration our picspam carefully with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/eye-on-2014-olympics.html?m=0. Thanks!

Margo Macdonald dishes up the same confused euthanasia proposals again

Margo Macdonald today announced that she is going to try again to legalise assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (it’s not clear which) in Scotland, just over a year after her last spectacular failure.

Ms MacDonald, Scotland’s only independent MSP, said in unveiling a new consultation on the issue, that she has ‘learned lessons’ from her previous attempt and is proposing a ‘clearer, more straightforward process’.

Among her new proposals is a suggestion that trained ‘licensed facilitators’ would need to be present when someone is at the point of ending their own life to ensure that lethal drugs are ‘taken correctly’.

But on who will actually qualify for assisted suicide under her bill she is less clear.

She told the BBC that it would be for those who are ‘suffering a terminal illness or condition, for whom life becomes intolerable’.

But then she told the Daily Record that it was for anyone who’s ‘life has been made intolerable by an irrecoverable illness’.

And the Scotsman quotes her as supporting assisted suicide when a patient’s life has ‘become intolerable to him or her as a result of their irreversible condition’.

So what is it Margo – ‘terminal illness’, ‘terminal condition’, ‘irrecoverable illness’ or ‘irreversible condition’?

And how are you defining ‘terminal’, ‘irrecoverable’ and ‘irreversible’?

Tetraplegia is usually irreversible but not terminal. Diabetes is ‘irrecoverable’ without treatment but not ‘irreversible’ with it. Leukemia is ‘terminal’ but not irrecoverable if managed properly. And literally hundreds of thousands of British people suffer from conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and chronic bronchitis which are ‘irrecoverable’ but partly reversible and not terminal.

We will have to wait and see Ms Macdonald’s specific proposals but thus far they are rather confused and do not sound much different from those in her last ‘End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill’ which the Scottish Parliament rejected overwhelmingly by 85 to 16 at its first stage debate in November 2010.

On that occasion 87% of all who made written submissions to the scrutinising committee were opposed to it and the committee overwhelmingly recommended that it be rejected. Scottish GPs later added their voices to those calling for it to be dumped.

MSPs rejected Ms Macdonald's last attempt to legalise physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Scotland recognizing that such a move would seriously endanger public safety. Instead they sent a ringing endorsement to making the very best palliative care widely available and accessible.

The key argument that decided the last vote and the similar votes in the House of Lords in 2006 and 2009 is a simple one: 'The right to die can so easily become the duty to die.'

Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others.

Ms Macdonald’s new proposals sound very much like the old ones dished up again. I expect the Scottish parliament to give them short shrift.

Past blogs on Margo Macdonald’s last bill

The Committee scrutinizing Margo Macdonald's Bill have rejected it – now it is time for MSPs finally to bury it

Margo Macdonald MSP is seriously misleading the Scottish Parliament over the number of deaths her bill would allow

Overwhelming defeat for Margo Macdonald's End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill

You have read this article Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia / Margo MacDonald with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/margo-macdonald-dishes-up-same-confused.html?m=0. Thanks!

The Coat Dress

 

coat - Zara, shoes - Dolce Vita, tights - Calvin Klein, jewelry - H & M, bag - Co-Lab

photography by the charming Harvey Miedreich

I fell in love with this coat I saw at Zara during their boxing week sale. (FYI: Zara still has amazing sales going on right now.) I didn't have anything in my closet this bright, in fact I didn't have anything orange at all so I thought I'd spread my wings and purchase something in a color I wouldn't normally wear. I'm such a rebel.

You have read this article Harvey Miedreich / Outfit Posts with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/the-coat-dress.html?m=0. Thanks!

Jon Hamm Style

In my opinion, there's no other man (besides my bf of course) that looks as good as 'Mad Men's' Jon Hamm does in a cap or suit. Or bunny ears for that matter:

 

Tee hee 

Anyone else gearing up for the fifth season of 'Mad Men?' It starts March 25th! Can't wait!

You have read this article Celebrities and Entertainment with the title January 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/01/jon-hamm-style.html?m=0. Thanks!