LF: Lesbian couple spend £13,000 on mail order Danish semen and fertility treatment so their child will look like a Viking - because British sperm 'doesn't cut the mustard'

Title: Lesbian couple spend £13,000 on mail order Danish semen and fertility treatment so their child will look like a Viking - because British sperm 'doesn't cut the mustard'
Source: Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... sperm-doesn-t-cut-mustard.html
Published: Mar 31, 2015
Author: Emma Glanfield for MailOnline
Post Date: 2015-03-31 09:16:48 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 18878
Comments: 88

A lesbian couple have spent £13,000 having Danish semen and fertility treatment shipped to their British home so their child will look like a Viking.

Kelly and Anna Cooke, both 34, have chosen to buy sperm from Denmark because they want their child to have blonde hair and blue eyes and because British sperm 'doesn't cut the mustard'.

The married couple, from Camberley, Surrey, used Kelly's eggs for the insemination after receiving £300-a-time vials of Danish sperm in the post and later successfully conceived via IVF.

Anna put herself forward to carry the child so that they both had an input into the pregnancy and, after a heart-breaking miscarriage, she is now five months pregnant.

Kelly, a buildings manager, said: 'Danish sperm is the best in the world and such high quality.

'I suppose he would look a bit like a Viking, but we want our son to look like us.'

The pair, who got legally married in February, ordered their Danish semen from Cryos International - the world's largest sperm bank which has a motto of: ‘Congratulations, it’s a Viking’.

However, after inseminating Anna with four vials of Danish sperm, she had still not fallen pregnant so they forked out £5,000 for a round of IVF treatment.

That worked but she miscarried, so they spent another £5,000 on IVF and have so far bought ten vials of Dutch sperm.

Anna is due to give birth on July 23 but the couple want to keep the sex of their fair-haired baby secret for the time being.

Anna, a chef, who dyes her hair brown, said: 'We are just so pleased that after spending £13,000 we finally have a little one on the way.

'It doesn't matter that we have rinsed our savings and scrimped and saved for years to get where we are.'

Her partner added: 'With my eggs and Anna carrying the baby, he or she really is ours and we couldn't be happier.'

CONGRATULATIONS IT'S A VIKING! WHY WOMEN FLOCK ABROAD FOR SPERM

Danish sperm now accounts for a third of the total used by British fertility clinics.

Women from all over the world are choosing to go Scandinavian when they need a sperm donor, with shortages of homegrown sperm and better service cited as the main reasons for doing so.

According to Dr Alan Pacey, a fertility expert at the University of Sheffield, people prefer going abroad because of a lack of British sperm donors.

He said: 'We don't have enough donors in the UK to meet the national need. We don't have the clinic infrastructure sufficient to recruit enough donors - even when men want to donate.

'Often there simply isn't the size and scale within small NHS clinics to consider having a donor recruitment programme - plus if you're not confident that sufficient men are going to ring up and become sperm donors, the economics of it simply aren't going to work.'

Danish clinic Cryos International – which is the world's largest sperm bank – is also popular because of its customer service, according to experts.

Laura Witjens, CEO of the National Gamete Donation Trust, said: 'It's much easier for a British clinic to order sperm from Denmark which is Fed-exed the next day than to try and recruit their own donors and all the hassle that goes with them.

'The Danish model is customer service driven. It knows how to deal well with customers, it has a good website, and that's what we could do in the UK as well - it's not rocket science.'

Choice: Denmark's sperm banks, among them Cryos, deploy excellent customer service to help boost sales

Dr Pacey added: 'Denmark is geographically close to the UK. I think there's some sort of philosophical and intellectual bond that we have with Denmark.'

Most women flocking to Denmark for sperm are lesbians or single women in their 30s and 40s who do not see why a lack of partner should be a barrier to motherhood.

It is only in the past few years that there has been a 'Viking invasion' of Britain, due to changes in the law that banned anonymous sperm donation in Britain, leading to a rapid decline in donors.

A British sperm donor has to be prepared for the fact that any resulting child will have the right to trace them at the age of 18.

However, Danish sperm donors aren't anonymous and the detail given about the donor is extensive, which is part of the attraction.

With a British sperm donor, you get a number and choice of hair colour, while Danish sperm donors offer detail you can imagine including family background, job description, education and pictures of the man as a baby or child.

One expert said: 'Donors write personal messages about why they are a donor. You even get to hear their voice.'

The Cryos clinic has been running for 25 years and boasts 30,000 babies born worldwide. But a Viking baby doesn't come cheap, with Danish sperm bought over the internet and delivered to an address in Britain costing £460.

Every year there is a huge convo of Celts from everywhere (with "everywhere" meaning all the Celtic countries: Galicia, France, Wales, Scotland and Ireland). It's in the springtime and called the "Printemps Celt" - the Celtic Spring.

It's a massive music-and-food fest. When I went it was in Paris at the Stade de France, the huge world-cup soccer stadium. There were stages all over the place, and music skreeling around, everything from fiddle to harp to rock-n- roll. Asteryx and Obelisk were over there with a bunch of other guys who all looked like Gregor Clegane throwing rocks around.

It was sort of like St. Patrick's day, with a lot fewer drunks and lot better music. And food.

There was a huge food stand, and the food that day was haggis. You got a big plate of it. I think it came from Auvernge, so it was was French haggis. It looked godawful (or God!...OFFAL!) but it tasted very nice.

Perhaps Scots haggis tastes different from Gaulish haggis. But really there's only so much you can do with stomach and intestines.

My heritage on the Norman French and Dutch side comes pre-traced back about 700 years thanks to nobility. Prominent families tended to marry other prominent families back in the day, so if you happen to be descended from them those filaments of ancestry are essentially matters of public record.

The Dutch came over to Nieu Amsterdam in 1630. Dutch woman married Swedish Dane. Their child comes to America with a huge land grant. It's good to be those people.

The Norman French ones of note, married with Basques, came over to New York in 1677. Unfortunately if I wrote the family name it would be instantly traceable.

The Scottish side has a family name that's terribly recognizable too, but as it was borne by the distaff side three generations ago, it has been submerged by generations of male names. The Stuarts came to Virginia for reasons well known to history. Did a good turn riding horses there too - though ultimately as successful in their profession of Cavalier as they had been in Britain.

So, that's the set that would get me into Slytherin House...if this were the world of Harry Potter.

On the "mudblood" side of the House, we've got two families of Irish, one coming over to Halifax, the other coming from Dungarvan to Quebec in the 1850s. Something about potatoes. Irish boy meets Irish girl in Canada, they take the train down to the US, settle in Midland, Michigan and have 17 children through the late 1800s. 13 of the children live to adulthood. TWO of them, only, have any children of their own.

And then we have the final arrival on these shores: a pair of Alsatians of considerable means. He was a commander of cavalry under Napoleon III. The war for the defense of his homeland did not go well in 1870, and so this Alsatian family found their home passing into the German Empire, while in Paris Napoleon fell and the Commune raged. Finding this situation utterly intolerable, they got on a ship in 1872 and sailed to America. They proceeded at once to an old French provincial city that had been founded by the French back in the 1600s, and that still (at that time) had a distinct French population: Detroit.

Hard to think of Detroit like that, but in 1872 the motorcar hadn't been invented yet, and Michigan weather is pretty grim for farming. Americans largely bypassed Michigan, preferring the easier, and warmer, farming on the plains.

So the French cavalryman and his wife settle in Detroit and purchase some large tracts. They have twodaughters and give them each three houses: a house to live in, eventually, when they are married, and two houses to rent, for income that will belong to them personally, so that they will not be dependent upon a husband's income (and can, therefore, preserve their own independence and dignity, once married). Only one marries, and she marries a Virginia Stuart cavalryman (horse people attract horse people). He converts to her Catholicism and has daughters in Detroit. One daughter marries the son of the Irish folks, and they have daughters. One daughter marries the heir of the Scandinavian/Dutch/Norman lords, and they produce me.

And those are the lines. Nobles and royals are easy to trace far, far back. Commoners are easier to trace in France back to the Revolution, harder to trace in Ireland and the Basque country, harder still in Denmark and Sweden, and impossible in the Lappland.

Of course, we should remember that we all have multiple great grandparents. In fact, if we go back to 1000, about 33 generations ago, we all, every one of us, has about 8.6 billion grandparents, which is more than the population of the world today.

Which means that, at a certain point, everybody is related to everybody else. We're all ultimately descended from one breeding pair, so you're related by blood to everybody in my family tree, and I to yours. We're first cousins, however many times removed. That's Biblical, and its biological.

For me, I find the history of my family to overlay the history of Western Europe, and having them come from the whole Western Fringe, and being on all sides of all fights, allows me to take a neutral perspective "from the blood".

After all, had one side of my ancestry REALLY CLOBBERED the other side, and things not ended up in a series of grinding draws over time, then I wouldn't be here, would I?

To my eyes, the man who boasts excessively of his ancestors is like a potato: all his best parts are underground.

I'll close with the lyrics of an Irish song about the endless Protestant (Orange) and Catholic (Green) troubles in Ireland.

"O it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen: My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was Green. Now, my father was an Ulsterman, broad Protestant was he. My mother was a Catholic girl, from County Cork was she. They were married in two churches, lived happily enough, Until the day that I was born - then things got rather tough. ... One day me ma's relations came 'round to visit me, Just as my father's kinfolk were all setting down to tea. We tried to smooth things over, but they all began to fight. And me being strictly neutralized by everyone in sight! ... O it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen. My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was Green."

Compelling scene, though tough to watch. Those Sicilians are animals. Familiar with their kind. Some truth there, right?

The Moors did conquer Sicily. But who didn't? It was the crossroads of the Mediterranean. Who were the Moors' bloodline? Arabs, Berbers, and yup -- African.

Considering my mother's Sicilian bloodlines -- as well as those from Dad (Naples and Florence) -- it's conceivable I possess the genetics of both northern and eastern Europe -- as well as African and Middle East blood. (I reckon everything but Asian.) So...perhaps I possess the best of ALL genetic traits! (Running like the wind to my pizzeria on the same road I designed and built!) Then again, maybe it's the worst of ALL traits! (Vrooming around the house, arms out, holding myself hostage, and crashing onto the floor. Then blaming the Infidel" and "Whitey.")

My ancestors were there when St George led the Norman Knights at Cerami defeating the Muslim alliance.

I should have said fully Irish on both sides. There is talk of some Scotsmen in the wood pile generations ago on my father's side (but same kin and all).

Father's side more of the southern Isle of Erin and me mum Gaelic speaker and all, from the northern most part of the Irish Republic (not Ulster, just below it). A cross roads type of town between each coast. No doubt by our genetic makeup a Viking lord or lady decided to stay for a bit of Irish hospitality:)

Interesting that very few in the family has red hair and usually only when married into another Irish family. All light brown hair, blonde and some dark hair. Blue eyes and hazel/green seems to be the dominant gene about.

Of course I had to put a halt to all that Irish inbreeding:) I married a Heinz 57 like your background. Wife mostly Italian (some Sicily some east coast Italy); German; Slovak; English and a dash of Polish along the way. All that mixed with Irish makes quite a stew of fair haired, green and blue eyed white boys who tan in summer like Italians while their O'l man lathers on the sun screen and gets red like a lobster:) My wife tans so much that when we are on the Texas Gulf Coast people come up and speak Spanish to her:) LOL.

And Liberator will tell you...That if my wife had any brothers they would not permit a Mick like me to date their sister:)

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

What's interesting is my name actually comes from the other side of the Irish Sea.

Then again, I am told our father's side name was altered at Ellis Island. Too many Mc's and Macs N's and such.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

Well sir, I am sure you stated what every red blooded straight male was thinking.

To think they 'turned their nose' at British variants when they share in the same sorry soup bowl.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

People can make contracts, but if the contracts violate principles of the Republic, the contracts won't be enforced.

Example: a Muslim man sought a divorce settlement from a Muslim woman claiming that she had lied to him about being a virgin before marriage. That's a big thing to them. Well, she HAD lied about it. And the French court ruled that, in France, nobody has any business demanding of a woman whether or not she is a virgin, and she has no legal duty to tell the truth on the subject anyway, so it is not a breach of contract or a fraud on the contract for her to have lied about it. The French Republic will not legally uphold a requirement of virginity in a marriage contract, and will not enforce a suit for fraud even if the woman lies.

This made some people mad, but the French don't care. There are certain aspects of privacy that simply trump contract law.

There are immigrant neighborhoods where the people are speaking Arabic and doing Muslim things, and they are left alone to do them - French law enforcement has a lighter touch than American. So, things are tolerated in France and the state won't intervene, but that's generally true. The French LAW itself doesn't make exceptions. It's just that the French state is not as aggressively present as a police presence in French lives as the American state is in American lives. The US has about 17% more police per capita as France, but the US incarceration is through the roof. On a per capita basis, the US imprisons seven times as many people as France, and that is despite the fact that a fifth of French prisoners are in pre-trial detention (in France, there is no habeas corpus for serious crimes: you are jailed until trial).

About 10% of the French population is Arabic. Actual practicing Muslims are less than that total (there are a lot of Palestinian and Lebanese Christians in France: they're Arabs, but they're not Muslims).

The population is clearly changing, and becoming more North African, but that does not mean that the French law is changing, at least not yet.

France is a unitary state with a very strong sense of what it is, and is not, to be French. The British have a tremendous problem with the same issues, because they make ad hoc changes to try to appease groups. The French have taken a very different approach. They offer the opportunity to everybody to be French. Being French does not include any religion: France is a laic state and religion is a personal affair. It means accepting a certain worldview about the equality of man, the equality of rights under the law. While the Germans and to a lesser extent, the Scandinavians have legal barriers to prevent immigrant citizenship, and the English bend over backwards to "accommodate", the French approach is that there is nothing incompatible between being an Arab, or Muslim, or Christian or Jewish, and French. You just have to change your cultural outlook or your religion to fit French norms.

That's where the French are. Their white birth rate is quite a bit better than the English or Spanish, Italians or Germans. Only the Swedes seem to on the same pace. This is due to very heavy family subsidies that are designed to actively encourage French women to have children and to leave the workplace for substantial periods of time in order to raise them properly.

You get more of what you pay for. France has slowly turned the demographic corner by offering very generous, substantial and long term benefits for having multiple children. So they have more children. And it's not just the immigrants who are having children. The benefits are particularly tuned to the needs of middle class people. Example: a French woman leaves to have a baby, her employer has to take her back, for years afterwards. The place is held open for her.

The Panique Celtique festival sounded cool (I doubt any "Amish" or Arab "yoots" were running around?? ;-)

Yeah, it's still organ meat and god-offal! I'd have to be blindfolded and starving. I think I'd almost rather eat insects (breaded and fried of course.) I have NEVER eaten any organ meat, including liver. Now, on the Naples side when I was a kid, grandma served up a bake, presumably well-seasoned lambs' head. Uncle Petey immediately stabbed an eyeball. NOT appetizing to a little kid.

That you are able to trace your widely disseminated bloodline that far, and with such minute detail and surety is...amazing. Fascinating history, Vic.

I find I'm unable to maintain a neutrality, as most of my political and life views are based on morality and ethics which I believe have no real basis in genetics. Am I wrong? Yours is an interesting perspective, which evokes the following interesting question as to whether our personal ideology IS influenced by our DNA, rather than individually evolved spirit and environment.

at a certain point, everybody is related to everybody else. We're all ultimately descended from one breeding pair, so you're related by blood to everybody in my family tree, and I to yours. We're first cousins, however many times removed. That's Biblical, and its biological.

Well, as one who believes mankind began with Adam and Eve as you do, I also believe the above is indeed the case. Of course there are those who can't quite fathom that God the Almighty was capable of creating a "first family" out of disparate physical traits.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

I've had mine for 8 years. Driven it everywhere I needed to go. To and from work, to faraway places. It's a car. It's roomy inside. It gets great gas mileage. But it's just a car.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

Yup, *somewhere* *somehow* that pesky William Wallace and one of his band of merry Scotsmen mistakenly forgot where and who they were ;-)

Hey -- it was for your own good, ya brute-ish mick! And how were you and your kids supposed to survive, without a proper culinary sophistication? ;-) Ha, that story of your wife's tanning and presumption that she's Espanol is...good. You?? Naturally, sun out: Despite SPF 900, that ruddy dude roasts into crimson-lobster red! Betcha your boys got the good looks from your combo, though....

Good looks from da wifey of course:) They did get the Irish twinkle in the eye though which catches the eyes of their lady classmates. Gotta keep an eye on that!

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

Being in the Army for 25+++ years I really don't burn at all on the face, hands or arms. But the first beach visit I take full precautions:)

I still wear sunscreen on the face, hands and arms in Texas when outdoors with sports or coaching. Skin cancer among whiteys like me is a risk, especially in Texas.

But as Vic has recommended, I don't put on the sunscreen until I get a good dose of Vitamin D.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

We are each a unique spirit. Spirit is the word "Breath". We are each a breath, breathed out by God into a vessel of flesh. The unity of spirit and body is a "soul". We ARE spirits, we HAVE bodies (and when we have them, we are souls).

God knew us before he placed us in bodies, and he shaped us individually. THEREFORE, there are aspects of us that are inborn but that do not come from our DNA or our bodies, because they came in the form of spirit, breathed out by God, and contain what God wished to breathe out.

God makes people of very different characters and temperaments. He then places them in bodies that will experience various influences, challenges and problems. Some will go back to him swiftly, having been only briefly dipped in flesh before dying, even in the womb (even as the result of their mother's murdering them in an abortion). These spirits never had the opportunity to sully themselves with personal sin, and are likely to proceed directly to Gan Eden and have very high places. God slated them for a swift death but a longer and higher afterlife - the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

I'm not at all neutral about morality. What I AM neutral about is ethnic chauvinism and socio-economic snobbery. Let me elaborate.

I have a bunch of ethnic nationalities in my background, and having travelled much, I have seen much of the world. I've seen many places where I am related by blood, and I've been many more where I am not related in any way of which I am aware, other than through Noah and Adam.

What I have seen in common is that all places have flags and national songs and national dress, and everybody is proud of them. I find the national songs to generally be similar. There are a few that have noticeably interesting tunes, but very few really stand out from the rest. The Marseillaise, I think, is particularly stirring because the beat is more urgent. Flags are flags. People have affection for theirs, they are symbols of culture and history. I like culture and history. But when things start to tip over into "Thou shall not insult the flag", what that MEANS, politically, is "Thou shall not question any important aspect of the national history." I find this stupid, and a virtual guarantee that a country will become sclerotic and self-defeating.

I have watched with interest what has happened in Thailand. Now, I have no blood tie or economic tie or any other tie with Thailand. I visited once, when I was in the Navy. Nice country. Most I've visited are. Beyond that, I have no emotional attachment. I observe that Thailand has a set of strict laws against insulting the monarch, insulting the royal family. And I have watched how, in a turbulent political situation where things are going poorly for the country, political opponents arrest and prosecute each other constantly for "insults to the Crown". Essentially, anything that questions policy, direction or history is an "insult to the Crown", because it questions some decision that "the Crown" made in the past. This is a perfect way to be sure that nobody can effectively change anything. The net result is "conservatism", of the most self- defeating basis: EVERYTHING is conserved, nothing can be challenged, so you have an hereditary monarchy, corrupt government, lousy controls, and the inability to fix anything. And things slide towards disorder, coups d'état, violence and mayhem.

The American Founders were smart to sharply limit treason. In every age in America people have always been eager to accuse their political opponents of "treason", but the Constitutional standard is so narrow and rigid that hardly anybody is ever able to make it stick. That works out to be a good thing: it preserves political freedom to suggest changes and to work for them against opposition.

So flags and music, national dress, culture and food: these things are colorful, and I appreciate the variances, but I don't look at ANY of these things that people hold so dear and see any as having any MORAL content. A flag is a flag, a song is a song, a dress is a dress and a foodstuff is a foodstuff. Everybody likes their own. That's great. But it's not a moral issue, any more than the Tigers beating the Yankees, or vice versa, is a moral issue. It's teamsmanship.

I've found that more diverse and more travelled people are, the less susceptible they are to having their moral sense of right and wrong bent away from truth by national sense, or by excessive devotion to a flag, a song, a cultural feature.

There's a famous saying by an American leader, I believe it was Stephen Decatur, who said "My country, may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong." I categorically reject this sentiment. I say right or wrong matters more than country. When the country is wrong, if it is a minor thing, one may grumble and tolerate it, but one does not defend it. When the country is really wrong on something immoral and outrageous, one may very well have the moral duty, to God, to work against the country.

Being a "Good German" in 1943 could very well land a man in Gehenna and the Lake of Fire.

I would say, all things consider, that the proper order of priority of concerns is God, Family, Friends, Country...in that order.

Which means that I place priority on Spirit, followed by blood, followed by personal obligation, with geographical affiliation taking up the rear.

Arch-nationalists correctly say that internationalists do not share their intense devotion to a particular country. That is true. Internationalists don't have the same intense devotion to a particular country because they know better. All countries have some nice features, and all countries have some appalling features, because people are people, and everywhere, people make moral compromises.

Some places are worse than others, from my perspective. Places that share my moral view of the world, which is to say, places where most people have my religion, tend to be the easiest places for me to be comfortable. This isn't nationalism or chauvinism, it is matters of right and wrong. Places where the religion is particular violent, notably Muslim places, are particularly bad, from my perspective, because they too are focused on moral issues, but they have immoral answers. So, they passionately advocate for evil things. That's the worst. Places with very lax personal morals, such as Thailand, are no more impressive from a moral standpoint than places of wrongheaded religious zealotry, but the lack of belief in anything, or casual immorality, is less offensive to ME PERSONALLY than violent-in-your-face wrongness. God may equate the two, but I'm not God, and I find the peaceably immoral to be easier to take than the militantly moral whose morals are off kilter. Widespread fornication is not good, but it's better than beheadings.

So, to return to your question. I am not neutral on moral issues. I place moral concerns above nation, and THAT may be the TRUE legacy of varied DNA: I don't value any piece of it as much as "purebreds" value theirs.

Example: the Hitlerian and Eugenics mindset was that people are divided between "Pure" and "Mongrel".

I would like to have a sperm fest with those 2 misguided carpet munchers and teach them a HARD lesson they shall never forget!

I know the plot lines well. I have read some of the books as the HBO version (I do not have HBO nor will subscribe to it) is a bit 'too much' window dressing in the blood, gore and gratuitous sex category.

So yes familiar with the 'Imp' (Peter Dinkle of Elf fame) marrying off his sister's children to unify kingdoms.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

Wiki: "Sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 8 based on the UVB spectrum has been reported to decrease vitamin D synthetic capacity by 95%, whereas sunscreen with an SPF of 15 can reduce synthetic capacity by 98%."

You have to absorb the Vitamin D your skin produces. If you shower off with soap, you can actually lower Vitamin D levels. The longer you leave the sweat (actually the Vitamin D precursor) on your skin, the more Vitamin D you will absorb.

Generally, you should get sunlight between 10am to 2pm when sunlight is most intense. 10-20 minutes is the right amount. After 20 minutes, you can't produce/absorb any more D because your body neutralizes it so it doesn't become toxic. The Vitamin D precursor forms on your skin in sunlight and should not be washed away with soap. You can wash the perspiration off in a shower but you should not use soap or wipe the skin hard for two days if you want to absorb all the D. So no soap on the arms/legs/back/etc. Use soap carefully only on the most gritty bits. Soap kills the D precursor remaining on your skin.

Absorbing Vitamin D from sunlight is a vital thing but not exactly the most hygienic. This sounds strange to people because they think of Vitamin D as a vitamin. But it isn't a vitamin at all. It's a steroid. It seems like a minor difference but D is so different from actual vitamins that it should be remembered.

A lot more is known about D now than a century ago when it was first discovered (and misclassified as the "fourth vitamin").

I wouldn't ban soaps just yet. The harsher ones and the antibacterials should be avoided if possible. You don't have to lather from head to foot either, not on every shower.

There's nothing wrong with soap, I suppose. Just like there's nothing wrong with underwear. But these things just seem superfluous. I don't need to put a shirt under my shirt, so that I can put a coat on top of that. I'm not cold. I'm furry and designed for cold weather.

The water washes everything away, and hair likes its natural oil. So why mess with it by adding soap scum and feeling that layer of fat and caustic soda on your skin, itchy and greasy.

Water suffices. Obviously if you get into oil or a mess of food you need soap, but other than that, no.

I've had brains, eyes, ears, tongue, crops and thyroids, lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, pancreas, testicles, ovaries and intestines. Also blood. And tail.

I have braised kidneys every week. Andouillette, which is tripe sausage, is really good.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

France's population is only 3.5% black and zero Hispanic. 25% of the U.S. population is black and Hispanic. We have more blacks and Hispanics than France has citizens.

62% of our inmates are black and Hispanic! Take away the blacks and Hispanics and our incarceration rate is no different than any other free, industrialized country.

Which is why the growing police abuse of white middle class people gives an opening to the civil rights movement to bring the police and criminal justice system to heel.

Police oppression and excessive sentencing of blacks is a long-standing practice in America, and the majority has never cared. But now that the cops have started to get out of line and treat the white middle class majority the way they've always treated the blacks, the police and prosecutors are rapidly losing the trust and respect of white America. White America used to have their back, but the cops have become overmighty, and more and more of white America are ceasing to support them on account of it.

Now, the whites are not going to politically band together to take down the police power through the courts. There's no precedent for that. But whereas in the past the whites have stood firm at the ballot box and in the jury box in favor of the police, as the police continue to abuse more and more whites, and gain more and more enemies, the whites are going to step back and stop politically protecting the police.

And then the usual civil rights forces will be able to press forward their case of disproportionate treatment of blacks, and they'll be able to win.

The result will be a heavy set of court-imposed rules against the police. The reason will be that the police started treating whites the way they've always treated blacks. But the crowbar by which police power will be beaten back will be the black civil rights movement, using the very statistics you have cited.

In the past, these statistics have been able to be used by people of your mindset to "prove" that the problem is with the blacks. But as the wheel turns, these same statistics will be used to prove that the police are racist, the criminal justice system is corrupt and unjust and biased. And the net result will be a serious curtailment of police power.

The ultimate reason that it happens will be because whites get sick of being abused by the cops and step aside, withdraw their support for the police, and let the black civil rights movement beat the police down with court orders.

That's the way that all civil rights in America have come about, whether for women or Chinese or Indians. The government moves to address mistreatment of blacks, and that creates the lines of argument and power that are more generally used to break the existing power structure down, which ultimately results in more freedom for other people.

Watch it develop over the next few years. The political and judicial backlash against the police is coming, and the strongest vehicle against it is black civil rights legislation, with the prison population statistics you cite as prima facie proof of the case for discrimination.

As it plays out, those who claim that, no, it is proof that blacks are criminals, will be derided as racists and lose the argument.

In the past, these arguments have never gotten anywhere because the white middle class stood with the police. But the police have started attacking the white middle class. That alliance is coming apart, and without political protection, the police are weak: they're government employees dependent on elected governments for their salaries, and juries to back up their judgments.

Anybody can see this coming. You brought up the key facts that will be that atomic bomb against the criminal justice system and police power as currently structured. To end the discriminatory impact, both will end up reduced.