Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Magnificent Mile

Nothing puts you in the Christmas Spirit more than watching Rich Women in Mink Coats pass by beggars  in bitter cold as if they were completely invisible.  Indifference as towering as the Hancock Building.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Philosopher Equality Now!

Everyone should be allowed to be recognized as a tenured philosophy professor at a public university. One might object that this would entail the re-definition of philosophy, but philosophy has been re-defined all the time from 'love of wisdom' to 'pursuit after the truth' to 'learning how to die' to 'some peculiar language game we play'. You don't even have to advocate philosophy to be a tenured philosophy professor. You can, in fact, make it your job to destroy philosophy (whatever it may be) and STILL have tenure as a philosophy professor. Just ask Rorty and Wittgenstein. But, wait, you say, shouldn't one be able at least to convey his or her philosophy (whatever it may be) clearly and intelligibly to qualify as a tenured philosophy professor? That's never been a qualification for the position historically. Otherwise, Kant, Hegel, Ayer, Davidson, and Rawls would never have been tenured philosophy professors. Well, shouldn't you then at least be expected to publish stuff for peer review? Seriously? Would you then deny Socrates tenure, the patron saint of philosophers?

Philosophy has no definition. It is simply a convention that can be defined however political fiat lists. Since philosophy has no definition, neither can the teaching thereof. Therefore, there can be no reasonable qualifications for being a tenured philosophy professor, save the willingness to be one. Since this is the case, it is simply unfair to limit the honor, prestige, and economic benefits that attend a tenured professorship in philosophy to those few who know how to game the tenure system. Thus, the dictates of equality demand that the position of tenured philosophy professor be made available to all for the mere asking. And if you disagree, then, well, you are a bigot. As vile as any anti-Semite or White Supremacist.

We got the Beat, sonny!

You know you're old and verging on dementia when you wax nostalgic for songs that as a youth you dismissed as insufferable poppy crap.

Jeanne la Pucelle

I am often asked with great bewilderment why in God's name Jeanne la Pucelle, a warrior who led a very bloody war, is my favorite saint? Why would God have a person lead an activity that maims, mutilates, and kills people? And, by the way, am I not supposed to be vehemently anti-war? Yeah, precisely. The Catholic Church won't let me be dogmatically anti-war. I must allow at least for the possibility of a Just War. And the story of Ste. Jeanne tells me exactly what a Just War should look like. It should be one led by a nineteen year old Virgin whose visions have been exhaustively documented by an ecclesiastical consistory and found to be consistent with Holy Doctrine and Writ, and if it's not, then it's evil and I have a sacred duty to protest it. Thanks, Jeanne!


If opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is as evil as anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism is as evil as refusing to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. It follows, then, that the Nazis could have saved lots of money on trains, camps, and Zyklon B; they could have killed all the Jews by simply ignoring them. Logical fallacy, you say? Yeah, logic has nothing to do with the surreal, and this debate over ss'm' is so fucking surreal I feel that I am trapped in a Dali Painting.

Just Curious

So, will this precedent allow a Jew to sue a restaurant that refuses to make him Matzah Ball Soup during Passover?

Friday, November 29, 2013

Two daddies explain where babies come from

Daughter: Daddy and Dada

Dada: I am Dada, and he's Daddy.

Daughter: Sowwy. Daddy. Dada.

Daddy: Good girl.

Daughter: Can you tell me where babies come from?

Daddy: Well, you came Fed-Ex.

Dada: But Special Delivery, though.

Religious Doctrine is Nonsense, you say?

How can I believe in such patent nonsense as, say, the Trinity or Transubstantiation? Well, these doctrines are easier to swallow than the concept of, say, a Lesbian Dad.


The only way to establish a general equality between same-sex and heterosexual relationships is to declare that all relationships are normatively sterile. But this is sheer lunacy.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

And all that Holden Caufield crap

If almost every one in the United States who has gone through High School has read Catcher in the Rye, then why is society phonier than ever?   The humanizing effect of literature is overrated, I suppose.

Monday, November 25, 2013

4 Minute Absurdist Theatre

(Inspired by Michael Cera)


Me, a middle-aged, paunchy, pathetic nebbish

Aubrey Plaza

The Time:  The Present

The Setting:  A nondescript cubicle

(we see Me sitting in front of a computer terminal, doing nothing.)

Me:  What's the point?  What's the point?  I won't remember any of my work anyway.  So, I might as well not do it.  And I don't know what I should do anyway.

(Aubrey Plaza's head suddenly appears above the south cubicle wall.)

Ms. Plaza:  Hey, hey, hey.

Me:  (startled, tries to swivel toward the voice but ends up back in front of the terminal)  Who is that?

Ms. Plaza:  It's Aubrey Plaza, the sum and zenith of all your hopes and dreams.  You wanna do lunch?

Me:  (turns the chair around with deliberate stomps so as not to miss the voice a second-time)  Lunch?

Ms. Plaza:  Lunch is simply a euphemism for, "I want you to ravish me right now, you Roman War God, you."  You do realize that, don't you?

Me:  Why?

Ms. Plaza:  No reason.  You just got lucky.  I had a whim.  So, shall we...

Me:  Now?  You mean, here?

Ms. Plaza:  Well, no, not here, stupid.

Me:  Well, fine.  Where then?

Ms.  Plaza:  There's no one in the snack room right now.  (enters the cubicle and reaches Me her hand)  Come on, let's go.

(Scene changes to a nondescript windowless room with two nondescript vending machines and a table that seats four or five.

Me:  What if some one comes in here?  It is Lunch Time after all.

Ms. Plaza:  Oh, I have a key.  I can lock this door.  (which is exactly what she does.  Thereafter, she seats herself upon the table with as much of a come hither look as her notorious deadpan will allow)  So, now, come hither you, and take me, let me feel your throbbing manhood.

Me:  Now?

Ms. Plaza:  Yes.

Me:  What do I do first?

Ms. Plaza:  You can grab me and kiss me and then rip off my blouse, Einstein.

Me:  Okay.  (and does just that, or tries to, at least, but as Me begins pulling her blouse out of her skirt, Ms. Plaza pushes Me away).

Ms. Plaza:  Wait.  Do you have a condom?

Me:  Oh, no.  I am Catholic.  Damn.  Can't I just get a Three Musketeers Bar and use the wrapper?

Ms.  Plaza:  Geez, you are Catholic.

Me:  But this is supposed to be the sum and zenith of all my hopes and dreams.

Ms. Plaza:  Yes, I know, I know.  Don't worry.  There's a pharmacy across the street.  It won't take me five minutes.  (starts tucking her blouse back in her skirt).  You'll wait right here, okay?

Me:  Five minutes?

Ms. Plaza:  Less, I promise.

Me:  Promise?

Ms. Plaza:  Look at this face.  When it says 'promise', it means 'promise'.

Me:  (meekly)  But I've never seen a face like that.

Ms. Plaza:  Christ!  Just trust me.

Me:  (in something damn near a whimper)  Okay.

Ms.  Plaza:  And try not to hyperventilate.  Too much.  (Exits)

Me:  Please, hurry.

(The Elders of Zion suddenly materialize around the table)

First Elder:  She won't return.

Second Elder:  Kiss the Mezuzah.

(Me looks frantically for a Mezuzah, but finds none.  Then the Third Elder drops a china plate on the floor.  As it shatters, the scene changes to a very messy bedroom.  It is the middle of the night, and Me has to get up to urinate.)

Me:  Goddamn, motherfucking nocturia!

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Oh, Mr. D.

Expecting to be a granddad just because your daughter is "marrying" a woman is as silly as expecting to eat fish because you lost your fishing rod. And it is definitely sillier than the notion that marriage has something to do with procreation.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Paradigmatic Pilpul

This is just idiocy. Presumption of parenthood attaches to normal marriage because of the presumption of really obvious biology. When a same-sex couple is raising a kid, it is simply impossible to presume that both partners are the parents. Again, because of really obvious biology. Same-sex "marriage" is bullshit. But I am saying this only because I secretly want to gas Jews.

Please, answer me this

If you celebrate the murder of an unarmed man face down on the floor and so wounded that he is hors de combat by any definition of the term, you are not some cruel, depraved Nazi who gets his jollies from the sadism of wholly gratuitous and senseless violence. No, you're an upstanding patriot.

But if you think that marriage is the union of a man and woman, then you are as evil and as twisted a bigot as a White Supremacist or, well, a Nazi and as such probably wish you could have watched Matthew Shepherd's crucifixion on that barbed wire fence.

How the fuck does that work? Answer me this. I want to know. How in the goddamn fuck is it respectable to celebrate the cold-blooded murder of a critically wounded man (in front of his wife, no less), but thinking marriage is a union between a man and a woman is as contemptible as anti-Semitism or racism? Tell me. I want to fucking know. Explain to me why this is NOT rabid, barking LUNACY! Tell me!!!!


To repeat: None of my arguments against the legal recognition of ss'm' depend upon the moral status of what same-sex couples do to express intimacy. Let's do a thought experiment, shall we? What if the general culture did not associate being gay with engaging in buggery or being Lesbian with fisting or using strap-ons? Instead being gay or Lesbian was in the popular imagination linked primarily with nothing that no one would ever think disgusting, perverted, or immoral such as having really deep philosophical discussions. The so-called 'ick factor' would then be entirely gone from the matter of same-sex relationships. I would still be opposed to the legal recognition of ss'm' with exactly the same vehemence. Why? Because my opposition does not depend upon the morality or immorality of what same-sex couples do but ONLY upon what they cannot do, i.e. coitus.

I am not throwing in the towel just yet

SS'M' will soon be recognized in all fifty states. My side has lost. But here's my hope. "Marriage equality" is part of a larger goal and that is the complete abolition of all public sanctions of heterosexism and heteronormativity. For the arguments for "marriage equality" are all premised upon equality among the sexual orientations. Heteronormativity is premised upon the idea that there is only one normal sexual orientation, that being heterosexuality. Thus, a society cannot logically accept same-sex "marriage" and also be heteronormative. The two things directly contradict each other. If a society accepts one, it must reject the other.

Thus, a society that accepts the arguments for "marriage equality" must reject all public sanctions of heterosexism, and this, of course, includes sexually segregated public restrooms and locker rooms. But this will lead to popular resistance, especially among mothers with teenage daughters. And when the angry mobs protesting the desexing of restrooms and locker rooms are told that this is simply the logical consequence of "marriage equality", it is my fondest hope that they will all respond with a loud roar, "Well, fuck 'marriage equality' then!" And then finally normality and sanity will be restored.

The Shining City on the Hill

The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, Captain Phillips, these films prove American Exceptionalism.  For only in the U.S.A. do the citizens have to pay to view Government Propaganda.

A New Excuse

I am sorry I am so cranky this morning.  I must have gotten up on the wrong side of History.  Sowwy.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Hey, Mr. D.

Let's hear it for the Irish!

This is the BEST brief argument against the legal recognition of the absurdity known as same-sex "marriage" I have read thus far.  David Quinn is THE man.  I forgive the Irish now for making Catholicism more unpleasant than it needs to be, even for being the final cause of "Eagle's Wings".

David Quinn does his homework.  Listen how he neatly cuts off Richard Dawkin's ass and hands it to him with garnish.

MacIntyre in nuce

I had to take this sociology class over the summer to be graduated with a B.A.  One day the professor started class by talking about how artificial insemination gives women the opportunity to have children without ever knowing a man.

"But that would be boring,"  I said.

"Paul, that's sexist," she said sternly.

"Sorry," I responded sheepishly and did not speak for the rest of the class.

But that did not sour me on academia.  This did:

It was a class on arguments for and against the Enlightenment.  This was the class that introduced me to MacIntyre.  I have not been the same since.  Anyway, towards the end of the Semester we were  discussing Hume's Treatise, and a rather testy exchange was had between a dandified graduate student of English Lit. and a diehard defender of Aristotelian Logic (he was also at the time a rabid Randian--he is no longer.  He's Catholic.).  The exchange was rather sharp, but no foul language was used, no voices were raised, and it was a minor disruption, if that.  The professor managed to get back to the subject of Hume's philosophy easily.  Nevertheless, the tone of this brief exchange has forever registered in my mind as thus:

The Dandy:  There is no absolute truth, you anachronistic fool.
The Schoolman:  Yes,  there is, you limp-wristed asswipe.

And I remember thinking, "Get me the goddamn fuck out of here."

Since then I've discovered that you don't need to attend a prestigious university to be exposed to such philosophical insights.  Facebook will do just fine.

Incommensurability, baby, incommensurability!

Monday, November 11, 2013

Ionesco, call your office

Hollywood, as everyone should know by now, is hellbent on making gay "families" seem normal. The show Modern Family is part of this project. Obviously. But other shows that do not have regular gay characters or are not particularly focused on matters of relationship and family such as, say, cop shows will often have dialogue that normally is used about heterosexual relations applied instead to homosexual ones in the attempt to make us the viewers accept that the one kind is just as normal as the other.

My favorite such attempt happened in last Wednesday's episode of SVU: An openly gay man is asked if he has any children. He answers, "No, I haven't found the right man yet."

I actually like absurdist theatre.

If there is no free will,

...then what use is it to try and persuade people that there is no free will?  I have never been able to figure this out.  Can anyone help me in this regard?

Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Land of the Free

The United States of America, the land where you can be jailed for refusing to bake a wedding cake for an event that is not even a wedding.

November 10, 1934

Today would have been my father's 79th Birthday.  I miss him.

(Note bene:  In case you are being or have been raised by Lesbians, "father" means--or used to mean-- "male parent".  Also, a father used to be understood as indispensable to any family, so indispensable, in fact, that the loss of a father was considered a devastating tragedy.  Now, of course, a male parent is nothing more than a lifestyle option.  This Brave New World can go fuck itself.)

Just a friendly reminder

It is bigoted to celebrate Father's and Mother's Day.  These hate-filled Feast Days of Oppressive Heteronormativity spread the message that sexual difference in parenting actually is important and thereby demean and humiliate Gays and Lesbians raising children.  Therefore, if you celebrate these days, you are as evil as a Nazi or a Grand Wizard.  If you do not wish to be as evil as a Nazi or a Grand Wizard, then you should celebrate Parents' Day only, which falls on the Fourth Sunday of July.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Bigotries, Old and New

The old bigotry:  (Said by a white father to a black boy) "Don't you dare look at my daughter, and don't even think about dating her."

The new bigotry: (Said by a Bible-Thumping Zealot to a gay youth) "Please, please, look at my daughter, please. Doesn't she have a nice figure? Don't her nice, round, firm breasts excite you in any way? Have another look, please!"

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Just have to get this out of my system

The Illinois State Legislature can go fuck itself.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

One more thing

Guy Fawkes wanted to usurp a Protestant Theocracy and put a Catholic Theocracy in its place, people.  He was hardly a subversive anarchist who yearned for a Libertarian/Libertine Utopia, and, one thing is for damn sure, his ideal regime would have hardly been welcoming to Lesbian Romances.   It's "Remember, remember..." and not "Re-write, re-write to conform to the Revolutionary Delusions of Arrested Adolescence."

And it should be noted that Fawkes and his fellow Gunpowder Plotters were singularly stupid,  They let the powder they were intending to use to blow up Parliament sit in a dark, dripping cellar for months and months and months.  They would have had more success if they tried to poison the parliamentarians with moldy cheese.

Bad Writing is Bad Timing

According to the stats, my pageviews are increasing.  This may or may not indicate an increasing in readership.  It may indicate merely that the same two or three bored people are so bored that they are re-reading my posts.  Well, I should say that I am honored that there are a few who regard my dyspeptic drivel a more interesting distraction than the latest Cat Video on YouTube.  But even if my readership is increasing, the same cannot be said about the quality of my writing.  I thought that if I wrote something every day, my writing would become more practiced, sure, and interesting, provoking my readership to beg me to write the Next Great American Novel.  Well, that has not happened.  And it won't happen.  Successful writers all start writing in earnest in their teens or early twenties, and by the time they've reached my age, they have long since exorcised all of their bad writing demons.  That's what Juvenilia is for, after all.  Middle-age is not the time to do Juvenilia, especially when the second bout of pathetic childishness is just a few years away.

I wasted my youth.

Oh, and there is another possibility for the increase in pageviews:  Doublechecking by the NSA (although you'd think the agency would know how to disappear any internet footprint it might make).  Or the government's Health Care Website sent people here by mistake.  No insurance exchanges here.  Try eating an apple a day.  That's all I can tell ya.  Sowwy.

Oh, Brother Tom

Why do you not have a weblog?  Or do you, but just not on  Anyway, get thee off facebook.  Facebook is evil.  It runs adverts for the Russian Sex Trade.  But, then again, Google, which  owns, probably does much worse things like, say, creating a privately owned global surveillance state.

Geez.  The Amish look better with each passing day.  The Amish can't be wiretapped or hacked.  Of course, they are still vulnerable to whatever depredations Google may have planned with Google Earth.    Which once provoked me to say, "Hey, neato!"  That's how technocratic totalitarianism begins, folks--by being awestruck by its power.

We're all fucked.  (except, perhaps, the Amish).

Why Dale Carnegie's Books were Bestsellers

οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ δοκοῦσι διὰ φιλοτιμίαν βούλεσθαι φιλεῖσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλεῖν: διὸ φιλοκόλακες οἱ πολλοί.

Anyone may answer

How does my opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" make me as evil as someone who wants to deny blacks the vote or as heinous as someone who wants to gas Jews?

Monday, November 4, 2013

On second thought

John Emerson may well have a Doctorate in Germanistik.  His dissertation may have been on Thomas Mann's Zauberberg and written auf fliessendem, fehlerfreiem, beredtem Hochdeutsch.  He spoke really bad German with a hypergrotesque American accent simply for the sake of lulling the Germans into thinking that we Americans are so bad at languages that we cannot be expected to understand any of the foreign conversations we electronically surveil.

If this is the case, it has not fooled the Germans.  This is a Straussian trick, to conceal one's nefarious wiles behind a façade of bumbling cluelessness, and Leo Strauß was a German.  And John Emerson remains an idiot.

Regarding a previous post

Er, what I thought was Divine Intervention was really just cruel teasing by the baseball gods, who apparently support "marriage equality".  Oh, well.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

John Emerson

This is the guy who represents us to Germany?  No wonder the Krauts still think we are fucking idiots. His American Accent is so grotesque that it is a parody of itself, but, fine, people who learn languages at a late age often cannot shake the dominance of their native tongue.  Mr. Emerson can be forgiven for his truly grating pronunciation of German.  But was there no one on his staff who knew enough German to save Mr. Emerson from a really basic and loud subject-verb agreement error?  Or are all embassy staff with that level of German proficiency too busy transcribing and translating Angela Merkel's phone calls to give their boss a primer on the conjugation of German verbs?

Hey, if the American Embassy in Berlin needs a German Tutor or even a copy editor, I am available.

Friday, November 1, 2013

Facebook is officially sleazy

The last time I re-activated, I got ads for mail order Russian hook-ups.  Such ads can only be for the still thriving sex slave trade.  

Nihilism and "Marriage Equality"

According to the Source of all Knowledge, Wikipedia: "most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."

The logic of "marriage equality" is thus: Gays and straights must be treated equally under the law. Therefore, it is invidious discrimination for the law to treat opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex couples. Therefore, the dictates of equality demand the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage". But for the law to effect this equality between straights and gays, it must say that the difference between the two is not sufficiently relevant to justify differential treatment. The difference between the two is rather obvious: the former desire to engage in an act upon which the endurance of humanity has hitherto depended and the latter do not. To say, therefore, that this difference is irrelevant in the determination of public policy is to say that the endurance of the public does not matter.

One can argue that this does not follow at all because the advent of Artificial Reproductive Technology now enables societies to ensure their endurance without relying upon the heterosexual act. Thus, the heterosexual act is in principle unnecessary to the perpetuation of humanity as a species. It can now simply be regarded as merely an expression of intimacy and as such no different in kind from other such expressions, ranging from cuddling to frottage to building pillow forts, thereby eliminating the only significant difference between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships.

Nevertheless, the heterosexual act, coitus, remains the only natural way for humans to reproduce, and to say that this is trivial, nugatory, and irrelevant to how we should order society entails the view that Nature has no prescriptive force. For if Nature's way to replenish human society is irrelevant, then we might as well say that Nature is indifferent to our very existence. Nature really doesn't give a shit about us at all.

So what? We care about our own existence. We care that we will continue our existence as a species, and it really doesn't matter if we do so by the natural way or by Brave New World technologies, that allows us to have really fun NSA (No Strings Attached) Acts of Intimacy. So long as we continue on. That's what counts. Nature doesn't care about us, and we shouldn't care about Nature.

But if we've decided that Nature really is indifferent to the endurance of humanity, then we must rely only on our own opinion that it matters that our species lives on. And opinions are changeable, fickle things.  Opinions that once enjoyed a virtually unanimous consensus and for centuries taken to be axiomatic (like, say--oh, I don't know--, the notion that marriage is the union of a man and a woman) have been known to change dramatically and in less time than it takes to complete a degree in marketing. Yeah, okay, most of us think it's important for us humans to carry on, but that's right now.  We could change our minds later.  Maybe, in the near future we decide that Nietzsche and his epigones the Transhumanists are right and that humanity as we know it should perish to make room for a race of Übermenschen.  It could be a genetically modified form of Aryans with an extra blue eye as a spare or something like the Daleks or, perhaps, the latest new iPhones endowed with crazy super Artificial Intelligence. What would be the objection? That it's not natural? Please!

Saying that Nature is indifferent to humanity's survival is tantamount to saying that humanity's survival has no objective value at all, that whatever value it has can come only from our sentimental fantasies. This is the conclusion to which the logic of "marriage equality" leads, and how this is not a textbook example of what Wikipedia defines as existential nihilism, I really do not know.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Last post for Oktober

Before this Hallowe'en ends, I have to say something:  Martin Luther can go fuck himself.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

And Troy would have been a lot gayer

If the ancient Greeks had recognized same-sex "marriage", then Achilles would have had his relationship with Patroclus solemnly recognized and, therefore, would not have been so sore about the loss of his beard, Briseis. Thus, Achilles would not have gone off in a sulk, and the Trojan War would have ended much sooner. And Hector would not have been killed.  And the Iliad would never have been composed and the sequel as well, but that's a bonus:  we would not have had to worry about Homeric authorship!

Monday, October 28, 2013

And why do we let these idiots have guns?

It seems that police are so dumb that they can't even count.  From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday:

And in one instance, police didn’t even need to examine the fingerprints, just count them.
A vehicle theft warrant should have gone out for William Lamont Willis, who has only eight fingers. Instead, William Earl Willis, who has all 10 digits, was charged and arrested at least three times, despite multiple fingerprint comparisons.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

A question

Is the Wild Side heaven, hell, or purgatory? Recquiescas in pace, Lou Reed.

Dale Carnegie in nuce

"The secret of success is sincerity.  Once you can fake that, you got it made."

Divine Intervention

God made Middlebrooks interfere with Craig. Why? Because Massachusetts recognizes the abomination of same-sex "marriage" and Missouri does not and God will naturally favor the team from the state more in consonance with His law. Sorry, I just could NOT resist.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Dream of Inadequacy

I once had a dream in which every one in it spoke German.  At the time I was learning the language in college.  I could speak it but only haltingly, and my vocabulary was not even to the level of what could be considered basic.  And, so, in my dream people kept using words I did not know, prompting a desperate search for a Wörterbuch.  I woke up before I found one.

Friday, October 25, 2013


Evangelical Christians argue that the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" will trigger the Apocalypse. That means they should embrace it.

Oh, Canada!

I just finished watching a French-Canadian thriller about a deranged and ruthless serial killer who turns out to be a donor baby who resented that her father was a test tube. Gee, I hope Mr. D.'s grandchild does not grow up to be a deranged and ruthless serial killer. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm an asshole.

Money makes Right

Children have no rights whatsoever to genetic ties with their parents. Otherwise, heterosexual relationships would be more important than homosexual ones, and such a notion is just obvious vile bigotry, of course. And yet parents have a right to genetic ties with their kids.

Why is this so? Why is it that adults have the right to be genetically linked to their kids, but not vice versa? Simple. Adults have money to buy manufactured children from the Reproduction Industry, but kids don't have money, and even if they did, one cannot buy a manufactured genetically linked parent.

"Marriage equality" is bullshit.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

What I do for fun

A few weeks ago I was browsing in Left Bank Books and could not help but notice that the store's labeling for its "LGBT" section was out of date. Left Bank had the "G" first and then the "L". So, I explained to one of the clerks that it had been decided since the "L" belongs to two persecuted classes, women and homosexuals, they bear the brunt of societal oppression and, therefore, should lead the acronym. Besides, leading an alliance of the oppressed with a men's group smacks a bit much of patriarchy, the granddaddy of ALL oppression, and just might ipso facto cause cognitive dissonance.

I just LOVE doing this shit.


Blogger stats tell me that this weblog received forty-two pageviews from servers in Indonesia.  Who the hell in Indonesia is reading this shit?  Then again, the readers may not be from or living in Indonesia but are reading my weblog on terminals with internet connections routed through servers in Indonesia in the hope that, maybe, the NSA has not bothered to spy there.  But such hope is absurd.   Coca-cola (among other U.S. poisons) is sold in Indonesia.  Therefore, the U.S. Government has an interest in what happens in Indonesia.  Hell, the U.S. helped Suharto kill millions of his political opponents, all in the name of keeping markets open, supine, and exploitable.  We've had interests there for many, many, many decades.  So, I can't imagine Indonesian Internet Servers would not be of interest to the prying eyes of the United States Government, everything else is.  But I am babbling.

Terry Eagleton's Review of Jonathan Sperber's Biography of Karl Mark

Eagleton claims that one of the two original achievements of Marx is the historicization of capitalism, and yet Eagleton finds fault with Sperber for his historicizing Marx, totally oblivious to historicist karma.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

A typical debate on facebook

Status update:

Yes, I know that no one wants to discuss same-sex "marriage" with me anymore because the discussion gets very ugly. Most people would say it is all my fault. Not only because I am an irrational bigot but also because I am a churlishly hypersensitive resentful fuck as well. Fine, see how you like it when you are repeatedly compared to a racist for no good reason at all.

Anyway, if in the future someone does decide to risk debating this topic with me again, could someone suggest a term for buggery that has no pejorative connotations? This debate is incendiary enough. I don't need to pour gas on the fire by needlessly using terms my opponents may resent. Yes, I know that 'anal sex' is the accepted neutral term but refuse to use it. It's a wild misnomer. 'Sex' is an abbreviation of sexual intercourse, which is the communication between the sex organs. The anus is NOT a sex organ. Ergo, the term 'anal sexual intercourse' is just nonsense. That's why I've been using 'buggery', not to express any contempt for the act, but to avoid using what I believe to be a term of nonsense. But I know that advocates of ss'm' take offense at the word. Fine, then tell me if there is a kinder and gentler word I can use. Otherwise, I'll continue to use 'buggery'.

An Enlightened Woman: "[The] wish for sexual meaning is also behind the common desire for special rules to govern sexual behavior and decision-making. This is an example of the wish, as Fromm called it, to escape from freedom: to avoid taking responsibility for the complex and (it feels) dangerous richness of our sexuality."
-Marty Klein, Ph.D.
"The Meaning of Sex"

By the way, "sex organ" is not a scientific term. Reproductive organ is the phrases you're looking for. And you're right, anuses are not a reproductive organs. Neither are mouths, lips, tongues, or fingers, but all (anuses included) can be used during sex.

I'd also like to point out that if you're only using sex for reproductive purposes, then you are a minority within our species, and are seriously missing out. I've avoided commenting on your posts for a while, and here I am, finally gave in. I find your views to be misguided and quite frankly, pretty pathetic. Disappointing, as well.

Sorry, I think I may have been wrong in correcting you about reproductive organs and sex organs. I guess I just think of "sex organs" as ones that determine one's sex. The gonads. Ovaries and testes.
Anyway, the "human reproductive system" contains only some of the structures that contribute to pleasurable acts within human sexuality.

Me: Yes, but the reproductive organs differentiate the sexes. Hence, the term 'sex organ'. And to say that sexual intercourse can be performed only by a man and a woman is not to imply that procreation is the only purpose of sex. It is simply to insist on the proper meanings of words.

I am sure kissing is pleasurable, I am sure a blowjob is pleasurable. That does not make those acts sexual intercourse.

EW: Actually, according to many sources, it does!

EW: Or, rather, they do!

Me: Fine, I find playing chess pleasurable. That means that playing chess is sexual intercourse.

EW: Nope. Only if playing chess gets you off. Mental stimulation and pleasure is different than sexual stimulation and pleasure. You can't apply silly logic to an argument like this. Sexuality is a spectrum. Definitions are very limiting.

Me: Fine, so masturbation is by your lights sexual intercourse?

EW: No. Sexual intercourse is... "any physical contact between two individuals involving stimulation of the genital organs of at least one."
That's according to a medical dictionary. I can find lots of other resources that define sexual intercourse similarly.

Look at the meaning of the term intercourse! Interactions, communications, etc. But why the need to define it at all? So you don't offend someone with opposing viewpoints? Paul, if you're offensive to anyone, I'm sure it goes beyond your choice of words to define sexual acts.

Me: Yeah, well every single dictionary once defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So, dictionary definitions mean nothing nowadays. Look, what would bovine intercourse mean? Interaction among cows, of course. If "sexual" means "of or relating to sex" then sexual intercourse must mean intercourse between things that are sexually distinctive. An anus is not sexually distinctive. I guess, by my understanding of the constituent words, "scissoring" would be sexual intercourse if bumping counts as interaction. If "sexual" means, on the other hand, "of or relating to orgasm", then sexual intercourse can only happen if both partners are orgasmic things, i.e. achieve orgasm.

EW: Oh you and your search for "meaning." Ha. Good luck with all that.
I don't waste a lot of time worrying about how people define their marriages. I'm getting married soon! You know what I care about? My fiancé and our life together. It doesn't offend me that some people marry for money, or that some marry without love, or that some people have marriages that look different than what mine will. Who cares?

Me: I have to search for meaning. I have nothing else to do.

EW: Well why not search for the meaning of something else? Surely, you're passionate about something other than terminology for anal sex.

Me: I am anal retentive.

EW: I prefer Piaget's developmental stages. In his system, you're stuck at the concrete operational stage.
Me: But it points to a larger issue. If people are conditioned to understand buggery as a form of sexual intercourse, then it is much easier to obscure the unicity of coition and coital relationships and this in turn makes it easier to obliterate in people's minds any qualitative difference between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. Orwell was right. Language controls thought.

EW: I know a lot of different kinds of families. Two moms, two dads, moms and dads, adopted kids, kids from surrogates, folks that have had trouble with conception, etc. some are married, some are not, some are horrible parents, some are awesome, some have partners, some do not, some have sex regularly, some do not.

If parents love their children and do a good job of turning them into thoughtful, productive citizens, then who cares where their children came from? And who cares what kind of sex they have behind closed doors? Not me! I have my own relationship to worry about.

Love is love.

Me: Well, actually, and this may surprise you, I really don't care about what consenting adults to behind closed doors. What I care about is the relativization of coition as just one random act of intimacy among many. Coition alone among the acts of intimacy can and does have very public consequences. In fact, it's because of coition that we have a public in the first place.

EW: I'll tell you one thing, using the term "coition" is not helping in continuing our existence as a species. Hahaha. Vaginal sexual intercourse is also not exclusively used for reproductive purposes, so why not define it as just another random sexual act? Sure, sometimes that results in conception. But conception can happen through different means, as well.

Me: And cars are not exclusively used for driving. Sometimes they are used as random shelters for making out. So, let's define them as that. Of course, this is vulnerable to the objection that whereas most of the time cars are used for driving, coition is not used mostly for procreation, it is used for pleasure, and we should define a thing by what it used for usually. Fine, but coition resulting in conception is a pretty damn usual thing, no? It happens all the time. No other act of intimacy can replenish the population but coition. That alone makes it unique among the myriad of intimate acts. And to say that conception can happen by other means (e.g. ivf or artificial insemination) hardly gainsays this point.
Besides, coition is far and away THE most popular way to replenish the population. The last statistic I saw about this put the percentage of people conceived through IVF or Artificial Insemination at around 2%. To call an act that is still responsible for 98% of the people on this planet merely a random act of intimacy is, with all due respect, simply risible.

EW: I don't think you get to define what vaginas are for. You didn't mean to start a discussion of the anthropology of sex, anyway.

This is getting wildly off topic. You asked if there was a better term for anal sex than buggery. Anal sex is the proper term. Anal sex is a form of sexual intercourse. No, it does not lead to conception, but it does contribute to intimacy.

Human beings are one of a handful of species that use sex recreationally. Vaginal sex is used as a means of recreational intimacy far more often than simply for procreation. If you have a vagina, then you can let me know how you use it.

Very little of your logic is actually sound. And this debate transcends logical discourse because it's about feelings, politics, biology, deep metaphysical mystery, etc.

Anyway, I believe I answered your question. "Sexual intercourse" is not synonymous with reproduction. Anal sex is a form of sexual intercourse according to many authorities and dictionaries and much social science research.

And I grow tired of this. I'm going to try to stay away from your Facebook soapbox from now on. Over and out.

Me: If I thought for even so much as a picosecond that I somehow had the authority to tell you how to use your vagina, I assure you that I'd have something far more particular, specific, and immediate in mind than global population statistics.

A note to my fellow religious extremists

Get this through your skull: Same-sex "marriage" has NOTHING to do with the celebration of sodomy or mutual masturbation. At all. The redefinition of marriage required to accommodate same-sex couples does NOT entail a celebration of particular sexual acts. Remember, religious extremists, the re-definition of marriage is an inherently gnostic project and because gnosticism is indifference to the corporeal world, a gnostic conception of marriage cannot be tied to any particular bodily act or acts. What constitutes gnostic "marriage" is not the marital act (in the traditional, bigoted sense of coitus) but some really vague notion of intimacy, and the "married" couple now is free to do anything to achieve that intimacy. They could choose coitus or sodomy or mutual masturbation, true, but it need not be an orgasmic act. It could be cuddling, holding hands, playing gin rummy, or a really deep conversation about the spiritual dimensions of Joseph Beuys' Installations. In another words, the consummation of a gnostic "marriage" happens when this intimacy, whatever it may be, is achieved and not when a particular bodily act is performed. Therefore, the suggestion that there is a necessary connection between same-sex "marriage" and sodomy is simply false.

I should make one very important qualification. The couple is free to express their intimacy in any way that is legal. Obviously, the preferred way of a necrophiliac couple to achieve their intimacy is legally prohibited. We're gnostic, true, but not quite THAT gnostic. Not yet, anyway.

Also, since intimacy is what is crucial to a marriage and NOT the particular act done to achieve it, there can only be a marital privilege to intimacy and not to any particular bodily act. If the state wants to ban coitus for various health reasons, it can do so without trampling upon marital rights. If married couples object, the courts can just say that marital intimacy does not depend on any particular bodily act. This means, of course, that the legal prohibition of sodomy is perfectly compatible with the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage". And, no, I am NOT saying that either coitus or sodomy will be outlawed. Please, do not misunderstand my point. I am simply saying that certain definable bodily acts cannot be counted among the rights in the new, gnostic conception of "marriage".


I am sorry that I am so very obsessed with the matter of same-sex "marriage", but I am still dumfounded that people (Chris O'Leary, in particular) SERIOUSLY think my opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" makes me as vile a bigot as a racist or anti-Semite. Yeah, I predicted nine years ago that the analogy between the fight for ss'm' and the struggle for racial equality would lead to this. I just thought it wouldn't happen because the analogy is just obviously false. Racial equality is premised on the notion that the difference between whites and blacks is nugatory, i.e. skin color. For the analogy to hold, then the difference between straights and gays must be as trivial as skin color. The difference between straights and gays is that the former want to engage in an act that very often does (but not always) create more people while the former do not. How the devil is that as trivial and nugatory as the accident of skin color? How? Answer me this! Please! And how does my refusal to acknowledge the triviality of this difference make me as evil as someone who wants to deny blacks the right to vote or who wants to gas Jews? How does this refusal commit me to endorsing something as heinous as White Supremacy or its pseudo-scientific justification, eugenics? Explain this to me. Please!

People can say, I guess, that I want to deny gay people the right to marry just like the law of the antebellum south did not acknowledge the right of slaves to marry because they were mere pieces of property. But I have NEVER denied the right of anyone past majority to enter into a legally recognized marriage. NEVER. Gays have always had the right to enter into legally recognized marriages. Always. "Yeah, sure, as long they marry someone to whom they are not and will not be sexually attracted," would be the boilerplate reply. This right to marry almost surely dooms gays to lives of unhappiness. Three things must be said in response. 1) marriage laws have never been about personal happiness, rather they've been about the regulation of coitus as even that Religious Nutter Bertrand Russell admits, 2) the opponents of the legal recognition of same-sex "'marriage" NEVER have said that gays are property and, therefore, not fully human, and 3) as most of the Great Philosophers will tell you, the notion that marriage leads to happiness is at best dubious.

If the general culture thinks marriage is synonymous with happiness, fine (but I am dubious. I wonder how many husbands, after getting their heads yelled off for one too many poker nights, would call marriage happiness). The law is not the general culture. There are many things that are essential to personal happiness, which the law does not formally recognize. The happiness one receives after hearing a really good joke. Or friendships. Or do you really think that for citizens to be truly happy, the state must recognize everything anyone might do in the pursuit of a smile? What? Is the state everyone's Mommy who will put all our crude crayon drawings on the National Refrigerator? Do we really want to make our happiness contingent upon the state's approving recognition of everything we do and everyone we talk to, play with, and are happy with? Wouldn't this make the state the source of all eudaimonia? Wouldn't this make the state into a god, who can deny us happiness simply by ignoring our pleas for attention? Geez, the advocates of ss'm' routinely accuse us their opponents of wanting to impose our religion upon the secular state, and yet for them the state is a religion. Who's the theocrat now, eh?

The law recognizes marriage not because marriage is a thing for self-fulfillment or self-actualization but because it has a compelling interest in encouraging the responsible use of coitus, not the happy or thrilling or fabulous use thereof, merely the responsible. This because coitus, again, can and very often leads to new citizens which the state would much rather not spend public funds raising. Marriage has traditionally been the way for the state to privatize dependency, in other words. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I KNOW, that this does not explain why sterile couples, couples who don't want children, or obviously barren octogenarian couples are allowed marriage licenses. Well, it doesn't if I stated that marriage is about responsible procreation. But I did not. I said that marriage is about the responsible use of coitus, and sterile and octogenarian couples can still set good examples of sexual fidelity to the community. And couples who marry with the intent of not having children may change their mind. It happens all the time. Furthermore, the responsible use of coitus, as Planned Parenthood groupies would hasten to remind us, sometimes includes its sterile use. Do we really want marriage laws to encourage a seventy year old man to marry someone thirty-five years his junior or younger because all the women his age are barren? That would lead to fatherless children. Tony Randall's kids are fatherless, for instance. (This pains me to say because I would not mind marrying someone twenty years my junior.)

In short, marriage (from the perspective of public policy, at least) is simply about coitus. Same-sex couples cannot perform coitus, however hard they might try. Therefore, same-sex couples cannot marry. Period. My reasons for why marriage is the union between a man and a woman are based squarely and exclusively upon the unicity of the coital act. It is not based on any animus towards homosexuals or upon disgust at anything homosexual couples might do to express intimacy. It is not based upon any notion that homosexuals are somehow subhuman and, hence, less worthy of the respect and dignity accorded to heterosexuals. It is, I repeat, based ONLY on the idea that the sine qua non of marriage is the coital act, and if this can never ever be performed, then marriage is simply impossible. I defy anyone to tell me how what I have stated here is irrational bigotry on par with racism or anti-Semitism or how this puts me "in the same basket" with these bigots.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013


Another "conservative case for same-sex 'marriage'"  This one is by a certain Mr. Hinkle, who thinks he can convince conservatives in his Commonwealth of Virginia simply by using the same words they use such as, say, "virtue" and "monogamy".  But nowadays what words mean is up for grabs.

I just want to focus on Mr. Hinkle's second point:

"Social conservatives believe sexual promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive to the soul — that the sexual revolution’s encouragement of licentiousness has degraded social norms and debased our common virtue. If they are right about that, then allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be altogether desirable — just as it is desirable for heterosexuals, and for the same reasons."

The re-definition of marriage required to accommodate homosexuals necessarily unties marriage from any bodily act.  It must do so to satisfy the demands of "equality".  If you make coitus the act that consummates a marriage, then you exclude homosexuals, and doing so is bigotry.  But if you make any act between two people that leads to orgasm as what consummates a marriage,  then you have just excluded the asexuals, and that also is an outrageous injustice.  Furthermore, given that there are as many kinks as there are fantasies, it would be impossible for the law to acknowledge every single potentially orgasmic act.  What?  Two dacryphiliacs request an annulment because of Sjögren's Syndrome?  Can an autagonistophiliac marriage be annulled because of stage fright?  In short, what constitutes consummation becomes hopelessly subjective, thereby making it impossible for the law to acknowledge any objective or coherent concept of marital consummation.  Thus, the law will have to jettison it altogether and therewith the idea that marriage has anything at all to do with sexual activity of any sort. And if marriage has nothing to do with sex, it can no longer be used as a way to discourage promiscuity.  Hinkle's second point, therefore, fails.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Quota Time

Ms. Prince does not want same-sex "marriage" on the ballot because minority rights should not be at the mercy of majoritarian rule. Interesting. Yet another gay rights activist who is skeptical of the numerous polls that show that the majority has suddenly become enlightened about same-sex "marriage". Yeah, okay, cheap shot. One can oppose putting rights up for a vote on principle, regardless of what the polls may say. Yet, no one has explained (to me, at least) why same-sex "marriage" is a fundamental, inalienable right. Assertions that it is abound, no doubt, but assertions are not explanations, much less arguments. Goebelian Propaganda? Yes. Arguments? No.

In fact, most of the people with whom I have debated this matter either cannot tell me what a right even is (much less tell me why the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is one) or discard rights talk altogether in favor of very nebulous discussions of "equality".  Actually I am being charitable by suggesting that a discussion about equality takes place, and it almost never does.  Rather, it seems S.O.P. for ss'm' advocates to assume, not discuss, equality between gay and straight relationships , and doing so, although proponents of ss'm' either are not aware of this or are aware but choose to ignore it, simply begs the question of the entire debate.

The bottom line is that it has not been established that ss'm' is a fundamental, inalienable right, whatever that may be, and until it is, one cannot argue that the fundamental, inalienable "right" to legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" should be like all other such rights protected from the vagaries of public opinion.

But Ms. Prince's other objection to putting ss'm' on the ballot is far more interesting. If it were on the ballot, then she would have to inform her kids about the vote, and doing so would make her kids realize that she and her partner are not "married" but actually living in sin. This would humiliate the kids because all of a sudden they would feel abnormal because their guardians are not "married".

This implies, of course, that kids of divorced, co-habitating, or single parents should feel shame, but let's leave that aside. If Ms. Prince is worried about her kids feeling abnormal about having unmarried parents, then you would think she would also be worried about her kids asking her why they have two mommies when every other kid has just one mother and a father. That may very well cause humiliating feelings of abnormality as well, you know? But Ms. Prince somewhat surprisingly is not too worried about this and explains why:

"We are fortunate to live in Maplewood, N.J., an exceptionally progressive and diverse town, where two-mom and two-dad families are almost as common as opposite-sex households. Our kids don't think our family is strange; to them it's just one more example of a family, as worthy and as beautiful as any other."

So, because they live in a town that has almost as many same-sex as opposite-sex households, her children do not feel abnormal at all. Well, what if they lived somewhere where the overwhelming number of households are opposite-sex? Wouldn't this cause her kids to feel strange and abnormal? Does this mean that in the name of equality and fairness we should gerrymander neighborhoods across our fair land so that each one has a number of same-sex households with children sufficient to ensure at least the appearance of their quotidien commonness? Ms. Prince's anxiousness about normality for her kids does logically lead to such an absurd proposition: neighborhood quotas based on sexual orientation.

This is insane, but I only think so not because of anything that used to be called "logic" or "common sense". No, I am just an irrational bigot who wants to gas Jews.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

A Geek Trying to Fit In

"Go, Ordinals!  Er, wait."

Overheard in a Locker Room Yesterday

"And you know what's worse than a cold shower?'


"The reason for having to take a cold shower."

Thursday, October 17, 2013

A Primer on the New Bigotry

Every one should know by now that if you do not support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, then you richly deserve the ignominious title of "bigot".  If you do not know this, then what is wrong with you?  Have you been under a rock since 2004?  Are you Amish (silly question--if you were Amish, then you could not be reading this unless you chose to spend your  'Rumspringa on the Satanic Internet, but even then I would think pent-up desire for Forbidden Fruit would hardly lead you to the dyspeptic ditherings of a pathetic and paunchy middle-aged lout)?  Or are you so devoid of civic-mindedness, so trapped in your couch potato bubble of junk food and NASCAR that you could not be bothered to pay attention to The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time?

If this is so, then shame on you and let me bring you up to speed for you are clearly in desperate need of education.  Back in 2004 it was still respectable to be against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.  But that was pretty much the last gasp of our petty childhood.  Those were the days when the accusation of drinking a latte could irrevocably damage a Presidential Campaign, but since then the American Public has put away such childish things, and among other childish things we've put away is the notion that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman.

It was argued again and again that marriage had to be such a union because only such a union could procreate.  But, I repeat, that was a time long ago when drinking a latte could disqualify someone from the presidency.  We've grown up since then, and just as we should by now be mature enough to understand that drinking a certain kind of coffee is utterly irrelevant to the ability to lead the Free World, we should also be adult enough to know that if marriage were about making babies, the state would never have allowed elderly couple marriage licenses and would have made the issuance of said licenses conditional on the passing of fertility tests.

And now it is 2013.  The Childish Debate over same-sex marriage is so over.  It has been demonstrated over and over and over again ad nauseam that there is no rational reason to restrict the institution of marriage to heterosexual couples.  Same-sex marriage is as obvious and as indubitable as 2 + 2 = 4, and anyone who still doubts this refuses to grow up and learn.  It is that simple.

But, of course, doubters of basic arithmetic are just stupid; doubters of same-sex marriage are not only stupid but filled with hatred against Gays and Lesbians.  They believe that only Straights are capable of love, that Gays and Lesbians are interested only in their own selfish orgasmic gratification and therefore incapable of the loving, self-sacrificing commitment that marriage calls for.  And thus these childish bigots dehumanize our Gay and Lesbian Brothers and Sisters.  This is hatred on par with racism and anti-Semitism.  If these childish bigots had been alive in the South between 1865 and 1965, they would have been Klan Members.  And there is no doubt in my mind that had they been Germans in the 1930s, they would also have been rabid Nazis.  I don't think even Descartes could have doubted that.  Hatred is hatred, and de-humanization is always de-humanization.

Ergo, if you oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage at this stage of Historical Maturity, you have no excuse.  You've had nine years to grow up and learn, but you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and listen to nothing but your own hatred.  You deserve nothing but scorn and contempt, and if you are a wedding photographer or a florist who refuses your vitally essential services to brides and brides and grooms and grooms, then on top of that scorn and contempt, you should be fined and, perhaps, even jailed.

So are we clear now?  Opposition to same-sex marriage is nothing but vile bigotry.  If you don't want to be as evil as the KKK or the Nazis, you must embrace same-sex marriage.

But that's not enough.  Not by a long shot.  Accepting same-sex marriage means only that you are eighteen, old enough to be held responsible but still not wise enough to know everything that responsibility entails.  There is still more growing up to do.

For instance, you may support marriage equality but still think that having a mother and a father is somehow normal.   But if you do, then you have wittingly or no committed yourself to a most ghastly bigotry, that having two mothers or two fathers is somehow abnormal.  This demeans and, hence, de-humanizes the many Lesbian and Gay couples who are raising children, whom you are also demeaning and de-humanizing.

You may think that adopting is a good and even noble way to spare a child of the horrors of the foster care system and give him or her a good, loving, stable home, but even so you take it for granted that this is not the normal way to have a child, that the normal way to have a child is for a man to impregnate a woman and then together raise that child.  This is nothing but heterosexist delusion and is a demeaning (and de-humanizing--from now on whenever I use 'demeaning', please understand that I mean 'de-humanizing' as well for it takes too long to type out every single time) insult to Lesbian and Gay Couples who can acquire a meaningful family life only by means of what you consider to be second-rate, namely adoption.  You are consigning Gay and Lesbian Families to second-class status, you infantile Nazi.

Equality means equality.  That must be burned into our hearts and minds and skulls if ever we are to deepen our maturity and transcend our late adolescence.  If heterosexual couples get to find self-fulfillment in having children, then Lesbians and Gays must have the very same opportunity.  And no one way of having children, despite what you may remember from your high school biology class, can be singled out as "normal'.  Otherwise, equality is simply meaningless rhetoric, and we might as well return to the Era of Auschwitz.

To be sure, coitus is the cause of the existence of at least 98% of the earth's population.  Even so, it is first and foremost merely an act of intimacy just like anal sex, frottage, fisting, cunnilingus, et cetera.  It is merely an accident of nature that coitus sometimes has a reproductive aspect, and accidents are no obstacle to equality.  Skin color is an accident of nature.  Does this mean we should not have racial equality?  Only someone who wants to resurrect Jim Crow would think so.  Coitus, therefore, must be considered to be just one act of intimacy among many.  Otherwise, you are a heterosexist supremacist, and it should go without saying that that is the very definition of bigotry.

But someone may say that something that is responsible for the existence of at least 98% of the people living today cannot simply be just any act of intimacy.  It must be instead Nature's way of ensuring the endurance of humanity.  This particular form of bigotry assumes that Nature is a vile bigot that has privileged heterosexual activity for the perpetuation of the human species.  But nature is not a homophobe.  Otherwise, we would not find homosexuality in more than 400 species.

Nature really doesn't care about us anyway.  If it did, do you really think Nature would periodically send us typhoons, earthquakes, plagues, et cetera to wipe us out? And why does Nature give us life only to let us die?  Nature is indifferent to our fate and, hence, indifferent to our sexuality.  And if you think that Nature somehow intended the specifically heterosexual act to be special, then not only are you a homophobic bigot, but you might also be a male chauvinist pig who is arrogant enough to believe that he has the authority to tell women what they should do with their vaginas.

When we finally learn to appreciate the indifference of Nature and by extension the universe, that nothing matters to it, not heterosexuality or homosexuality, not our births or our deaths, not anything at all, then we are finally free of all bigotry and at long last at the final stage of the Maturation Process, or what a Hegelian would call the End of History when everyone and everything is completely equal because nothing matters.

In other words, nihilism cures all bigotry.

Ten Virgins

The morale of the parable of the ten virgins is that one must be prepared for eternity, not that time is all we have. I am really having trouble distinguishing the message of this homily, despite its religious trappings, from the classic atheist injunction to make the time you have worthwhile because it's all you have. Am I missing something here, or has this priest lost his faith?

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

By the way

I am a Godfather.  Even though I never even met my Goddaughter.  I was not even present at her baptism.  I was the Godfather by proxy.   Or so I was told.

Anyway, needless to say, I am a lousy Godfather.  I never communicated with my Goddaughter, did not send her even one Birthday Card.  The only thing I ever heard about her was her marriage to a Protestant, whose father was a Protestant Minister and in that capacity officiated at their wedding.  The father pronounced 'asunder' as two words.

Not only did my Goddaughter marry into a Protestant Family, she married into a particularly stupid one.

Like I said, I am a lousy Godfather.

There's an absurdist play here somewhere.

When you buy a book on, Amazon keeps a record of your purchase forever and that means the NSA has it as well.  Well, I've bought many, many books from Amazon, most of which tell me how evil foreign policy of the U.S. Government is or how destructive American-style capitalism is or how the U.S. is rapidly becoming a police state, etc.  And it's hard not to read this stuff and avoid the occasional treasonous thought.   And now the NSA has a record of all the anti-American diatribes I've ever bought online.  I am really, really stupid and probably fucked.

Yeah, well, there is one good thing in all of this.  The NSA makes me feel 16 again because that's how old I was in 1984.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

The Amish Moment

If the Amish sent out missionaries are the Mormons do, they would have one hell of a selling point for their particular version of the Christian Faith:  "The Amish cannot be wiretapped."

Monday, October 7, 2013

Bishop Berkeley, call your office

If there is a relationship, and there is no state around to recognize it, is it really a relationship?  "Marriage Equality" takes Berkeley's notorious conundra to hitherto unknown depths of absurdity.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

A Short Fable by Franz Kafka

"Oh," said the mouse, "The world gets narrower with each day.  At first it was so wide that I had anxiety.  I ran further and was happy that I finally saw walls to my right and left, but these walls came together so fast that now I am in the very last room, and there in the corner is the trap, into which I'll run."  "You must merely run in a different direction," said the cat and gobbled her up.

The Dreidel by Franz Kafka

A philosopher was wont to hang around where children played.  And he saw a boy, who had a dreidel.  So, he waited in ambush.  The second the dreidel started to spin, the philosopher followed it, intending to catch it.  That the children screamed and tried to keep him away from the toy did not bother him.  He had caught the dreidel, and as long as it kept spinning, he was happy.  But only for a blink of an eye.  He then threw it to the ground and walked away.  He believed that the knowledge of every triviality--even that of a self-spinning dreidel, for instance--sufficed for the knowledge of the general.  Therefore, he did not trouble himself with the big problems--that seemed to him too uneconomical.  If the most trivial triviality was known, then everything was known, therefore, he troubled himself only with the self-spinning dreidel.  And every time the preparations for the spinning of the dreidel were made, he had hope that it would succeed, and as the dreidel spun itself, in the breathless chase after the toy, the hope for certainty emerged as something palpable.  But then he held the stupid piece of wood in his hand, he felt sick and the angry cries of the children, which he had not heard until now and which suddenly penetrated his ears, drove him off.  He wobbled like a dreidel ineptly whipped.

Friday, October 4, 2013

How I'm feeling today

"There will always be men who will revolt against a state which is destructive of humanity or in which there is no longer a possibility of noble action and of great deeds. They may be forced into a mere negation of the universal and homogenous state, into a negation not enlightened by any positive goal, into a nihilistic negation. While perhaps doomed to failure, that nihilistic revolution may be the only action on behalf of man's humanity, the only great and noble deed that is possible once the universal and homogenous state has become inevitable."

A Question about the New Wedding Etiquette

Can a man sue if he's not included in the bouquet toss?


I should explain my last post.  I was surfing (which I really should stop patronizing because the company relies on slave labor--the slaves are called 'interns'--, supports the abolition of heteronormativity, and is hellbent on burning the book--the name of 'Kindle' is no accident) for films starring the lovely Karine Vanasse.  I happed upon a few, one of which was Polytechnique, a film about the 1989 massacre at the Montréal university.  Amazon itself did not have a copy, but it was available through Amazon from various vendors, one of which was some place in Japan.  That vendor had a Blu-ray disc of the film for over $110,000.  I forget the exact amount but do remember it was over 110 grand.

Since my last posting, either someone has agreed to blow enough money to feed several starving families in Africa for decades on a disc or Amazon has removed the offer.  In any case, it's gone.  Replaced with one offer for 200 dollars.  Still pricey, but severely discounted enough to obliterate the extremity of understatement I had intended with my last post.  Oh, well.

Why the deuce would anyone pay over 110 grand for a Blu-ray disc of anything?  And why would anyone think that anyone would?  Well, maybe, maybe, if it were the only recording available of, say, the only clear footage of the Second Gunman on the Grassy Knoll.  But the film Polytechnique, even though it seems to be out of print, is readily available on DVD for under thirty bucks.  Is the picture so much better on Blu-ray that it's worth mortgaging your house and wiping out your Kids' college fund for?  Geez, it might just be cheaper to hire the cast of Polytechnique to come to your house and do a dramatic reading of the script.

Does this particular Blu-ray version of Polytechnique have some really rare manufacturing glitch that is irresistible to collectors of really rare manufacturing glitches?  And who in their right mind would collect manufacturing glitches as a hobby?

Or was it just a weird typo?  Did the guy responsible for entering the information of this offer spill his drink on the numbers keypad just before he was to enter the price and unwittingly pressed eight digits plus the enter key as he wiped up the mess?

Or was this Japanese vendor selling something else under the guise of offering a Blu-ray disc.  Sarin Gas? Anthrax?  A snuff video?  Heroin?

And why the fuck am I wondering about this at all?

p.s.  According to Wikipedia Article, the film grossed only 1.66 million dollars.  The film had a budget of six million.  Thus, the amount of money this Japanese Vendor wanted for this disc was roughly 7 percent of the film's total box office gross and two percent of its budget.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

The Kids are Alright

Oh, by the way, I actually own a copy of The Kids are Alright, you know, that most ballyhooed Hollywood film that supposedly shows the normality of a Lesbian Family. Like hell it does. The very first scene shows how the kids are smothered by two worrying moms. The son begs his sister to petition to unseal their donor's records the second she turns eighteen. In other words, this hagridden son has been for some time wanting to know who the fuck his father is. The moms' movie night consists in watching hardcore gay porn. I am really at a loss to know how that could betoken anything but that these two women secretly pine after dick.

Anyway, the children contact their sperm donor (i.e. FATHER), and he is eventually introduced to their moms, one of whom starts fucking him regularly. Perfectly natural thing to do, right? Having sexual intercourse with the father of your children, but in this supposedly normal context, it counts as betrayal. The other mom finds out about this wicked affair, and there is screaming, and everyone is glum for a while until the scene of the Family Reconciliation Dinner, in which apologies are finally accepted, transgressions forgiven and normality is supposed to have settled back in again. But then the sperm donor shows up at their door, wanting to join in. But the "horned" mom will have none of him. She tells him to leave, angrily calling him an interloper, and then, in what has to be the most unwittingly ironic line in cinematic history, she tells him, "if you want a family, then start your own!"

This is supposed to be a ringing endorsement of same-sex "marriage"? Good Lord, the National Organization for Marriage should buy up thousands of DVDs of this film and distribute it to its base as proof that even a serious attempt at depicting same-sex "marriage" can't help becoming a grotesque farce.

Monday, September 30, 2013

The State of Discourse Today

Man:  Well, it is an indisputable fact that even in this age of reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, coitus is still far and away the most common and popular way to have children.

Woman:  Don't tell me what to do with my vagina!

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Saturday Night

I am too busy to listening to the rain drops drop to write anything.  Save this:  Good writers will use rainfall to describe other sounds.  Great writers can describe the rainfall itself.  But I am not a great writer.  Sorry.  I can only say that it is a strong, steady rain, but not a fierce one, the kind that harbingers broken limbs, a blackout, or a tornado.  It is coming straight down, not at a slant.  There is little wind driving it.  To compare the sound to a distant roar of an ocean is, perhaps, understandable but a bit trite. It's not a sizzle in the frying pan.  That's an alarm. What this rain sounds like to me is a billion kisses falling to the ground.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Thanks, Chris O'Leary!

I admit it. I ADMIT IT! My opposition to the legal recognition of ss'm' is based on nothing more than irrational hatred. I want to hate, hate, hate. There's nothing I love more than hating. I even hate that I love to hate. Don't think about that logical contradiction. I am irrational, remember? And now that I have admitted that I am nothing but a hater, who wants pure hate to consume all his mind and body right down to his last lymph node, I feel free, free, free. Oh, God, what joy! Even though I hate joy, and because this confessional mode is so thrilling, I have a couple more things to confess. 
Opposition to the legal recognition of ss'm' is just a fucking gay outlet for all this vehement hatred pent up in me. I mean, seriously, insisting that sexual difference matters, saying that it is normal to have a mother and a father, drooling at pin-ups of Maggie Gallagher, eating Barilla Pasta does not quite cut it when it comes to releasing the Kraken that is my avalanche of irresistible hatred. I need something a tad more Sturm und Drang, ya know?

And that's why I want to thank from the bottom of my hate-wallowing heart Chris O'Leary for comparing me to a racist and an anti-Semite. I did not want to admit it at the time, but what he did was to tell me my true calling. He made me confront my true self. He forced me finally out of my hate closet, in which I have been suffocating my truest yearnings for over four decades. Now, finally, I can be honest with myself.  So, I am now going to stop writing these piddling arguments against "marriage equality" (which no one reads anyway, except for bored Latvians) and embark on something more suited for my raging hate.  I am going to start building some gallows and gas chambers.  Because I want to lynch Niggers and gas Yids.  
Finally, my life has purpose and meaning, and I owe it all to Chris O'Leary.

For the all-too literal minded the following disclaimer may be useful: THE ABOVE IS REALLY THICK SARCASM.

Thursday, September 26, 2013


Don't ever get Pizza from Papa John's.  I ordered a pizza from a Papa John's once and have made a solemn vow never do that ever again.  I hate the pizza and got a violent attack of diarrhea.  I shall spare you, gentle reader, the feculent details.  Use your imagination.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013


According to Freudian Theory, I should be gay because I had a hovering mother and a distant father.  And according to simple behaviourism I should be gay because my first sexual experience was with a male.  One day I was playing out in the backyard with a boy (older than me by two, three years--I forget) named Darron.  He slid my pants down, my drawers as well, and sucked on my penis for about two or three seconds.  Actually, I don't think he sucked.  I think he bit my penis.  So, fine, behaviourism explains not why I should be gay but why I'm supposedly so anti-gay.  My first sexual experience was a boy biting my penis.  Therefore, I am opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" because of the subconscious fear that gay "married" couples will bite my penis off.

Yeah, but why am I not afraid that gay men will come and bite my penis off if I do not support the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage"?  After all, you don't have to be in a legally recognized marriage to have sex, have and raise kids, or bite some one's penis off.

But it helps.

So I am told, anyway.


Interesting question, this.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Tut mir leid

Ich habe nix Interessantes zu erzählen.

Sunday, September 22, 2013


Our Men in Blue are excellent in following orders, particularly stupid ones.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

It's coming back to me now

Yes, yes, I remember.  When I was first taught what marriage is, way back in Catholic Grade School, I remember one of my classmates asking why marriage had to be between a man and a woman.  The nun told us that otherwise society would not be able to demean and humiliate and oppress homosexuals.  My classmate, by the way, was never seen again.  I think he was burned at the stake.

I am so glad that Pope Francis is making the Church more gay-friendly.  But evil homophobic oppression won't stop until the Vatican is razed to the ground and replaced by a big gay bathhouse.

Friday, September 20, 2013

I admit it

I think marriage is between a man and a woman.  Therefore, I want to put pink triangles on all homosexuals and send them off to be gassed.

Satisfied, Stephen Fry?

Thursday, September 19, 2013


The Owls are still quiet.  This withholding of wisdom is killing me.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

What I learned today

I learned that the majority in Virginia v. Loving, the case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, predicated the fundamental right to marry upon the fundamental right to procreate.  That means, kiddies, that Loving cannot be used to show that there is a fundamental right to enter into a legally recognized same-sex "marriage".  More later.

And the owls are still quiet.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013


The Owls are quiet tonight.

Monday, September 16, 2013

The Owls are Loud Tonight

I can hear them even though I have a fan on high.  It seems that they are actually shouting at each other.  A fierce disagreement among the wise, perhaps.  The Owl of Minerva spreads her wings only at dusk, and yet it is well past dusk.  It is, in fact, an hour before the bewitching hour, and yet the philosophers are still not taking flight but are bogged down in a whooping dispute.  History is not over.  Yet.  So, fuck you, Hegel!


Writing scares me.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

LG v. T

The media has by now trained us all to say “LGBT" unthinkingly, to take it for granted that Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and the Transgendered are all one harmonious group with the interests of the constituent parts all perfectly aligned with one another. This is bunk. The primary goal of the Lesbians and the Gays is the complete overthrow of what is called heteronormativity, the idea that sexual difference actually matters for anything more than someone's purely private preference. The push for “marriage equality” is the push for the de-sexing of the one institution premised upon the public importance of sexual difference.

Yet, the transgendered rely upon the societal valorization of sexual difference for their identities. A man who really thinks he is a woman wants to be known as a woman in public, wants to be treated as a woman in public, wants, in other words, to inhabit the gender rôle that society has constructed for the other sex. If heteronormativity goes, so does the idea of gender rôles, and if there are no gender rôles, sexual difference does not matter and neither does the quest for a public sexual identity. In sum, the Gays and Lesbians want to scrap the very thing that gives the transgendered any meaning at all. Therefore, the L and G are logically not the allies of the T, but its enemies.

Friday, September 13, 2013

September 13, 2013

I am too parakevidekatriaphobic to write anything today.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Just checking in

Just want to assure my Latvian readership that I am still alive.  Other than that, I have nothing to say.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Anger Management

Hey, everyone, look at these pictures of really deformed babies. Don't they just tug at your heart strings? Don't they make you disgusted? Don't they fill you with livid rage? Don't they want to make you bomb the everliving shit out of whomever was responsible for this unspeakable cruelty? Well, if they do and you are a citizen of the "anchor of global security since 1943", then you would do well do keep that ragin' will to bomb to yourself. Seek counseling for anger management if need be. Otherwise, you just might be charged with High Treason.

Anchor of Global Security since 1943!

Last night Our Dear Leader said that our nation has been "the anchor of global security for seven decades."

The obvious question is, global security for whom.

Certainly not for the Guatemalans, whose country became a bloody anarchy after we invaded it in 1954.

Certainly not for the Korean Peasants whom we shot in the back by the thousands as they tried to flee the war.

Certainly not for the Vietnamese Peasants, whom if we did not kill, torture, or mutilate we poisoned with tons and tons of Agent Orange.

Certainly not for the women Iraq, many of whom fled our war only to wind up as sex slaves while others must see their babies born as irradiated cyclopses because of all the depleted uranium we dumped upon their mothers.

I could go on (after all, there are many, many thick books that document all the atrocities we've committed while we were "the anchor of global security"), but I trust that anyone reading this with even half a brain will get my point.  Whatever Obama may have meant by "global security", he obviously could not have meant security for the poorest and weakest among us.  If there is one thing that stands out like a garish neon sign in a desert in the seven decades we've supposedly been the anchor of global security, it is this:  our anchor has always fallen upon the weak and has crushed, killed, maimed, mutilated, deformed, starved, desolated, and poisoned them.  U.S. Foreign Policy doesn't care about protecting those who cannot protect themselves.  At all.

And if you believe that this time our President actually means it when he says he wants to protect the poor, defenseless people against the big, bad meanies who rule Syria, even though everything in the last seven decades of U.S. Foreign Policy should have removed the Commander-in-Chief's benefit-of-the-doubt privileges years, if not decades, ago, then, well, I've got some really cheap beachfront property to sell you.  And a bridge in Brooklyn as well.

Yeah, fine, that's a cliché.  So is the use of a humanitarian sob story to justify our Imperialist Interventionism.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013


That's the name of my cat.  I named her that because when she was a wee little thing, little enough to stuff in my pocket (which I could have done but did not, so don't you call PETA on me), she had the face of a bat.  Now that she's all grown up, she does not look a bat anymore but is nearly as acrobatic as one.  So, the name still fits.  Sort of.  Of course, she can't really fly, but the way she is able to get on the roof of my house and back down again with such easy celerity can produce moments of doubt.

But if bats are fearless (and I wouldn't know if they are or not because I've never been around bats long enough to measure their fear or lack thereof.  And I don't know how one would go around doing that.  Have a staring contest between a bat and Robert de Niro and see who flinches first?  No idea.  But, all I am saying is IF bats are fearless), then my cat is nothing like a bat.  Today I waved a sock at her, and she ran away in mortal terror.  Perhaps, it was her way of telling me to do my laundry more often.  Perhaps.  But she doesn't seem to mind ripping apart the corpses of mice.  Well, yes, but she does that before the stink sets in.  Fine.  Fledermaus is not timid.  I just need to do my laundry more often.  Women!  Always nagging!

Monday, September 9, 2013

Saved from Guardian Censorship

Transsexuals should cut it out by Julie Burchill

The brilliant writer Suzanne Moore and I go back a long way. I first met her when she was a young single mother living in a council flat; she took me out to interview me about my novel Ambition (republished by Corvus Books this spring, since you ask) for dear dead City Limits magazine. "I've got an entertaining budget of £12.50!" she said proudly. "Sod that, we're having lobster and champagne at Frederick's and I'm paying," I told her. Half a bottle of Bolly later, she looked at me with faraway eyes: "Ooo, I could get to like this…" And so she did.

I have observed her rise to the forefront of this country's great polemicists with a whole lot of pride – and just a tiny bit of envy. I am godmother to her three brilliant, beautiful daughters. Though we differ on certain issues we will have each other's backs until the sacred cows come home.

With this in mind, I was incredulous to read that my friend was being monstered on Twitter, to the extent that she had quit it, for supposedly picking on a minority – transsexuals. Though I imagine it to be something akin to being savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey had it of Geoffrey Howe, I nevertheless felt indignant that a woman of such style and substance should be driven from her chosen mode of time-wasting by a bunch of dicks in chicks' clothing.

To my mind – I have given cool-headed consideration to the matter – a gaggle of transsexuals telling Suzanne Moore how to write looks a lot like how I'd imagine the Black and White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look. That rude and ridic.

Here's what happened. In a book of essays called Red: The Waterstones Anthology, Suzanne contributed a piece about women's anger. She wrote that, among other things, women were angry about "not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual". Rather than join her in decrying the idea that every broad should aim to look like an oven-ready porn star, the very vociferous transsexual lobby and their grim groupies picked on the messenger instead.

I must say that my only experience of the trans lobby thus far was hearing about the vile way they have persecuted another of my friends, the veteran women's rights and anti-domestic violence activist Julie Bindel – picketing events where she is speaking about such minor issues as the rape of children and the trafficking of women just because she refuses to accept that their relationship with their phantom limb is the most pressing problem that women – real and imagined – are facing right now.

Similarly, Suzanne's original piece was about the real horror of the bigger picture – how the savagery of a few old Etonians is having real, ruinous effects on the lives of the weakest members of our society, many of whom happen to be women. The reaction of the trans lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing them enough "respect". Ignore the real enemy – they're strong and will need real effort and organisation to fight. How much easier to lash out at those who are conveniently close to hand!

But they'd rather argue over semantics. To be fair, after having one's nuts taken off (see what I did there?) by endless decades in academia, it's all most of them are fit to do. Educated beyond all common sense and honesty, it was a hoot to see the screaming mimis accuse Suze of white feminist privilege; it may have been this that made her finally respond in the subsequent salty language she employed to answer her Twitter critics: "People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them."

She, the other JB and I are part of the minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that's a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as 'Cis' – sounds like syph, cyst, cistern; all nasty stuff – they're lucky I'm not calling them shemales. Or shims.) We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.

It's been noted before that cyberspace, though supposedly all new and shiny, is plagued by the age-old boredom of men telling women not to talk and threatening them with all kinds of nastiness if they persist in saying what they feel.

The trans lobby is now saying that it wasn't so much the initial piece as Suzanne's refusal to apologise when told to that "made" them drive her from Twitter. Presumably she is meant to do this in the name of solidarity and the "struggle", though I find it very hard to imagine this mob struggling with anything apart from the English language and the concept of free speech.

To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don't know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.

Shims, shemales, whatever you're calling yourselves these days – don't threaten or bully us lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we've experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain't seen nothing yet. You really won't like us when we're angry.