Tuesday, December 30, 2014

A Random Thought

Someone should open up a movie theatre on South Grand.  There are plenty of restaurants there, really good restaurants, too.  And a nice café for a pseudo-intellectual analysis after the movie.  A vibrant night life, but not loud or obstreperous like, say, Ocean Drive, and a lot cheaper, too. The place is just perfect "dinner and a movie" territory, well, it would be if there were a movie theatre, but, alas, there isn't.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

The New Geometry

A = A, unless A chooses to identify as B, in which case you must respect its wishes to be called B.   Tautology is complicated.

Monday, December 22, 2014

An observation

Watching a Martin Scorsese Film is like being married to wife who has to tell you everything twice.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Grade School in the Not So Distant Future

Tommy: (opening his lunchbox) Oh, yes. Pudding. Chocolate Pudding! I've got the coolest mom.

Sarah: What did you just say?

Tommy: I got some chocolate pudding. You want some?

Sarah: Not that. You said something else.

Tommy: Oh, yeah. My mom made it for me.

Sarah: You think you're better than me because you have a female parent?

Tommy: Uh?

Sarah: My parent A and parent 1 are both males. But do I go around and say that I am superior because I have two male parents and you have only one?

Tommy: (blank stare)

Sarah: Well, do I?

Tommy: Er, I guess not.

Sarah: So, why do you have to rub it in my face that I don't have a female parent?

Tommy: You're not getting any of my pudding. (Gets up to move to another table)

Sarah: Oh, Teacher Thistlethwaite! Teacher Thistlethwaite:

Thistlethwaite: (walking up to Sarah's table) What is it, Sarah?

Sarah: Tommy said a heterosexist word.

Thistlethwaite: Stop right there, Tommy. (Tommy freezes, has a nervous look on his face). Sarah, what did it say?

Sarah: It used the M-Word. It said, "I have the coolest M."

Thistlethwaite: Is this true, Tommy?

Tommy: I was just happy that she...

Thistlethwaite: What did we teach you about that pronoun?

Tommy: We should not use it?

Thistlethwaite: Because?

Tommy: You said so?

Thistlethwaite: Sarah, help it out.

Sarah: "She" is a gendered pronoun and as such was used to indoctrinate people into accepting the oppressive, theocratic heteronormative regime as just and normal when in reality it was unjust and the imposition of heterosexist fetishism and fascism.

Thistlethwaite: Sarah, very, very good! Now, Tommy, what did Sarah just say?

Tommy: I don't know. May I just eat my pudding now, please?

Thistlethwaite: No. Give me your lunchbox. Hand it over! (Pulls Tommy's Lunchbox out of his hands after a struggle). You will sit here and write what Sarah just said one hundred times. And if you don't have it done by the end of school, then you will be kept after school until you do. Is that clear?

Tommy: Yes, Teacher Thistlethwaite.

Sarah: But what about its use of the M-Word? It said it. I heard it say the M word, Teacher Thistlethwaite. You can't let it get away with that and unbend the arc of Justice.

Thistlethwaite: You are quite right, Sarah. Tommy, come with me to the principal's office. While you write Sarah's excellent summary of the dangers of gendered pronouns, you will wash your mouth out with soap. Come along now, Tommy.

Tommy: Yes, Teacher Thistlethwaite.

Sarah: Oh, oh, Teacher Thistlethwaite, may I have Tommy's pudding?

Thistlethwaite: Oh, yes, of course, dear child. (gives Sarah Tommy's Lunchbox)

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Sky is Falling

First, a most vicious attack on the pre-political foundations of human society, i.e. the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage", and now this!

Thursday, December 18, 2014

News Flash

I have yet again quit facebook.  This time for good, I hope.  Facebook is evil.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Gilbert Keith Chesterton on Suicide

"Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man's crime is different from other crimes -- for it makes even crimes impossible."

                                                  --Orthodoxy, Chapter 5

Monday, August 11, 2014

Bigotry 101

For those keeping score, these are all the things that will make you as evil and/or bigoted as any racist or Nazi:

Thinking that marriage is the union of a man and woman.
Thinking that a child has at least a presumptive right to a mother and a father.
Thinking that mothers matter.
Thinking that fathers matter.
Assigning a sex to a newborn based on whether you see a penis or a vagina.
Reading a four-year-old a fairy tale in which a prince marries a princess.

Antigone, re-written for our times

The surrogate mother of Antigone raises a rebellion against Creon for the restoration of her parental rights. The rebellion is crushed mercilessly, and Creon orders that the corpse of Antigone's mother be left out in the hot sun as food for maggots and vultures. Antigone longs to give her mother a proper burial, but her two fathers tell her that she must respect the laws of the state and that those laws have decreed that she owes filial devotion only to them. The two fathers forbid her to leave the house, but Antigone sneaks out a window, finds the battlefield, and starts burying her mother. She is caught by the Theban SWAT team and hauled before Creon himself, who tells Antigone that he did what he did to make it clear to her and the whole of Thebes that motherhood is not necessary for a family and also to make Antigone understand the integrity and closeness of her own family and its concord with other families in her community and in her daily life. Creon then orders that Antigone be summarily executed.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

My correspondence with the Reverend


Dear Ms. Russel,

the following might be of some cursory interest:

In the most recent marriage case, the one in Virginia, the dissenting Judge Niemeyer wrote: "Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions. To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized."

Of course, the proponents of "marriage equality" claim that sex is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage as well, thereby implying necessarily that a person's sex should be as irrelevant to his or her humanity as the accident of skin color. How this doesn't pre-suppose an asexual anthropology, an anthropology that understands the human being essentially as an amoeba (albeit a pretty darn smart amoeba) has never been explained to me. Never.

It seems to me as clear as the noon sun on a cloudless day that the entire argument for what is demagogically known as "marriage equality" is premised upon an anthropology that holds the human being to be an amoeba at "its" core. And this is why I shall always oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage"; the human being is NOT an amoeba.


The Rev.

It's actually Reverend Russell ... with two Ls ... [I am truly sorry for having misspelt her name] and, with all due respect, limiting the spiritual and relational goods of sacramental and civil marriage to biological procreation is an inherently flawed premise.

One need not deny sex [she is obviously equivocating on the popular meaning of 'sex' to mean any orgasmic activity] as a component of marriage in order to support the goods and values of marriage that transcend the gender of the married couple.

And what seems clear to me is that basing one's argument to deny equal protection to some marriages based on that narrow biological premise is grasping at straws to make discrimination against LGBT families defensible.

It is not.

Thanks for taking time to write. God bless!

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena


Equal protection implies an equality between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships, and that is what I deny. And let me be precise, when I wrote that the last two court rulings declared sex to be as irrelevant as race, I meant “sexual difference”. If sexual difference is as insignificant to being human as the accidental color of one’s skin, then I fail to see how that is not an asexual anthropology.


The Rev:
Deny away. Lots of folks still deny racial equality but the arc of history bends toward justice.

Take care and God bless.


So, you do not deny that the arguments for what you call “marriage equality” do indeed entail an asexual anthropology. You simply say that anyone who would take offense at this asexual anthropology must be as bigoted as a White Supremacist. How very strange. I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe that sexual difference is as trivial as skin color and that the human being is essentially an amoeba.

The Rev:

Regrettably, I do not have the time to engage in point-counterpoint dialogues with all correspondents. For further amplification please feel free to follow me on the Huffington Post.


You have time to call me a bigot but have no time to tell me why I should believe that sexual difference is as trivial to being human as skin color? Okay.


I then sent her this:

The courts rule that because marriage has nothing to do with procreation, presumption of parenthood no longer attaches to civil marriage. If a woman gets pregnant by her husband, she has the legal status of a surrogate until she makes it known that she wants to take over joint parenting responsibilities. And, in the same way, the husband has the legal status of a sperm donor until he makes it known that he wants to be a co-parent as well. Of course, both the husband and the wife will have to file for a parenting license and pass the required tests before they can adopt the child. Otherwise, the baby will go to the highest bidders who are also judged the most competent parents.

Such an arrangement would have the distinct advantage of being in conformity with the dictates of justice, fairness, and equality. It would finally put a very bright legal line between marriage and procreation and, thereby, achieve full legal equality between straight and gays. Of course, it falls short of full equality because opposite-sex couples still have the advantage of being their own surrogates and sperm donors and they are allowed first dibs (legally contingent dibs, yes, but first dibs all the same) on whatever sweet little commodities they produce. But the only way to achieve full equality between gays and straights is compulsory mass sterilization, and that unfortunately is politically unfeasible now.

And this was my response:
[Return to Sender: Address Blocked]

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

I am not an amoeba!

In the most recent marriage case, the one in Virginia, the dissenting Judge Niemeyer wrote: "Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions. To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized."

Of course, the proponents of "marriage equality" claim that sex is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage as well, thereby implying necessarily that a person's sex should be as irrelevant to his or her humanity as the accident of skin color. How this doesn't pre-suppose an asexual anthropology, an anthropology that understands the human being essentially as an amoeba (albeit a pretty darn smart amoeba) has never been explained to me. Never.

It seems to me as clear as the noon sun on a cloudless day that the entire argument for what is demagogically known as "marriage equality" is premised upon an anthropology that holds the human being to be an amoeba at "its" core. And this is why I shall always oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage"; the human being is NOT an amoeba.

But what do I know? I am just a mindless bigot.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Is this guy touched?

You'd think that after scandal after scandal, Catholic Priests, especially those who minister to youth, would have at the very least learned not to be, er, well, a little less aggressive when it comes to intimate matters--in public, at any rate.  You'd be wrong.

Is it just me, or is this flyer creepy?  If you saw this man hanging around a playground, would the numbers 9-1-1 be sloshing around in your mind?

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Sorry, Leonard Maltin...

...but the person who had the best capsule film review ever was my father (God rest his soul!).  It was of Ladyhawke, starring Matthew Broderick and Michelle Pfeiffer and directed by Richard Donner:  "This film speaks to the profoundest yearnings of man; man wants a beautiful woman at night and a birdbrain during the day."

Friday, May 2, 2014

UCC Logic

The state does not recognize Big Wheels as automobiles.

The state criminalizes the driving of an automobile without a license.

Therefore, driving a Big Wheel without a license is a crime.

Monday, April 28, 2014

I have to get this out of my system

It was a HUGE mistake for defenders of the traditional definition of marriage to base our defense upon a moral disapproval of homosexuality or whatever gays and lesbians do to express corporal intimacy. HUGE mistake. Colossal and Catastrophic. For it allowed and still allows our opponents to say ad nauseam that the only reason we oppose the legal recognition of ss'm' is that we are mindlessly and viscerally trapped in a homophobic animus, that we are, in other words, hateful, spiteful bigots.

Not only was it a gigantic mistake, it was and is and will always be a gigantic non sequitur as well. The question is not whether or no same-sex relations are immoral but, rather--as the marriage movement has realized much too late--, whether or no they can form marriages at all. The question is not, in other words, a moral but an ontological one. To see why this is so one need only look at the laws that criminalize incestuous marriages.  Incestuous marriages are bad marriages, immoral marriages, probably even dangerously unhealthy marriages, and the law agrees that they deserve societal disapproval, but this disapproval is expressed not by non-recognition but by criminalization.

Whether same-sex "marriage" is immoral or no is utterly irrelevant to this entire debate. The relevant question is whether same-sex "marriage" is a possibility and as such deserves recognition. The argument that same-sex "marriage" should not be given legal recognition because same-sex relations are immoral is UNBELIEVABLY STUPID because it implies that same-sex relations can indeed (like incestuous relations) form valid marriages, and that is the very thing we are supposed to deny! You have to acknowledge the existence of something BEFORE you can make any moral pronouncements upon it. It would be like saying that the law should not give unicorns any legal recognition because unicorns are immoral creatures. Unicorns don't even exist. Ontology ALWAYS precedes questions of morality for it is the OBVIOUS necessary condition for such questions. The marriage movement has foundered on a philosophical fallacy so elemental that anyone who can't recognize it as such should not even bother taking Philosophy 101. They should instead try to make a living as pet rocks.

An open letter to Chris O'Leary (a.k.a. The Pain Guy)

Mr. O'Leary,

my opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" prompted you to say that I was as evil as an anti-Semite or a racist.   If defining marriage as the erotic union of a man and a woman is as evil as racism or anti-Semitism, as you claim, then the logical consequence of the first must be as evil and harmful as that of the second and the third.

If racism (and by racism I mean specifically the notion that blacks are subhuman beasts of burden) is given free rein, it leads ineluctably to chattel slavery. Anti-Semitism in its pure, unadulterated form leads to Auschwitz.

So, Mr. O'Leary, would you please tell me 1) what is the logical consequence of a definition of marriage based upon sexual difference and 2) how that is as evil as treating human beings as mules or gassing them en masse and then making lampshades out of their skin? Please, tell me. I really, really would like to know.


Saturday, April 26, 2014

It's worth a shot, or so I hope

I wrote the following letter, addressed it to

the Person who swam in the part of the diving well that is immediately next to the ten foot deep lane, between around 1:30 P.M. and 2:20 P.M. last Saturday, April 19, 2014
and dropped it off in front of the door I may not open (because of our society's still entrenched heterosexist bigotries).  Maybe, she'll get the letter.  Maybe not.  Fate will decide as it does everything else.

The text of the letter:

This will probably not reach your eyes, but if it does, I simply want to tell you that I enjoyed our brief exchange last week. I do want to say more but fear that if I do, it may be too much and, thus, inappropriate. Therefore, what follows is in a QWERTY-Shifted code, simple enough to decipher with just a little effort, but still sufficiently unreadable as is that if you don’t bother to decode this ridiculous note and simply decide to throw it away, whatever inappropriate things I may have written will never disturb even one neuron in your brain.





Monday, April 21, 2014

2 + 2 = 4

The MOST disturbing thing about this Wikipedia article is that it does not describe the Indiana Pi Bill as the only attempt to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat, nor does it describe it as an attempt, but rather as one of many, and not just one of many but as one of the most famous of such attempts!

That means not only have there have been other such attempts, which should be chilling enough, but that notoriety of such attempts has not sufficed to deter other such notorious tries by legislators to establish mathematics by decree.   Any notion of progress must pre-suppose the human ability to learn from past mistakes, and the first sentence of this Wikipedia Entry pretty much bludgeons that notion to a very bloody pulp.

Plato tried to moderate the tyrant of Sicily by teaching him geometry. I have not yet read the Seventh Letter, but I'd like to think that Plato tried by teaching him geometry to show the tyrant that there are truths that are true independent of his fiat and thereby lead him to the conclusion that because he cannot control everything, he should not try to rule everything.

Winston Smith had it right: The most threatening thing to any tyranny is the declaration of the freedom to say two and two make four.

You got that, Glen Carbon Police Department?!

Chess, the game of bigots

Chess is outrageously heterosexist. Why can't we have two kings or two queens? It's just arbitrary that each side has to have one king and one queen. Of course, there is pawn promotion whereby one king can have several queens, but, still, you can't have one queen with several kings, and pawn promotion does not allow you to have two queens without the king. And you can lose the queen, but you're still stuck with a bachelor king. Chess is a VERY bigoted game. You should never play it again.

An Idea for a Seminal Work of Existentialist Fiction

Mersault receives word that his Parent A died today. Mersault looks at the message and concludes that it could have been yesterday.

He attends the funeral of Parent A. Not only is his lack of any outward grief noticeable, the other attendees are positively shocked that he slurps down a Cherry Coke and munches on a Burrito as he passes the casket.

That evening his friend Raymond enlists him in a plan to take revenge on a Lesbian Gang who wooed Raymond's girlfriend from him. They go to a Lesbian Bar and confront the Gang. In the subsequent melee Mersault is tackled by a Stocky Butch Lesbian. While pinned on the floor Mersault manages to get out his switch blade and stabs his attacker in the back, whereupon she rolls off him. Mersault gets up, stands over her, and then proceeds to stab her about ten or fifteen times until she breathes her last and dies. Mersault would later say that he was bothered by the heat and the stench of really stale beer.

Mersault is arrested and charged with a hate crime. At the trial the prosecutor to establish Mersault's homophobia tells the jury that he never liked being raised by two men. That when his Parent A died, he did not so much as muster a sniffle or a sigh. He just stood by the Casket, eating Taco Bell. Mersault tells the Jury that the only parent he ever knew died when he was a kid and that Parent A, his father's husband, was never his parent. He always wondered where his mother was. Thereupon the prosecutor exclaims, "You have heard it yourselves, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. That man is a soulless homophobic monster!" The Jury takes only five minutes to convict Mersault and sentences him to a public disembowelment.

The night before his execution, Mersault lies awake on his cot and stares at the concrete ceiling. He contemplates the universe and concludes that it is indifferent to his fate, but benignly so. Knowing this will give him great comfort when the spectators of his execution tomorrow greet him with cries of hate. And then he sleeps like a baby.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

If you're the redhead who swam to my left today between 1:30 and 2:20, call me. Please.

Today I was swimming next to a young woman who wore shorts on top of her one-piece bathing suit. When we both stopped to rest at the side, I asked her if her shorts, floppy as they were, slowed her down. No, she said and then asked me if my baggy shorts slowed me down. I said yes, a bit, but that I had to wear them. She then said with what I still think was a bit of coquetry in her voice, it's unfair that you must wear shorts and I don't. And before I could utter the obvious rejoinder--that being, and it is a crying shame that you must cover your top and I have no such obligation--she swam off.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Big Apple, Big Brother

I have not been to the Big Apple in more than two decades, and if Councilman Daniel Dromm has his way, I'll never be allowed to visit there ever again.  Oh, well.

It sorta bums me out that I may not ever again see MOMA, the Gugenheim, the Empire State Building, etc, but, then again, the last time I was in NYC, I nearly was trampled to death just for pausing to catch my breath on a Manhattan Sidewalk.  I can do without that.

I can also do without the nearly omnipresent stench of urine.  Especially that really vile stuff that comes out of Mr. Dromm's mouth.

Councilman Dromm, you can go fuck yourself!

Monday, April 14, 2014

Thursday, April 10, 2014

What would make me deliriously happy

If Miss A. would marry me and teach me French.

A question for my Enlightened Betters

When we troglodytic, irrational, hate-filled, vile, anti-Enlightenment bigots in a feeble attempt to justify the heterosexist conception of marriage say that every child deserves to know and be raised by the couple who have sired and conceived him, our opponents respond by blithely dismissing our concern for genetic ties and say that such things pale in importance to what is really crucial for good parenting, namely love and care, of which same-sex couples, of course, have in overflowing amounts (for only with such wasteful quantities of love have they been able to vanquish our cramped, narrow-minded hatreds).

But when our Enlightened Betters discuss surrogacy as an option for same-sex couples, all of a sudden genetic links become crucial.  If they weren't, then surrogacy would not be such a wildly popular way for same-sex couples to acquire children.  Same-sex couples would content themselves with adopting or fostering those kids we've been told over and over and over again no heterosexual couple wants.

How is this NOT a glaring inconsistency?  I want to know, and if you deign to give me an answer, O Ye Progressive Ones Who are Guided by a Reason Purified of All Religious Superstition and Irrational Prejudice, please use very simple words.  I am a dumb bigot, remember.


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Did Thoreau ever mention snakes?

I just returned from an attempt to get my mail.  My mailbox is about, oh, 200 and some yards down the road from my house.  (I've never measured it.  It may be less than 200 yards.  All I know is that it's about a five-minute walk for me, and I am a slow walker.)  So, I was walking down my road to the mailbox, enjoying the bright, sunny spring day when all of a sudden I saw a Black Racer right in front of me, right between me and my mail.  I know Black Racers are not poisonous, but, if age has not yet eroded my memory too much, I seem to remember that they bite and bite as quickly as a lash of whip.  Anyway, I wasn't going to test the accuracy of my middle-aged memory.  I turned tail.

My cat Fledermaus, who has apparently overcome or forgotten her fear of red foxes, walked up beside me as I was turning around as gingerly and as soundlessly as a person with poor balance can.  She stopped, sat down, and appeared to be contemplating the snake.

I told her, "Fledermaus, get the snake.  Come on, protect me.  Earn your keep.  Please."

Fledermaus did not budge.  At all.  She just continued to sit on her haunches and stared at the Black Racer.

And I ran back to the house.

Perhaps, I should replace Fledermaus with a Mongoose.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Future Job Interview

(N.B.  I am writing this simply to shake insomnia.)

Interviewer:  Oh, come in, Mr. Oak, come in.  So pleased to see you.  Finally.

Oak:  Thank you.

Interviewer:  Have a seat.  So, how was your first meeting here?

Oak:  I feel good about it.  Got my fingers crossed.

Interviewer:  Oh, you don't need luck.  We're excited to have a summa cum laude from X-Box Polytechnic University.  We just love your 3-d money shots you added to Grand Theft Auto.  They are so realistic, and every one looks different like actual money shots.  How did you code that?

Oak:  I worked out a Brownian Motion Algorithm.

Interviewer:  God, you are a clever.  It'll be great having you.

Oak: So, I'm hired?

Interviewer:  Pretty much.  I just have to ask a few routine questions, and then you can start tomorrow.

Oak:  Super.

Interviewer:  So, Mr. Oak, are you or have you ever been a bigot?

Oak:   Bigot?  What do you mean?

Interviewer:  Do you oppose or have you ever opposed marriage equality?

Oak:  Oh, okay.  No, of course not.

Interviewer:  So, you never donated to the Prop 8 Campaign?

Oak:  I was a High School Senior.  I was lucky enough to afford car insurance.

Interviewer:  So that would be a no?

Oak:  Yes, but what does this have to do with developing video games if I may ask?

Interviewer:  Our company is committed to equality and fairness and human rights.

Oak:  Fine.

Interviewer:  Just a few more questions, Mr. Oak.  Have you ever met Brian Brown?  And if you did, did you do the right thing and tell that asshole to fuck off?

Oak:  Who is Brian Brown?

Interviewer:  So you never met him?

Oak:  I don't even know who he is.

Interviewer:  Okay.  But if you did know who he is and met him, you would tell him that he is an asshole and that he should get pancreatic cancer and die a slow, agonizing death, right?

Oak:  Why would I do that?

Interviewer:   Because he has campaigned and is still campaigning to strip same-sex couples of their basic, fundamental human rights.

Oak: Who is this person?

Interviewer:  He is the president of...

Oak:  What?

Interviewer:  Please, Mr. Oak, don't make me say it.  All you need know is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated his organization a hate group and that it's sole purpose is to campaign against marriage equality and thereby demean, humiliate, and oppress sweet, loving same-sex couples.

Oak:  Well, that's not good.

Interviewer:  So, if you met this person, would you tell him that he should get pancreatic cancer and die a slow, agonizing death?

Oak:  Who again?

Interviewer:  Mr. Oak, please, that's like asking Ron Weasley to repeat the name of Volde--.  I can't say that name, either.

Oak:  You mean this guy Brian Brown?

Interviewer:  YES!  But, please, Mr. Oak, not so loud.

Oak:  And you want to know if I would tell Br--

Interviewer:  --this vile, despicable homophobic bigot--

Oak:  --this vile, despicable homophobic bigot that he--

Interviewer:  --should get pancreatic cancer and die a slow, agonizing death.  Would you, Mr. Oak?

Oak:  Yeah, sure, why not.

Interviewer:  Excellent!  Okay, just a few more questions, and we'll be done.

Oak:  (warily)  Okay.

Interviewer:  Are your parents married?

Oak:  Yes.

Interviewer:  And that makes you happy?

Oak:  Well, yes, of course.

Interviewer:  Good.  Are your parents the same or opposite sex?

Oak:  Will it count against me if I say "opposite"?

Interviewer:  Oh, Mr. Oak, you're a funny one, you are.  Of course not.  It's perfectly normal to have two parents of different sex.

Oak:  Oh, yes, yes, I know.

Interviewer:  But you do think it's also perfectly normal to have two parents of the same sex, don't you?

Oak:  Well, er, yes,  yes, I do.

Interviewer:  Good, Mr. Oak.  And you didn't have to use your lifeline.

Oak:  I have one?

Interviewer:  That's just one of my bon mots.  Relax, you're doing fine.  Now, did you always call your mother mother and your father father?

Oak:  Huh?  Er, no.  I call them "mom" and "dad".  (His face all crunched up in all kinds of puzzlement)

Interviewer:  Then did you ever call your father "mom" and your mother "dad"?

Oak:  Please, if I may ask with all due respect, why the f- (stops himself) why would I do that?

Interviewer:  Because marriage equality demands that a parent's sex is as irrelevant as the color of one's skin.

Oak:  Come again?

Interviewer:  Look, Mr. Oak, I understand perfectly if you always called your mother "mom" and your father "dad".  We haven't shaken off the last vestiges of heteronormativity just yet.

Oak:  Hetero-what?

Interviewer:  Let's step back a little.  It's normal to have two parents of the opposite sex, right?  And it's normal to have parents of the same sex, yes?  Well, then, if both arrangements are normal, then it is quite obvious that a parent's sex does not matter.

Oak:  Okay?

Interviewer:  And, therefore, your father might as well be your mother, and vice versa.  Simple.

Oak:  And that means I should call my mother "dad" and my father "mom"?

Interviewer:  Oh, not all the time.  You should mix it up.  It's a good exercise.  Gets you used to sexual interchangeability.

Oak:  But I do not think my parents would like it.

Interviewer:  Just tell them that being a parent to a wonderfully clever child should be enough for them.

Oak:  So, is that it?

Interviewer:  You'll promise to call your mother "dad" and your father "mom" sometimes?

Oak:  I'll try.

Interviewer:  It's important that you do more than that.

Oak:  Uh, er,

Interviewer:  Yes, Miss Oak?

Oak:  Fuck this!  I am sorry, but this is just bullshit.  What the fuck does any of this have to do with developing video games for horny teenage boys?  I mean, if the sexes were as interchangeable as you say, then it should not matter if Grand Theft Auto has naked women or Chippendale Dancers.

Interviewer:  You're a funny one, you are.  But you need some sensitivity training before we can hire you full time.

Oak:  Oh, fuck this shit.  Who's that guy you want to get cancer and die?  I'm gonna see if he needs a software engineer.  I'm outta here.  And if you ever call me "Miss Oak" again, I'll chop your nuts off. Clear?  You are fucking bonkers.  (stomps out)

Interviewer:  Oh, dear!  He's going to soon be packing off gays with pink triangles to Treblinka.  I must alert the Human Rights Commission.

Monday, April 7, 2014

German Humour

Two planets meet. One asks the other, "Hey, how are you?"

The other answers, "Not well at all, I have homo sapiens."
"Oh, don't worry. That'll go away soon enough."

(Treffen sich zwei Planeten.  Fragt der eine: “Na, wie geht`s?”
“Gar nicht gut. Ich leide furchtbar an Homo sapiens.”
“Ah…”, entgegnet der Fragende erleichtert,”…das kenne ich, das geht bald vorüber!”)

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Wednesday, April 2, 2014


I have nothing profound to say today.

Oh, yeah, don't do drugs.

Wait a minute.

No,  do drugs.  Capitalism will fuck you no matter what, and drugs will at least make the experience somewhat enjoyable.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Joke to Sanctimonious Dogma

I wish to God that same-sex "marriage" were merely an April Fool's Joke.  Well, now that we have national recognition of same-sex "marriage" every day might as well be the First of April.

Yeah, I know I am a bigot.  I don't care.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Tom Noerper, would you please be consistent?

Mr. Noerper has recently repeated the now very tired, old liberal line that Jesus said NOTHING about gays and, so, people who claim to be His followers should say nothing about gays as well. To be sure, it is very true that Christ said nothing about gays, but He unequivocally defined marriage (Mark 10:6-7, Matthew 19:4-5) as the union of a man and a woman, and, as Mr. Noerper surely knows, court decision after court decision has established beyond any reasonable debate that such a definition of marriage is utterly irrational, that the only motive to define marriage according to sexual difference is animus against gays and lesbians, is to exclude them from the institution of marriage and thereby to condemn them to lives of intolerable loneliness and despair.

Nevertheless, when Christ explicitly uses this heterosexual definition of marriage, Mr. Noerper thinks He is being silent about gays and Lesbians.

Yet, when His followers define marriage in the same way that Christ did, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, Tom Noerper does not say that this constitutes silence about gays and lesbians. Rather, Tom Noerper agrees with the conclusions of our courts and would accordingly call this definition of marriage vile, hateful homophobic bigotry. He clearly considers such a definition to be the very opposite of silence about gays and lesbians.

But this is hardly consistent, is it? On the one hand, when Jesus defines marriage heterosexually, He is being silent about gays and lesbians, but when His followers do the EXACT SAME THING, they are saying that gays and lesbians are somehow less than human and are, therefore, giving voice to very hateful bigotry against them.

Mr. Noerper, which is it? Is defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman being silent about gays and lesbians? Or is it instead a most hostile and bigoted homophobic animus? You have to choose one or the other, Mr. Noerper; the principle of non-contradiction won't allow you to hold both.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Please, answer me this

How did the unicity of sexual complementarity and society's need to regulate it become a tenet of blind faith?!  What seemed obvious to even an atheist like Bertrand Russell, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is now something akin to the belief that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Put this on a t-shirt

I like heterosexism.  I owe my life to it after all.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014


If the raison d'être of Modern Liberalism is the safeguarding of Individual Autonomy, then how can the Modern State outlaw the most fundamental expression thereof, namely suicide, without contradicting its very premise?  I really want to know this.

Sorry, this is a dismal topic, I know, and hardly a fitting one for the Feast Day of the Annunciation, the Celebration of the New Creation, but I have cabin fever something fierce, and under extreme fits of cabin fever, all one can think of is individual autonomy and how much it royally sucks.

Individual Autonomy is simply a euphemism for the demonic Liberal Project of crushing and atomizing human solidarity.  And, of course, the logical consequence of this project is suicide.

More later.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Wrong Name

Paradise Trees should be re-named.  Their true name should be "Post-Lapsarian Home-wreckers".

Thursday, March 20, 2014

I am unAmerican

I am a proud triskaidekaphobe.

Numerological Patriotism

I should have known this:  Triskaidekaphobia is profoundly unAmerican.  What the metaphysical import of this may be, I have not even begun to stumble upon anything resembling a clue.

Monday, March 17, 2014


Kirk Cameron is a gay activist tool, a Bible-Thumping android designed by gay engineers to make the masses think that basing marriage upon sexual complementarity is something only a Biblically programmed robots would do.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

C'est la vie!

If you perchance to read this, I would like you to know that you are undeniably beautiful.  A visage like yours makes the Trojan War seem to be Reason itself.  Ten years of bloody battles may even be too small a price to pay to behold your smile.  Yes, your beauty is indeed dangerously bewitching.


You're an airhead.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

How my cat won an argument today

My cat Fledermaus wanted in this morning.  I would not let her come in.  It was a gorgeously bright, balmy day, the type of day we Krauts honor with "herrlich".  And my cat, having been cooped up inside nearly all winter, needed to stay outside and shake off all that Cabin Fever.  Or so I thought.

When I opened the front door, Fledermaus made a mad dash only to be rebuffed by my right foot.  She didn't give me a pissed-off squint but implored me with her largest saucer eyes.  Yeah, I've seen that Schtick many times before.

"It's warm, little girl," I said, "It's bright and sunny.  A great day to frolic, climb trees, find Chipmunks and torture them."  Fledermaus just whimpered.

Spoiled brat, I muttered and then walked down the steps to get the mail.

That's when I saw the Red Fox.

A Red Fox is a rarity on my property.  I last saw one maybe a decade ago.  And that Red Fox was a sight to behold.  That Red Fox had a coat that shined a brilliant radiant vermillion.  That Red Fox made you understand the meaning of "foxy".  But this one I saw today was mangy.  It looked like a dwarf coyote someone had spray painted red.  And it had a mean and hungry look--appropriate for the Ides of March, I suppose.  This Red Fox just stood in the middle of my road, trying to stare me down.  I thought it might even say, "Hey, you talkin' to me?"  I was starting to get scared.  Usually foxes run at the first sight of a Homo sapiens--that's been my experience at least--but not this one.  He stood his ground like an emaciated George Zimmerman on all fours.

Well, yeah, so now I understood why Fledermaus wanted back in.  I ran back up the steps, opened the front door, and Fledermaus raced inside.

When I walked back down, the Fox had gone.  Thank God!

Friday, March 14, 2014

Losing My Religion

I have lost count how many times someone has told me that the ONLY reason why I oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is that I am a self-hating, repressed homosexual in deep denial.  And every time such a claim is made, I go out of my way to see if it's true.  After all, people who advocate the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" are Enlightened Progressives, and Enlightened Progressives are never wrong.  About anything.  At all.  So, when an Enlightened Progressive says that I must be a homosexual, then, well, I must at the very least take this very seriously.

I've always thought that I liked women.  Every time a pretty woman crosses my path, I smile, have thoughts that are pleasant, and if they chance to be too pleasant, I try my darnedest to practice custodia oculorum lest I go to hell.  I've never had such problems in the presence of handsome men.  Never.  And I go to the gym.  A lot.  But that could be simply because my denial and repression of my true homosexual identity is so very deep and thorough.  If so, then my oppressive heteronormative upbringing has really done a number on me.

But how the deuce do I square all this with the infallibility of the Enlightened Progressive?  I just assume that I am wrong.  That all my desires to see, touch, and grope beautiful women in extreme states of deshabille are simply deceptions of a homophobic super ego that the nuns at my Catholic School surgically inserted into my frontal lobe when I was sleeping in class.

To get to my true identity, I must circumvent my homophobic super ego and go directly to the source of my true, unchurched desires, my id.  But how do I do this?  How do I shut off my super ego, which  like Descartes' whispering demon deceives me into thinking I like pussy?  Easy.  I just watch really raw, hardcore gay porn.  If that doesn't unleash my homophile id, reveal my inner gay, and vindicate the Enlightened Progressive Magisterium, then nothing can.

But I regret to report that every time I watch raw, hardcore gay porn, I am incredibly bored.  Bored out of my skull.  So bored that I long to read a manual on how to mix concrete or John Rawls's Lectures on Public Reason.  There's no Mr. Stiffy in my pants.  Not even a Mr. Wanna-be Stiffy.  It just remains Mr. Sleepy.  Sowwy, but gay porn does nothing for me.

The Enlightened Progressive is, thus, not infallible.  My faith is shattered.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Just Curious

Does the state's prohibition of suicide imply that the state owns your ass?

Monday, March 10, 2014


According to the most recent poll on the matter, fifty-nine percent of those questioned favor the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage".  Great, but that's still not as high as the percentage (upwards of seventy percent) of the electorate who in 2004 believed that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 Attacks.  So, the gay lobby and all its many minions in the mainstream media ready and willing to marginalize every one and any one who dares oppose them as a know-nothing, Bible-Thumping rube and bigot have yet to match the demagogic heights reached by Bush and Cheney who, even though they had a shamefully timid press, had nothing like the Rainbow Propaganda Energizer Bunny that has kept going and going and going nonstop for more than a decade.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

The Best Thing I've Read Today (or this morning, at least)

"To declare same-sex unions marriage and their technological ‘reproduction’ normative is essentially to reconceive the child not as a person but as an artifact. It is to deny that he is essentially the natural fruit of a love inscribed into his parents’ flesh; since love is now a mere emotion with no bearing on the meaning of the body, which has been relegated to the sub-personal realm of ‘mere biology.’ It is to deny that his being from his parents and having a lineage is deeply constitutive of his humanity or his personal identity; since the very notion of ‘lineage’ is confused by these new artificial combinations and since ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are merely names affixed to a social function which can be performed in creative new ways. And it is to deny that he is his own being with inviolable dignity who cannot be manipulated or controlled; since it was a process of manipulation and control that brought him into being in the first place. The technological dominance of procreation asserts, contrary to the child’s true nature and to his parents’ unquestionable love for him, that a child is essentially a product of human making, an assemblage of parts outside of parts that are the parts of no real whole, whose meaning and purpose, as with all artifacts, reside not in itself but in the designs of its maker."
                    --Michael Hanby

The Philosophical Doctrine of Compatibilism Explained for Dummies

You enjoy getting raped.

Friday, March 7, 2014

And just fuck this shit

Yes, our drug laws are still Neanderthal (sorry, that's an insult to the Neanderthal), but stigma attaches to alcoholism even though the consumption of alcohol is legal. And, besides, I am just fucking tired of being asked to muster some sympathy for some rich dude who could find no better use for his millions than to squander it on a suicidal addiction. So, Mr. Brand, you can just go fuck yourself.


When Tom Noerper called me "twisted" for opposing the legal recognition of ss'm', I should have asked him what kind of "twisted" did he mean? Am I supposed to be "twisted" in the way a pedophile is twisted? Or in the way a Nazi is twisted? Or just in the way Annie Ross's analyst told her she was twisted?

Re-defining cake

A somewhat better analogy would be this: A patron says to the waiter, "I would like to have that cake over there." The waiter turns to where he is pointing and is puzzled. "What cake?" asks the waiter. "That cake, there, over there," the patron says with increasing insistence and resolve. The waiter says, "I'm sorry, sir, but I don't see a cake." The patron now gets noticeably irate, "That cake right there in front of your eyes, dangit!" The waiter looks long and hard and finally says, "That's just butter." The patron has now risen from his seat and jumps up and down, yelling, "Butter is an ingredient of a cake, you idiot. Therefore, it's a cake. Say it's a cake. Say it's a cake. For the love of Rawls, say that it is a cake, damn you!"


Remember when atheists were cool? They wore black turtlenecks and berets and recited bad poetry to free jazz, bemoaning the absurdity of a godless existence and the inhumanity of industrial, mass-produced modernity, and then would get shitfaced, if they weren't already. Now atheists seem to be obsessed with demonstrating that their morality is far more righteous than that contained in a book which they were supposed to have demonstrated to be a silly compendium of childish fairy tales a thousand times over by now. How pathetic!

Hey, Officer, I don't want no trouble

I've lost many friendships because of this absurd ss'm' debate. But that should not bum me out. For, if I accept the premise of my opponents that a relationship that lacks formal legal recognition is illegal, then, well, friendships are illegal, and, therefore, if I want to be a good law-abiding citizen, I should lose all my friends.

Lady Lazarus

Pornography insofar as it is a depiction of the sex act without any concern for the rational human soul is a cleaving of the body from the soul and, thus, represents the metaphysical definition of death. Therefore, porn addiction is nothing more than necrophilia.

A friendly reminder

Gendered pronouns re-enforce the notion that sexual differences are basic and primary and are therefore an insidious Orwellian ploy to make us think that the regime of heteronormativity is normal and natural when it really is oppressive bigotry of the vilest and most twisted sort. Therefore, gendered pronouns must go. If you still use them even after reading this rigorously logical argument demonstrating why such pronouns are evil, well, then you are as much a bigot as any racist or anti-Semite.

Another Piss in the Wind

The rationale of the anti-miscegenation laws was to keep the races separate. If you say that these laws are like a state's refusal to recognize same-sex "marriage", then you would have to say, in keeping with the analogy, that the rationale of this refusal is to keep people who are of the same sex apart. And this is just utter nonsense.

What? States that do not recognize ss'm' forbid people of the same sex from sharing apartments? They have outlawed men's and women's restrooms and locker rooms? These states do not allow all boys' or all girls' schools? The anti-miscegenation parallel has utterly no basis in history or, more importantly, logic. Those who appeal to it simply want to mention White Supremacists and those who oppose the legal recognition of ss'm' in the same sentence so as to make people think that the latter are in the same category as evil racists. But this is not the case for the anti-miscegenation parallel is nothing more than an obvious category mistake. 

Nevertheless, this analogy has come to be widely accepted as common sense simply through force of repetition. The anti-miscegenation parallel, in other words, is a textbook example of Hitler's Große Lüge, The Big Lie.

A summary of my arguments against the legal recognition of ss'm'

Some may find it useful. Others will just roll their eyes. 

In order to accommodate same-sex couples within the institution of civil marriage, marriage must be re-defined to mean simply a union of two people. The way these unions choose to express intimacy suddenly must become a thing of public indifference just like one's choosing of religion. But this is just insane. Coitus is not like any other act of intimacy, be it frottage, cuddling, or an intense, soul-baring conversation about Proust. Coitus can and often does result in children of whom the state prefers not to be primary caretakers. 

It is for this reason that only heterosexual relations are subject to Paternity Laws. If the state has a compelling interest in discouraging irresponsible heterosexuality by means of Paternity Laws, then it clearly has an interest in encouraging responsible heterosexuality. But the re-definition of marriage would make that which sets heterosexual relations apart into simply one among many random acts of intimacy, and that's just nonsense. 

If equality demands that we treat heterosexual and same-sex relationships as fundamentally the same, then we must abrogate Paternity Laws forthwith: It violates the sacred dictates of equality that a gay man can enjoy a one-night-stand without fear of a Paternity Suit but a straight man cannot. Same-sex "marriage" requires the relativization of coitus, and that is a singularly stupid, insane, and absurd idea.


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Biology's ban on same-sex couples' having children is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.


While on Facebook, I shared a meme that proposed bakers bake really ugly cakes for same-sex "weddings".  A friend from my high school days saw this share and was outraged and made her outrage known.  She found the meme cruel and mean-spirited.  She then "defriended" me and blocked me.

I applaud her principled stance against one of the gravest injustices of our time. "They made ugly cakes for same-sex 'weddings', and I never had an ugly cake, so I didn't stand up. And then I was served a positively hideous crème brûlée, and by that time it was too late for any one to stand up (I could have dined and dashed, but that's way gauche)."

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Carne vale!

An hour and forty-minutes left of carnivoran freedom, and I have discovered to my dismay that I have eaten every last morsel of meat that was in my refrigerator.  A much too early Carnival indeed.

My Mardi Gras was shitty

Against my better judgement I rejoined Zuckerberg's Panopticon because I did not know how else to contact certain people.  Anyway, I contacted them, made sure that they knew how to contact me outside of Facebook, got into yet another debate over ss'm', and wasted hours and hours that could have been better spent helping out at a Soup Kitchen.

I have once again left Facebook.  I hope for good this time.

Now if I can only escape Google's Panopticon.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

A hot investing tip

I know the technology is a ways off, but the wave of the future is baby vending machines. Better start investing now.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Hey, you Enlightened Progressives!

If you find it reasonable that two men or two women be listed on a birth certificate, you've just forfeited your right to ridicule me for believing in the Virgin Birth. You got that?!

The fucking bigots

Facebook (yeah, I am back on facebook against my better judgement) won't let me list my gender as "an amoeba".  I have always identified myself as an amoeba. From the time I was just a blastocyst, in fact. How dare you say I may not identify myself as an amoeba! I started out as a cell. Thus, my very essence is unicellular.

Outright Gnosticism

The following is a reply I just received to my hateful, bigoted, Nazi-like defense of the coital conception of marriage:

"Homosexuals can have kids, by the way, through sperm donation and women who wish to carry one's child. Personally, I don't want to fuck or have children. Sex is okay, I guess, but I don't want my body almost ripped in half just because you want me to have kids. Why don't you try to poop a cantaloupe because that is the equivalent of childbirth. Also, I don't care about flesh. Vagina, penis, both, neither, all I care about is the person. The person I want to be with for my whole life. I want to be with them for who they are, not what they are. Also, asexuals want to get married also, it's equal rights. Freedom to marry the person you want to be with 'til death because you love them more than any one else in this world."

So, the person has NOTHING to do with his or her or its body. Σῶμα, σῆμα, indeed! By the way, I wonder how this anthropology which underpins every argument for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" jibes with the materialist notion that we have no minds, just brains.

What I hope will be the unintended consequence of the new anti-gay law in Kansas

A Restaurant in Kansas. Two men enter and ask to be seated.

Hostess: Er, um, you're a same-sex couple.

Guy1: Well, we're just friends.

Hostess: Our Restaurant is a family-friendly establishment, and we have a strict policy of refusing service to deviants who might threaten our family-friendliness.

Guy2: What the hell?

Hostess: It's h-e-double-toothpicks, please, sir.

Guy1: What? You think we're gay?

Hostess: I have to make sure, sir. Restaurant policy.

Guy1: How?

Hostess: Kiss me, sir.

Guy1: What!

Hostess: Kiss me. You both have to kiss me before I can seat you. Policy.

(The guys look at each other befuddledly and then say, "okay", and proceed one after the other to give the hostess a very chaste peck on the cheek.)

Hostess: That won't do. I am sorry, but those kisses were very gay.

(I think you get the idea where this sketch is headed.)

Untergang des Abendlandes

Bogart & Bacall

Tracy & Hepburn

Sandler & Barrymore

I am showing my age, but, what the hell, I miss Johnny Carson

Jimmy Fallon is so very bland that he makes oatmeal seem picante.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Split by a suffix

Gibbon famously (or infamously, depending upon your point of view) mocked the Christians for having rioted over an iota during the Arian Controversy. I wonder what Gibbon would have thought of the battle over an "ed".

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Monster and His Art

If you believe Dylan Farrow and are so disgusted by what Woody Allen did that you can no longer watch his films, are you being morally inconsistent if you still appreciate Wagnerian Opera?


If you think that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, then you are a vile, twisted, depraved bigot who simply wants to demean, humiliate and oppress Gays and Lesbians. That's pretty much accepted as axiomatic now. Fine. People are idiots. I just cannot take this equation of basing marriage on sexual complementarity with an irrational, sadistic animus towards homosexuality seriously. You know why? The two have nothing to do with one another. Even John Corvino admits that the question of same-sex "marriage" is entirely separate from whether or no homosexual relations are immoral.

Also, if basing marriage upon sexual complementarity necessarily entails homophobic bigotry, then, please, please, please, explain to me Ancient Sparta. In Ancient Sparta homosexual relations were not just tolerated, not just accepted, not just celebrated, but relied upon as a way to maintain morale in its army. Sparta was at the very top of the Riddle Scale; gay relationships were deemed literally indispensable for the existential defense of the city. And yet Sparta never ever understood marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman. So, the Spartans according to what passes today as Enlightened Reason must have been irrational homophobic bigots even though they did the very thing the Riddle Scale says you must do to be entirely untainted by homophobia, i.e. treat homosexuality as indispensable to the well-being of society.

A talking point

If the state wants to show disapproval of a kind of marriage, then it does so through criminalization as it does now with incestuous and bigamous marriages, not by withholding legal recognition. To suggest that the state stigmatizes some relationships by not recognizing them as marriages is to say that the state stigmatizes friendships, and that’s just silly even if some recent scholarship suggests just that.

And, yes, I know that one of the stated reasons of DOMA was to express “moral disapproval of homosexuality” (but this statement was given only by some members of the House, and it's just false to infer that this is what motivated every voter for DOMA in the House AND the SENATE) Well, that’s just dumb. Even John Corvino, one of the most prominent advocates for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" has acknowledged that the morality of homosexuality and the legal recognition of ss’m’ are two entirely separate questions.
“The connection between the morality debate and the marriage debate is not absolute. One can believe that homosexuality is morally wrong while also believing that same-sex couples should have the legal freedom to marry, just as one can believe that divorce is morally wrong while also believing that a free society should permit it. Conversely, one can oppose same-sex marriage without believing that homosexuality is morally wrong (although the position is rare). [What’s Wrong with Homosexuality, p. 149]”

The question of the morality of a relationship has nothing to do with the question of what counts as a marriage. For instance, I think incest is immoral. Nevertheless, I would never deny the possibility of an incestuous marriage. On the other hand, I have nothing against a same-sex gin rummy partnership, nothing at all, but I would never ever say that such a partnership could ever become a marriage.
Thus, opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" cannot by itself be "homophobic", even if by "homophobic" we are to understand in its broadest sense as "a moral disapproval of homosexual relations".

Thursday, February 6, 2014

The Demands of Equality

Our dear leader famously exclaimed, "if we are created equal, then surely the love we share is equal as well." Therefore, we should have same-sex "marriage". Fine, but it just occurred to me that "if we are created equal, then surely the needs we have are equal as well." Therefore, we should have massive income re-distribution.

An Observation

I hate English. In almost every other language my first name sounds musical: Paulo, Pablo, Pawel, etc. But in English it sounds like a turd dropping in toilet water.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

This should be obvious

Why is there so much free porn on the internet?  Well, remember in 1984 Ingsoc had a porn division for the proles?  Porn is the perfect way to keep the masses distracted and stupid.  It is an addictive opiate that keeps people occupied and ashamed. People who are too occupied with sexual gratification don't care about the police state, but if they do, then the police state can blackmail them into acquiescence with records of their depraved browser histories.   And people who waste so much time masturbating lose any sense of solidarity, the sine qua non of any successful revolt against tyranny.  I have no doubt that all those free porn sites are federally funded.  No doubt at all.  Free porn sites keep the proles at bay.

Is this Latin Correct?

It better be.  I spent nearly forty bucks to have it printed on a sweatshirt:

fellator esse histrionum pornographicarum malo protestanti.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Best thing I heard today

"I just got married."

"First time?"


"But you're eighty.  Why'd you wait so long?  She a good cook?"

"Not particularly, no."

"Well, does she clean the house well?"

"Not really."

"Good in bed?"

"We're both too rickety and decrepit for that stuff."

"Why then?"

"She can drive at night."

Thursday, January 30, 2014

What dreams may come

There are some dreams that make me wish I could sleep forever.  Like the one I had two nights ago, in which a young woman allowed me to kiss her.  And then there are nightmares like the one where my mother (God rest her soul) walks right past me without even so much as a glance at me after I have waited for hours at the airport.  

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Besides, I'm a smoker, I'll be dead before History can judge me

People who oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" will be deemed by History to be as stupid as those who once tried to prevent the de-criminalization of interracial marriage.  That's the unsubtle message of this meme.  Oh, yes, the anti-miscegenation parallel just won't die.  On the contrary, it has grown into an unquestioned dogma:  if you oppose the legal recognition of ss'm', then you would have opposed interracial marriage forty (some odd) years ago.  And if you would have been a bigot then, you are most certainly a bigot now.  Because same-sex "marriage" is just like interracial marriage.  Obviously.

Whatever has fueled the growth and popularity of this analogy, it certainly isn't logic.

The analogy fails spectacularly on the gay activists' very own terms.  They are the ones who insist that sexual orientation is a trait just like race.  Fine, let's accept that arguendo, and when we do just that, we cannot help but realize (if and only if we use our minds and not ideological sanctimony, that is) that the laws criminalizing interracial marriage were premised upon the notion that the mixing of certain traits--in this case, the races--is bad, whereas the push for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is premised upon the notion that marriages of mixed sexual orientations are really miserable or, in other words, that the mixing of certain traits--in this case, the sexual orientations--is bad.   So, if you are to follow the logic of this meme, then you were stupid if you opposed the mixing of traits back in the 1960s, and you are stupid now if you oppose exactly the opposite (i.e. the unmixing of traits).

Analogies are supposed to compare things that are alike, but the reasons for opposing interracial marriage and those for opposing the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" are so different that comparing the two amounts to a basic, fundamental category mistake.  I don't care how History may judge me.  Basic Logic has already rendered its judgement:  This analogy is really stupid.

Monday, January 27, 2014

And is her father's name Max by any chance?

Is it an accident that the surname of the director of a "positive film about abortion" just happens to be 'Robespierre'?

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Just Finished Listening to the Titan

With my speakers cranked at full blast.  I feel manly now.


Yes, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to do all sorts of terrorist attacks.  They are pissed.  Wouldn't you be after you won a democratic election only to have it mowed down by a Military Coup?

Friday, January 24, 2014

Why would you even ask?

Yes, of course, I would just DIE without Mahler.

Best thing I've read all day

"Listen, twenty years ago, it wasn't so cool to have a calculator watch, right?  And spending all day inside playing with your calculator watch sent a clear message that you weren't doing so well socially.  And judgements like 'like' and 'dislike' and 'smiles' and 'frowns' were limited to junior high.  Someone would write a note and it would say, 'Do you like unicorns and stickers?' and you'd say, 'Yeah, I like unicorns and stickers!  Smile!'  That kind of thing.  But now it's not just junior high kids who do it, it's everyone, and it seems to me sometimes I've entered some inverted zone, some mirror world where the dorkiest shit in the world is completely dominant.  The world has dorkified itself."

                                                         --Dave Eggers, The Circle, pp.132-3

Erin Nicely

If you read this, then shoot me an e-mail.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

I'm a vain, petty bastard

My low view count makes me feel like Schopenhauer after he scheduled his class to be at the same time as Hegel's.

What goes around comes around

Gay activists kvetching about the re-defining of a word?  Seriously?  Now that is, as Cartman would say, really fucking gay.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

The News Today

Keith Richards is still not dead.  God knows why.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

You be the judge

A few months ago I finally found the translation I did of Rilke's "Das Karussell" more than two decades ago. There are few things I've done that I am proud of, and this happens to be one of them. So, since I no longer have a Mommy to post my achievements, however modest they may be, to the refrigerator, I posted it here, to this weblog, hoping it would get some admiring comments. It got none. It did get 646 views. My usual post gets two, perhaps three views. That's something, I guess, but I have no idea whether the 646 number counts my own views or not. So, that unusually (for me) high view count could just be my own pathetic middle-aged narcissism, in which case it isn't 'something' after all but a whole lot of masturbatory nothing.

Anyway, in a brief preface to my translation, I wrote:
I translated this poem simply because I could find no translation that did not make me retch. Robert Bly's made Rilke sound like Hemingway, and others made the poem too treacly. Stephen Mitchell had not deigned to grace it with his god-like powers of transformation. This was back in 1993 before Edward Snow came out with his now acclaimed translations. I still haven't seen what he does with this particular poem, but I'm sure it's better than this.
 Since then I have acquired Mr. Snow's acclaimed translations of Rilke's Neue Gedichte, and as much as my low self-esteem is trying to stop me, I must say that I spoke too soon. Mr. Snow's translation of "Das Karussell" does not suck. But it's bland. And he does not even try to mimic Rilke's rhythm or rhyme scheme, which is as much a part of the picture the poet conjures of the Carousel as the meaning of the words. I am not saying that my translation re-produces Rilke's rhythm and rhyme. By no means. But, at the very least, I made an attempt.

But you be the judge, gentle reader.  Here is the last stanza of Snow's translation followed by my rendition of the same:

And so it goes and rushes to be done,
and only circles and turns and has no goal.
A red, a green, a gray drifting past,
a small, scarcely started profile--.
And oftentimes a smile, turned this way,
elated and blissfully adazzle as it spends itself
on this blind, breathless play...

And now me:

And so it goes--faster, hastening its end,
It circles and it turns and has no aim,
A red, a green, a grey sent around,
A small inchoate outline of a face,
And sometimes we see a smile triumphant
And bless'd that sparkles and is spent
On this blind and breathless game...

And for those who read German, the original:

Und das geht hin und eilt sich, dass es endet,
und kreist und dreht sich nur und hat kein Ziel.
Ein Rot, ein Grün, ein Grau vorbeigesendet,
ein kleines kaum begonnenes Profil -.
Und manchesmal ein Lächeln, hergewendet,
ein seliges, das blendet und verschwendet
an dieses atemlose blinde Spiel . . .

Monday, January 20, 2014

How pussywhipped am I?

I am so pussywhipped that even though I'm a bachelor, who lives alone and has not gone on a date for more than a decade, I still put the toilet seat down after I urinate.

Just kidding.  I put the lid down as well, and not because I think that if I don't, some random beautiful young woman will show up at my door, declare herself to be madly and passionately in love with me, and then stomp out with wild indignation before I can seal the deal because I left the toilet seat up.  I put the seat and the lid down simply because if I don't, my stupid cat will lap up the toilet water.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Hey, Fort Gondo...

...just so you know (and, perhaps, can make the appropriate corrections) the 28th of January does not fall on a Friday this year.  The next time the 28th of January will fall on a Friday will be 2022, eight years from now.  The poetry of Jeff Hamilton may be good, but I hardly think that his popularity has him so booked up that his next open date will be eight long years from now.

Update:  Fort Gondo has finally corrected the date.  The poetry reading will take place this Friday, the 24th.  (1/22/14)

Saturday, January 18, 2014

And then there is this

Apparently the State of Misery still has a "flag desecration" law on the books, and Missouri's AG for lack of anything better to do is trying to get the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the law's constitutionality.  Even though the Supreme Court made very clear decades ago that such laws run afoul of the First Amendment.

Also, you can't desecrate what is not sacred, and pieces of cloth bearing the symbols of the state are not sacred.  Unless you want to say that the state is holy and its government a church.  But then the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State would be entirely absurd.

Hey, let's all give Chris Koster more work to do.  Let's get a group of ten or so people and go stand in front of the Arch and blow our noses as obstreperously as we can into United States Flag Handkerchiefs.  Let's defile the flag with our snot.

Chris Koster, you can go fuck yourself.

Friday, January 17, 2014

A Future PSA on NBC

Danny Pino:  When you see two men walking down the street with a baby stroller on a sunny day, you may want to go up to them and say what an adorable little baby they have.  Because everyone likes cute babies.

Kelly Giddish:  But as you are trying to give that cute bundle of joy the giggles, please, don't ask the fathers, "Where's the Mommy?"  That says to the couple they are deficient as parents simply because both of them are the same sex.

Danny Pino:  And that is homophobia and bigotry.

Kelly Giddish:  Don't be a heterosexist supremacist.  You'll sleep better at night.

I've read too many legal opinions

How can I tell?  I now know that "conclusory" means the opposite of "conclusive".

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Existential Crisis

There are too many words.  I hate that.  I wish I were a cat.

Monday, January 13, 2014

The March of Justice and Equality

Photographers are fined thousands of dollars for refusing to shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremonies. Florists are being taken to court for refusing to do floral arrangements for same-sex 'weddings'.  Bakers are threatened with jail for declining an offer to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  Caterers in California apparently still may turn down same-sex "weddings" with impunity.  For now, at least.  I don't know how long that will last.  The denial of one's basic, fundamental right to a catered party is an outrage and should soon be trampled underfoot by the inexorable march of Justice, Equality, and Progress.

I just can't wait to hear the shrill, bloodcurdling cries of indignation when a Christian Bingo Caller refuses to call at a Gay Dads' Baby Shower.  I really can't.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Die Neue Sportspalastrede


Ariel Sharon is dead.


Just curious

Would anyone be willing to give me a ride to and from the Collinsville Post Office tomorrow?  You  guys from the NSA monitoring me, eh?

Saturday, January 11, 2014

And I might as well admit this

I have viewed a tremendous amount of internet pornography.  Last week-end especially.  That was the week-end of the ungodly snowstorm.  I got snowed in.  My kitchen sink backed up.  I was lonely.  I had cabin fever, and my house was falling apart around me.  The trapped powerlessness was frustrating, and so I tried to remedy this by watching hours of female slavery.  Seeing woman moan and scream just to satisfy my perverse whims would distract me from my humiliating sense of powerlessness.  Yeah, right.

The only way to get any satisfaction out of porn is to obliterate your rational soul and become as indifferent to human suffering as a hyena.  For if you think at all while watching these young women getting slapped, gagged, choked, sodomized, and fucked in the least affectionate and most poundingly brutal way possible, you simply cannot avoid the realization that porn is exactly what Dworkin and McKinnon say it is:  prostitution, exploitation, and slavery.  No self-respecting human being would consent to such degrading treatment.  And if that gives you a power trip, then you are evil.  I was evil.  I am now ashamed.

I have sworn by my Mother's Ashes never to view porn again.

Worth a shot

Miss A., on the very off chance that you read this, will you marry me?  Please?  Pretty please?

Call me a bigot...

...but I still think that the growing momentum in favor of the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is proof incontrovertible that this country has finally lost its mind.

Good song, Ms. Hunt, but...

...acceptance is still not good enough for that implies that there is something that needs to be accepted  and that we have the power to accept or reject it.  No one would plea for acceptance for heterosexual marriage as if it were a stranger coming out of the cold.  Heterosexual marriage is a familiar, joyful, and socially necessary given and is celebrated as such.  Full and complete "marriage equality" won't be achieved until same-sex "marriage"  is treated in the exact same way.  We must celebrate same-sex "marriages" as normal, healthy, and socially productive.  Anything short of that, even a lyrical plea for acceptance, still has tainted vestiges of homophobia. So, sorry, Ms. Hunt, but your song doesn't quite meet the criteria demanded by the Riddle Scale.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

No, Laura Higgins, Duck Dynasty and the Truth did not "win"

I've never seen an episode of Duck Dynasty and never will. When I first heard of the enormous popularity of the show, I looked up its entry in the Source of All Knowledge, and my very first reaction was, "What the fuck?!" And that about sums up my reaction now.

But then it became a battle in this tedious culture war, and because I am a lonely, middle-aged blogger with nothing better to do than to rant about the godless evils of this secular age (all the while struggling in vain to resist the temptation to watch Internet Porn), I guess I have a quasi-professional duty to comment on this most recent skirmish between the Forces of Whatever Counts as the Traditional Heartland nowadays and the Evil Pound Scum hellbent to obliterate them. So, in this corner we have a ZZ-Top Wanna-Be, the Bible-Thumper Phil Robertson, and in the other we have the enforcers of Totalitarian Secular Sanctimony, The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation or GLAAD.

The general consensus seems to be that the Bible-Thumper won.  A&E was going to suspend him from the show, but after an outpouring of outrage from the show's shockingly many fans, A&E, obviously worried about a plunge in its ratings and revenue, suspended the suspension.  Democracy won!  Religious Freedom won!  Traditional Biblical Values won, and the evil Sodomites of GLAAD have been smited down!  Allahu Akbar!

And you can show your support for wholesome religious values by paying for Basic Cable and watching all the commercials on Duck Dynasty and, lest we forget, proudly sporting a Duck Dynasty T-Shirt for upwards of twenty bucks!  Capitalism Akbar!

But overlooked in all this delirium of victory is that the victory probably belongs to GLAAD.

Remember, GLAAD thinks that anyone who opposes the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is a bible-thumping extremist zealot, an uneducated white hick who is as bigoted against blacks as he is  against gays, and is most likely even more sexually perverted than what he imagines the gays to be.  Phil Robertson denounces homosexuality just because the Bible says he should, as if the Bible were his sole source of thoughts.  He sees no problem with the era of Jim Crow.  And he advises men to go after underage girls.  Phil Robertson is the perfect poster boy for what GLAAD wants all of us to imagine the opponent of the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" to be, a dirty old racist who uses the Bible to justify his blatant, pathetic bigotry and depravity.

That so many opponents of ss'm' are willing to stand up for an uneducated Bible-Thumping Hick from the Deep South who is alarmingly sanguine about Jim Crow only serves GLAAD'S attempt to smear defenders of traditional marriage as know-nothing religious zealots and not-so-closeted racists.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Middle Age Sucks!

When you are young and idealistic, a kiss from a beautiful woman is bliss.

When you're fat and middle-aged, bliss is getting your cousin to unclog your kitchen sink free of charge.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Nothing special today

I'm busy writing crap that will probably never see the light of day.  Then again, Sasha Grey's novel got published.  So, you never know.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Still Alive

I am too worried about my pipes freezing to focus on writing anything insightful or profound.  The high tomorrow will only be zero, and that's in the city.  I am out in the sticks.  Geez.  Anyway, it's so cold that letting the taps just drip won't suffice to resist a possible freeze.  I must maintain a steady stream.  But I have this extra problem (because God hates me):  my kitchen sink is backed up.  So, if I let the water even trickle out in a thin stream, I'll still have an overflow problem come morning.  Thus, I have to put a bucket under the tap and empty it every hour.  I shan't sleep tonight.

As I said, I am still alive.


Saturday, January 4, 2014


Does life have any meaning, and if so what the deuce is it?

Friday, January 3, 2014

How I'm Feeling Today

I really miss Audrey Hepburn.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Okay, I'll write something

I don't like 2014 so far.  It's bitterly cold.  I have a headache.  The rich are still getting richer, and the poor--since the Government sees fit to punish them with draconian cuts in the Food Stamp Program, Unemployment Benefits, etc--are not just getting poorer but might well become criminally desperate as well.  Perhaps, the beggars along the Magnificent Mile will rise up against the Indifferent Rich in their Mink Coats and slit their pablum-oozing throats.

That might make for wonderful theatre, giving a pathetic cripple like me, who deeply resents the Schickimickis, a chance to revel in a bit of class-conscious Schadenfreude, but it won't happen.  The Magnificent Mile is too well policed.  What is more likely to happen is this:  the poor will just turn on each other for what little scraps the Arrogant Plutocrats have deigned to leave behind.  And, accordingly, the run-down areas in St. Louis where I often wait for mass transit will become more dangerous.  I might get knifed.

Happy New Year in the United States, the Land of Creative Destruction!

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Looking back

I did get over my Triskaidekaphobia.  Sort of.  I came through 2013 alive.