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.