My 4 Collections of Short Stories (on Kindle)

My 4 Collections of Short Stories (on Kindle)

So far this month I’ve published four collections of short stories … they are now all available on Amazon/Kindle – there’s one more to go … here’s the covers and the links … go ahead, make me happy – buy my books :)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00Q9NMTDI

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKR1FWA

http://www.amazon.com/Big-City-short-stories-ebook/dp/B00PSOBUVQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1417198501&sr=8-2&keywords=Jim+Hlavac

http://www.amazon.com/My-Reason-Visiting-short-stories-ebook/dp/B00Q0NKGDW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417198501&sr=8-3&keywords=Jim+Hlavac

garden of the quick IV

2 from a guys perspective

2 my reason for visiting

2 the big city

Screw Amnesty — Manifest Destiny!

There is much teeth gnashing over the President’s nonsense about Amnesty — and of course the 10s of thousands of kids that recently came – and the general theory is that these countries to the south of us are so benighted that their people must leave and there’s no going back. Good enough … here’s a comment I’ve been leaving on Facebook:

Screw “amnesty” — I’m for Manifest Destiny! — let’s take over everything from El Paso to the Panama Canal and get rid of these crap government that’s millions are escaping –
the immigrants want to be Americans? Not a problem! — we’ll bring America to you –
should have been done a century ago …
Time for severe regime change –
And oh how easy it will be to guard the new border at the Canal!

And I mean really now – if these countries and their governments are so terrible — and they are — because of king, socialism and catholicism — then it’s time to renew calls for Manifest Destiny and take over the lot of them — wholesale regime change — up to and including arresting and imprisoning their entire political class — Mexicans are enraged at their government — there have been repeated calls there to bring a US style Bill of Rights to the place – fully 20% of the population has left — so let’s just go there and take the rest.

Where is the bold thinking? No — we have handing wringing and Woe is We! — eh, screw that –

Time to renew calls for taking over everything from the Panama Canal north to the Rio Grande — hell, if Canada bitches — seize that too … this is ridiculous — they all want to be like America? But here? Are we to empty these places out and then what? One big national park?

Groups like La Raza are all about how terrible things are there, apparently – for they’re all for making their people American s– and no, I don’t want to hear how we’re all Americans from Baffin Island to Tierra Del Fuego – what utter nonsense.

You know — sometimes you just have to go for the radical idea … seize the bull by the horns – -they’ll understand that down there with their toreadors and bull-fights ..

So, let’s take it all over and be done with it — then we can whip a little America on them and solve this problem once and for call. Sovereignty Schmovereignty — their own people are abandoning the place by the millions — if this keeps up there will be nothing but a few donkeys left down there…

Yes, Manifest Destiny! Not quite 54.40 or fight – -but Panama Canal is right!

And calls for this should give everyone something to think about … instead of this pussyfooting over “amnesty” for a few who are already here — bring ‘em all in — by taking them over.

Charles Manson, Ferguson and Gay Marriage

CHarles Mason is getting married – the heterosexuals of Ferguson are set to burn down the town – and gay marriages are going up in the flames of unicorn farts — astonishing .. having no time to pen another post I’ll just post a comment I left at
www.hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com today:

And yet, every single state that has used the tax dollars of gay folks to fight us in court over marriage, and every NO GAYS! group has used the same logic, and nearly every Republican and 1/2 the Democrats in any office, have said repeatedly that the reason to continue the ban on the recognition of the marriages of gay couples is to make sure good people like Charles Manson can get married … and that by banning the recognition of reality — aka, gay couples that exist — heterosexuals like those that riot in the streets of Ferguson the baby mommas will be encouraged to choose one of their baby daddies to marry and support them.

Meanwhile, in Michigan this very week – the marriages of the gay couples so far went up in smoke like a liquor store in Ferguson … by a Bill of Attainder (blatantly unconstitutional) procedure where an executive decision simply poofed away by magic wand the marriages that existed — that is, a law against a small group of named individuals that said law does not affect everyone else which levies a judicial penalty and simply disappears legal reality without any due process — is perfectly legitimate. And that’s the Republican governor!

State after state, politician after politician, group after group, church after church, have filed hundreds of briefs in courts all with the exact same logic — that if we ban the state recognition of what you know exists: gay couples — then there shall be no worries in the land over heteros rioting, being unwed mothers, aborting children, abandoning fathers, and fathers who beat their wives into battered women’s shelters — all will be magically cured by unicorn farts if only the states can continue to steal gay folks taxes and trash us at the same time as a threat to ordered society.

You think you live in an asylum? hahaha — sorry, but you’re clueless (no fault of your own, it’s par for the heterosexual course.)

Meanwhile, as recently as 2009, 2010, 2011 — and up to just last year — gay bar after gay bar is still raided by the cops — the taxpayers, peaceably assembled to plan our course for the redress of grievances broken up … in 2009 in Ft. Worth Texas some 3 dozen cops and Texas ABC agents came into the Rainbow Lounge and beat the living crap out of sissies daring to gather together – and sent 9 of them to the hospital and one still in rehab — over which there wasn’t a peep by anyone — and did the gay folks riot? No we did not.

Indeed, the longest continuing ever growing now worldwide series of political protests, aka, Gay Pride Marches, is ignored by everyone in media left and right – or are obsessed with clowns and cheerleaders (aka, drag queens and speedo boys) to the exclusion of the 10s of millions or others involved – and they never turn violent unless the police attack …

Oh, I could go on and on …

Asylum? That’s like a kindergarten compared to the arrant nonsense of the attitudes and assaults against gay folks.

So, you heteros get to continue on in the morass of your lives with Charles Manson’s nuptials and the riots of Ferguson –

But rest assures, among certain Republican factions there’s a ready solution — a constitutional amendment to forever ban the recognition of reality — while demanding we marry anyone’s daughter but your own …

Asylum? – oh, I could go on … it’s astonishing. You all enjoy.

John Hawkins’ mirthful gays “CHOOSE” fallacy

You know, you find an article that makes you tear your hair out and then it makes you laugh. Giggle at least. The discovery of “bisexuals” by John Hawkins in this article: http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/06/10/5-truths-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-gays-in-america-n1849612/page/full

is one such moment. I’ve been analyzing his fine words because he is apparently some major thinker on the subject. He seems quite sure of himself so he’s obviously pondered the issue. He’s pondered himself straight into a major confusion over gay men and “bisexuals.” And it’s just so funny to see his perplexity so clearly – and yet he remains so clueless of it. Astonishing. Let’s go make merry with Mr. Hawkins, ’tis the season. The Supreme Court is set to hear our cases. His words in italics, mine in regular. And I’ve split up his paragraphs to make it easier.

2) Some people do choose to be gay: Most Americans tend to believe that people who are gay either choose it OR are born that way.

First a declarative statement – any evidence presented? No. Then he segues to an idea so demonstrably untrue I can’t believe anyone who has pondered what “most Americans tend to believe” about gay men and the rest of the “LGBT(ITSQAGNC ever-growing community” is so convoluted that to divide it into an “OR” statement is absurd. Sir, have you ever read the comments on a dinky sized Facebook thread about why people are “gay”? Hell, all the people on the ever-growing list are said to be gay – but then there’s just the “homosexual man” gay – or the Lesbian “gay” or the “Transgendered” gay (and they are not!) … and so how does Mr. Hawkins use the word? We don’t know. Gay men? Who knows.

Meanwhile – just 20, 30, 40 years ago – it was true that all Americans believed gayness was both a sickness AND a choice at the same time. A sickness from childhood – and a choice in adult hood – At The Same Time … and that percentage has been changing for decades. But 20 and more years ago “born this way” was only uttered by gays – and not one single heterosexual.

However, “most” nothing … on one dinky thread, maybe 20, 30 comments, that I have had, I have seen the following:
Weak, strong, dominate, cloying mother

Weak, absent, abusive father

Hormones: testosterone alone, too much or too little / estrogen, too much, too little / both, too much too little or vice versa. Progesterone … and just plain old “hormones, I don’t know.”
Environment – the word alone – who knows what pieces, parts and parcels – the whole thing.

The youngest boy, but the oldest girl theory.

The molested boy – molested by any old man – molested by the evil gay man … recruited – (how many times a boy must be molested is never said) (the accusation of molesting boys is hurled frequently.)

Pure evil sin choice destructive of all that is holy and good
Sick, demented, deranged, perverse – we are gay because we are these things. How are we sick? We are gay! Why are we gay? We are sick! And around the merry go round we go.
Well, that’s the short list – of all of these come bubbling to the surface with just 10 or 20 heterosexuals – or “most Americans” – almost no one mentions the obscure “germ theory” – but the reality is that every single last academic paper which purports to examine why there are gay men references every single theory on the list – and all are true … they are said to be “just part of the puzzle.”

I have ample evidence: the comments to my article at American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/gays_are_much_ado_about_nothing.html

If one wants to get a snapshot of what “most Americans tend to believe” there’s a darn good place to start – the comments. I dare say, Mr. Hawkins, simple it is not – about which more anon. Meanwhile, the scientific literature ranges the gamut and all reference the other – it’s “largely unexplained” as the archbishop of the armed forces said. Even NARTH’s “Preventing Homosexuality” lists a good dozen reasons a boy is gay – without even venturing to any others on the ever-growing list in this “community” … of which Mr. Hawkins is suitably vague as to whom exactly he is talking about.

Ah, now we find out! – Mr. Hawkins has discovered the Bisexual. Oh my. What a conundrum. There’s us gay guys – the G .. in LGBT … see – that’s why there’s two letters – one for those of us – the Originals, the bugaboo, the problem – the one who gets all the “radical militant” condemnation … who are “born that way” (can’t we be born “this” way? Sounds nicer, thanks) – anyway – we’re “gay” …

And here’s the Bisexuals:

However, the evidence suggests that there tends to more of a range of sexual behavior for people who are gay. Some people are clearly “born” gay and have always been attracted to the same sex just like most heterosexuals are only interested in contact with the opposite sex. However, there are also people who are more sexually ambiguous and some of them CHOOSE to be gay. If you want to see an actual example of that, here’s an excerpt of an interview I did with lesbian talk show host, Tammy Bruce.
OK then – first – “CHOOSE” – my my, calm down sir. They only “choose” in the sense that, as Gay Men say: “All bisexuals are really gay, and they’ll become gay over time.” That is – it’s a one way street. It is very true, for many factors, mostly to do with the societal approval of heterosexuality and the pressures to be straight, some gay men do start out with girls. And then, as they age, they go full time gay. Do they “choose”? Yes, they chose to try to be straight – but they were really gay from the get go. If they remain “bisexual” then I suppose they could be said to “choose” to be sometimes straight and sometimes gay. They’re “choosing” to be straight just as much as they “choose” to be gay.

Or is Mr. Hawkins saying the default position is heterosexuality and thus the man strays? Of course that’s what he’s thinking, even if he doesn’t say it. It’s obvious – because the entire “choice” or “CHOOSE” argument is based on the presumption that all men are born straight – and somehow the gay man “chooses” to be gay – by simply, irrevocably, rather vocally, overriding the natural, inborn, evolutionary default position of reproductive heterosexuality. (we got powerful minds, to override that, yes?) Indeed, the entirety of all research into gayness is “what went wrong with heterosexuality in the individual homosexual.” It has never been “what went right for the species with homosexuality.”

Now, it just so happens, that I have been compared to Tammy Bruce several times. So, if Hawkins could have a conversation with her, he could with me – I’d be glad to have fun with him. Here is just one email from a major Tea Party blogger to me about her and I:

>>>From: On Mon, 9/6/10, bigfurhat [emails redacted] wrote:

Subject: Re: gay bob, the daily mush

To: “Jim Hlavac”

Date: Monday, September 6, 2010, 2:39 PM

I’ve had conversations with Tammy Bruce that sound EXACTLY like what you have written here. I wrestle with the Barney Frank gay meme, thinking that we are inviting gay bashing when we isolate gayness to be ridiculed in our agitprop.

I cringe sometimes at the thought of her reading the blog. Then she’ll go ahead and repost something we published that is on shaky intellectual ground. It’s confusing. [original emphasis] <<<

So, yes, “it’s confusing” to say the least. Hawkins, BigFurHat – every heterosexual and most of the gays too – are very confused. Mr. Hawkins discovers the very nature of bisexuals – they are gay men who come out slowly over time – and then says “some gays tend to CHOOSE” – without an inkling apparently that bisexuality is crock pot gay … in like in – a load of crock. Gay men will tell you that we’re pretty darn sure that all bisexuals will be gay eventually – or “they’re just hiding behind a beard” as we so inelegantly refer to the lady. Indeed, we have a whole lexicon on the matter – Mr. Hawkins might learn some of this if he talked to gay men in a gay bar, and not just opine upon the matter after comparing notes with other heterosexuals. Oh, he talked to a lesbian! So a straight guy discusses bisexuality with a lesbian – and concludes that some gay men “CHOOSE” to be gay. Meanwhile, 99.9% of all gay men say we’re born this way by God’s good grace. The snippet of conversation:

John Hawkins: Let me ask a related question to this because I thought this was kind of fascinating because it’s so different from what you often hear. In the book, you were talking about how you came to decide that you wanted to be a lesbian and you pretty much framed it in those terms. It was a choice. You were attracted to men and women and you chose to — you just liked women better — would you say that’s common or….

Tammy Bruce: Well, it’s difficult to say because it’s so politically incorrect to ask these questions. It’s one of the reasons why ‘ and I’ve made that discussion in the epilogue ‘ so that…parents (could allow) their children (to read) at their discretion.

…There is such a variety, at least within the community itself, …about why women identify as lesbians, but even what that means.

It is most certainly not difficult to ask these questions – we are asked them all the time. It is ample in the discussion – what is hard to get nowadays is gay men acceding to any portion of what heterosexuals say, and that bugs heterosexuals a great deal. And Ms. Bruce is a bisexual, apparently, who choose to exercise her gay half … and not her straight half. Lesbians are more fluid. Gay men are not. Still, the bisexual is here being discussed – the B in the “community” – but they’re not “gay” – yet are they ½ gay and ½ straight? 60-40? 54-46? 90-10? What is the percentage division? Or is this too fluid? And what does it have to do with the gay men? Lesbians aren’t gay men – we don’t even really hang out with each other.

There are a number of women who identify as lesbians, some of them, somewhat well-known, have regular liaisons with men. …There are some women in the community that you could get to know…who’ve experienced violence at the hands of men and have turned to women for that reason. There are other women who say that they’ve been gay since they’ve been born and that, of course, is also politically incorrect to question or to ask them how or why they know that.

All of this is discussed by the LGBTITSQAGNC community – the endless discussion over what all these things mean are amply apparent to anyone who spends a moment at a gay blog like Queerty and Joe My God and Towleroad and BoxTurtleBulletin… the issue is endlessly discussed by gay men – and you know why? Because gay men think bisexuals are really gay but pretend to be straight from time to time. All gay men are good at pretending – some of us are better, some go all the way to the icky parts – most of just say “Oh, I just don’t have a girl right now,” to cut down on the fuss and muss. The bisexuals say they are really attracted to both – but again, over time – it’s a one way street to gay – and no gay guys are going straight.

If that doesn’t convince you, then ask yourself why so many “gay” Americans end up with kids? In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological.

This is just arrant mush – I know this from personal experience with hundreds of gay men I’ve known – it would have been impossible to avoid it. I mean, in 40 years of talking to and being friends with gay men the numbers with kids is about 10% … as for the numbers of lesbians – I’m clueless – I don’t know any lesbians. Maybe they’re the 37% he alludes to.

Where could he get such a figure? There’s no count of gay men – or “LGB .. oh, I’m tired of typing it community” … there’s no census – estimates range everywhere – and the 12 – count them – 12 studies done … all admit to massive miscounts, undercounts, margins of errors, unknowns, could be’s and who knows? That to all of a sudden say with such surety that 37% of “gays” – and then he gives the long list of not-gays – have children who are biological is intellectually dishonest … talk about your politically correct refusal to discuss stuff. Go to a gay bar – ask a hundred guys if they had kids – and you simply will NOT find 37 who have had them … or had straight sex. I’d give you 10% at most. Why, it’s a surprise to us it’s so darn rare.

You know – maybe it’s the transgendered who ratchet up Hawkin’s suggested statistic … they’re not gay – they’re heterosexuals – as I discussed just a day or so ago – maybe they had all the kids. And certainly Lesbians always had more kids than gay men – by a factor of 10 to 1 minimally. For every 10 lesbians with kids, maybe 1 gay guy. We’re gay for heavens’ sake, from the get go.

Then, to conclude – Mr. Hawkins goes full Bisexual:

In other words, there are a lot of “gay” Americans having enough straight sex at some point in their lives to produce a kid. Again, it’s clear that there are also people who are “born that way,” but there are an awful lot of gay Americans who don’t fall into that category.

Yes sir, this is what the LG … blah blah community is all about – you have discovered the confusion of the thing, as BigFurHat did, as Tammy Bruce admits to – and so you conflate it all with “gay” when we “gay guys” keep trying to stay away from the rest in real life – and we’re the ones under discussion and being studied so diligently in offices and not out in the field where we might lie in wait. We’re the ones you think can change … because we choose – about which more tomorrow.

Your “gay,” sir – is “bisexual” – congratulations. Now, back to the gay marriage for gay guys who are roundly harassed from time to time for being “born this way.” Thanks.

John Hawkins’ Transgendered Logic Fallacy

The other day when I found this article http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/06/10/5-truths-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-gays-in-america-n1849612/page/full

Already a few months old, it starts off with what supposedly can’t be discussed about gay issues — in a 2000 word article he discusses what can’t be discussed. Eh. Anyway, so I decided to render it some deconstruction because it makes so many glaring errors about “gay issues,” as Mr. Hawkins likes to call them, that one can’t help but notice them. He’s not the only one – I’m not chastising him so much as educating him – and everyone else. For logic has done flown away here. It took me 240 pages in a book to explain just gay men … which he claims he’s examining in his preamble, and then the first thing Mr. Hawkins does, he starts with transgendered people, and perhaps, too, various “identity disorders.” This would be the “T” in the very recently added “T” “community” in the “LGBT community” which amazingly enough is morphing into the “LGBTITSQAGNC” community. Yes, well, they can subdivide it all they wish – the fact is is that the TITSQAGNC portion is all the same thing. And frankly, while I’m as confused and perplexed about transgendered as Mr. Hawkins is … at least I can see it for what it is. And that is is that “T” is not “G” and have nothing to do with each other other than that some politically minded people decided to adhere the two together where they never were before and don’t belong. But gay men really don’t think of the issue – and refer it the heterosexuals where it belongs.

My problem here is two fold, actually – I’m unhappy with the “LBGTetcetc community …” and Mr. Hawkins … whether either can be educated enough is something to wonder about in our times of buzz phrases. In his five issues about “gay people” he conflates gay with transgendered right from step one. Nothing could be farther from each other. Let us compare the two by using Hawkin’s assumptions. His words italic, mine regular …

1) You can’t change your gender: beats me if you can or can’t … there seem to be hermaphrodites born – that’s the coming “I” “Intersex” in the ever growing constellation. But Hawkins seems unaware, perhaps, that as far back as the 1950s people were changing their gender surgically – and seemingly from the dawn of time, women especially, lived as men and did a damn good job. Billy Tipton is the man who turned out to be a women, after all. Queen Christiana of Sweden had to abdicate because she wished to live as a man. And Christine Jorgenson was a US soldier – a man – who surgically changed, and then legally changed – from man to woman –> and then got married to a man and lived happily after after right there in New Jersey. She made all the magazines of the day as a wondrous thing. There have been other transsexuals, transgendered men in our times – all of whom got a pretty darn good press … until they got mixed up with gay men. Now it’s a problem. Why is this changing gender all of a sudden a problem? Because gay men are the problem … but gay men are not confused about our gender. Not in the slightest. And none of us wish to be women. And that’s the thing .. what Mr. Hawkins is talking about is not a “gay” issue … but a “transgendered” issue – and if he wants to write about that – peachy with me – but don’t confuse ‘em, that’s all I ask.

Have you ever heard of Body Integrity Identity Disorder? Long story short, there are people out there who believe they’re “supposed to” have less limbs. Maybe they want to get rid of an arm or a leg. The “problem” these people run into is that surgeons consider it unethical to remove a healthy, functioning body part and refuse to saw off their limbs. Instead, they just refer these people to a psychologist. That seems to make sense, doesn’t it?

No argument from me here … and I doubt you could find the gay man who disagrees with you, sir … we’re on the same side – what can’t we discuss, as you say in the first sentence of your article?

Yet, when we have people who want to mutilate themselves to “change their sex,” we don’t treat that as a mental disorder. Instead, we take it seriously. So seriously in fact, we have 9 year olds getting hormone treatments so they can pretend to be another gender.

Yes it is treated as a mental disorder – there is indeed “gender identity disorder” in the DSM … in fact – it was put there right after “homosexuality, male” was taken out. The “gay issue” has always been gay men – who do not wish any surgery whatsoever, we are men who live as men doing men things – with men … women aren’t involved, amazingly enough. However, once “homosexuality” was removed because no one could find a thing wrong with us, as we kept pointing out – other than that we were gay, so somehow, in some unknown, indeterminate way we gay men were ‘mentally sick’ but also rock solid in every single last identity schmenity doohickey anyone could pull out of the text and exam books. So – they took “homosexuality” out of them – and instantly inserted “gender identity disorder.” So they could lump “homosexuality” right back into the crazy manual. Only now – instead of suffering from “homosexuality” we were suffering from “gender identity disorder” – and what, for decades, since the beginning – the nature of the “homosexuality disorder”? – we supposedly wanted to be women … all of us – to be with each other – as women – so illogical is the idea that men who all wished to be men with men could be all said to really want to all be women – which would make all these men into Lesbians – about whom no one has really had a problem. So, now, instead of “homosexuality” crazy we were “gender disorder” crazy – charming.

Amazingly, straight psychologist and psychiatrists created the disorder – and now Mr. Hawkins recommends folks with it to be referred to them – which is where they are going – so they can get the surgery they wish. And few, very very few get. However – none of this – absolutely none of it is a “gay issue” from the gay male perspective. At best it’s a heterosexual issue because these men who wish to be women – want men, as they are now women. Man + Woman … clear? Not “gay” which is Man/Man … so simple, yes?

Transexuals and transgendered are saying they are straight people in the wrong body … and gay men are not this – and Mr Hawkins says it! And still calls it gay:

If a client went to a doctor and said he thought he was a cow, we wouldn’t send him to a surgeon to get horns and udders attached. Yet, you can no more change your sex than you can change into a cow. Even if you have a “sex change,” your sex hasn’t actually changed. A man who mutilates himself to look like a woman, still isn’t female. He can’t have a child. Very few men are going to knowingly date a man who’s surgically mutilated himself to look like a woman. This is a terrible, horrible thing we’re doing as a society to these mentally ill people. Instead of getting them the mental help they need, we’re catering to their pathology. It’s cruel, it’s wrong, and a more compassionate society wouldn’t wallow so deeply in political correctness that we’d allow people to do this to themselves.>>

let me bold and highlight it …

Very few men are going to knowingly date a man who’s surgically mutilated himself to look like a woman.

You betcha Mr. Hawkins – no my circus, not my monkeys – no matter how anyone tries to say this is gay – when a woman wants to date a man – that’s heterosexual …. God bless you … but leave me the hell out of it, thank you very much. And pretty much every gay man, when questioned closely, will tell you the same thing … however confused politically some of us are … nor however decent gay men are —  I can’t help it that no one thinks deep on the matter. It just so happens that gay folks don’t ‘mind anyone who’s crazy, different, individualistic .. we’re sort of “don’t tread on anyone, live and let live, be an army of one,” sort of people … however, like I said, Logic today has fallen by the wayside.

The 5 illogicalities of John Hawkin’s logical beliefs

I ran across this article just the other day …

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/06/10/5-truths-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-gays-in-america-n1849612/page/full

– took that long for it to show up in my life. It might take me five blog posts just to deal with his 5 “truths” – so bizarre is the man’s thinking.

5 Truths You’re Not Allowed To Say About Gays In America”

by one “John Hawkins | Jun 10, 2014” – it’s gotten “Share[s] on Facebook 3.3K” – popular, perhaps. But there’s some glaring problems with his analysis. So, I thought I’d help the man figure it out. First by noting for “5 truths” you can’t utter – here he is uttering them to the point of 3,300 Facebook shares alone. Who knows how many people read this? So who isn’t “Allowed” to say it? Beats me.
Anyway, it requires almost a sentence by sentence refutation … and yes, I plan on trying to track the man down and give him my answer to his mush. His words I put into italics, mine in regular print – I shall have to break up his paragraphs, for he deals with such disconnected stuff it’s hard to keep his paragraphs together. Let us begin:

It’s hard to have an honest conversation about gay issues because liberals treat anything other than outright celebration of all things gay as “hate.”

Well, few of anyone is having an “honest conversation” about gay issues – because both liberals and conservatives, being heterosexuals – are emotional and not honest … they use such convoluted logic, lack of figures, inane opinions, stereotypes and god-knows-what made up stuff and beliefs – that “honest” isn’t a word that applies. Not to mention that one can’t – I can’t – as a gay right wing man – can’t have an “honest conversation” with most conservatives “because conservatives treat anything other than outright condemnation of all things gay as ‘love’ “ – Indeed – one couldn’t have an honest conversation with a Catholic clergyman who opines that we are “intrinsically disordered” and ergo incapable of rational thought about our own beings. Indeed – Mr. Hawkins here isn’t discussing gay issues with gay men – he’s discussing it with some imaginary liberal.

Now, I have had opportunity to bring some “honest conversation” on “gay issues” to conservative places like American Thinker … where in which nearly 1,000 comments on three articles all roundly trashed me for “love” – while denying it hate, I was to be pilloried. Here’s the link – http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/gays_are_much_ado_about_nothing.html

I dare say – I tried “honest conversation” and was shot down to the point of telling me “no more submissions” precisely because I refused to trash myself or other gay men. Liberals I was willing, sure. Gays, nope. So, end of discussion. I have more examples – Hlavac ain’t hard to find on the net – go look it up. But to suggest, as Hawkins does, that conservatives are having honest discussion on gay issues is laughable.

“That doesn’t leave people much room to discuss a complicated issue that involves real human beings who often have to deal with a lot of challenges because of their sexual orientation.”
As we’ve been saying – the only complexity is heterosexual intransigence … our challenge is not our sex lives or orientation or being gay – or what have you – it’s heterosexuals – who one cannot have an honest conversation with.

“ If you’re a compassionate person, you have to feel some sympathy when you talk to people who are closeted because they’re afraid that their relatives won’t accept them or someone who feels isolated and alone because his sexual orientation makes it impossible for him to have a romantic relationship with 98% of the population.”

Look at this sentence – 55 words! Wowser. Anyway – the numbers of compassionate heterosexuals doesn’t run to 98% of the population – it’s less than 30% as near as I can figure – 30% more don’t give a damn and state flatly that they don’t want to think about it, much less converse about it – and well on nigh to 40% or even 50% are in full throated condemnation. I dare say – there is no compassion or sympathy … not from Peter Sprigg or Tony Perkins, Bradlee Dean, Linda Harvey, Scott Lively – and many many more – Rick Santurum, Ted Cruz – some dude named Klingenschmitt out in Colorado – there’s no compassion or sympathy from them – it’s a condemnation to beat the band.

Meanwhile, the problem with the accepting, compassion, sympathy or condemnation is a wholly heterosexual issue – we are impervious to it. That is – sure, we avoid it – who wouldn’t – then we go off and lead great lives. The whole thing of “in the closet” is not that the gay man hides from himself – or those heterosexuals who are over it – he hides from lunatics … which could include his family. But as we all know – no heterosexual has any family relationship problems … I guess. For that’s the logical comparison being made – perfect heterosexuals and troubled gays. We’re troubled – why? Because we’re gay! What’s the trouble? Heterosexuals who won’t get a grip. This is our fault of course.

Gay men don’t feel isolated and alone – we go find other gay men … or rational heterosexuals. I’ve been doing it for decades. This is of the nature of “homosexuals are lonely because they don’t have a woman” – that we don’t want one is irrelevant. Michelle Bachman is sure we are lonely, so is the Catholic church … they declare it often. But when we are with our friends – we’re not lonely – we just aren’t dealing with whackos – who could be liberals or conservatives for the issue isn’t political – it’s emotionalism among heterosexuals.

His sexual orientation makes it hard for him to have romantic relationships with 98% of the population.” You jest? Yes? Straight people have romantic relationship potential with 98% of the people? Really? Wow! I mean, any straight guy has only 50% of the population right off the top – same for a heterosexual woman – 50% of the population is off limits to romantic involvement. Oh, wait, no, more – there’s the family, coworkers, people you don’t like – and the already married and the not in your age group – or even racial group – why, by the time one gets whittling down who has potentiality for mating among heterosexuals – the list is far smaller than 98% – maybe 10% … and we still get our … “2%” –

Which by this the man thinks that gay men make up 2% of the population – and where does he get his number? From phone surveys that everyone admits are flawed including Gary Gates the guy who conducts them – admits right up front “My information and conclusions are flawed (almost wrote ‘fraud’ oops) and “it’s the best we can do” and he goes to average again the 12 attempts at phone surveys since 1980 – I dare say – 12 shots at – and the one in Indiana of all places came up with 5.7% – but even the Wall Street Journal’s Numbers Man isn’t buying 2%

– and meanwhile, a reasonable count by counting by gay businesses, who’s in gay bars, gay festivals – the 1.4 million members of the National Gay And Lesbian Chamber of Commerce – and gaydar itself – on top of which are the 6 extra boys born and before you know it – 5% of the men are gay … and of course, I accede – we have no ability to have romantic relationships with the 50% of the population that is women – while Mr. Hawkins loses 50% right off the top for he won’t date men. Meanwhile, if we have such small potential for romance how is it we are accused by many still of having, 100, 200, 400 sex partners a year? Where do we find all these guys? Especially if we’re only 2% of the men – and would that include the children – I forgot to slice out the children – Mr. Hawkins surely has no romantic possibility for romance with kids – who make up 30% or so of the population. Indeed – age grouping alone – since the vast majority of heterosexuals get married to someone within 5 years their age – and men almost 95% someone younger .. well, that really cuts into the 98% nonsense, yes?

Life is hard for most of us — and if you know people who are gay, chances are you recognize that it’s even harder for them.” Them”? We are them? No sir, we do fine – indeed – it’s a chief complaint about us that we are not suffering some horrid existence … though its demanded that we do – for we must be lonely! With no prospects of romance.

Yet and still, you can’t deny reality because there may be a few people who don’t want to hear it.

What reality is he referring to? The one he’s just fabricated? Or the one he believes? His emotional political stance of not liking liberals who have all things “hate” if it doesn’t “celebrate” – what a bunch of nonsense – nearly 70% of Democrat Liberal African Americans and 60% of Democrat Liberal Hispanics have no love for gays and wouldn’t defend us if you paid them. They are as antigay as the next heterosexual. Surely the Liberal preacher in Harlem who is posting “death to sodomites” on his church marquee is not a Republican. The preachers in Houston’s fracas are surely Democrats too! The reality he’s studied I’m sure with great perspicacity … and who is unwilling to hear it? Conservatives who don’t ever have a nice word? Preachers, politicians, lobbyists and such who spend their lives obsessed with gay men … and are no slouches in the condemnation department? Would they be the ones who don’t want to hear it? Of course they are – read the comments to my American Thinker article – those people didn’t want to hear a damn nice word at all. I’m sure their compassion was spent on other matters.

Sure, you don’t want to unnecessarily create pain in people’s lives, but ultimately, nothing creates more misery than abandoning common sense because the obvious truth might hurt someone’s feelings.”
There is no common sense over gay men – Mr. Hawkins, your own article exhibited the mush thought that people have. You are part of the problem of people not being able to accept gay men and then have the audacity to tell us how difficult our lives are and somehow imply it’s our fault … that you can’t get a grip.

Well, this is just the quick version on the mindless mush of Mr. Hawkins – over the next several days I hope to tackle his other breathtaking points … egads.  Well, I’d be glad to engage in an honest conversation about the matter with the man – -and he’s not ready for what I’ll point out to him.

All Taxes Are On Income

I keep seeing people talk about who pays taxes. And everyone talks about it as if it’s only the vaunted “income tax” levied by the IRS at the federal level. And supposedly, according to one side, the Democrats, only the middle class and poor are paying incomes taxes. And the rich are getting off scott free or at least not paying their fair share. Meanwhile, the Republicans seem to be awfully sure that only the middle class and the rich are paying income taxes, while the poor and loafers and freeloaders on the system are not. All sort of percentages are flung about on who is paying what portion of their income in taxes, and what percentage of the people are paying income taxes, and what groups are being screwed, mollycoddled, raked over or doing the raking. Everyone has their favorite bugaboo. But this is all in reference to the vaunted income tax. As if no other taxes are paid.

And that’s ridiculous. All taxes are on income and everyone pays income taxes. Why, it’s called a sales tax, or electric line taxes, property taxes, school taxes … these are all on income. There’s only one source .. and that’s your income. To somehow proclaim a sales tax not an income tax because of the point of collection seems silly. On what other source could it be levied? It has to be on income.

Supposedly renters don’t pay property taxes … silly … the property tax is built into the price of the rent … and the property tax is on income. For a guy who owns a few houses it’s on his income that he uses to live. If he earns $100,000 a year in rents, and pays $10,000 a year in property taxes … his income that he gets to keep is $90,000 … it was on his income – Disguised!

And so it’s not what percentage of one’s income is levied at what point that is the issue … the issue is what percentage of your income is taxed away to help you. And when one sees that even the poor artist who rents a house which doubles as a studio and earns less than the level that requires even the filing of an income tax 1040EZ form … he’s still paying a considerable portion of his income in taxes. Nearly a third when one starts nickel and dime-ing the fellow to death.

The electric bill comes with 5 or 6 “federal line tax” and “energy use surcharge” and “environmental remediation excise fee” and then there’s the renters tax, the property tax built into the rent, the sales taxes and who knows what’s hidden in the cable bill, and the phone line taxes, surcharges, fees, and mils and who knows what … taxes by the score. All levied on the guy’s income – for there is no other source.

Where the income might arise is another matter … but even those on complete public assistance still pay taxes – on their income. The never-employed woman with three kids living in public housing might get a cash/rent/food stamp subsidy of $2,000 a month – but by the time she’s done paying sales tax, excise taxes, fees, surcharges, mils and who knows what else .. she’s paid upwards of 1/3 her income in taxes. Quite a system, yes? The government gives her the money with one hand, and takes it with the other … to help her, of course. And hires a slew of people in good jobs for this very purpose.

Meanwhile, corporations supposedly pay no taxes. Well, sure they do. They too are hidden in the myriad of ways government levies taxes. Even if they avoid the income tax through all sorts of legal “loopholes.” Supposedly, we should tax the dickens out of corporations, so they pay their fair share and more … keep ‘em in line, even. But this tax money is on the income of individuals who buy their goods. That is, if Evil Corporation brings in a $1 billion a year … if it must be 33% of that in income taxes it gets it from the schnooks who buy their goods.

Which runs at cross purposes to the concept pushed by many that we should avoid buying from corporations and tax them all the more at the same time. But, it’s “voluntary” tax … on only a few … those purchasers of goods. For instance, Coca Cola doesn’t get a dime from me since I drink no soda nor consume sugary/salty snacks – no chips for me. So I don’t pay Coca Cola’s income tax … no, I pay Kellogg’s … perhaps a Coke payer buys nothing from Kellogg’s … it evens out and we are taxed at the same rate – on our income, which we use to buy things at a given price, in which the corporation tax is buried – and the money all winds up in the same pot.

So, if you’re going to lambaste someone for not paying income taxes – stop yourself and look at their income (from whatever source) and what they pay in all the hundreds of little taxes one might encounter in life. You can complain about their income source, that’s a different story. But they are paying taxes – on their income.

The Evolution of Two Day Painting

the evolution of a painting — done in two days, from piece of found wood to thought of subject to the first rough sketch ..

then the whole thing done in stages … as you can see here below:

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

Don’t call them “midterms,” they are Every Two Years

Here’s a comment I left at http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/2014/11/laugh-about-it-shout-about-it.html
And well, this needs saying: >>

I wish people stop calling them “midterms” — they are not – the life-cycle of our government does not revolve around the presidency. It is an every other year retention election … do we wish to keep the incumbents if office. 95% of the time, it seems so — though there are some outlying years.

But the House, and 1/3 the Senate are up for reconsideration every other year … it is not in the “middle” of anything. It is an inexorable process that exists. By calling it the “midterms” it gives to the presidency an aura it does not deserve … one part of our current problem is thinking, left or right, “what can the president do to solve …” well – it’s not his job to solve things .. it’s his (or her, eventually) job to carry out the laws which Congress is supposed to conceive.

Now we have the Congress as a rubber stamp for presidential action — or a doormat … a wet rag certainly.

Though, always remember, there’s a court somewhere that might well say “the law is unconstitutional” … and that’s a damn good thing to have. Indeed, it is no accident that the English Speaking, Common Law countries of this earth are the freest and richest (suffering, though) while the Civil Law structured languages languish in poverty and control the more they adhere to it.

And by calling them the “midterms” we are pushing the royalist meme of the Civil Law — rather than the liberty of the Common Law.

In the short term the news will be exciting, I’m sure — but in the immediate future, not much will change.

Egging on the Punishment Society

America has become a punishment society. For every action one does, there might be some punishment meted out by someone. It could be the government, some bureaucrat even, or it could be police, tax man, inspector – and it could be your boss, your coworker, your company – society too, is into punishment … for instance, the drug laws. Their purpose is to punish those who do drugs. And it has led to endless crime, and endless police power, stronger and stronger. And it’s not just the government that does it – it’s that people egg them on. They goad the government at any level to go after the other guy.

And then there’s the lobbyists, activists, politicos, blowhards … the list is so long that I feel unfair if I don’t list them all. And these people feed off the government. And their job is to punish those that disagree with them. They are special interests. Well, of course, everyone and their mother is a special interest at this point. Is there anyone not a special interest? Even the silent majority is special – supposedly you don’t want to rile it up … which seems to be happening. But everyone is out to punish the special interest they don’t like. Trust me, if the special interest of anti-corporate lobbyists exists, so does the special interest of the corporations. It’s a two way street. For whatever special interest exists, there’s an equal and opposite special interest. It seems not an interest in the nation doesn’t have a special dichotomy – and we’re all fighting over who shall govern, to punish the other.

And then there’s church and social service agency even … sure, they pretend to be pleasant places, and sure they are … so long as you’re of the punishment society … for you’re going to hell. Some churches are obviously more adamant about the hell part. Indeed, for all the talk of salvation, they speak of hell far more. Everyone and their mother is going to hell for being human. We should be super-humans. Perfection. Sure, meanwhile, we’re people. And, we have special interests. And somehow, instead of everyone tending to their special interest and leaving the other guy alone, they want the government to decide which interest shall be more special than the other. So that say, parents want to educate their kids at certain school, or educate at home, or church school, or limited thought school … I really don’t care the sort of school … but you’re forcing all the parents to adhere to one rule – so, people are punished. And they’re not happy. No one is happy at this point.

Of course, everyone is always urging enforcing the laws we have, and maintaining law and order, and outlawing some practice which offends them. Of course, the conservatives speak often of what offends them – they are no slouches in the Department of the Offended. Though they speak loudly, too, of how the Liberals are so easily offended. Let me tell you – say that gay men are good and no cause for fuss and muss … and conservatives are offended by your mere existence. Don’t tell me it’s not true – on this issue conservatives are just as daffy as liberals say, on race. Everything is racism and sexism and homophobia – and you know – think it should be homoism – to be fair, to be equal with the other isms. It’s like we’re segregated … everyone gets and ism and and ist … and we get phobia and ic … like in homophobic … ic – ick, you know? Either way. They think we’re icky, and we think they’re icky .. so, icky, eh?

Anyway … there’s call for testing, and compliance with the laws. It is so strange to me to hear a conservative complain about the demands of the law in one breath and demand compliance and enforcement of all the laws. Meanwhile, the liberals demand ever more law and the freedom to ignore it all. That’s what’s so strange … that’s what make the Demopublican machine so dangerous – it’s all about the punishment.

There’s not just the highest incarceration rate in the world – it’s all the more people we want to incarcerate. Endless calls to punish people harder, stronger, more intensely – the hang ‘em mentality is not weak in this nation. The put ‘em up against the wall and shoot them wishes are not, I don’t believe, idly made. I find it strange that a conservative so positive that saying “well, the Bible says gays should be put to death so you’re an abomination and should die” is perfectly peachy, is so very offended when a liberal says that Christianity should evaporate and believers go to hell along with it. The let’s play opposites of it all is amazing, yes? But, the other side is guilty and we, we on this side, are innocent. Of course, one side says “because we have god” and the other side says “we have science” – yah, so one has faith and the other studies … and on this we shall punish the other one because well … there’s only one and one best way to do anything – supposedly.

And that’s what it is really – it is the age old belief that there is only one way to do things and if you do them else-how it is the end of the world and you are terrible … and that’s the you over there, and the you over here, everyone is terrible and needs to be punished – and the nation argues over who shall cast the punishment.

Even the endless fines anyone might be subject to is punishment – it’s not just jail. Hell, the police might bust into your house and it be deemed an “oops” and on about their business they go. And you? You are punished, perhaps to encourage the others. Would I think this an order given? No, it’s a mindset. The mindset is clear in endless facebook posts and tweets and twitches and everywhere one turns – there is blame levied and punishment to be given.

And all this for liberty. I have to laugh sadly, for to believe that all this punishment brings us liberty is bizarre. And, anyway, I wrote a novel about what is coming … and that’s a president who finally listens to everyone and really enforces the law and metes out punishment to the wrong doers … and we shall find everything outlawed and us well monitored for compliance and easily broken for the lack of it.

The book is “Stalin Giggled” … http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Giggled-political-apocalypse-America-ebook/dp/B00LP1SVHW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414942508&sr=8-1&keywords=stalin+giggled

On kindle, at Amazon.

And well, what’s going to happen is that we shall be more unhappy – and that’s what happens when everyone demands someone to be punished for something infraction of the “rules of society” as determined by a few. And Stalin will giggle of what we wrought for ourselves. Enjoy!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: