I’ve been busy … Ferguson, ISIS and other Crisis must wait … Thursday, Aug 21 2014 

You know — I’ve been busy with a self-set deadline for some paintings — so I haven’t commented for a week or more and that’s the way it goes … anyway 

 My beautiful picture



My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture


My beautiful picture

My beautiful picture

zz (1)

So anyway that’s what I’m doing — the rest of the world will just have to suffer without serious ministrations on my part on the issues of our day.

Evolution of Two Paintings Wednesday, Aug 13 2014 

Well, I’ve been working on two new big paintings —

While WordPress has apparently hired children to “upgrade” their site which I use making it infuriatingly obtuse and difficult to work — they are morons! Leave stuff alone! Egad.

Anyway — this are various versions of the paintings from line drawings to colors coming – much more to come …

Anyway, I’ve had no time to do other stuff … and because I’ve been painting. Enjoy

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

Between Iraq and a hard place Sunday, Aug 10 2014 

Well, the horrors are being racked up in Iraq – destruction of people, buildings, society, antiquities, and pretty much everyone else the ISIS can get their hands on. It’s not like destruction of this kind has not been visited upon the region before, you know. For millennia the armies of empires have swept hither and yon across the vast flatness and destroyed everything in their path. That’s one reason there’s ruins dotting the place now, those places were destroyed 100s and even 1000s of years ago as religion, leader and credos marshaled what forces they could and went on the rampages – how many millions of people have been slaughtered in the process would be hard to calculate. Entire peoples were certainly eradicated – the Hittites, Ammonites, Ur, Babylonia, Turkic peoples moved further west into the nub of Asia sticking out to Europe … Persians, Arabians, Mamelukes, who knows? It takes in a broad sweep of people, places and beliefs. Alexander the Great swept through, wrecking as he went, so did Cyrus of Persia, and Darius, and Xerxes, and certainly the Romans were no slouches in the destruction department. Even the Catholic Crusaders were in on the act, why in Northern Iraq – or the broad Kurdistani area – a kingdom called “Edessa” survived off and on for a few centuries. Now supposedly our president, Obama, is supposed to do something about the place. I doubt anyone really knows what. ½ the nation probably says “bomb” and the other half says “who cares” if they even know a thing about the place. We’re not going to solve it, though, that’s for sure. Certainly not by any commonly accepted means like “Peace Corp” or “Marines” or endless cruise missiles and bombing raids.

Meanwhile, the place has a history – and it did not start with the “Bush War” nor with Saddam Hussein, nor even the creation of “modern Iraq” in 1917 at the behest of Lord Balfour in a drunken moment of line drawing. What else could it have been? He and the Frenchmen, the less famous one, Poincarre or somebody – no difference, the French foreign minister of the time – decided to divvy up the Levant without speaking to any of the people who actually lived there. And what a people they are! – well, actually, several peoples. None of who have ever liked each other: the Kurds, and Sunni and Shiite Muslims, who were either Arabs or Persians, and a dozen or more smaller sects, peoples, ethnicities and even tribal affiliates … and now most Americans think of them as “Iraqis” and the place as “Iraq” as if there was this one place and people with whom we are contending. And that is not the case at all. The lines having been recently drawn, not even a 100 years ago – I suppose they could be redrawn – and perhaps they should be. For the fake construct of “Iraq” is not helping anyone. That would be the bold foreign policy initiative to push – let the president set up an international commission to divide the place up, redraw some lines around the people, and not right through the middle of them. Such bold thinking is unlikely, especially from our current president.

The Kurds are an easy group to deal with – at least in discussion – for they are a people. That is, they speak Kurdish – which is an Indo-European Language at the fringe of the Farsi branch – or Persian. That’s what they speak in Iran. Though, the Kurds of Iran do not speak Farsi, but Kurdish. Sort of the way French and Portuguese are both Romance languages – but surely a grand conversation could not be had. Perhaps a few words in common at most. And there’s Kurds in northwestern Syria and southeastern Turkey. One big chunk of Kurds spread over four “nations” – all of which are lines drawn in the sand by Europeans. The Kurds of Turkey can no more speak to their Turkish government without a translator than can Syria Kurds speak to their “government” in Arabic. So, linguistically, and geographically, the Kurds are a 25,000,000 or so strong clear ethnic people group – who are fairly rational, actually – certainly businessmen, with smuggling (aka, commerce) being a high paying job. It would be rational on a human level to separate the Kurdish provinces of the four countries and put them into a new Kurdistan with whom we could cooperate. They’re Muslims, but without the Koran-thumping. They also have their own oil and farm enough food for them to make a go of it … why, they might well become a prosperous nation.

The rub is, of course, that Turkey, Syria and Iran and Iraq would all have to lose a chunk of population that isn’t really theirs, and the land, wealth and tax dollars that might exist there. So the four nation’s majorities suppress the Kurds in one way or the other in order to hold onto the fake borders that Lord Balfour drew up one night after a few toddies. He perhaps didn’t know that there were Kurds, or perhaps he did and didn’t care. So, the four nations spend endless money on keeping the Kurds subdued and the Kurds seethe and revolt to some degree and in Northern Iraq they have a semi-autonomous region akin to a nation already. And it is now asking for weapons – and has the cash to pay – to stave of something called ISIS. To get the weapons to Kurds would, of course, entail getting them through Turkey, Syria and Iran, and the rump of Iraq left – and well, those four don’t like the idea of well armed Kurdistan with its own foreign policy – which might well include using the new found weapons to reunite all the Kurds in one big happy family.

Ah, ISIS – some “Islam State in Iraq System” or something – I’ve seen several names and permutations of the acronym – which is in English, apparently – for nothing says your ethnic heritage more clearly than using a foreign language for your own group’s name. They are crazed, certainly – destructive of all that stands, apparently including 800 and 1200 year old buildings which now offend them. They are Sunni, of course – and they hate Shiites as much as anything .. or more. They should be cordoned off, and the Shiites should go their way. They are pretty much in different parts of the country – the more south and east, the more Shiite, westward are the Sunni – separate them.

I’m not sure we’re going to do anything by bombing ISIS or something. They are part of the population – that hates the other parts – separate the peoples. Maybe arrange to take out the antiquities – I’m sure they can be bribed to give up the ancient stuff. Cash speaks wonders.

Still, there are people who are upset that Obama is doing nothing, or the wrong thing, or worked to bring ISIS to power or some other nefarious thing – I don’t know – maybe – the man is a clod, is as clueless as most people about the region, as steeped in modern Iraqi politics and it’s American-branch which is the aid and then war we had with Saddam Hussein, and then there’s our Iranian problem – in which case we could help foment troubles there by helping Kurds revolt and leave – and push the Baluchis in southeast Iran to leave their Persian masters and join the Baluchis of Pakistan, another fake country at war with itself – perhaps a complete redrawing of the maps from oh, Libya to India would be worthwhile – it’s happened before – barely a 100 years ago – it could happen again.

But I doubt it with Obama in office and the current Republican-Democrat fight over “Bush’s war” and “weapons of mass destruction” and our Iranian issues – in a way – the fight over there is dependent on our own domestic politics – and each side here gets to fling flatulence at each other over who did what when with who where over there … and that’s the whole problem with our thinking on the matter. Everyone in here has painted themselves into a corner over what happens there.

Well, it’s only a quick blog post, not a book – which to truly give this subject some required thinking might be necessary – but whatever we do in the short term – none of it is good. Enjoy the morass. That’s the best we can do.

The First Few Pages of “Stalin Giggled” (a novel) Wednesday, Aug 6 2014 

These are the opening pages of my novel, “Stalin Giggled” – a “novel of political apocalypse as America moves forward.” It’s where I lay out the two titanic forces that are facing each other in this country – and assign to each of them a character who will run with that idea throughout the book. Enjoy. >>>

In the Beginning
In modern times, long after kings mostly were gone, men were born in times and places that did not predict their future. Then events overtook them and they were thrust forward into the public eye. How such men rose to the top was through ambition and work, to some degree. But also what happened in the society around them while they were rising to the top affected how far they would rise. That was Eric Robinson. There was also a whole cohort of these public figures who really didn’t want to rise to prominence, but were put there by forces beyond their control. Chris Tomas was such a man. There were, of course, hundreds of thousands, even millions of other people who were born about the same time into the social milieu known as Modern America who could have stepped into the positions these two men would step. They could have come from any of the different regions of the country, from different sorts of families, with different histories, with different outlooks. They were all part and parcel of the diversity of America. But on closer examination the country wasn’t nearly as diverse as many people pretended it was. For there was a uniformity of conformity that everyone agreed to disagree with.
Exactly when Modern Times began no one could say for sure. There were always convenient cutoff dates for those arguing a different viewpoint. There was the big idea of the Renaissance for sure. There was also the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Of course the French thought Versailles was a pretty good start to the Modern Era, or was it their Revolution? Both had its proponents. And many other times and periods, post war or pre-war, and which war it was didn’t matter. Though no one could be certain when they began, the dates being roughly from this year to that year, whichever was convenient. But one thing for certain was that man had entered the Modern Era. Things would be different because times were different, it was said. Each group living in those times and places thought surely they were in modern times. But so did the people who passed the first millennium in fervent hope that Jesus would finally come back among them. He did not and modern times had to be reconfigured with each new century.
Some people thought it was wars themselves that were the markers. The American Civil War, the First World War, World War II, the little wars of the post war era. Each group of people on earth could use their favorite war as the beginning of the modern era. The time when things would truly be different. It was because they won that they thought the world would now operate according to the benevolent ideas that they had to run the world. Who ‘they’ were was a bit confusing. To some it was the political leader of the nation, whether he be called prime minister or president, or still some as king and sultan. Still others took names like “Dear Leader,” and “Guiding Light of the Nation.” Still, they all behaved fairly much like kings of old, even if they did have to listen to a few more people. But while there was always the idea of absolute power in the hands of kings in fact they always ruled with advisers and councilors and opposing interests. About the only people who did not were the Americans, though this was not a popular theory at any time. To just let people do what they want without much interference by government was never a popular idea.
Which is why revolutions could serve as markers. There was the English Revolution, then the American and French Revolutions, and those of 1848 that raged across Europe. Each of these was considered the harbinger of modern times. They were to a degree, for they were rampages of violence. With some a bit more violent than others, but continuing mankind’s propensity to slaughter those who disagreed with them. The last great revolution was the Russian Revolution. Or was it the Chinese? It all depended on who was doing the reckoning. These were Communist Revolutions, so soon they began to be seen as the harbingers of the New World. Not the New World that Columbus discovered, but the new world of social harmony and peace and prosperity. Those were vague things. Some took it to mean that religious leaders would bring about the heaven on earth promised by all religions if only everyone would have complete faith, mostly in the leaders of those religions. Though other revolutions brought about other faiths that were just as strong. Such was the Chinese Revolution of 1949. Then there was the American idea of individual liberty. It worked well enough to be a magnet to all the world and led to the country being the most powerful on earth and an example to all. Though few would follow it.
The French revolution showed monarchs that the time of divine right was over. A bit lopsided towards violence in the application of the new principle of representative government, it served as a model for all other monarchs to begin to consider parliaments, constitutions and the trappings of democracy. Along came monarchs who were very reasonably disposed to stay quietly in their palaces and castles and accept the multi-million dollar civil lists which kept them in the lap of luxury. More than a few kings were very willing to give up the messiness of governance for the good life. And who could blame them? No one was plotting anymore to steal their throne. They gave up their divine right but not their privileges. These people were not stupid.
Other people used reason and philosophy as their markers for the beginning of the glory of the modern era. There were the first like Bacon and Occam, and the genius of Michaelangelo and Da Vinci. Then it was Locke and Hume, and Rousseau and others of the 1600s and 1700s. Some thought it was Adam Smith, who everyone said invented Capitalism, when he did no such thing. He never even used the word. He merely described the reality of England in a mercantile system of ever shifting royal decrees. He pointed out that the less rules and regulations there were the more likely the wealth of the nation would increase. Where the line between the proper amount of regulation and over regulation was he was not at all sure. Nor did he even begin to hazard a guess. Then Marx came along and really threw the world a bone. His social and economic theory was seen as revolutionary different.
It was not. What it was was boiled over Cromwellian puritanism coupled with royalist mercantilism and divine right of the state to rule. That it was divine could only be deduced if you thought that the inevitable condition of mankind was ordained by a higher power. This higher power for people of faith was God. For the Marxist it was History. That it comes with a heavy dose of religiously inspired peace and happiness if only everyone would think alike was inscrutable to nearly everyone. After all, it was “Scientific,” which was the antithesis of “Faith.” Yet Europe was bedeviled since the Dawn of the Modern Era with Christian Socialist parties in a variety of hues and with a variety of names. By 1900 every political party in Europe was on the Socialist to Communist spectrum, which dovetailed neatly with the Christian ethos of charity and living together and believing together. Individualism never got a stronghold in Europe. That all the individualists were leaving for America did not help the situation.
Still others thought that the great age of invention, starting with the steam engine, going through the steam boat, then the train, then electricity and then the computer was the bringer of modernity. Any number of inventions were said to have brought the modern era of peace and prosperity to mankind. Why, these ideas were said to be newer and better than sliced bread, though itself of recent vintage. There were partisans for any industrial thing. The assembly line and mass production worked well as harbingers. The light bulb was incandescent in its position in the pantheon of harbingers of the modern world. And too the automobile zoomed in as the harbinger of modern times. Drinkable water was a distant runner up. The petroleum era was the modern era, too. Yet, surely no major innovation could possibly compete with the computer as the start of the modern era. That it was merely a very fancy abacus was lost in the discussion.
Others looked at the religious Reformation as the font of modern ideas for the organization of society. Yet others thought that the Reformation that brought the world from the paganism of the Romans to the Catholicism of Rome as a ripe date for the modern era, and they had the calendar on their side. The Muslims thought Mohamed had brought in the modern era as was clearly said right there in the Koran. Each religion had a creation time when it became the start of the modern era. Even such rather small groups as the Pilgrims, the Quakers and the Shakers thought that they were the start of the modern era. They, like every other proponent of modernism, thought that if only everyone was on the same page then everything would work just fine. It was always said that those people who did not want to believe that the modern time was here were mucking things up. They were expendable to some degree. Either in mind, or if need be, in body, they could be eliminated. But what distinguished all these fond thinkers was that they had a theory. It was people who didn’t quite conform to it, and that had to change. The theory was paramount, the people secondary.
That’s what all the theorists of modernism have in common. The belief that if only everyone would act in concert then the modern era could really come into full swing. Until that happened, they could not bring peace and harmony and prosperity and good health and living through application of the theory. If they had to eliminate a few people, a few bad eggs as it were, along the way, then so be it. It was Lenin who famously coined the phrase “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” In fact, another thing these believers in the faith of theory had in common was the idea that society was very malleable, controllable and directable. It was, to them, exactly just like making an omelet. Social engineering might not have been the term used by 12th century popes, but they had the idea that they could work miracles if only people would give up on the sin and heresy. Which, amazingly, was yet another thing that theorists had in common. To not believe in the faith that was promulgated as the modern thing was to be sinful and heretical. Even if the words used were “against the people,” and “certain criminal elements,” which didn’t sound too religious. Theorists always got bogged down in words. With new words they thought they had created new systems. But the system didn’t change, the words did, and who uttered them. What every believer in a given faith had was the certainty that they were the ideal leaders to bring the people into the modern world. Even if they, the people, didn’t want to go there. The leaders knew best, and providence, by whatever name, brought them to the forefront of their people. Finally things were going to be alright. But now, truly in modern times, since they were the times we lived in, there were so many beliefs that the world was a very mixed up place. At least it seemed so on the surface.
But underneath it was all astoundingly the same. What each believer in religious faith had in mind was to return to, or go forward to, that ideal time of peace and harmony. The problem was that they all had a different date in time as their reference point. Religionists looked back to the future. Somewhere back when people were innocent, before the excess of too much modernism crept in, was the modern world they wanted to take us to. Some thought it was the Garden of Eden, others the coming of Mohamed, or Christ, or some other Messiah. What they did know was that there was not enough adherence to the faith that was true and pure and exactly what God or the Goddesses wanted.
Scientifically minded people looked forward to the past. This group thought that whether it was the science of economics, or the science of political theory, or the science of social-enviro-peace living they would bring us to the same place that the religionists wanted to go. They didn’t think they did, though. Indeed, they could be quite adamant that they could return to Nature and live like so many Adams and Eves just like religionists wanted to return to the perfection of the first couple. Surely these are the same places, gotten to by different means? Each said the other was taking the wrong bus to the shining city on the hill. Each said the other was on the bus to hell. Each worked on the road of good intentions. In the way were the road blocks of anyone who didn’t think like them. Yes, astoundingly similar beliefs hidden in a blizzard of words, theories and ideas. Even worse were those who maintained that there was a teleological, etiological and dialectical analysis that could enlighten the unenlightened. Not that the not-so-bright would ever understand those words. It was a good thing, therefore, that the leaders all had vast shelves of texts backing up their central core scripture. Some scripture was more literal than others, but still they were mere words to be interpreted by the leaders of the faithful as they led us into the land of milk and honey. Make no mistake about it, every faith and theory had its scripture, no matter what they called it, or how much they likened it to anything other than the received words of a higher power.
In the midst of this froth of similarity bobbled the small ship of liberty. An idea that had been around for millenia, too. But it was a weak theory. For it could have no scripture. It could have no received texts for interpretation. It didn’t even want a leader. What liberty was was the absence of all that preceded it. There was no divine right, there was no order of belief. Nor was there anything like a plan or a theory. What there was was what everyone actually did. Liberty was simply the actions of men and women doing what they thought best at any given moment. Systems had power and a plan, a leader and a mission. Liberty was defined by the system as anything that did not conform to the system. Liberty was not about systems as a general whole. It was about how you could survive as comfortably as you could within the technological means at your disposal. Liberty was the ideal for some people, but far fewer than were needed to bring about such a true time of peace and happiness. For liberty always tended to create wealth, which allowed people to pursue their interests. Which kept them peaceful. Liberty had had a rough time in the five millenia of human history.
At least until the United States was born. Until then, not one country on earth, not one inch of the landmass of the planet, was ever set up on the basis of liberty. That the United States was not a perfect example of the ideal was a simple matter of history. The anti-liberty forces had come first. They left behind powerful vestiges of their system; things like slavery and excessive laws and religious institutions. But finally in one place and time there were enough people who were liberty minded and constrained by the limitations of technology to have to be for liberty. They had no choice, for they were in a literal wilderness. They had to cooperate within the dictates of liberty. They had to operate without a system, for there was no system present. So the country was born. For the next nearly 150 years the idea of liberty spread. The nation went through wrenching periods of bloodletting like the Civil War and civil protests, but liberty spread. Yet, the ideas of systems lurked underneath it all, for systems had 5000 years of human history on their side. Plus, typically, system planners lurked in the corners of society plotting their come back. For systems gave power, and power over other men was a powerful aphrodisiac.
Planners were helped along by the confusion of words. They were helped along by their own failed plans, which lead other self-proclaimed founders of the true faith to rise up to solve the problems of this world. Slowly the forces of the system reasserted itself. By the Second World War they were in control of the mechanisms of the press, the government and more importantly, the language. For their mush words began to be the received wisdom. Soon the language went further and further afield, to such things as the disappearance of the tax cut. Now it was a revenue expenditure. Actually letting people keep their own money was now considered more properly described as the government not taking it. And systems people always thought all the wealth belonged to society, as they had for five thousand years.
There were tens of thousands of other examples of the debasement of the language. There was even a word to describe it, Orwellian. As the post war years of the modern era rolled along, the incremental increase in the power of the state, of the system and the planners, continued. The belief that there was one and only one best way to do something came creeping back. It was an ancient idea, writ large in the pyramids of Egypt. It was insidious, and seemingly unstoppable. The world was caught up in it. To a degree, the United States caught the disease because of two infections. One was the influx of people who never completely lost their faith in systems. The other was our close involvement with the systems of Europe and Asia. The biggest problem, though, was that liberty has virtually no defenses against word confusion and planners. People with liberty were too busy doing whatever it was they thought they should be doing to pay attention to those who were seizing the power of the state.
That’s what everything really boiled down to. The power of the state was overwhelming. The majesty of a leader with men with weapons at their side is a nearly unstoppable force. People of liberty merely wanted to be left alone. And because they were alone it was them against the state. Organizing liberty minded people was like nailing jelly to a wall. The power of the state was what theorists wanted. It was what great and grand men, and women too, wanted. They knew what was best for the people. Their faith told them so. The faith was true, it was unquestionable. It was the received wisdom of the ages. All else had been tried and found wanting, said the new planners of our generation. “We have the way,” they said, “follow us.” They said it after each failed system brought about an angry mob to listen to the next promiser of a perfect world at peace and harmony. “Follow me, do what I say, and we shall arrive at the promised land,” they said, in one way or another. It didn’t make a difference what the actual words were, it was the sentiment that counted. As it had for millenia, it all sounded so believable. So these new leaders were followed, and those who did not want to follow were taken care of according to the precepts of the leaders. Some were nastier than others, true, but all had to practice and perfect oppression to create their Nirvana.
The forces of liberty, however, wanted to be left alone. Alas, they were hemmed in tighter with each passing year. As always, it came almost to the point that to argue for liberty of action and thought, deed and ideal, was suspected as being against the people. Our modern times were no different. That’s where we were in the early part of the second millennium reckoned by Christ, and the 5th reckoned by writing and the umpteenth reckoned by archeology. So said the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. So said the security forces and the peace officers. Their line went something like “Liberty thinkers are dangerous to society for they are against togetherness.” It was nigh unto sin and heresy to think of liberty as a goal. “People of liberty did not have society in mind,” the powers that be said over and over again. Though never saying it as clearly, succinctly or as eloquently as that. Thus the people of liberty could be, and were, construed to be against society. It seemed obvious to the system promoters that society had the interests of the people at heart. What was their proof after so many examples of failure? The promoters of society clearly said it was true. They had a theory. What more did they need?
Now, here, in supposedly the most modern time in world history, and things were not so much different than they were when Hammurabi was writing the first code of law. It only seemed different because of the technology and the words used. The forces of planning according to theory were in power in even the most liberty minded place on earth, the United States. The cost of liberty is not eternal vigilance during times of war. It is eternal vigilance in times of peace that is more necessary. For it is in times of peace and prosperity that the demigods of planning could claim to know what to do with all the resources so that everyone got enough. The goal of every religion is for everyone to have an equal share and cooperate in getting it. The goal of every social engineer, socialist and communist, and fascist and authoritarian is for everyone to have an equal share and cooperate in getting it. Astoundingly alike goals that are presented as different because of the words used in their self-created and self-appointed jargon that proclaimed themselves different. Each purveyor of these vials of snake oil was like any other salesman. He had a better deal for you and don’t listen to the false claims of the other snake oil salesmen.
These were the times we were in when the final descent of the nation began. It was a long and tortuous process, but one that was clear to those who would see. The sounds of it were available to those with ears to hear. It was plain to those who watched the geometric crescendo of laws and plans and rules and regulations. Only the words had been changed to the American vernacular. So it confused the same purposes of the European religio-socialist powers that ruled there. And they were different than the communist words of the last dictatorships of the proletariat. The words could have been uttered by Eastern potentates at any point in history, too. But it was the same siren call of planning, working together for the common good, and fed with calls for “let’s all get on the same page in a non-partisan manner.” That was the mantra of the era. It was the post-World War II era and the need to all cooperate together was expressed in countless fashions. Not least of which was the United Nations, and the European Union, and the World Health Organization and the forces of Global Warming. Yes, we were all in it together. And we were heading for hell in a hand basket that we ourselves were carrying.
From among the people born in these times came the future leaders of the country. It was no different than another generation of America. It was Ronald Reagan who had pointed out to his Modern America the ever renewing nature of America. But even he too was part of the renewal, for as far long ago as De Tocqueville’s travels the constant renewal of America was obvious. As were the contradictions between the religiosity of so many and the secular nature of the government. Of course, this tension, so difficult to understand, was the very essence of what made Modern America the most important nation on earth. For it is the tension born of liberty that feeds the creative and productive juices of a people. Conversely, the more alike everyone is and the more alike what they are allowed to do, the more stultifying was the culture and the more poor the economy. It was obvious, but most people refused to look at the reality. They wanted the myths and the hopes, and the theory and the plan that would enable their dreams to become reality.
So too, when you thought about it, were all the generations that had come before this one. For from such tension and renewal came such men as all the presidents of the United States since Truman took office. Franklin Roosevelt was patrician enough that one could think he was groomed for the presidency since the day he was born. He was part of that peculiar institution called American Royalty. Many people thought it was a continuous group of families since before the Revolution. But that was not the case in America. People rose up from humble beginnings and took the public by storm. Then they would have children who were said to be the new generation of American Royalty. Then those children would fall flat and the family would disappear as the wealth of the first generation was dissipated by the profligacy of the second and third generations. So powerful people, and their families, came and went in the dynamic society that was America.
There were, however, large numbers of people who held the idea that there was some indeterminate number of rich families in America controlling the country since its inception. These families were said to be a constant fixture in America. Somehow, they were keeping everyone else down. It was bandied about that these families were in control and no matter what anyone else did they would never rise to the top of the heap. This was not the case, of course. But it sounded good. And in modern times just sounding good was enough. Logic and reason, facts and figures, reality and rational thought had long been tossed away. What was left was emotion. The residue was mere hormonal impulses. “Knee jerk response” was another phrase that was applicable. After all, how exactly anyone was kept down was a mystery, for more and more rich people came along. How anyone was prevented from climbing up the social ladder was never exactly defined. It was merely said to be happening. There was no evidence. But what was evidence anymore? Why bother with it, when emotions could be stirred? Still, with each generation or two a completely new cast of characters came along in the public and political scenes. No one could ever predict who would rise to the top of the stew. For America was not a deterministic society, it was a dynamic society. Not everyone liked that dynamism. Certainly less people truly understood it, and it is hard to explain. These people longed for a return to the stability and constancy of royalty and theology, and their modern counterparts, socialism, and determinism. For dynamism scared them.
“People can just do what they want?” That’s what the deterministic asked themselves, and everyone else they encountered, too. “That’s just too dangerous for me to contemplate,” was their response to their own question, for they were afraid. Just as kings of old were afraid when people did their own thing. “That’s dangerous to society, and we can’t have that.” Of course, the question was asked in a thousand different ways, and the answers were legion. But these sentiments summed it up: Freedom to do what you want? What? And be against society? And thus systems got their supporters. And supporters got their presidents. Though, few people actually referred anymore to those old words of royalty, theology and socialism and their theory of determinism. They were freighted with the baggage of the past. Instead, things were couched in new words. People were now commanding, and progressive, and socially responsible, and a host of even more innocuously seeming labels that hid the true philosophical underpinnings of their thoughts. And that underpinning was determinism as determined by a leader, as had been the case for millenia.
The fact that Chris Tomas was born in 1974 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana was not that noticeable. Only later was it considered an event of note. That Eric Robinson was born in Baton Rouge ten years before Chris was another unimportant fact at the moment when it occurred. When Eric was a 10 year old boy running around in shorts on a summertime lawn it could not possibly be foreseen that he would have a major impact on the country. When Chris came along, he, too, was considered to be just another child born into the freest, richest, most complex dynamic society that the world had ever seen. And yet people said they were not part of American Royalty, so they could never rise to the top. The playing field was not level. Life was unfair, and perilous and filled with vagary. And it was said by more and more supporters of each succeeding president that this was not good for America.
The United States hummed along quite slowly, despite seeming to be a land of action and change. But in fact, the nation was two separate entities. One was the dynamic of the people. The society was rich and complex because of what people did and were not prevented from doing. It was the government that moved along at a snail’s pace. There was no rushing the machine that was the federal government. It was such a lumbering giant that all the people who called for change with each new president were sorely disappointed when they realized that it was impossible to ever really affect change as it is commonly understood. The country wasn’t revolutionary, it was evolutionary. Things that in the private world would take days and weeks, or at most months, in the public world of the nation took months and years, if not decades. Thus Eric and Chris grew up in a complacent society. No one expected real change, except of the most incremental sort. It was also apparent to anyone who bothered to look that the majority of the people in the nation didn’t want change. They wanted the stasis and security of the status quo. The few people who were always calling for radical change were always just humored, if not shunted aside, because they didn’t seem to grasp that the nation was a lumbering giant. It was not a quick moving beast at all. The nation did not move at the word of the president. It was sloth-like in its slowness and people just did what they wanted. This made some people clamor for more power for the president. “For real change,” they argued. “Change we can see and feel. Change for the better.” They were mantras, though for exactly what sort of change no one could say. Or worse, they would not say.
Change was a vague institution in America. Everyone wanted it, but no one could define it. Plus, each thing that could be subject to change had a lot of people behind it wanting to keep it exactly like it was. So any change clamored for had to be vetted and approved by people who simply did not want change. Thus there were far more sweeping proposals made while far fewer actual incremental tinkering with the laws and the rules and the programs occurred. This, too, made the people clamoring for change angry. They were, however, hopeless to affect the changes that they wanted. They lulled themselves into a stupor thinking that one day their man would become president and then things would really change. They were delusional, pretty much, for that hadn’t happened since the Civil War. The whole system was rigged to make sure there were no real big changes, which did not satisfy reformers of any stripe.
Young Eric grew up and got his influences from the church he belonged to and the evangelical milieu in which he traveled. It was a world that called for change. Radical change if necessary, to bring the country to the moral values which this group of people thought had been decaying for a century or more. This group of Christian Evangelicals thought that the country was on the road to ruin if major changes were not affected. They had supported Republican presidents for decades in the hope of change that they wanted. What they got was the incrementalism that was the hallmark of the American political system. They were always disappointed. Yet, the only thing they could do was rally behind the next Republican who said he would bring about the moral reawakening of the nation. Instead, the courts kept expanding rights and bringing more people into the fold of the American Republic and spreading liberty. And the people got richer. This was opposite to what the evangelists wanted.
It was the gay issue that really set the Evangelicals on edge. For with this issue they thought they had the clear word of God on their side. They thought that history had shown that empires always fell when gays achieved any rights or acceptance. They pointed knowingly to the Roman Empire. They were wrong, of course, for history showed no such thing. What history showed was that the Roman Empire rotted out from within because of ever increasing taxes and an ever more powerful central government that trampled people’s rights. While at the same time the Empire was beset by hordes of invaders that were simply far more numerous and dedicated to winning than the Romans were. Anything gay that went on in the Empire was pretty much hidden and non-existent. It was later historians who dwelt on this, especially since it was the early Catholic Church which wrote the history of the Roman Empire and laid her demise to decadence. They did this so that they could convince people to be Catholics. Especially when in fact the Empire fell not that much after it adopted Christianity. In a sense it could be said that Catholicism is what destroyed the Empire. It was perhaps even prim and proper rectitude that wrecked the dynamic society. In any event, it was very ancient history. So ancient that no one could really say for sure what happened. That was because there were no records, no documentation and no evidence beyond the later writings of people with a political ax to grind.
Chris, 10 years behind in everything, grew up with the free thinking anti-government ideas that his Eastern European heritage brought to the table. Eric was from the law and order side of listening to the rules set down by elders. Chris was from a far more libertine environment. One that revolved around the free ideals of individual rights. Thus these two men saw the world in different ways. There was little they would ever have agreed on if they ever had the chance to meet and discuss things. Except perhaps they could agree that the sky was blue and the grass was green. But they never met. Why would they? They were 10 years apart in age; they traveled in different social circles and they had completely different life experiences. In fact, Eric was from the sort of family that thought that immigration was not good for the country. They had long thought that. And Eric learned it from his grandfather and his father, and his uncles and other relatives and family friends. Chris grew up not only thinking that immigration was good, but knew it was because he was part of it. He was the direct product of his grandparents moving to America. In his family it was impossible to be anti-immigrant. Eric’s family were immigrants once, of course. As all American families were. But it was such a long time ago that it was impossible to know for sure when any member of his ancestry ever arrived. It was like the Robinson family had simply been created in the United States and there was no need for further discussion on the issue. This produced two very different men. Two men who would come to clash in a way that history would be made. A history that was not part of the usual America experience, and yet something which the nation seemed destined to get to even before either of them were born.
Chris’s family had been fighting theologists for centuries. The whole tradition of Central Europe was to fight the Catholic Church. The Reformation started in Prague, not Wittenburg. Chris was only dimly aware of the history of his heritage. He knew he had to explain his last name often enough, but that was the extent of it. He knew something of the teachings of Jan Hus if only because his grandparents had spoken of it. But there was no Hus Church in Baton Rouge, so the family fell back on the Freethinking religious traditions. They did not attend a physical church. Their church was where they were. Their deeds were more important than the protestations of faith that the Robinson family set forth each Sunday. While Chris was taught to help his fellow man, Eric was taught that the other people, however defined, were somehow inimical to the existence of the Republic and good God-fearing people. While Chris learned tolerance and a live and let live attitude, Eric was imbued in a sort of undercurrent of hatred. Hatred for those who were not Evangelical Christians to begin with, and hatred for the system that allowed such apostasy to reign across the nation. Eric and his family saw cities like San Francisco, Miami and New York as hotbeds of heathenism. Chris and his family saw the same cities as the font of much of the wonderful things that technology and the culture gave to the nation. These were two very different world views. They were bound to clash. If the two men would have have met each other perhaps it could have been avoided. Eric was a determinist who determined that change was needed. Chris was for liberty and didn’t really care what people did so long as they left him alone.
That two such different men, from two such different backgrounds could be born in the same city and know the same place was part of the American miracle. It was the envy of the world. Yet there were nefarious forces at work to destroy it. Both of these men would play their part in the sweep of history. Yet, then, as kids in the heat of summertime, they were unaware as to whether they would play a part in the process at all. They were just two kids growing up in a mid-sized American city. They were oblivious to nearly everything except what was going on around them. Yet, both showed that spark of intelligence and drive that was not part of so called normal kids. That set them on the paths they were to follow, and that would bring them to their monumental clash.


And that’s the opening pages of Stalin Giggled:

Sunday, Aug 3 2014 

i’ve been busy painting — in between the rabble rousing — amongst the crud which masquerades as thought in this country – I’ve been painting — because I sell these — this is income — ooh, brutal job — I slather paint, well, details too — and I make money — Yah! ….

Anyway — this is the current crop of paintings that are under my thumb … in no particular order — because I’m doing this from a public bar – rather than the comfort of my home – because the Phoenix Gay Center moved — taking away my internet access –

Do people realize I might have to pay now?! — I’m appalled!

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


zz (1)

zz (2)





zzz (2)

zzz (3)

Gay Men Pay Taxes To Fund the Opposition Wednesday, Jul 30 2014 

I find it astonishing that states think they can fight gay men in court incessantly – states have been doing it for decades – time after time – every single last effort to remove all laws against us – and to include us in laws that already exist – we go to court and our opponents – the state – are right there. And to do so – they must use “taxpayer” dollars. Oh, I’m sure just a few hundred thousand, but still, it’s taxpayer’s money. So, whose taxes? Well, gay men’s taxes. We gay guys are not faced with “no taxation without representation” – no – we are faced with “taxation to pay for the opposition.” Much as I find it astonishing that the “government shouldn’t use taxpayer’s money to promote homosexuality” while using gay men’s tax money to tell us how very bad we are.

And how much in taxes do gay men pay? Well, no one knows, of course. Hell, no one has looked. Supposedly it’s been figured out what our incomes are, and how much we have to dispose of – but that number can’t be right because no one knows how many gay men there are or what jobs we hold. Indeed, it would seem that the economics of gay men is simply an unstudied thing. Still, we pay taxes, so, how much?

To be sure, gay men must be paying taxes for we work … there is no social welfare program for gays. Even though many still declare us “sick” and “demented” and “ill” and bring up all manner of how we psychologically stunted and psychiatric basket-cases … we are not covered by the American With Disabilities Act – such a horrendous malady, and no special programs, cures, coverage, protections – as all other maladies have by now.

Say there’s the low end of the number of us – Gary Gates’s improbable 2,491,034 of us … the recent CDC phone-poll came up with the same figure using the same method of what Mr. Gates himself called “flawed, but the best we have” data … and he’s the vaunted gay demographer. Then there’s the 5,000,000 adult gay men I conjure up by using the dead reckoning of 106 boys born for ever 100 girls – the six are the gay guys … it’s obvious to us. So, somewhere between 2.5 million and 5 million of us pay taxes – all taxes – income, property, sales, phone – you know, taxes – all of ‘em. We’re not exempt from a single tax whatsoever.

Say that on the low end, inclusive of all taxes: federal, state, county, city – school, fire district, excise taxes on cigarettes and liquor, gasoline taxes, income taxes, property, all those tiny taxes on electric, phone and cable bills – you know – any tax – so, on the low end we pay $5,000 a year in taxes. At the upper reaches, without a shred of “research” except my own considerable knowledge of gay men – we pay $30,000 a year in taxes.

What do these numbers look like in the aggregate? A chart is required:

2.5 million x $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 – and:
5 million x these same numbers:

2.5 million x $5,000 = $12,500,000,000
x $10,000 = $25,000,000,000
x $20,000 = $50,000,000,000
x $30,000 = $75,000,000,000

if 5 million we get:
x $5,000 = $25,000,000,000
x $10,000 = $50,000,000,000
x $20,000 = $100,000,000,000
x $30,000 = $150,000,000,000

So, we pay between $12 billion and $150 billion – I lean to the higher numbers.

How much do gay men cost? – Well, of course, AIDS – and the sum total for all HIV/AIDS funding is $20 billion – $2 billion in Ryan White funds – HIV drugs costs … and the rest in research (which benefits everyone) and about $1 billion in Foreign Aid, mostly in HIV drugs.

So, we’re a net benefit to society given my contention that we’re 5,000,000 paying on average $30,000 a year in taxes of all kinds.

And, oh yes, the costs of the many lawsuits against our Pursuit of Happiness – because it offends people, aw … well, that’s $3,000,000 that Boehner spent – let’s say $1,000,000 per state – so, $50,000,000 bucks.

So, the states are taking Billions in gay man’s tax money – to fund the $50,000,000 used against us.

Well, Taxed Enough Already doesn’t even cut it. Oh, it’s one thing to take people’s money and give it to someone else in the guise of helping them – but our money is being taken to be used against us. That’s ballsy, you know?

Anyway, that’s just a quick look at the taxes that gay men pay – and well, if we’re not really a part of society – and some horror – give us all the damn money back. I want 100% reparations for 60 years of haranguing, harassing and hounding gay men – we’re sick of this. Grow up already – pay your own damn way. We do.

What’s even more aggravating – is that the president wants to spend $3 or $4 billion to help all these new refugees – all of whom are allowed to get married here – they’re not even citizens, don’t pay taxes – and they’re treated better than American Gay Men Taxpayers – how utterly infuriating.

But really – states should refund to gay men all the money they have used to fight us in court .. it’s blatant theft of our money.

Ben Carson, the idiot neurosurgeon Thursday, Jul 24 2014 

Supposedly Ben Carson, conservative darling, is a very smart man – why, he’s a Neurosurgeon! – Oh my, brains out the wazoo. Which is where he pulled some recent crap out of, for sure. Maybe he’s smart on many subjects – I beginning to have my doubts – for when it comes to gayness and gay men and “homosexuality” – the man is an utter raving lunatic. His stupidity truly boggles the mind. Yes, just stupid. And if you’re a moron on one subject – one that is endlessly discussed and about which millions of words have been published – most arrant nonsense and contradictory beyond belief – who knows what else one can be a moron on? He’s certainly a moron about Marxism. Yes, moron. There’s no other word for it – at least without using expletive deleted sort of words – you know – F… S… Head … yes, a F…S…Head – completely.

Here’s a video of him spewing utter nonsense – it’s embarrassing – a doctor? Really? He’s not a doctor when it comes to gayness – apparently the man hasn’t read a word written on the subject since 1958 –

Carson, neurosurgeon, is unaware of Bruce Bagemihl’s “Biological Exuberance, too? That’s a book that documents “homosexuality” in some 1500 species – I dare say, when the elephants and dolphins and big horn sheep are part of a Marxist plot to destroy America – we’d better watch out – elephants have good memories, dolphins are smart, and the Big Horn a symbol of the Rockies where they live gaily everyday. Surely animals are not part of Marxist plots – and if a neurosurgeon is unaware of any of the science (such that it pitifully is) on gayness since 1958 – well, he’s no neurosurgeon – he’s a moron. Can’t say it enough – moron. Sorry.

Now, according to this site below — in 1958 a “Canadian for the American Constitution” claims that “Communism” has a goal of being nice to gay men — to destroy the nation – not Canada – but America! – and Mr. Cleon Skousen … not even American – a foreigner!


And Skousen wasn’t even talking about gay marriage – he was talking about gay existence – yes – homosexuality itself – something about which there is oft quoted 2000 year old Scripture is a thing invented by Karl Marx in 1848. You know – I’ve read pretty much every word Karl Marx ever wrote, and most of Lenin and Stalin and sundry other Marxists – none of whom ever mention Homosexuality or Gay people in the slightest, in any form whatsoever. “Be nice to homosexuals” certainly isn’t on the list of “10 things you need to do socialize a country” that Marx listed in the Communist Manifesto. Hell, Karl Marx couldn’t because the word wasn’t even invented yet – boy, was he ahead of his times, eh? Making up “homosexuals” to destroy “capitalism” – yeesh.

And if Carson “believes” this – as it is right to believe any arrant crap – then he’s a moron. Completely. No holds barred. And it’s my duty to work to disabuse him of the notion – and to keep him from any position of governmental responsibility – anyone this stupid shouldn’t be in public office.

Oh, screw it – foul words are needed for such foul thought – Is this man this fucking stupid? I mean, does Ben Carson have a clue that the Communists, Marxists and Leninists said (hell, still say) that “homosexuality” is caused by the decadence of the late stages of capitalism and the opiate of the masses, aka, religion – and is being introduced the world to destroy Marxism! And he quotes a book from 1958? Really? E-fucking-gad – a miserable idiot indeed.

All during the Cold War Russia and America blamed the other for the existence of “homosexuality” — but both agreed we’re the problem – And today, Iran is sure that “homosexuality” is a plot by the USA to destroy the Ayatollah’s theocracy! Indeed, for centuries, each country blamed the next country for “homosexuality.” In the 1500s the English called it the “French Vice,” and French called it the “Italian Vice,” the Italians called it the “Spanish Vice,” the Spanish called it the “German Vice” and the Germans called it the “English Vice” – I dare say – every country in Europe during the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and well, even to the mid-1900s – called “homosexuality” a plot by some foreign country to destroy their won glorious nationhood – well before the word “homosexuality” was even created! My my, perhaps Karl Marx’s great-great-great-great-great, etc etc- grandfather in 1400 said “Oh, those “homosexuals” they’re out to destroy “capitalism” and when my great-great-great-great-great, etc etc- grandson is born, he’s not going to utter a word about it – but sneak it in when no one is looking. Ooh. Egad.

Really — it’s astounding – this “man” – this mental midget – disgusts me. Egad, where the fuck is a cotton field to put this moron to work, he’s a dumb as a darky field hand in 1850. I don’t give a crap – call me a “racist” – I don’t care the color of your skin when you’re this stupid. Yeesh — enraging moronic “thought” has never been my happy suit —

Did Skousen in 1958 have an earthly clue that according to the Soviet, and Czechoslovak, Socialist Encyclopedias of the same period blamed “homosexuality” on religion and capitalism – which purpose was to destroy Marxism? Apparently not. He’s moron too – thankfully dead – but Carson? Alive and kicking.

And what of the gays in China? They live in a Marxist country – which says “Homosexuality is a capitalist plot” – for sure – China is NOT gay friendly. Are gay men there part of a Marxist plot to bring um, Marxism to China? Really? You’re kidding, yes? No, you can’t be serious that Marxists are using gays to bring Marxism to China. But, Carson, Skousen and the rest surely must believe this – or, they are clueless that there’s gays in China – arguing for gay marriage – and if you don’t know what’s going on in China – you really shouldn’t be president at all.

Meanwhile – there’s this craven idiot – a malicious man spewing libel and slander:


He should be sued into oblivion for slander and libel – the gay groups are remiss and derelict in their duty on this concept, I assure you. And certainly his church should lose it’s tax-exempt status if he’s a political candidate, right? Sure, no one will do a thing … sad.

Then there’s Rick Perry, who is sure gayness itself is like alcoholism. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has other ideas about what the “evil” “mean” “Nazi” “homosexuals” are doing – why, we’re out to destroy the family and civilization itself – exactly as Marxists claimed we’re doing. Why, Perkins agrees with Marxists, but claims to be “conservative” – perhaps he’s a “conservative” Marxist – what can I say?

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) says the father made us gay – apparently dads are Marxists!
The Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) says the mother made us gay – apparently moms are Marxists!

Now, maybe both those groups should get together and draw straws to see if the mom or dad is responsible for creating the little capitalist-marxist destroy um, capitalist-marxist.

Hell, Matt Barber of Liberty University avers we are Nazis – Scott Lively, GOP candidate for governor of Massachusetts disagrees with Carson of his own party – he says Gays are Nazis! He wrote a book about it! No, really – it’s a fantasy of unimaginable stupidity. And the gays of Malaysia? Japan? Kenya? Nigeria? Who are they seeking to destroy? Who’s side are they on! Oh, inquiring minds want to know – certainly I’d like to question them all together to get to the bottom of which heterosexuals are using gay men to destroy the world. Why, we’re the very cause of hurricanes and earthquakes if Pat Robertson is right.

If you get these people in one room – would they agree or disagree? Now that’s a question to behold. For their ideas are contradictory to each other. Hell, get a few diehard Marxists in there, they’ll inform Carson that “homosexuality” is a Capitalist Plot!

Well, that’s enough rage on this stupidity – like I said, it’s mind numbing. But, if you’re going to be an idiot in public, expect a member of the public to call you and idiot. Here I am, John Q. Public: Mr. Carson – you’re an idiot.

Judicial Reason V Activism, Common v Civil Law Wednesday, Jul 23 2014 

ObamaCare has been somewhat struck down, somewhat upheld, by various judges in the past few days – there’s much discussion everywhere about it. I think the law is an abomination, for many reasons, which are not the subject of this post. I hope it gets obliterated. I can’t get clearer.

Many on the Right – let’s use Todd Starnes, sage commentator of Fox News – opinionator of high order – lauded by many, quoted often, in the news – hell, he is the news-maker – let’s use him as our arbiter of two ideas: Judicial Reason and Judicial Activism. Which is related, believe it or not, to the differences between Common Law and Civil Law. Mr. Starnes is going to wax rhapsodic about how courts should strike down ObamaCare – indeed, he has. He wants judges to declare unconstitutional a duly enacted act of congress … and he’s just a stand in for most people on the Right, and quite a few on the Left it’s now surfacing as they realize this law screws them too.

If the Roberts court strikes down ObamaCare in whole or part, or any judge, this is “Judicial Reason” by the standards of the Right. Still, ObamaCare (ir)rationally affects 320,000,000 Americans – and is only somewhat emotional.

There’s another matter before the courts – one that rationally only affects only 5% of the people (despite frequent phone surveys that say 2%, but, still holds true if this small,) and yet emotionally affects 320,000,000 people – ooh, is it emotional – amazingly so. And if the courts strike down these laws, as they’ve been doing – then Mr. Starnes and cohorts and similarly situated – are up in arms over Judicial Activism. This would be marriage for gays, of course.

Well, you can’t be FOR “rational” judges overturning laws, and then be against judges overturning laws – either you think judges can overturn laws – any of them – or they can’t. It is inconsistent to say that for one set of cases declaring a law unconstitutional is good, wholesome, reasonable and the American way – and that when those same judges strike down another set of laws through such a declaration are now activist judges out of control – without being an utter mush ball. Mr. Starnes, he’s a mush ball on the subject. He does not think rationally about gay folks – he’s all emotion on the subject.

The reason, however, that judges can overturn and declare laws unconstitutional is our legal system – the Common Law – which comes from England, and is based on the 800 year old Magna Carta, and goes back even further than that, to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence under Alfred the Great in the 890s AD – and perhaps before that too – it’s a long held tradition amongst the English for judges to be able to strike down laws as absurd and unconstitutional.

The other type of law in the world, which is the primary law of all Non-English speaking peoples, regardless of the name – the laws of Confucius and Hammurabi and Incan potentates are all “civil law” – Catholic Canon Law, Roman law, the Code of Justinian, the Napoleonic Code – all of it – the Civil Law – which is the unquestionable acts of the legislative body – and no judge can rule something unconstitutional. Judges apply the law, hand in hand with the prosecutor – which is why the rest of the world is screwed and wants to go to English speaking countries – where judges can tell legislative bodies “no, you can’t do that.”

Mr. Starnes, and ilk, which is not everyone on the “right” – and many in the American left to be sure – are for the Civil Law when it comes to gay folks, and the Common Law for everyone else. He’s for judges overturning laws when it suits him, and against it when his underpants are knotted. Liberals are like that too. They only like the judicial rulings they like, and otherwise the judges are horrendous critters wrecking the land.

For instance, in the recent Hobby Lobby case – Mr. Starnes was gleeful that the courts struck down provisions of ObamaCare – he was judicial activism! – while the Left was aghast at this “overreach of unelected judges” – why, they were all for Judicial Reason – and not Activism.

I suppose when a judge rules for you – he’s reasonable – when he rules against you – he’s activist. And so Starnes, emblematic of the Right, and many on the left, are both for and against judicial reasonableness and activism – they want their cake, and to eat it too – and to tell the baker what sort of cake to make for whom.

Well, it’s amusing to watch, that’s for sure. Let’s hope judges strike down even more laws – hell, the president and the legislative bodies, and bureaucracies, too, of this nation are hog-wild with decrees that make no sense – let us hope judges are active indeed.

Ho-hum, another survey to find gays Saturday, Jul 19 2014 

Well, another phone survey was conducted to find gays in the population. Every other phone survey admits to the same flaws as this one does – they simply call random houses and ask “Any gays there?” and then they miraculously conclude that there’s 2% of the population that is “gay and lesbian.” If every previous phone survey was flawed – why would this one be any better? Ah, but this one is new and improved – for the CDC supposedly did it – by contracting out to the same flawed phone polling services used previously.

So far, in recent history there were 8 phone surveys across the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Then, Gallup did their big survey of 240,000 people oh, 2 years ago … now comes this one. And amazingly, the exact same number surfaces once again. Bizarrely, despite the obvious, blatant differences in the social and legal environment for gays since 1980, the surveys come up with the same number. Why? Well, that’s the number of gays! Yeah, right.

Astoundingly, just as in 1980, there seems to be near the exact same number of gay men as to women lesbians. Hell, even the vaunted Gary Gates survey 2 years ago, he a vaunted “gay demographer” (geez) took the old phone surveys and averaged them – without a shred of new data – not one new call or attempt to count – merely a recount of the same mush – and he concluded there were 2,491,034 gay men – exactly! – to the last 34th of us – and 1,540,000 some Lesbians – and it was bandied about as Scripture – and well, it’s just not true. Anyone remotely aware of the gay “community” (which leaves out the heterosexuals around us) can tell you that there’s oh, 5 gay men for every 2 lesbians. So, if a survey splits and says ½ men ½ women or even close – it simply cannot reflect the known reality among gay people.

Just as in 1980, a random set of phone numbers spread across a geographic area is called and the question asked out of the blue by a total stranger … “Hi, any gay people there?” – and from this, we expect a true answer based on the supposed equally random number of gay people sprinkled around the country in the exact same concentrations within the general population as for say, “What toothpaste do you use?” or, “Will you vote for Clod A or Clod B for public office?” or even “What do you think about the Ukraine?” And yet, what do we know about gay people in reality? … not on the phone – but, by, oh, looking at where gay people are. Say, at gay pride parades? There’s more than 2% of the population out at gay pride parades on one weekend nationwide in June for Heaven’s sake. And if one went to the parades one could clearly see that it’s 5-to-2 men to women. So any phone survey which doesn’t reflect this – just can’t be real.

One survey in the 1990s concluded California had 2% gay folks, while, astonishingly, an internet survey in Indiana in the same time frame concluded 5.7 percent were gay. And if you think Indiana has more gay people than California – well, you’re just not thinking.

Let’s take a look at Phoenix AZ – where I live today. The gay people are, of course, “everywhere” – but, they are concentrated in the center of the city – a rough 3 mile square between 16th Street to the east and 16th Avenue to the west, Camelback Road to the north and McDowell Road to the South. How do we know this? Well, that’s where all the gay bars and businesses are. Indeed, the biggest problem with these surveys is that they simply ignore the gayborhood – or the concentration in every city in America of gay folks in certain zip codes to the exclusion of others. If you did a phone survey of the three area codes of the Phoenix Metro Area and just randomly called and asked “Any gay people there?” – you’d wind up calling places like Mesa and Sun City – each to the far east and west, respectively, of the metro area – where, oddly, there are no gay bars, no gay businesses, and very likely, very few gay people. The people who were brought up in the metro area moved to the center – and the people like me who moved into the city – all went to the center. Gay people are just not moving to Mesa or Sun City. OK, a handful. But due to the disparity of concentration – if you called the edges, you’ll miss the center.

It is said by the opponents of gay folks that all the gays move to big cities. That we all live in the gay ghetto – hell, I’d wager ½ the country thinks all the gays live in just a few cities. When they find them in small cities they are aghast! But phone surveys will simply not cut it. And if even Lake Charles Louisiana, with which I’m intimately familiar with, has a gayborhood, you can rest assured that every other city has one.

It’s like in the 504 area code – the New Orleans metro area – which includes Metairie – a family suburb. Well, if you call numbers randomly in the 504 area code you will get at least ½ in Metairie and ½ in New Orleans – and thus, presto – less gay folks can be counted – for you’d miss the concentration by diluting the sample. Even if you just counted New Orleans city limits, you’d still wind up missing so many gays because they are concentrated along the river districts south of downtown, and are not, say, in the housing projects and Lakefront area.

Ah, more problems with phone surveys: a good ½ of gay men would never tell a total stranger on the phone “Yeah, I’m gay” – hahaha – I just know people personally who would run for their bed and hide under their covers should they get the call. Perhaps that would be listed under “I don’t know.” I don’t know. Then too, there’s the elder set, over 50, over 60, even over 70 and 80 – shy people – having lived through a lifetime of trauma and travail at the hands of heterosexuals – they’re not going to say to someone on the phone “Oh yah, gay, yep.” I know these people, they are friends of mine – they wouldn’t admit it you paid them!

Then there’s the issue of gays, say, between 8 and 25 living at home – they’re not “Out of the closet yet” – often, their own parents don’t know. I can imagine, with clarity, some mom getting a phone call, “Any gay guys in your house?” and she, truthfully from her perspective, says “Nope.” And then she looks at her 21 year old son sitting at the kitchen table who hasn’t spilled the beans yet (though, the lack of a girlfriend ever might be a clue) and thus, he’s uncounted.

One could go on about the flaws in all these surveys – hell, in my book “The Pink Sheep of the Ninth Circle” I examine them for more than 30 pages – it’s amazing what one can find when one thinks differently on the subject.

Oh, to be sure – gay groups are derelict in not trying to count us – but instead relying on heteros and then they shake their heads and say “well, that doesn’t seem right.” Of course it doesn’t – we know it isn’t – Gaydar tells us so. We walk around and we see, oh, 4 or 5% of the men are gay – and 2% of the gals – and well, we always come up intuitively with a bigger number. Forget Kinsey, I don’t have time to deal with mush from the 1940s, geez. But even he said 4% are “exclusively gay” and another 6% are “Mostly gay” – giving us the vaunted 10% figure.

Then there’s the gay bar issue – what? How could gay bars help us count gay men and woman? Well, there’s always far more gay men bars than lesbian bars in any given city. By a near 5 to 2 ratio, gay men’s groups versus lesbian groups – on and on through gay publications, gay everything – 5-2 – but heterosexuals are seemingly fixated on the idea that there’s an equal number of us. Ah, but what if 2% of a population is gay?

Let’s look at Abilene Texas – a place with one gay bar – and a little gayborhood – I know – I’ve been there. Abilene is a few tens of thousands. Let’s say 50,000 – pick any small city, I don’t care, want to find gay bars in small cities? Www.clubfly.com – every town over 50,000 has a gay bar – oddly, 1 bar for every increment of 50,000 – if a city has 100,000 then presto, 2 gay bars, 150,000, 3 gay bars – and so forth – Entrepreneur magazine and several state Small Business Development agencies say you need 5,000 people around a bar for it to survive – thus, if a city has 50,000 people and 1 gay bar there must, by common business reckoning, be 5,000 gay folks in that area.

Back to the funny numbers: If 1/3 of the people in a city are kids – roughly – then we get 30,000 adults, 20,000 kids – (oh, I’m going to ballpark this like everyone else.) So, ½ the 30,000 are men and the other ½ woman – so, we get 15,000 men, and 15,000 women. 10% of the men is 1,500. 5% is 750, 2% is what? 300! – And since only ½ the gay population goes to a bar that leaves us with a grand total of 150 gay men in Abilene Texas in a gay bar on Friday night – and this same 150 gay men must be going out 3 or 4 nights a week, week after week, month after month – and this you think is real? This is rational? It’s a joke, yes? No bar could survive with just 150 customers – no bar has the same 150 customers every night – and so – who else is in this place night after night, weekend after weekend? Obviously, there just must be more than 2% of the adults who are gay. If you use 5% of the men and 2% of the woman, and then add in a few bisexuals, transgendered … you get – Presto! 5,000 gay folks in a population of 50,000 – or 10% … yes? Yes.

Then too – if you don’t count the kids – and we all know we’re gay very very young – you’ve missed a slew of people.

Oh, I could go on – there’s a book in this already – “How no one knows how to count gay men.”

I find it odd too, that throughout all marriage studies – that is, the numbers of men and women who get married – 93% of men get married – 97% of women – somehow the 5-2 ratio holds there too.

But, to conclude, before I go about my day – it’s time for gay groups to count us – and stop relying on heterosexuals to count us. Relying on heterosexuals is just numbnuts – ludicrous even. Why, they have a vested interest in under-counting us! Anyway, I hope this little essay on the absurdity of this latest survey helps put it all in perspective.

Superficial misleading Facebook graphics Tuesday, Jul 15 2014 

I see lots of graphics on Facebook – some image with a few words – as if what is said is some profound and important thing … which can brook no opposition by whomever posted it. Who knows who makes them? I’ve been making a few of my own lately – anyone can have fun. These graphics often lead to heated arguments in the comment thread – and people call each other “idiots” and such and worse for not “understanding” or “believing” or “being against” something which the graphic purports to show. But behind every graphic there is a reality. And that reality cannot be expressed very succinctly on Facebook – but often takes lots and lots of words, till people’s eyes glaze over and they go for a video which is often just a moving graphic like just the two I’m going to look at today. Oh, I suppose I could analyze them endlessly, for they come in an endless supply. Most of it is utter mush, lunacy, ridiculousness, uninformed, and well, just not good. Let’s take a look


Who is the “we” who polled these people? Why do they not proudly put their name upon their basket? No, someone decided they would be cute, and trash people who they don’t like. So, they made a pithy graphic. Vituperatively so. For I’m sure that most “members” of this amorphous thing called the “Tea Party” could indeed identify what a “homo sapien” is – and I’m sure most would not throw the kid out for this reason. I’m also sure that if anyone polled a 1000 Liberals, of the Jay Leno “man in the streets” bit kind … you know those videos he does – utter morons – about everything and anything. I’m sure those people would be just as moronic about the meaning of the word “homo sapien” as the alleged “Tea Partiers” mentioned.

What is the point of the graphic? Well, to somehow say “Tea Partiers” are anti-gay – but, in my considerable experience on the matter – Liberals and Conservatives of all religions can be or aren’t anti-gay in one way or the other – it’s quite a mishmash. In fact, there’s a whole cadre of African-American Liberal Democratic Pastors who are viciously anti-gay. The good Liberal Democrat New York state senator Ruben Diaz is a perfect example. I dare say, “Liberals” – which would seem to include all the 95% of the black population that votes Democratic – are just as likely to throw out their homo-son as Conservative White Rednecks. The gay thing is just not a Left-Right issue – it’s a hetero-gay issue.

Now we come to this rather legitimate seeming graphic about economics. It’s “A lesson in economic history” – which reports certain “facts” – and then makes a causality that is just not real.


The “top tax rate” talked about in 1922 was only on incomes of over $1,000,000 a year – which very few people earned, like, a hundred or so. Meanwhile, the tax itself was only 6 years old at the time. So, technically, prior to 1916 there was no top tax rate whatsoever – and yet, prior to 1916 there were “panics” and “bank failures” and “runs on banks” and “recessions” and “depressions” and all manner of economic grief … as has been happening for well nigh 5,000 years now. Economics goes through cycles – they are called Kondratieff cycles … he being the man who noticed this. The theory’s been tweaked a bit – but still, economies go up, they do down – no one knows why. Not much. A little. However, if there were these economic disruptions prior to the income tax – it can’t very well be caused by reductions in the “top tax rate” – and Mr. Thom Hartmann, so gleefully putting his name to his mush (I applaud that!) is obviously then, unaware that economic history nor downturns or up-ticks is really related to the income tax which was 6 years old in 1922.

Meanwhile, real estate and the stock market are “gambling” in that all things which involve risk is gambling. Mr. Hartmann’s ride to work is a gamble. He’s gambling he won’t get in a wreck – he’s hedging his bet by buying insurance. Getting married is a gamble. Indeed, most of life is a gamble. So to use the word “gambling” is to somehow imply that economics is not a gamble unless evil mean Mr. Harding lowers the tax rate. Which shows that Mr. Hartmann is an economic illiterate. And, a pit of twit for using the word to imply some terrible negative.

Then too, the stock market crash of 1929 was amply laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve Board, itself just 8 years old at the time, by many economic historians, including Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman and others … and which Ben Bernacke, current poobah of the Federal Reserve Board admitted “yep, it’s true, the Federal Reserve wrecked the economy.” So, a tax cut to a few millionaires didn’t cause the crash – but, a contraction of credit by a government agency did.

Astonishingly, Mr. Hartmann, obviously a liberal into big taxes – complains that the rich in the stock market suffered and were made poor, as he wishes everyone to be, or at least “equal” I’m sure. At some level determined by the cads at the Federal Reserve Board or the IRS who perhaps shall be empowered to set the proper level of earnings for all Americans – the very people who caused the crash, as admitted by the man who runs the crashing agency, is now to be gloried with the power to rule the rest of it. Yeah. Brilliant. Yes? No.

Roosevelt raised the tax rates in 1932 – and the Depression got worse … and about the only economic boom times the country saw between 1929 and 1945 (the end of the imperium) was during World War II. So, from late 1929 until 1941, the economy essentially contracted, or muddled along – and regardless of the “top tax rate” not much changed. Then! – A war! When the booming economy that we created was to destroy Japan and Germany and their booming economies – amazingly, by them boom-booming all over the place. A veritable festival of booms and millions dead – and the War economy – you know, evil mean rich arms manufacturers – boomed – and we got corporate health care in the bargain (so we can now argue decades later about what we shall beg from our employers.)

Reagan got the “misery index” – that famous measure of the Carter Administration – which combines the Inflation rate with the Unemployment rate – down from 21 to 8 – but, because the inflation was running so high, and it had to be reeled in, the economy had to contract for a brief bit. All inflated economies have to go through that correction, as anyone who ever studied economics or its history can tell you. Mr. Hartmann here studied his politics, not his economics. So, for the first year or so of Reagan, which was the carryover from Carter who gave us the Misery Index (we were to blame, too, a “malaise” he said we had – cheeky fellow) – and then, once the inflation was rung out of the economy, the economy boomed for the rest of Reagan’s term – indeed, the longest continuous expansion of an economy the world had ever seen. Amazing.

The Savings and Loan “crisis” was more about fraud and government mandated loans to stop redlining – the old practice of not giving loans to blacks, a product of Democratic Party policies for deca…, well, forever … and this banking crisis was a result of HUD and “Fair Housing” and “A mortgage in every pot.” and well, the potheads, couldn’t pay the mortgages. And most of the problem was restricted to a few states, Arizona particularly … went through a few corrupt governors while they were at it. Republicans, true, but corruption is not party-specific.

The Clinton Era is well known for the Internet Bubble, conveniently not mentioned by the gambling bubble concerned Mr. Hartmann – which burst shortly after he left office, dumping his “boom” right into the lap of the hapless Bush, who got an even bigger boom right away, too. The “boom” of the Clinton Era was also related to the new found prosperity in China and Eastern Europe – which Reagan helped create by “Tear Down This Wall” … and so, as must be true for slow moving large objects – like the US economy – what happens in the term of one president perforce slips into the term of the next – to the detriment or boon to whomever is lucky or unlucky.

It’s also not mentioned by our Economic Historian Mr. Hartmann, that Bush senior famously said “read my lips, no new taxes” and proceeded to hide his lips and raise ‘em – and the economy fell! Suffered! Unemployment up! No boom – which led to his defeat to Clinton – who saw Bush’s raise and raised ‘em some more – like a gambler!

Anyway, the Internet Bubble burst, like bubbles do, and poor Bush junior got the gum all over his face.

As for the “Misinformed Viewers of FOX NEWS” I will not argue – all viewers of any TV news are misinformed – it’s the nature of the beast. I’d say it’s because if one is watching the news – which is about personality – one is not reading about economics or economic history – as Mr. Hartmann so valiantly illustrates. Thank you, sir, for illuminating this reality.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: