We live in a country with a legal system based on the preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt before a man is convicted of a crime. We cherish this, rightly so. We are innocent until proven guilty. This too is a fundamental truth. We conservatives insist on factual knowledge, on experience, on logic, reason, and a fundamental truth to things. Liberals, as we all well know, live in a sort of amorphous dreams and wisps of imaginary problems, buttressed by the flimsiest logic known to mankind. Socialism, communism, progressives, liberals, social justice … oh, they use so many terms it’s hard to keep track; you know of whom I speak.
But, then, beyond all this stuff about economics and foreign policy and patriotism and entitlements and the debt and deficit and the budget, or, non-existent budget, and the current politics of our times … there’s the gay thing. The homosexual issue. Oh, I contend we are so very different that it requires an appeal to something beyond mere math, such as might be contended with a budget. The gay thing simply stands apart from every other political problem facing the nation. And so, as the gay guy who is quite conservative in every sense of the word you might imagine on any issue before the public – immigration, bank bailouts, dealing with Europe, the Fed, the IRS, the DHS – hell, all the D’s (how appropriate, so bad that they only get D’s, eh?) and well, I’d make Barry Goldwater proud – I will try to explain the dilemma.
I make my father proud too. He was a Goldwater Republican. Still is, I guess. He’s gone Reagan. Oh well, no one is perfect. But it was Goldwater who said, in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay Americans deserve full constitutional right including military service and marriage.”
That’s what Mr. Conservative said while Mr. Third Way Liberal Clinton with his pants down was signing into law DADT and DOMA. Irony, yes? Yes, then there’s the gay thing. Well, my father and I have a great relationship, and he and I wrote a book together.
His life as he wanted to tell it, and my two cents. Well, that’s the “gays are anti-family” bit, yes? Isn’t that is what is said? Yes, “homosexuals are anti-family.” So be it. Maybe homosexuals are. But, alas, to reality, gay men are not. My own father doesn’t think so, I assure you.
Indeed, in my appeal, I posit this simple notion – I’m as opposed to “homosexuality” as the opponents of gay guys are. That is, this construct called “homosexuality” and its “lobby” “agenda” and “pro-gay liberals” is a myth, it’s a thing that doesn’t exist. And yes, I’m against it. But then, well, then there are us gay guys. And we don’t fit the “homosexual” mold. That’s the problem. That’s my appeal to the jury of my peers. The evidence against us is not real, and the facts are for us. We are, I hope, at least deserving of a reasonable doubt.
Let me start off with the sex. Yes. Most of you find the sex abhorrent. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. Let us then stipulate that minimally 95% of the male population is not gay. That leaves 5%, at most. Is this the real number? We don’t know. Out of all the things counted and quantified, studied and examined, the real numbers of gay men is not on the list. No one knows. Every study must, of course, reference Kinsey’s 10%. It’s a number long discredited, no one believes it, and yet, it must be referenced. Pro-or-con. This I agree, some gays use it, some heteros do. Then, there’s the 11 – count them – 11 studies by phone that were done over the decades. Gary Gates, of UCLA Williams Center – and a gay demographer, the gay websites helpfully tell me – concludes there are exactly, I kid you not: 2,491,034 gay men in America. This is the supposed latest number. Except the Gallop poll of just a few weeks ago which says that the “number” of “LGBT” [who would admit] on the phone was 3.5% – they did not break it down as to which were L, G, B, T nor provide an absolute number.
Some people use 1%, others 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9, 4, 6 – Here’s but one “study” of the number. Here’s a mind shocker – most heterosexuals think 25% of the population is gay and just 6.5% are gay according to Roberto Lopez at American Thinker conservative blog a month ago no source was given. Here’s yet another strange estimate
So, indeed, no one has a blessed clue as to how many of us there are. Once you face that, then you can conclude that any other study which purports to show that this number of gay guys are or are not doing this or that is utter bunkum. But you know, liberals are the bunkum artists, and conservatives deal with facts. So, the fact is, no one knows how many gays there are, on earth.
It is supposed that this is an American issue. That Obama is for gay marriage, and good Republicans–are–not. Except, gays – known as ‘gays’ in the local lingo worldwide, and English word run amok – are in every country on earth. Did you want to go to the Gay Pride event in Minsk, Belarus? Well, it’s there for those with the desire. How about Japan? Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto – more, Sapporo – oh my. And Helsinki in Finland and Cape Town, Durbin and Johannesburg, South Africa, to Santiago, Chile and Buenes Aires, and Caracas, Rio, Sao Paalo, Bogata, Mexico City, Casablanca, Rome, Tel Aviv, Ankara, New Delhi – Teheran – gay people have the audacity for liberty to hold a gay pride march in Tehran! I suppose they’re attacking Allah instead of Jesus. What is that about the toughness of Tea Party conservatives with a 2nd Amendment under some rhetorical attack? Compare: gay guys got up in Teheran and said “the hell with this.” Oh, innocents.
In India there are the Untouchables. 150,000,000 souls considered, well, untouchable. The Brahmin doctors in the public hospitals for free health care refused to treat the Untouchables. And where are gays in the caste system of India? Beneath the Untouchables! Oh yes, that’s how despised we are. And what happens in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, and lesser places? Gay pride marches. And you folks think this is an American issue? You think this is remotely related to any public policy issue the USA faces? Really?
If gay folks, the vast consortium of LGBTQ (I know, it’s confounding, I’m sorry, I’m not in charge) amount to a mere 5% or less of the population we are a mere 350,000,000 people out of 7 billion. Do you really all think we chose this to fight you all incessantly in every country on earth because Obama decided to come out for gay marriage? Or, that it’s not natural in some way? We appeal to your reason, and you switch to emotion. I can’t fight you on that – you know what you know, and believe what you believe, so be it. We are the pariahs of mankind, of that there is no doubt. But, well, here we are. We say we’re born gay, many of you demur, and essentially call us liars and then say it either happened to us, or we chose it, or a confab of both.
Let us face the reality too that there is, among heterosexuals, a clear division in the LGBT rainbow. Lesbians are not so bad. Oh, face it, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have made millions off of displays of lesbianism. As a 20 year old I did color proofing for High Society magazine, please. Bisexuals are, well, lapsed heterosexuals, and they have wives and girlfriends, and a dash of intervention and all will be well. Transgendered are, strangely, heterosexuals.
Yes, let me explain that by pointing to the two most historically prominent transgendered people we can reference: Christine Jorgensen and Chaz Bono. Christine was a guy who became a girl who then found a guy and as a gal and guy have been happily married for decades. So, gal and guy – that’s heterosexual, yes? Now, Chastity Bono was a gal, who because a guy, who then went out and found a gal – so, guy and gal together. Last I looked, and correct me if I’m wrong, when guy and gal are together in holy matrimony or at least socially acceptable shacking up that’s heterosexual, yes? Yes. So, I will admit, wholeheartedly, that I am utterly flummoxed why Transgendered people are lumped with gay guys. Gay men are not gender confused, I assure you. Well, so, the three, L, B and T, are shall we say, OK, to some degree. Ah, but then there’s G – the gay guy. We are the butt of the problem (oh, pun intended, we are adults here.)
Yes, the gay man. And what does he do? Well, as the “homosexual” he is hellbent on destroying the nation, civilization, God, marriage, kids and anything else good and wholesome. There is no good in the “homosexual.” Well, the way that guy is described I don’t like him either. Now, then, there’s the gay guy. I can’t speak for us all. Alas, we don’t get a memo from Gay Agenda Central. In fact, almost certainly much to your surprise there is a very vigorous Republican-Liberty versus Democratic-Control debate going on on gay websites. You don’t know that because “homosexuals” might be pushing an agenda to make everyone gay instead of discussing something silly like whether the currency is being inflated out of all reason. No, gay men must perforce have an exact same opinion on say, the tax code, with nary a difference to be found, like among good heteros such as yourself and say Nancy Pelosi. Who you smooch apparently doesn’t affect your IRS meter – but, if you’re a gay guy, well, I guess it must be true that you’re for something else, whatever the gay guy position is on the IRS code is supposed to be. I don’t know it. Do you?
Meanwhile, let us be realistic that there are still American politicians calling for criminalizing gay sex. Yes, Rick Santorum and Allen West and Tony Perkins and many many others have spoken about the need to outlaw gay sex. I suppose that’s to stop heterosexuals from having gay sex. It certainly didn’t stop gay men. Why, that’s why we were arrested in police raids on bars – for liberty. Oh, don’t worry, gay men paid for those raids, with our tax dollars.
We also must face the fact that this ridiculously small percentage are the only gay folks, we’re not trying to make anyone gay, and we know well we can’t, for, well, you’re born gay or you are not. And the vast majority of you are not gay, and never will be. And yet, it seems the fear that if a nice word is said about the few gays folks every heterosexual will run down to the local gay bar to find some sex. It’s strange, this belief, but that has to be it. We “choose” to be gay, so, if something nice is said about it, everyone else will choose to be gay, and then what? Only, well, no one chooses, and no one turns gay. And so the fear or worry is completely unfounded.
Strangely, groups like NARTH, AFTAH, FRC, AFA, NOM – oh, fine groups I’m sure, even if a tad gay obsessed – they are sure that we make up 1% of the population, that we are richer and more well off than everyone else, that we are gay because our father, mother, uncle, man down the block, predisposition and choice made us gay (or any combo) and that we are also demented, sick, ill, childish, absurd, unnatural and worse. And so, people who would seem to be unfit to make a go of life are also just doing stupendously! I’ll let you figure that one out.
Then too, there are the various reasons we are gay. Conservatives, as I know them, wish to know causes and fact, and to drop dogma and wishful thinking – until it comes to gay folks. Then they jump onto the merry go round of why guys are gay with wild abandon. Have you seen the list? It’s incredible. My my, so many reasons, for a tiny bunch, but 1 reason for 95%. It seems gay men have such powerful minds and wills that we are able to turn off instinct and nature itself; science has not seen fit to study the anomaly.
Actually, since gay men are the majority of the 5% LBGT, I’ll say 3% gay men – OK – AFTAH says it’s because our mothers were strong and our fathers absent – OK, so there would be no black teenage pregnancy problem in America today – they’d all be gay for having strong mothers and absent fathers. Not to worry, Ann Coulter and others blame gay guys on the black teen pregnancy problem. I suppose we get them pregnant after our hours and hours of gay sex. I don’t know.
The late Charles Socarides, a doctor, with NARTH, is sure it’s the weak father and cloying mother – only, he has a gay son, a “homosexual lobbyist” even, and well, there’s tension there, yes?
The Family Research Council is sure there’s predisposition and a choice – I suppose we are predisposed to choose. The predisposition is not further explained, except, it’s not genetic or natural. So, somehow, we’re both naturally predisposed and unnaturally predisposed – and we choose to be gay too later on. I don’t know. I’m not in the business of purveying the mush, merely to present it. They also put out an information package pointing out that gay men die at the age of 41. This is news to me as I approach my 55th birthday. It’s their mush, ask them.
The Catholic Cardinal of Chicago, Mr. George, says that his gay nephew is a fine man while homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and evil and destructive to society. I will leave to you all and the Cardinal the division of proportion of how much “fine man” and how much “evil” the nephew might possess. Or, I submit, one or the other proposition – fine or evil – is off the wall. But you can’t be a “fine” and “evil” at the same time, can you?
It is well known that liberals despise the military and avoid serving. It’s not so well known that it was Log Cabin Gay Republicans and serving soldiers who challenged DADT and had won in the lower courts and were going to win higher up when Obama decided to join the bandwagon. He fought the case at first, after he lost he changed his mind. Oh don’t let his evolving and following be confused for leadership. The man hasn’t led on anything ever – now you think he’s at the forefront of gay issues? Egad. We rightly claim he’s a bumbling idiot, and then on the gay thing you think he’s changing America. He’s just another heterosexual who’s “Evolving.” Every heterosexual is evolving on the issue, you can’t get away from the discussion.
Meanwhile, gay men up and joined the military, lied as best they could to do it, at the behest of DADT and heterosexuals in general, and you still hunted them down and chased them away. The nation was in need of linguists – we had 400 linguists in the languages we needed – oh, I’m sorry, they were gay – what could they do to help the nation? – after all – it must be true that these Americans who learned Dari, Pashtun and Urdu were hellbent on destroying America by demanding a shred of decency and the ease of the legal regime of marriage. Or, the homosexual does one thing, and the gay guy another.
Which brings me to marriage. The Supreme Court is considering two cases. Two so far. There’s more in the pipeline. Even if we lose this round there’s plenty more cases, we are determined fellows. In Helen Branson’s mid-1950s book “Gay Bar” attests: gay men were for marriage, and used the word, in the 1950s. This has been a goal since the beginning. Every group, every plea, every court case, every begging has been directed towards a decent recognition of our relationships and our humanity. That’s the gay goal. It’s not political, it’s social. Meanwhile, there is the construct of the homosexual goal of destroying the place. Nothing could be father from the truth. All evidence shows it.
In fact, gay folks have jobs or own businesses. We have to, there are no public programs for us, no. We aren’t the unwed mothers on welfare. We’re not the people getting disability – even though many are quite sure being gay is some disability indeed, we still have to make our own money. So, we do. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims 1.4 million members. Say ½ are gay – that’s a lot of business folks, yes? I would think that gay folks pay roughly $100 billion in taxes. It’s a guess. And AIDS, always the big gay concern, costs about $2 billion total. And the defense of DOMA by Congress is costing $3 million. And other than that, gay men don’t get any services as gay men, but we sure pay for you folks – we add $98 billion to the pot for unwed mothers and abandoning fathers. We’re a net plus to the nation, obviously.
The clearest evidence that you can see on the difference between “homosexuality” and gay guys? Think about the next time you fly and get a hotel and rent a car and eat out. Look carefully at the young man who is tending your needs. The desk clerk, the waiter, the man who takes your credit card and brings your kid a glass of water – they are gay men. That’s the people you fear – the people who make sure you food is hot, your water is cold, your wine is chilled and your bed is comfy – while you all fly hither and yon denouncing homosexuals gay men are politely helping you do it. And it is this reality versus the myth that I bring to your attention. Why Conservatives go from fact, reason and logic based people on matters of public policy and then switch to pure emotion and religious dogma without a shred of fact, logic or reason on gay folks is something I don’t understand.
I don’t say these things to tell you gay folks are wonderful or that we are innocent of sin, or that you have to like us – but I tell you because you are as against the “homosexual” as I am, but I wish to speak to you as a gay American, who is not the “homosexual” of your thinking, and tell you, we are simply so unimportant, and so different, that the whole “left-right” divide disappears. With gays it’s a whole new territory.
@Redteam #418:
“Widely” reported is not the same as “reliably” reported. Those reports were in the same rags that commonly report alien spacecraft abductions and the like. Do you really want to hold those up as authoritative?
“Shouldn’t he and you be proud to be recognized as homosexuals?”
You seem to be overlooking one trivial difference between Obama and me. I’m the one who is gay, while he is the one who isn’t. I wouldn’t be proud to be mistaken for a heterosexual. That’s one good reason why I keep getting in your face about it. I spent too many years tagging along with “the boys,” going to titty bars, trying to “fit in.” Nobody should have to fake who they are.
When someone accused another of being “gay,” there is no way to definitively prove that the accusation is false. What if I send notices to your church, put up signs along the road asserting that you have a long history of clandestine homosexual rendezvous in the park, warn that you are a repeat homosexual child abuser who frequents gay bath houses? How do you deal with that?
You can’t.
It’s a malevolent rumor because it propagates misinformation of a type that cannot be disproved.
Gaydar question: “NO.”
@Redteam #421:
“I just don’t get it, shouldn’t he be ‘proud’?”
Should George Wells be proud of being a heterosexual?
Why doesn’t your brain hurt?
Sorry Redteam, most gays are gay. That is why the word ultimately came to be used in place of faggot, which was the term for the bundle of dry sticks used to burn gay people at the stake.
You need to meet more gay people, or simply stop participating in their oppression, which would lighten the load a little (not that you do a lot of that, but saying gays are miserable people is oppressing, especially when you take an almost sneering atitude that they are mis-named…). But on balance gay people are a lot of fun and very creative companions.
Obama is what he is. if you open your eyes, he is a small, angry, untalented man whose gift is interpersonal gab but is a failure at public speaking (as measured by his ability to handle non-teleprompter addresses). He has pretentions to dictatorship but really has no plan. He is just the front man for the committee.
There is no comparison to Hitler, a self made man who studied and starved for three years calculating his rise to power – followed by purchase of the newspaper, editorial after editorial, speech after speech as he ramped up. On the other hand, Obama never went to war, and was shepherded from a cushy life into the position he occupies. He has never had a job other than to be groomed for office.
I think it is funny, but they power brokers never really expected Obama to be elected on his first run, thinking he might be VP or in the cabinet, and were taken by surprise when they realized they could win against Hillary. In short, they got into the white house too soon, and were unprepared. The first term chaos illustrates this neuveau power thing…
I highly recommend reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The parallels between the comments here about gays and the comments by abolitionsists echo one another. Many people stumping for the abolition of slavery would not acknowledge that black people were born equal. illuminating.
@Redteam #420:
I understand that Sharia Law handles homosexuality harshly, but I also know that there are increasingly vocal gay rights groups rising up in Muslim countries, in China, in Russia, in just about every country on the globe. France and Sweden do have some serious cultural issues to work out, but I don’t expect that either will be turned into the Middle-East, Part 2. And while I am sure that progress will faster some years that others, I am 100% confident that I will die in a world much more gay-friendly, much more gay-tolerant and much more accepting of gay marriage than the one we live in today.
The present rate of World population growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. We’re adding a billion more people every 12 years. At some point, governments will stop subsidizing population growth and start encouraging any option that doesn’t involve making more babies. If you can’t see where this is headed, put on your glasses and look. Because it’s coming.
You are correct redteam. It boggles my little gay mind that leftist gays are propping up islam. Of course they do so because islam is the enemy of the US. They are leftists first and always. They can live wothout gay rights if Utopia is born.
They also know a little secret. As soon as Islam finishes wearing and tearing down the US to the point where the left can get total control, Islam will no longer be of any use to the left. The end result will be that once Islam turns on the left, the left will very viciously and definitively deal with the threat to their burgeoning new socialist state. Islam will be outlawed and if there is a peep about it, they will find out what terror is. You cannot deal with communists.
Re welles. I don’t see gay rights making much headway. I see gay activists hanging from manlifts all over the islamic wonderland.
Why did spain run Islam out so long ago?
@Ted #428:
“I don’t see gay rights making much headway.”
Really? After 50 years of pretty much ZERO progress, gay rights have EXPLODED! Did you forget where we were ten years ago?
Marriage equality for 610 million is a whole lot of progress. The rate of gay rights growth has been logrithymic, and certainly won’t be sustainable indefinitely. But a critical mass of gay rights has been reached, and that genie won’t be put back in the bottle.
I’m not sure how you figure that the left will pull off the brilliant manuever you suggest in #427. The left hasn’t shown much management competency anywhere, ever. Communism didn’t exactly work for the Soviet Union, and China only took off when it morphed into a state-controlled capitalistic socialism. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” will only take Islam OR the left so far, and neither will ever be skillful enough to control the World. But if you want to lose sleep worrying about that, it’s harmless enough.
@George Wells: @George Wells: Ah….. so the answer to world population growth is to only allow men to marry men and women to marry women and to not allow any of the women to have relations with men. Sounds like your kind of place.
@ted: Ted, I see you’ve gotten that figured out. I’m not sure the leftists will be able to do much at that point, however. Once you’ve sold your soul to the devil, he expects to collect it at some point.
@George Wells: Gaydar question: “NO.” Your Gaydar and Ted’s must be different models, one reading yes and one reading no. I personally think he’s a little feminine acting, but then I don’t have Gaydar, so what do I know.
No, the correct question should be ‘Should George Wells be proud of being a homosexual?’
and if the ‘lustrous leader’ is a homosexual, shouldn’t he be proud of it?
You sure are conflicted, aren’t you?
@Redteam #430:
“So the answer to world population growth is to only allow men to marry men and women to marry women and to not allow any of the women to have relations with men.”
I think you left out the part about hitting each other with Popsicle sticks. World population growth is a real problem, and you can offer only silliness? Why did you bother?
What WILL happen is that there will be more and more pressure for some couples to limit their reproduction to one child, and significant pressures for others to have none. This type of program has been working in China for many years, and the growth rate in China (currently at 0.48% annual) has leveled off from previous unsustainable rates. Over the same period, India did NOT restrain its growth, and growing at 1.3% annually, its population will soon overtake China’s.
More to the point of Tom’s concern, many of the countries that are experiencing growth rates of 2, 3, 4% and more are in Africa and the Middle-East, where crippling poverty and widespread unemployment swell the ranks of the desperately malcontent. No good will come of it.
No civilized country will go so far as your silly scenario suggests, and that is not what I advocate. But legalizing gay marriage, de-stigmatizing homosexuality, and encouraging childless relationships generally will at least slightly reduce population pressures. If modest measures fail to contain population growth, then more Draconian measures will eventually be put in place. For a population steeped in the traditions of personal freedoms, that’s going to generate a culture shock that makes gay marriage look like a walk in the park.
Currently the entire population of the world could fit into four person families each with a 1200 sf house – all inside Texas.
The problem with unsustqaqinable world growth is that socialist governments cant control large populations effectively. Their economic system will not work. free enterprise and capitalism, left to its own controls, oculd mor ethan feed the populations. It is a political problem not a scientific one.
The reason the middle east is a barren desert is that it’s the result of 700 years of tribal chiefs locked into a 700 year old system that does not encourage growth, trade with outsiders, or innovation.
Gay marriage is not a stem to popilation growth. Plenty of people want to have children.
The US could feed and lead the world in food production if we were not forced by protecitonand regulaiton to waste so much.
TO WIT: restaurants having to destroy leftover food instead of feeding the homeless and hungry.
Population control is right up there with every other notion of control the totalitarians have.
@Redteam #432:
“No, the correct question should be ‘Should George Wells be proud of being a homosexual?’
and if the ‘lustrous leader’ is a homosexual, shouldn’t he be proud of it?
You sure are conflicted, aren’t you?”
I cannot see where you are finding conflict here. George Wells is a self-proclaimed homosexual. Obama is not. That is a conflict for your proposition to resolve, not mine.
To your Obama conditional proposition, “yes,” but you haven’t proved the premise.
And sweetheart, I’m as proud as I can be, and that pride is not dependent upon your approval.
@George Wells: Well, it’s nice to know you have a sense of humor.
Aren’t you fortunate?
Really?
@Ted #434:
“Currently the entire population of the world could fit into four person families each with a 1200 sf house – all inside Texas.”
LOL.
“socialist governments can’t control large populations effectively.”
For that matter, NO government can. Where were you going here?
“free enterprise and capitalism, left to its own controls…”
Tell me, Ted, what would those controls be? Anything at all?
Having the fox watch the chicken coop has always worked, hasn’t it?
“The reason the middle east is a barren desert is that it’s the result of 700 years of tribal chiefs locked into a 700 year old system that does not encourage growth, trade with outsiders, or innovation.”
It’s a barren desert because the climate that gave it 40 inches of rain per year isn’t there anymore. Without water, there’s nothing to support life besides oil revenue, and when that’s depleted, they’ll be fighting over salty sand and looking for mischief.
“Plenty of people want to have children.”
There are already too many children. Discourage those people.
“restaurants having to destroy leftover food instead of feeding the homeless and hungry.”
Well, there’s the answer to World hunger.
@Redteam #436:
Yes Yes.
See how agreeable I can be?
@ted: #425
When and where have I oppressed anyone? When and where did I say gays are miserable people?
Read it over 50 years ago, but didn’t put it into any context of homosexuals. But I do agree that many today that are ‘advocating’ for gays would spit in your face if you called them gay, they would consider it to be the highest insult. (kinda like George thinks I’m ‘insulting’ Obama) Kinda indicates the way they really feel. Nope, the libs are using that for political advantage, just as they use immigration and racism for politics. If it wouldn’t buy them votes, it would be a ‘hot potato’
@ted:
I give you George’s example of China. China is now, due to its one-child policy, facing an economic crisis. The policy of 4:2:1 is not going to provide China with enough working adults to sustain either its productin levels or its rapidly aging population. What do I mean by 4:2:1? One child, two parents and four grandparents. Two working adults, with one child, will be expected to care for, and support four grandparents because China does not have the build in safety nets for the aged that we do. When two parents are expected to care for their aged parents, it will reduce their disposable income, and therefore reduce the demand for goods and services.
China also has a gender problem; with the desire for boys, due to Chinese culture, couples have disproportionately aborted girls.
There is a use for that leftover food. No, it cannot be used to feed the homeless/hungry due to state food laws. But it could be collected and used for livestock feed. Allow farmers/ranchers to purchase that leftover food to feed it to hogs, for one. Our local Mexican restraurant saves all the left over tortilla chips which are picked up by a local rancher and feet to his cattle. Those hogs and cattle then, in turn, produce more food for Americans.
Population control, or various forms of it, i.e. ethnic cleansing, has been implemented by every totalitarian regime in all of history.
Yeah, you get it.
@George Wells:
How was I incorrect?
–
So because I present the Cliff Notes description, it was incorrect?
I also provided you the list of the most current treatment medications, by linking to the list provided by a website that is devoted to nothing but HIV/AIDS.
And what did you counter with? A list of opportunistic diseases.
AIDS is still incurable. Until it is, the prognosis for anyone living with AIDS is still quite grim.
Liar. All you, and Mata did, was try to twist what I said to be able to form the “impression” you came up with.
Would that be like when you said that most AIDS patients now are heterosexual knowing that the discussion in this entire thread is pretty much U.S. specific, and then when I corrected you, you come back with “world” wide? When you made a claim that was proven wrong, you simply upped the bar. Honesty is not your forte, George.
Let’s say you are in a court room, and the judge asks you to prove you are homosexual. You say “Yes, your Honor. I’m homosexual.” The judge then tells you that your “self-proclaimation” is not good enough, and he wants you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are homosexual. How would you do that? Would you procede to have sex with another man in the court room to prove your homosexuality?
@retire05 #440:
Pretty right on, retire, including China’s 4-2-1 predicament. While the difficulties associated with lower growth rates are real, remember that China’s population is still growing, not shrinking. More children are being born than old folks are dying. Even at its best, one-child-per-family wasn’t a smashing success. And the growth that China has been enjoying has come largely in the absence of regulation. Consequently, their environment has been trashed.
“Population control or various forms of it, i.e. ethnic cleansing, has been implemented by every totalitarian regime in all of history.”
Quite true. Some forms have been perhaps more humane than others. I would offer that allowing nature to run its course would be a particularly inhumane option. The natural processes that contain population include starvation, decimation by epidemic and self-annihilation. These processes are already at work. Starvation is common in third-world countries, the Bird-Flu, Swine Flu and AIDS have given us but the gentlest of hints of what pestilence can do, and we certainly have demonstrated both the capacity and the proclivity to annihilate ourselves. If we don’t voluntarily restrain our reproductive capacity, these natural processes will control our population the old-fashion way. Not something I would want.
@retire #441:
“How was I incorrect?”
You were not “incorrect,” you were incomplete. The omissions were misleading. I corrected that.
“So because I present the Cliff Notes description, it was incorrect?”
Since you obviously couldn’t appreciate that the “cliff Notes” you presented were defective, I helped you.
You’re welcome.
“AIDS is still incurable. Until it is, the prognosis for anyone living with AIDS is still quite grim.”
Maybe I don’t understand how you are using the word “grim.” It is now over thirty years since AIDS really hit the news, and the life-expectancy of AIDS-diagnosed patients has risen from months to decades. In my experience, months is grim, decades is not. Decades is like for Diabetes.
“Results: Assuming a high rate of HIV diagnosis (median CD4 cell count at diagnosis, 432 cells/μl), projected median age at death (life expectancy) was 75.0 years. This implies 7.0 years of life were lost on average due to HIV. Cumulative risks of death by 5 and 10 years after infection were 2.3 and 5.2%, respectively. The 95% uncertainty bound for life expectancy was (68.0,77.3) years. When a low diagnosis rate was assumed (diagnosis only when symptomatic, median CD4 cell count 140 cells/μl), life expectancy was 71.5 years, implying an average 10.5 years of life lost due to HIV.”
“Key Statistics on Diabetes[5], that the life expectancy of someone with type 2 diabetes is likely to be reduced, as a result of the condition, by up to 10 years.
People with type 1 diabetes have traditionally lived shorter lives, with life expectancy having been quoted as being reduced by over 20 years. However, improvement in diabetes care in recent decades indicates that people with type 1 diabetes are now living significantly longer.”
These data show that Type 1 Diabetes has about twice the mortality rate as AIDS, and that Type 2 Diabetes has about the same mortality rate as AIDS.
Not sure where you’re coming from, but where I come from, neither form of Diabetes is considered to carry a “quite grim” prognosis. Neither does AIDS. Toss the Cliff Notes.
“Liar.”
That’s convincing.
@George Wells:
But nothing you, or even modern science, can do a damn thing about.
And what happens to your movement (agenda) if a “gay” gene is ever discovered and women start aborting their children because they don’t want homosexual kids? Will you be a supporter of “population control” then?
Yes, we are living longer, and the world population is growning. But on the flip side, we are learning to grow more food on less land than ever thought possible.
which has not one damn thing to do with the world’s ability to grow enough food to provide for those people. Starvation is due to politics, i.e. the Irish potato famine, not our ability to feed the worlds population.
@George Wells:
You took liberties that were not yours to take.
When I require your assistance, I will ask for it. Until then, hold your breath.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grim
Right after you shove your attitude square up your lower orifice.
@George Wells: Interesting, when the government figured out that smoking was bad, they took steps to prevent the act so that the results would not be so grim. Do you find it strange that they figured out that being homosexual is the leading cause of aids, do you support efforts by the government to control the activities that cause the aids? I already know your answer, I just think it’s strange how, when it’s gets personal, it’s ‘others’ activities we want to control, not our own.
@retire05 #445:
And what happens to your movement (agenda) if a “gay” gene is ever discovered and women start aborting their children because they don’t want homosexual kids? Will you be a supporter of “population control” then?
Absolutely. I support a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy for any reason. I also support a society’s right to decide how it wants to manage its numbers. Since you are absolutely certain that no gay gene exists, your question about the gay agenda is moot.
“Starvation is common in third-world countries, which has not one damn thing to do with the world’s ability to grow enough food to provide for those people. Starvation is due to politics.”
Excuse me, I don’t remember saying “one damn thing (about) the world’s ability to grow enough food to provide for those people. Did I? All I could find was:
“The natural processes that contain population include starvation, decimation by epidemic and self-annihilation.”
A true statement.
@retire05 #445:
I love how your Tourette syndrome flares up whenever I prove you wrong.
It helps me grade my performance.
Thanks again!
@Redteam #446:
“they figured out that being homosexual is the leading cause of aids, do you support efforts by the government to control the activities that cause the aids?”
I think that you might want to rephrase that first part, as BEING homosexual is not a cause of AIDS.
Unprotected sex with multiple partners is a leading cause of aids. World-wide, the leading cause of AIDS is unprotected sex with multiple heterosexual partners.
I did support the government’s efforts to close public bathhouses and other establishments where at-risk behaviors were commonplace. I also support government efforts to combat intravenous drug use and/or to lessen the risks to public health that are associated with that practice. I also support government efforts to reduce prostitution and any other illegal public practice that has the potential to spread HIV. I don’t think that either of us want government monitors present in our private bedrooms, but I don’t think that option has been seriously suggested.
Did I miss something else implied in your question?
Is that the answer that you already knew?
If it was, then why did you ask?
@George Wells: George, I tell you, I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you answered the way you did. No wait, actually you got it right… however, I will point out that multiple partners between hetero’s is not nearly as deadly as being homosexual was at the time. I’m talking USA, not world.
@Redteam#450:
“however, I will point out that multiple partners between hetero’s is not nearly as deadly as being homosexual was at the time. I’m talking USA, not world.”
I think that you do still not understand the difference between “BEING homosexual” and “engaging in unsafe sexual practices with multiple partners.” BEING homosexual never killed anyone. That’s like saying “GUNS kill” when it is the people who use them that kill. When you are this sloppy with the English language, either you are being unintentionally stupid or intentionally ugly.
I appreciate that the epidemiological pathway AIDS has taken in the USA has differed from the rest of the World. I referenced the World case not to misrepresent AIDS in the USA but to point out that AIDS is not just a “gay disease” as some would have you believe.
“George, I tell you, I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you answered the way you did. No wait, actually you got it right.”
Any why were you shocked?
I have been telling you the truth all along, and I put my real name on everything I write – something you and retire05 don’t do. “Shocked” maybe because you wouldn’t know genuine if it bit you on the foot.
Did you notice how retire05 quietly dropped her “Gay marriage has pretty much failed worldwide” when I gave her #416 world stats? And how she argued that the prognosis for AIDS “is still quite grim” even after I showed that it is less “grim” than the prognosis for diabetes? In my mind, “grim” connotes more or less imminent death, and that isn’t the case with either disease. She is sloppy with the language, and her arguments are dilute by her insults. You should avoid making the same mistakes.
Redteam. My point was that saying that gays are anything but gay is to ascribe to them the opposite – moroseness and miserableness. It is a way of putting down gay people as a group. By the way – gay people did not ask for that appellation but it is better than some.
You are absolutely right about politics and gays.
Radicals have no use for gays in utopia. We don’t breed and are too clever by half. If we were broke they’d never take our calls.
My earlier point To wells about not being able to feed homeless. State laws enacted by progressives waste food. They should be changed. They put them in to prevent people from helping others. Making government the go to guys for assistance.
@George Wells: George, you need a little humor in your life, you seem to only see the bad side of everything, well, except the bad side of homosexuality. Have you been reading the comments of persons affected by the vote of the Boy Scouts, basically to destroy the organization to accommodate the homosexual communities. I can’t understand why the homosexual community can’t have their own organization where they can go on all their own camping trips with persons of their own moral persuasion. Here is a short quote from one of the articles:
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/boy-scouts-vote-to-compromise-their-values/#ixzz2UKBZQ0Mg
I remember when I was in the Boy Scouts and it was rumored that one of the leaders was homosexual. No one would go on a camping trip with him after that came out. He had to quit. (Turns out, he was homosexual)
More dishonesty from George. Not that we have come to expect anything less. Nevermind that his critique of Redteam and me using a moniker seems pretty exclusive since he doesn’t seem to apply that standard to Mata, Ted, Brother Bob or anyone else who uses a moniker.
What is the opposite of success, George? It is failure. Just because a law/policy/procedure is enacted, that doesn’t make it a success. I guess you are not aware of the failure of SSM in Holland? No surprise. Research doesn’t seem to be your forte.
@Redteam:
The BSA is a prime example of the end goal that Brother Bob asked about. It has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage, equal rights for adults, tolerance, yada, yada, yada. It has EVERYTHING to do with forcing others to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition while considering homosexuals as a “protected” group under the CRA.
The BSA supported a strong belief in God. That must, at all costs, be destroyed. How can a homosexual Scout declare “On my honor, I will try to do my duty, to God, and my country” when homosexuality is an abomination against God? The next step will be to remove any religious tenet from the BSA. It will become nothing more than a glorified camping club for queers.
But history, for those who have bothered to research it, has shown that every socialist group has promoted the normalizing of homosexuality from Antonio Gramsci to the Fabian Socialists and the Frankfurt Marxists. It is just one step toward a Marxist/Socialist society and if people still have faith in a Supreme God who casts judgment on their actions, then that utopia cannot be achieved.
@George Wells: #451
George, how do we know your real name is what you say? If it is, then you are likely the only one writing using your real name. Some sites don’t want you to use your ‘real’ name. I use the same moniker on all sites that I write on. By the way, I formerly worked with a George Wells (in a similar company/business to the one you said you worked for) that’s why I asked about that.
@retire05: Yes, I agree that is the reason behind it. As you said, it has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with ‘forcing acceptance’. Parents will not allow their sons to go camping with known homosexuals and camping in one of the backbones of Scouting. Scouting will not exist, basically, in 10 years.
@Redteam:
From the left leaning Time magazine:
In their statement of purpose called “What we stand for,” the Girl Scouts explicitly reject discrimination of any kind and consider sexual orientation, “a private matter for girls and their families to address.” Noting their affirmation of freedom of religion, a founding principle of American life, the Girl Scouts “do not attempt to dictate the form or style of a member’s worship” and urge “flexibility” in reciting the Girl Scout Promise. (They are encouraged to substitute the word “God” for something that’s more in line with their own spiritual practice.)
Read more:
So there you have it right out of a left wing mouth. Destroy any reference to God in the public arena, including the Boy Scouts of America. You see, to them, God has no place in the public square, even among private citizens. It is a Frankfurt Marxist dream come true.
Christians, and heterosexuals, are rapidly becoming the only two groups where is politically correct to ridicule/hold bigotry toward.
@Redteam, the BSA has rightfully prevailed in all lawsuits that attempted to mandate an open criteria on their membership. Private clubs should not be subject to outside dictations of membership criteria.
However the vote Thursday was not a product of force, but by their own choice. Whether one likes it or not, you have to respect that it was as much an internal decision to lift the gay ban as it was to have it there to begin with. Ultimately it was characterized as not wishing to deny the experience to kids. As the national president of the Boy Scouts, Wayne Perry, said:
Whether this marks the demise of the BSA is totally up to public opinion. Many churches have, and/or will likely, opt out as sponsors. Others may not. Just as it should be.
Gosh darn… do you mean that only those without sin can be a member in the BSA? Woof… talk about tough standards.
Or is it just that some sins are more acceptable to you than others? All I can say is it’s a glorious thing for Christians everywhere that God and Jesus are not as harshly judgmental, and demanding of human perfection as you.
And this is your personal business… how? Are you a voting member of that organization?
Leaving aside it would never pass legal muster to disguise a “camping club for queers” as some sort of outdoor orgy for minors, what ever the “next step” is, it’s a decision purely left up to the BSA. You either support they have a right to make their own decisions as a privately run organization, or you don’t. And if you don’t like the decisions they make, then don’t patronize them in any way… just as our free market allows for.
Exchange between George Wells and retire05 from comment #441:
Perhaps this is where the failure to communicate comes in to play. Instead of taking a sentence in it’s entirety, you choose to chop it up and parse. Additionally, you also choose to ignore that sentence and it’s place within an entire paragraph.. the subject matter being focused and dictated by you with the opening sentence.
To refresh memories, and with emphasis added to point out the specifics of the discussion… this was a reply to Redteam, expanding on life expectancy comparisons between syphilis and AIDS, and how syphilis was less threatening.
The premise of your final sentence relates to your first opening sentence of that paragraph… that AIDS mortality (sentence constructed in the present tense) is so rapid as to be equated to a fast growing cancer, and while not curable, symptoms can be managed etc etc. George Wells clearly stated that he agreed there was no cure.
Are you correct in an “abridged” way for that single, stand alone, final sentence? Well sure… in an exceedingly liberal, noneducational kind of way. Cancer – another disease without a cure – also has drugs to alleviate symptoms. But that hardly represents cancer treatment en toto, or a prognoses. Especially since managing symptoms and repercussions from weakened systems isn’t going to significantly prolong life…. which was the entire subject of the paragraph and comment.
Perhaps George needed to spell it out more definitively by copy/pasting the entire paragraph instead of just the final sentence. But since he, like me, recognized it’s placement in subject matter, didn’t think it was necessary. It isn’t, and never was, a stand alone thought. It was your final statement to your assertion that AIDS, unlike syphilis, can *not* take up to 20 years to be fatal (leaving aside individual cases, as all are unique) and was a fast killer.
It is that context where George brought you up to date on increased life expectancy. He did so without personal animosity, and in a civil manner. Therefore I’m not sure what “liberties” were not his to do so… is this a rewrite of the 1st Amendment, retire “conservative” style? Some FA comment rules I’m unaware of?
Which brings me to your comment in #409:
Unless you would like to attribute this to your less than clear language construction – which is possible for all of us to do at any time – that is precisely what you said about AIDS and life expectancy, meant to say, and it needed no distortion.
@MataHarley:
You said:
Then you said:
Did it not occur to you that perhaps the BSA leadership was just sick of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation and it was easier to fold to the pressure they have been getting for years?
Did I say that? Or are you back to twisting what I actually say due to your “impressions” of what I say? Damn, Mata, if it wasn’t for spin, you would be left speechless.
The rest of your post is just more example of you being a bitch and not worth responding to, although I’m sure you will attribute to me some nefarious reason for not doing so. It’s what you do.
@Redteam #453:
Economic convenience is a poor excuse to discriminate. If the Boy Scouts really wanted to stay “exclusive” of gays they could easily have done so. Sooner or later they might lose funding from governments, corporations and organizations that are committed to supporting only non-discriminatory causes, but that was their choice to make.
I remember all of the “mass-exodus” predictions when Blacks were let into the military, and when women were let into the military, and when gays were let into the military. Somehow, there were no mass exoduses.
If the BSA transitions from a large discriminatory organization to a significantly less descriminatory organization half the size of the original, I would say that is a good thing. The children and their families who decide not to participate will be the discriminators, and they SHOULD be the ones to suffer the consequences of their discrimination.
@retire05# 454:
“I guess you are not aware of the failure of SSM in Holland? No surprise. Research doesn’t seem to be your forte.”
I couldn’t imagine what you were referring to, so I DID some research on SSM Holland, and all I could find was this:
“Eleven years after the Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, homosexual couples still marry far less often than heterosexual couples, partly because they still face obstacles when they wish to have children.
Just 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married, compared with 80 percent of heterosexual couples, fresh figures by Statistics Netherlands show. (2013)
Since 1 April 2001, when the Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, some 15,000 gay and lesbian couples have tied the knot.
This showed me that while gay couples in Holland are still not wholly equal to heterosexual couples under Dutch law, 15,000 of them HAVE taken advantage of their newly-acquired marriage equality. I don’t count that as a failure. I don’t see any reason to expect gay and straight couples to marry at the same rates, particularly because most straight couples want children and most gay couples don’t, and one of marriage’s more substantial benefits relates to having children. I also don’t see any reason to measure success by the numbers of couples partaking. It’s about the RIGHT to marry, not about how many people exercise it. I don’t consider the First Amendment’s protection of free speech to be a failure because most people DON’T spew insults the way you do. See the connection?
@Redteam #453:
“George, you need a little humor in your life.”
Told you before: I’m a scientist. We’re not real swift in the humor department. If you said something funny, I missed it. Sorry.
@George Wells:
There is one MAJOR difference between the military and the BSA. The military is a FEDERAL organization, the BSA is a PRIVATE organization.
And families still have the right of association, until you queers decide to get rid of that as well, all under the cover of “political correctness,” or what is actually is, cultural Marxism.
@Redteam #456:
“George, how do we know your real name is what you say?”
I began employment at Virginia Chemicals in 1980. The company was bought by Celanese Corporation, which subsequently merged with Hoechst AG. During my work under a Dr. Donald M. Oglesby, I obtained U.S patent #US5114698, for the Stabilization of Sodium Dithionite. My name and the supervising manager’s name are on the patent. Google it. Then, if you are still skeptical, we can converse on sufficiently technical aspects of the instability of sodium dithionite that I am sure your doubt would be removed. I am who I say I am.
I can’t imagine why you remain anonymous. Are you ashamed of your opinions?
What occurred to me is they had multiple legal opinions that allowed them to do exactly what ever they choose to do. They’ve already weathered heavy controversy, and defended their policies in a court of law. No one knows, and that includes you and your speculation, but if “folding” were their reasoning, one would think doing so before all the legal expenses would have been more prudent. This goes back to the 80s-90s, with the SCOTUS ruling on membership criteria in 2000. The following lawsuits were mostly about challenging their access to federal or state funding. Some included them as a named principal. Others didn’t. Those had mixed results, and the DoD still continued to host and fund their Jamborees with judicial blessings. They even retained the rights to recruit in public schools via an Oregon Supreme Court decision.
What also occurs to me is that, as a private organization, they put it to a vote to those directly affected, and apparently came up with a decision you don’t seem to like. Their fate and future because of that decision lies in the hands of the public. I have no problems with whatever they decide, or how or why they decided it.
Again, this doesn’t come down to “impressions”. What you pondered, verbatim, was “How can a homosexual Scout declare ‘On my honor, I will try to do my duty, to God, and my country’ when homosexuality is an abomination against God?”
The most well known “abominations” are what the lay person calls the “Seven Deadly Sins”, as noted by Solomon in Proverbs. These abominations are pride, a lying tongue, murder, schemers who devise evil, those will “run” to mischief with no conscience, slandering and bearing false witness against others, and most importantly, those who sow discord, divisiveness and bitterness among men. I’d say it’s a pretty tall order to find kids, or adults for that matter, that haven’t engaged in lies, slander, pride and most especially sowing discord at some point in their lives. Seen plenty of that “kibutzing” on this thread already.
So if your criteria is that a kid who is a homosexual will have a hard time with swearing an oath to God, it also follows that so will many others – if not for the same sin/abomination. As I said, God and Jesus are not as intolerant as you, and that’s good for Christians. Hang, not even Rick Warren is as intolerant as you.
There is only one unforgivable sin… and that’s well out of your sphere of influence.
Your point? George Wells acknowledged their freedom to remain exclusive. The comparison to the military was not to any legal or government mandate, but to note that the same “mass exodus” theories were floated in the past.. and did not come to pass.
Nor did he suggest that a personal choice to remain segregated from those whom you (generic, universal, plural “you”) wish not to be associated with be removed.
He merely expressed the opinion… those are still allowed in your “liberties”, yes?… that parents and families who choose to segregate themselves based on discrimination against homosexuals will suffer their own consequences for doing so. While he didn’t expound upon specifics, I don’t see the benefit of teaching discrimination through the generations.
But of course I don’t expect you to respond to your full quotes INRE the life expectancy of AIDS patients today. Not much you can say, eh? Just trying to do you a favor. You keep asking where you were incorrect, so I pointed it out.
Your reaction is predictable… when cornered with facts, the insults and spittle fly in lieu. Which is why you decided to parse words with George – building a mountain out of a molehill of perceived victimhood – instead of graciously accepting the updates on the latest medical treatments.
@George Wells, I think I’ll be bypassing on the nuances of stabilizing dyes and bleaches for textiles and other sundry uses. Eyeballs are glazing already here….
But I will say that I don’t use my real name simply because I like to keep my work and political life/opines separate. Losing clientele because they don’t like your politics isn’t really much of a loss, but I am a red speck in a sea of blue here. If broached directly, I will answer honestly. However I see little reason for work and personal be so overtly entwined via social media and the Internet when it’s unnecessary and extraneous.
What comes to mind is that old saying, “you’ll never work in this town again”. You see there are lots of kinds of discrimination still alive and well… including political.
@MataHarley:
You were an excellent instructor, Mata. If anyone wants lessons in how to deliver
I’m sure you’re at their disposal.
@MataHarley #465:
You are more than graciously forgiven, as the point of identity IS extraneous/irrelevant and your reasons for anonymity are legitimate . I raised it only as an example of my own brutal honesty, which I take rather more seriously than other folk. I am also more or less free of reprisal, as I am long retired, a freedom you will eventually enjoy.
I think it’s interesting that red still doubts my identity. It has been my experience that people who frequently accuse others of lying are themselves afflicted with it.
That your perspectives and mine coincide frequently is helpful, as I have unsuccessfully argued here that I am basically conservative in matters other than the so-called “family values. I doubt that r & r have made the logical connection.
(Notice how I left that little blank for them to fill in incorrectly? Keeps it interesting…)
I once had a parakeet who would sit in front of a wee little mirror and spit at her image all day long. Remind you of someone we know?
@retire05 #464:
“There is one MAJOR difference between the military and the BSA. The military is a FEDERAL organization, the BSA is a PRIVATE organization.”
(I will remind you that your comment was a rebuttal to my assertion that predictions of mass-exodus often do not come true.)
That one is Federal and one is Private IS a major difference, but it is a difference that is irrelevant to the prediction of mass-exodus. Or are you suggesting that Federal folk can’t quit but Private folk can?
I don’t think so…
@George Wells: #461
Let me see if I understand you. If the present Boy Scouts that believe in God and Honor, etc all leave the organization to the perverts, then the organization will be much better off. Did I interpret you correctly? Would you object to a name change to that reflected the new nature of the organization, Boy Scouts and Enablers, or something like that? Just curious.
@Redteam #470:
I suspect that your REAL curiosity lies in just how insulting a proposition you can goad me into answering.
If you want to engage in a civil discussion, be civil.
@George Wells: @George Wells: #465, what’s this ‘kick’ about anonymous? Why aren’t you demanding Mata, and 99% of the commenters on this blog reveal their identity. You planning on sending someone to visit me when or if you discover who I am? As you well know, when you sign up to comment on a blog such as this, they don’t let you change your name from what you originally sign up as. You originally went to work in 1980 and you’re already retired. Interesting.