October 20th, 2009

#1771: That only took THREE MONTHS.

I should have posted this sooner, but after I finished working on the Escort engine--at 10:30 PM--I wanted just to watch anime and eat.

Ep 20 of Saki turned out to be wrong, so while it's downloading I figured I might as well post. (Somehow I got an episode of something called Shinkyoku Soukai Polyphonica Crimson S, whatever the hell that is.)

Anyway, this afternoon I took the engine off the engine stand; after House, MD was over I returned to the garage and continued. I got the flywheel mounted, the clutch installed...and had to take them all off again to put the cover plate on (argh) which goes between engine and transmission.

Reinstalled flywheel and clutch, and then put the transmission on. And the starter.

And so here we are: some three months after I originally removed the transmission in order to replace the clutch, the clutch has finally been replaced.

It looks nice, sitting on a furniture dolly and back in one piece.

Wednesday we are having two trees removed from our front yard, so I expect that I won't begin work on replacing the engine until Thursday at the earliest. But at least the damn thing is finally ready!

#1772: You didn't control anything.

Anita Dunn claims the Obama campaign controlled their message. But there wasn't any "control" there. The press didn't report only Obama's side of the issues because because of superior strategy or PR tricks; the press was 100% pro-Obama. Ms. Dunn could have waved evidence of the worst perfidy under their noses and they would have ignored it.

If the press had been even remotely skeptical of anything said by the Obama campaign, Ms. Dunn would be singing a different tune. But the press never asked Obama a single tough question, nor did it ever try to get the real story behind the obfuscations. And when a live broadcast inadvertently caught an average American citizen asking Obama a question which made him look bad--I'm talking about Joe the Plumber here--the press circled the wagons and did its level best to protect Obama.

This administration is fortunate to have a press which is willingly sacrificing its credibility with the American public in order to support their Dear Leader. Sooner or later the press will realize what they're doing to themselves, and the hagiographic coverage will end...but by then it'll be too late.

Or, who knows? Maybe they'll realize what's happening and not give a rat's ass.

* * *

As a demonstration of this principle, the mainstream media are not bothering to report Ms. Dunn's praise for Mao who is one of the most murderous communist thugs in history.

Mao and Mother Theresa are her two favorite "philosophers"? How the hell do you manage that with a straight brain? Mother Theresa was an unparalleled humanitarian and Mao was a power-mad psychopath. WTF?

* * *

The White House claims Fox News is not "news". Well, when you're purposely excluding a major media outlet which is the top cable news channel I guess you've got to have some excuse....

Moron.org is telling Democrats not to appear on Fox. (Sorry, did I say "moron.org" when I should have typed "Moveon.org"?)

The Democrats and their loony left supporters are telling us exactly where we are strongest again. Fox is the only organization saying "boo" to Democrats; naturally they are trying to do their damnedest to marginalize it.

* * *

Feminists burned their bras to show their independence of the "patriarchy". Now I understand why leftist feminists support islam and Sha'ria: because it mandates that women may not wear bras, so everyone has to sag equally.

Doesn't this sound like gender equality to you?
The insurgent group Al Shabaab has sent gunmen into the streets of Mogadishu to round up any women who appear to have a firm bust, residents claimed yesterday.

The women are then inspected to see if the firmness is natural, or if it is the result of wearing a bra.

If they are found wearing a bra, they are ordered to remove it and shake their breasts, residents said.
WTF where the hell can I get that job? You get to make women take off their tops and shake their boobs at you and you don't have to shove money into their G-strings? WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS GLORIOUS ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN?

* * *

It is probably not far off the mark to say that the "economists" who are always quoted by the media are probably alumni of the Ivy League.

I bring this up because "economists" are saying "Higher jobless rates could be new normal".

Only an alumnus of the Ivy League could take a situation which is the result of high taxes, government intervention in markets, and stupid energy policies--all of which are bulwarks of the Democrat party--and try to tell us that it was because of:
• The auto and construction industries helped lead the nation out of past recessions. But the carnage among Detroit's automakers and the surplus of new and foreclosed homes and empty commercial properties make it unlikely these two industries will be engines of growth anytime soon.

• The job market is caught in a vicious circle: Without more jobs, U.S. consumers will have a hard time increasing their spending; but without that spending, businesses might see little reason to start hiring.

• Many small and midsize businesses are still struggling to obtain bank loans, impeding their expansion plans and constraining overall economic growth.

• Higher-income households are spending less because of big losses on their homes, retirement plans and other investments. Lower-income households are cutting back because they can't borrow like they once did.
Point one came about because of high taxes, an energy policy which focused on conservation rather than increased supply, government policies which artificially expanded the markets for housing, and a vastly expanded money supply leading to inflation.

Point two happened because high taxes means fewer workers, "conservation" doesn't help when the demand for energy increases too much, and the artificially inflated housing market collapsed.

Point three is the result of high taxes and the housing collapse.

Point four: housing collapse, high energy prices, high taxes, and inflation. The dollar has lost 15% of its value since the beginning of this year, which is why gasoline jumped $0.25 in one week.

I should not have to recount the history of the past three years to explain why we are now in a huge freaking recession, one bad enough that--were there a Republican in the White House--it would be reported as a "depression" rather than a "great recession".

The worst part of all this is that we haven't hit rock bottom yet. The budget deficit for 2009 is $1,850 billion dollars and next year's deficit is projected to be $1,500 billion. The US government is printing money; people who formerly held US currency as a good investment are rethinking that and starting to move into other currencies such as the Euro and Yen. This is only going to result in a falling dollar.

Understand this: it cannot be otherwise. There are too many dollars in circulation.

The Democrats are not unaware of this; they're planning to pull back those dollars just as quickly as they can by increasing taxes. But that's where their plan falls down: higher taxes won't fix the problem; in fact it'll only make it worse, because higher taxes drive prices up. If you are trying to prevent inflation, an inflationary measure is not the way to go.

The people who are telling us that the worst is over are blowing sunshine up our skirts. And they're only telling us that because their guy is in the Oval Office.

* * *

Tomorrow two trees are being removed from the front yard.

One is a maple tree which has graced the south side of the driveway since the house was built. It got bumped by the Blue Bomb and got a chunk knocked off of it; and that proved the avenue for rot and disease. Even so, it was doing fine until 2005-ish, when all the maple trees around here got some weird fungal disease which made these weird puffy white growths pop out from under the bark on the thin branches. It drizzled sap on everything and this tree was greatly weakened by the disease.

It got better, but about a third of the three is dead; we already had the tree guys come once and take out a bad chunk, and we can't keep having them do that. It'll cost too much, and the end result will be the tree being taken down anyway--better to have it removed in its entirety in one "swell foop".

The other tree is an elm. The elm tree is in fair health but it's just too damn close to the house, and we're worried about the foundation. So it's got to go, too.

Anyway, in preparation for the work, I needed to clear out the driveway. The Escort needed a can of Fix-a-Flat but was otherwise simple to move, and once the ailing tire was inflated I drove it around a bit and parked it in the back yard. The Jeep merely needed me to drive it aroud the block.

The Fiero, though--the Fiero needed a new battery. The one that was in it died; lead-acid batteries dislike being fully discharged and the car had sat, immobile, for months. The battery wouldn't even take a charge any more, and if I wanted to start the car, I had to jump-start it.

Today I went and got a battery. $80 with tax and a new pair of terminal posts. The Fiero uses side-terminal batteries, and the cable ends were missing their original posts. I had a couple of charging terminals which did the job, but I wanted the right parts.

Put battery in, Fiero started right up.

Tomorrow morning I'm going to move the Fiero and park it on the south side of the lawn. That ought to do.

Damn it, I want to drive that car.

#1773: I should have expected this.

Holly comments on my post about removing her blog from my blogroll.

"I find it telling that you defend straight pride as not homophobic, then spout off massive amounts of homophobia," she says.

The "homophobia" I "spouted" is simply a recitation of the things I've observed about the homosexual culture and lifestyle. The same way, I suppose, it is "racist" to point out that the majority of murders are committed by black men, it must be "homophobic" to point out the real failures of the homosexual lifestyle. She says, "...'straight pride' and 'white pride' as currently used are codewords, and you're showing it pretty clearly in this post, which reads to me as 'straight pride is no better or worse than gay pride... EXCEPT IT'S WAY BETTER BECAUSE GAYS ARE DISEASED PEDO PERVS.'" So let's just accept that, for the moment, and examine why I said "GAYS ARE DISEASED PEDO PERVS".


Holly says, "HIV and some STDs are proportionately more prevalent among gay men--which is unfortunate, but having safe sex and being selective about partners is just as good a prevention as abandoning your entire sexuality," but that neatly avoids the biggest problem with the homosexual lifestyle, which is promiscuous and anonymous sex, frequently unprotected.

The real hardcore homosexuals don't have safe sex nor are they exceptionally selective about whom they play with. The links I provided to Zombietime were meant as examples of this sort of behavior; and it has been a consistent type of behavior for a very long time. HIV/AIDS is as bad as it is in the United States because homosexuals in the 1980s didn't wish to give up promiscuous anonymous sex. And by "promiscuous", I might add, I mean literal hundreds of partners per year.

Does every homosexual do this? No. There are plenty who don't. There are plenty of homosexuals who are monogamous; there are plenty who wouldn't dream of cruising a sex club or bath house.

But it's not the way to bet, and the statistics don't lie: if you're a homosexual man in the United States you are in the A-number-one risk category for HIV/AIDS, to the point that the Red Cross doesn't want your blood even though it's possible to test for the disease. It's not just HIV/AIDS; it's all the STDs, and hepatitis besides. Homosexual men are not known for their self-restraint; there are plenty who won't touch another man without some kind of latex barrier between them--but these men are a minority, however slim the difference may be. If you engage in unprotected sex with a homosexual, bisexual, or "man who has sex with men" who doesn't self-identify as homosexual, you are significantly increasing your risk of contracting one or several STDs.

It's bad enough that if you are a heterosexual man who has sex with a woman who has had sex with a bisexual man, your risk of contracting STDs increases dramatically. So, "diseased"? Statistically speaking, yes. Check.

By the way: "Because a thing is dangerous does not mean it's debauched or disgusting or morally wrong; I don't see skydivers getting this kind of shit." A skydiver is only risking his own life. One man jumping out of an airplane has a certain risk of dying; but his risk-taking does not increase (or decrease, in fact) the next guy's risk of piling into the ground at 300 MPH.

It's different with STDs. Condoms can break. Assuming you bother to wear one in the first place.


Holly also contends, "Exact numbers don't elude me! In a year-long emergency-room study, only 2 out of 269 cases of child sexual abuse were committed by a gay or lesbian adult."

An examination of emergency room statistics isn't much proof that I'm wrong about the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals. The study she cites claims 269 cases went to the emergency room; how many did not? How many cases of child sexual abuse occurred in the area serviced by the hospital? (And how many cases of child sexual abuse occurred in that area which were not even reported until years later?)

"Another study of 175 child molesters found that none of them had homosexual relationships with adults." It's a common tactic to say that homosexual pedophilia isn't true homosexuality. If that's so, why aren't the child molestors having relations with children of the opposite sex? Why do they target children of the same sex? If a child molestor is truely not homosexual, shouldn't he (or she) prefer any child? Shouldn't Joe Molestor's list of victims have an approximately random distribution of sexes, according to what opportunities he found?

With which adult sex do homosexual child molestors have sex, then? Saying they have had no adult homosexual relationships does not indicate they necessarily had heterosexual relationships with adults. Joe Molestor likes little boys, but has Joe Molestor ever showed any interest in being with women his own age? And what do the statistics show?

It turns out that the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25% (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78). That's anywhere from 10-25 times higher than in the heterosexual population, depending on what figure you accept for the prevalence of homosexuality among the general population. Among heterosexuals the incidence is only 1-3%.

Do I have to point out the existence of NAMBLA and its links to the homosexual community?
There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that: 'pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition…' (Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1-24.). There is an overlap between the 'gay movement' and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality. (Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)
Taken from here because it's a good summation of some of the evidence I've considered over the years.

Or how about A Zomblog post about Harry Hay, NAMBLA, and Keven Jennings?

"Pedo"? Again, check.


I regard homosexuality as perversion.

All right, WTF, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of my business; I don't care. I never have cared. Perverted behavior, in and of itself, doesn't bother me in the slightest...as long as it is carried out in the proper venue.

I could link the relevant Zombietime pages again; I could find other links to photographs of "gay pride" events. The point I'm trying to make here is that "the proper venue" is not a public place.

The stuff you see people doing on the Zombietime pages, for example, do not belong on a city street, and it doesn't matter who is doing it--gays, straights, martians, whatever, regardless of who is present to witness the event.

In the case of "pride" parades it is somewhat worse. A "street fair" which is widely promoted as being a venue for fetis sex has at least a chance of keeping children from seeing what's going on; but a "pride" parade typically showcases many of the same behaviors, slightly sanitized, where children can see it happening. And I strongly believe that sexuality--particularly fetish sex--is not something a child needs to witness.

But "for the children!" is not my main reason for being against such public displays. Children are more resilient than we give them credit for being.

I'm against it because it's not polite.

Part of having a functioning and healthy society is the maintenance of decorum. Public drunkenness, for example, used to be frowned upon. Our society used to expect people to dress to a certain minimum standard; and we used to expect people to behave within certain parameters.

Some of those rules had to go. But not all of them; and in the process of getting rid of the ridiculous and unfair ones, we got rid of the ones which we really should have kept.

I don't consider it polite to shove your sexuality in someone else's face. Hell, I don't consider it polite to shove your religion in someone's face, either. I don't go around telling people with rainbow bumper stickers, "You'd better get straight, or you'll go to hell!" I've never hung over my girlfriend and licked her tonsils in public, or grabbed at her private parts. I behave this way because there is a time and place for such things and it's not in public.

The perversion that bothers me the most about homosexuality is the "public" and "anonymous" part. I keep coming back to that because it represents its single greatest failing; "anonymous" removes any emotional involvement from the action, giving it the emotional involvement of passing a stool: they do it for the relief, not because there is any attachment to the person they're with. People become nothing more than public accommodations. It is empty.

Pervs: check.

* * *

My attitudes toward homosexuality are not knee-jerk reactions, "OMG that's disgusting!", but considered opinions. I had to be forced into it; in my younger days I thought, "WTF, let 'em do what they want." And in fact, I still think that; but I have amended that to "...as long as I don't have to see it."

The statistics don't lie: the homosexual lifestyle brings with it a host of bad things, and ultimately it is destructive. I have never been offered any proof to the contrary; and Holly's comment did not change that trend.

My "homophobia", as she termed it, is the sin of noticing these things and deciding they are bad enough to warrant a disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle is not something to be proud of.

A man would be considered a skunk if he anonymously had sex with a bunch of women and contracted diseases (and transmitted them) and fathered a slew of children out of wedlock and never bothered to wear condoms. Why is it okay for a gay man to behave that way? Why should the gay man be allowed "gay pride" for engaging in such destructive behavior?

If homosexuality consisted of people who like being with members of the same sex--if it didn't bring with it the disease and mental health issues and the other things--I would have no cause for concern. As I've said, I really don't give a rip about what people do in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else--but that's the rub; it does hurt other people.

Why? HIV. The spread of HIV could have been greatly slowed in the early 1980s. The CDC figured out that AIDS was caused by some kind of virus and wanted to contain the contagion by shutting down the bath houses and sex clubs where homosexuals did their thing.

A lot of the homosexual activists of the day claimed that AIDS was a "hoax". The homosexual community fought tooth and nail, and sued, and the bathhouses and sex clubs stayed open.

A city will shut down a hot dog stand if someone throws up after eating there, but we couldn't shut down the places which fostered the spread of a new, incurable, and fatal disease because the homosexual community didn't want the party to end.

The government was allowed to do nothing to stop the spread of the disease; HIV blew through the homosexual community like fire through a hayloft because "safe sex" hadn't been invented and no one was allowed to tell them to stop...and hundreds of thousands of homosexuals died of AIDS in the next decade.

...and before they knew they were sick, many of them donated blood. AIDS was around for years before the HIV test was developed, in 1986...and so many people who needed blood (or blood products) before then got HIV. And many of them died.

Would HIV have spread if the sex clubs and bathhouses had been shut down? If the CDC had been allowed to implement measures to prevent its spread? Yes. But it would not be as widespread as it is...and a lot more gay men would still be alive today. And a lot of other people who had needed blood from 1980-1986 would also still be alive today.

* * *

In summation, then: I make these points to lay out the reasons I have for not supporting "gay pride".

At the root of my complaint, though, is that "gay pride" is code for, "I'm here, I'm queer, and IF YOU DON'T LOVE ME FOR IT YOU'RE AN EVIL BIGOT".

I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle--I think my reasoning is pretty clear--but I am not about to insist that homosexuals have no right to be gay. I don't have a problem with gay people nor do I have any desire to prevent them even from expressing their pride. I am tolerant of them because I believe this is a free country and a person is who he is, whether I like it or not. I won't discriminate against someone because he's gay; if I were, for example, in the position to hire someone, his sexual orientation would not be a factor, the same way his race or sex would have no bearing on the issue. I would be very concerned with his ability to do the job I was hiring for; what he did with his genitals in his off hours would not matter. (It would only matter if he brought overtly sexual behavior into the workplace: getting a hummer in the supply closet from that cute twink in the mailroom is verboten regardless of where you work.)

But according to many, my attitude of non-accepting tolerance is "homophobic". Homosexual activists have essentially defined it that way: if you are tolerant but not accepting of them and their behavior, you're a homophobe and a dirty nazi bigot.

If that's "homophobia", I guess there's not much I can say.