I find more hypocrisy in this current convention of “political correctness.” You can hardly say anything anymore to which someone does not take offense. When I was with The Flirtations (we were in Canada somewhere), my colleague, Jon Arterton, used “ladies” onstage one night, and some persons of the female persuasion got all bent out of shape. I wondered, Is that a bad word now, too? I know that some women don’t like to be called “girls,” but neither word should be made taboo either. In fact, in many cases, it’s used as a term of endearment. “Girl, you are the bomb!” Women use it amongst themselves all the time. There are hundreds of songs, movies, TV shows and books which contain “girl” in the title. So these gals need to lighten up and get over themselves. Do they actually think that the entire world will stop using ladies and girls on their say-so alone?

Just recently a high school teen was called on the carpet by her principal for wearing a T-shirt with the word “FEMINIST” written across the front. This woman deemed the word to be objectionable or offensive in some way. Just like those clueless Canadians, if this stupid bitch does not know the meaning of a certain word, she should not impose her ignorance on her more enlightened students.

It should be all right, too, for people to have their own personal vocabulary preferences. Nobody has the right to decide for others what words to use to convey the same thought, especially if the word has nothing to do with them personally and is not a hurtful slur or insult to the person. So if I prefer to fart instead of “break wind” or “pass gas,” that’s my business. You can’t forbid me to use certain words.

For instance, I happen to prefer the term “bitchfight” to describe women in physical combat. But some persons consider it not to be P.C., and use the term “catfight” instead. Excuse me? Why is their term more proper than mine? They are likening women to scrapping felines while I choose to honor the dog. What’s the objection? If they want to read more into bitch other than its literal meaning, then that’s their problem. Like the aforementioned school principal, I shouldn’t be held responsible for other people’s misinterpretations. Besides, the word has lost some of its mean intent. “That outfit is bitchin’!”

If you need more justification for my choice of terms, bitch is more appropriate anyway, as it refers to a female by definition, whereas cat is gender non-specific. Alley tomcats may fight with each other, but human male street gangs don’t indulge in “catfights.” That term is used only when women are involved. Besides, women refer to themselves and each other as bitches all the time. Why is it not all right when I do it? Tina Turner took Elton John’s “The Bitch Is Back” for her own musical statement. Any woman who would resort to public pugilism probably is a bitch. I don’t feel the need to be that respectful toward her. Incidentally, there was a proposed TV series about a group of female werewolves, appropriately titled, “Bitches,” and there were two recent sitcoms, one with the title, “GCB,“ which stands for “Good Christian Bitches,” and the other is “Don’t Trust That Bitch in Apt. 23.” The female hip-hop group in the current series “Queens” bill themselves as The Nasty Bitches. So there!

I wish people would stop being so damned touchy about everything! Of course, there are nicer, less offensive ways of saying things, but some people take it to the extreme, to the point of absurdity. For example, I think it’s better to call people with disabilities “physically-challenged,” because they are, and it has a more positive connotation to it than “handicapped.” If something is a challenge, it would suggest that one is at least making some kind of effort. When you’re handicapped, it could mean that you are unable to do certain things and you’re not even going to try.

Consider that the term “disabled” is rather meaningless whenever it is used. The truth of the matter is, nobody can do absolutely everything. So that would make us all disabled in some way, wouldn’t it? Beethoven became deaf at an early age but continued to compose great music up until he died. He couldn’t hear but was disabled only in that respect. On the other hand, there are people with excellent hearing who have no musical ability whatsoever. So then, they could be considered disabled as well. Similarly, look at all of Stevie Wonder’s musical talents. He just can’t see. Since I am unable to converse fluently with anyone in any language other than English, then I have certain lingual disabilities, for example.

“Hearing-impaired” and “sight-impaired” are nice terms, I suppose, but deaf and blind are just as good. The people who are either of those don’t seem to mind either. However, to refer to short people as “vertically-challenged” or to bald people as “follicly-challenged,” I think is taking it a bit far.

Speaking of “little people,” calling them midgets and dwarves have become taboo, although I don’t know why. They are merely defining terms for distinguishing types. Dwarfism implies some malformation or disproportion of body parts, whereas a midget is normally-formed and proportioned, they are just shorter than normal. If you are one of those types, why are you offended to be called thus? The actors portraying the Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz (1939) were all billed as midgets in the credits. I don’t think any of them took offense, as that is how they referred to themselves.

Drag queen actor Charles Busch now bills himself as a “gender illusionist,” disc jockeys/deejays are referred to as “sound designers,” secretaries have now become “administrative professionals,” butlers prefer to be called “household administrators,” and an orphanage is now a “juvenile refuge.” While driving cross-country, be sure to take notice of the “ground-mounted, confirmatory route markers,“ or “road signs,“ if you will. One TV contestant said that her occupation was a “pharmaceutical sales representative.” Isn’t that a drug dealer? And a “sexual surrogate” is really a prostitute. Then a professional matchmaker (like Dolly Levi, for one) is a kind of pimp. Many of these more polite terms are, of course, meant to be funny—like calling homeless people “urban explorers” or a person who is brain-dead, “electroencephalographically-challenged.”

The office workplace has become a hotbed of controversy especially. It’s gotten where you can hardly say anything to anybody without them taking offense or your being accused of sexual harassment. You can’t compliment anyone, you can’t flirt, even a smile or wink at a fellow worker might be misconstrued. You can’t tell any jokes or anecdotes, for they might contain something that will offend someone. While using your computer, you must be mindful of what you type. Someone might be walking by and notice an objectionable word on your monitor screen and complain to the boss. These new rules for office protocol have made for a very cold and humorless workplace, I would imagine. So another one of our most cherished rights, freedom of speech, is being gradually taken away from us by the same people who granted it to us in the first place—our dear Government.

Some whites apparently consider me to be the official spokesperson for the entire nation of People-of-Color. “What do ‘you people’ like to be called now? What is the current politically-correct term?” ‘Wipe your ass-king me for? Cow shit I know?’ I reply. I’m not the one who establishes the mores of political and social protocol for my entire race. It’s not my wont or responsibility. And not everybody is going to agree on the same term anyway. I have a name. Just refer to me by that. And who is it who decides for all the world what everybody should be called?

But for the record, I don’t object to any of the more benign terms used to identify my people. Just as I have chosen to refer to female homosexuals as “sapphists” to distinguish them from the people who actually live on the island of Lesbos, I also have chosen to use “Afro-American” over “African-American,” because African does not always or necessarily mean Negro. There are various non-black nations in Africa, which are inhabited by Arabs, Jews, Dutch, English people and other Caucasian sects. A white person born and raised in Algeria, Egypt or South Africa, for example, and who later settles in the United States, could by rights be referred to as an African-American. Actor Basil Rathbone, one for instance, was born in Johannesburg to British parents but lived most of his life in Hollywood. As white as he was, I don’t expect that anyone ever thought of him as an African-American, although that is what he was. The same can be said of actor Charlize Theron. So my use of “Afro-” for black Americans then indicates a definite distinction.

But even that designation seems unnecessary. Citizens of America are simply that–Americans. Why do any persons other than whites need an identifying prefix–Asian-American, Hispanic-American, Indian-American? Whites who originated from Europe at some point are not referred to as Anglo-Americans or German-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, etc. They are simply Americans. Why can’t we all be thus? Even the term Native American is redundant. Anyone who is from the country where they reside is a native. So I and the several generations of my family before me, having been born in this country, are Native Americans. The American Indians who are referred to with that term themselves, too, all came from someplace else originally, most likely across the Bering Strait from Asia. So I and many of us are just as “native American” as they are deemed to be. Moreover, all black people living here now are not even from Africa. There are many Caribbean islanders and other locales who have nothing to do with Africa.

Also, it has been declared (by somebody) that Asians, or people from the Far East, should not be referred to as “Oriental” anymore. Why not? Is that considered offensive now, too?
“Asian” is equally vague, as it does not specify anyone’s actual nationality. Neither term indicates where anyone is actually from. So, why the change? Who is it that makes all of these monumental decisions for the whole world what certain people should be called, and, too, why do we have to go along with this unknown person’s edicts? If the former term was okay at the time, what happened that it needed to be changed to something else? I don’t understand.

Incidentally, I think that “Negro” is perfectly acceptable, since the word means black anyway, so what’s the difference? I don’t know why some of my folks still object so strongly to it. I remember the time (before the late ’60s) when to call each other black was quite insulting. Since we are all of varying skin tones and shades, when somebody called me black, I took it literally. I’d be quick to tell them that I am not black! I am brown-skinned. That Nigerian guy there is black. In fact, most Indians—I mean those actually from India originally—and even some Latinos consider themselves “brown.” They are not really black, and they are not white either, so they are brown by distinction. It took me and a lot of people I know quite a while finally to accept being called black without taking offense.

And even now the term seems so inappropriate to me. For instance, do actor Halle Berry and former Secretary of State Colin Powell look black to you? I know some “white” people who are darker than they are. In fact, very few Caucasians, if any even, are actually white. Once I accepted these terms as figurative rather than literal, they don’t have the same negative connotation as they once had. So then, “colored” people is okay with me, since that’s what we all are. (You should check out my article on Color Issues.)

Darkie, nigra and pickaninny, too, are harmless enough, just archaic. Similarly, I find no offense with the German schwartzer or the Yiddish equivalent, shvartzer, which comes from their word for black. We have also been referred to non-viciously as brother, coon, dinge, soul, spade, spook, toe, and although I don’t encourage nigger for common usage, I don’t consider it absolutely taboo either. It’s a perfectly good word for certain situations. It all depends on how it’s used and by whom.

Realize that the word itself comes from the Latin word for black: niger (with a hard g) has only a slightly different spelling and pronunciation, so how did the word become so derogatory and offensive in the first place? It wasn’t to the Romans. A black person encountered in Ancient Rome was referred to as a niger, without any malicious intent. The whities, in turn, would be called “albus,” from which we get the word albino.

Similarly, when Southerners and others referred to us by that term, they weren’t usually doing it as a putdown. That’s just what we were called, just like in Rome. And then there are the African country and river Niger, which does have a different pronunciation than the Latin word. It must have been some blacks themselves who started taking offense when the word was used for them. But then, some don’t like “Negro” or “colored” or any word to identify our race, and every term used, it seems that someone objects to.

It was comic actor Chris Rock who made the observation that in this day and age, the only thing that a white person cannot do without recrimination is publicly use the word nigger. They virtually can get away with anything else—lying, cheating, stealing, murder, rape, every type of abuse—even after conviction, anything they do is eventually forgiven or justified. But now when a white person makes a racial epithet in public, and especially calls somebody “the N-word,” it’s no longer accepted and tolerated as it was in the past.

It must be sobering for them to discover that there is this single word that they can’t use without reprimand and to be made to suffer the ensuing consequences of its utterance by them. They have discovered that they shouldn’t use the words niggard and niggardly either, as they sound too close to the other word. It’s advised that they use the synonyms stingy and miserly instead. So, Ebenezer Scrooge, for example, is no longer a niggard.

You know, even in this instance of controversy, the whites still want to be in control. Since they are not allowed to use the N-word ever, they have forbidden anybody to use it, even black people. “If I can’t say it, then you shouldn’t be allowed to say it either.” It’s basically our word, and we can’t even use it? An episode of the ABC sitcom “black-ish” did a brilliant satirical take on the subject. For a school talent show, the middle son, Jack (Miles Brown), of the Johnson family performs a rap number which includes the N-word and which he had learned from hearing his father, played by Anthony Anderson, say it often. The faculty and administration are so horrified that they proceed to expel the boy from the school. Thus begins some thought-provoking discussions which exposes the hypocrisy connected with the word.

In addition to the previous statement about its being off-limits to everybody regardless, it’s noted that white Paula Dean used the word which resulted in thousands of dollars of publicity backlash, but in her favor however, and white director Quentin Tarantino used the word numerous times in his Django Unchained as did Shelley Winters in A Patch of Blue (1965) and both received Oscars for it! But a little 8-year-old black kid innocently utters the word without any malicious intent and he gets expelled from school! The boy wasn’t even referring to anyone in particular. He just needed a word to rhyme with “gold-digger.“ It’s also brought up that we shouldn’t be called Negroes anymore, unless one is referring to the Negro College Fund or the American Negro Theater. And we are not “colored” anymore either, unless you have to mention the NAACP. So there is a “yeah, but…” in every case. Kudos to the writers of that episode. It is right on.

So this is the situation. Like all words that someone may find offensive, it’s all about intent. How the word is used is what makes it unacceptable. Although they could use a different expression, if a black friend of mine casually said to me, “Nigga, please!” it doesn’t have nearly the effect as a white, arresting police officer ordering me to “Get in that cell, Nigger!” It’s not even the same word. Pronunciation has a lot to do with it, too. So the rule of thumb is, use the word only in private or with individuals who you know will not take offense with its utterance because the intent is not dishonorable. No one can stop anyone from using the word, but if they choose to do so, they have to be willing to suffer the consequences of their action. I am so sick of certain individuals deciding for everybody in the world what we should regard to be offensive or taboo. Somebody does not like a certain word, so nobody is allowed to use it ever? Who the fuck are they to decide such things? Caveat loquitor–Utterer beware.

The co-hosts of “The View” reported one day on two incidents of bad behavior by Justin Bieber and Jonah Hill, when they used the word faggot in a public setting. I hope I am not in the minority about this, but I do not regard the use of faggot to be in the same taboo vein as the utterance of the “N-word.” Being both black and gay myself, I think that I can make a fair assessment. I realize that there are those who object to faggot because of the word’s dubious history and the very negative connotations originally associated with it. But they should also realize that many words change their meanings and connotations over the years. Lynching, for example, was an acceptable practice for some once upon a time. So now that it isn’t, should we never use the word again? Well then, director David Lynch and actors Jane Lynch and John Carroll Lynch had better change her names! Someone can find virtually any word offensive. And do! More recently actor Matt Damon was called out by his young daughter for using faggot, which she deemed to be unacceptable. What does she know? She hasn’t been around long enough to be so well-versed on such worldly matters.

For myself, I happen to like the word faggot. Most words have multiple meanings and are defined by who uses them and in what particular context. Unless one is referring to a German bassoon or a bundle of sticks, both of which are inanimate objects, faggot can be only one other thing. It’s exclusively our word, and we should claim it as our own. It’s derogatory only if we ourselves consider it to be. If you render a certain word non-derogatory, then people won’t use it for that purpose. Similarly, many “sapphists” don’t mind being called “dyke” or “bull-dagger” or “muff-diver.” There was even a sapphist rock ‘n’ roll band who called themselves The Dyketones and a motorcycle club called Dykes-on-Bikes. They are all just identifying words.

It’s not so much the word itself, anyway, but the shame attached to the accusation. It doesn’t matter what term is used if you don’t like who you are. When the terms don‘t even refer to you personally, why should their use bother you? But if you are what they say you are, then just own up to it. “That guy just called me a faggot!” “But ya are, Blanche! Ya are a faggot!”

I suppose that there always have been short-sighted people who lack any vision for progress and future innovations and will try to thwart and discourage somebody’s often revolutionary ideas. There are those who reject the notion of human individuality and diversity and think that either “nobody” can have a thought other than their own or conversely, that “everybody” thinks the same way as they do. What follows is a chronological list of some of these historical “pooh-pooh naysayers,” as I like to call them.

“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy.”–Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.”–Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.

“The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.”–Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873.

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”–Western Union internal memo, 1876.

“The Americans have the need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.”–Sir William Preece, chief engineer, British Post Office, 1878.

“It may be good enough for our transatlantic friends…but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.”–British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison’s light bulb in 1878.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”–Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”–Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”–Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1914.

“Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”–1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work.

“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?”–David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in 1922.

“Blacks are mentally inferior, by nature subservient, and cowards in the face of danger. They are, therefore, unfit for combat.”–U.S. Army War College Study, 1925. [Maybe we just are not all that gung-ho about committing anonymous mass murder!]

“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”–Harry Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”–Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

““Walt, I predict that this Snow White idea of yours is going to be the biggest disaster ever. Nobody will want to see it, and it will be the financial ruination of the Studio.”–His own brother and studio manager, Roy Disney, 1934. [During production he and others referred to it as “Disney’s Folly.” The film grossed 8 million dollars in its first year, the equivalent of 100 million today. They also tried to discourage Walt’s desire in 1954 to create Disneyland, calling it impossible, unnecessary and a worthless endeavor. You see how that turned out.]

“I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.”–Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in Gone With The Wind, 1938.

“We should cut ‘Over the Rainbow’. It’s not at all important to the plot and besides, it slows the action down in the film. It‘s also undignified for a star such as Judy Garland to be singing a sappy song in a cornfield.”–The producers and editors of The Wizard of Oz, 1939. [Even if that were true, so what? It won the Oscar for Best Song that year, by the way.]

“I sat cringing before MGM’s Technicolor production…which displays no trace of imagination, good taste, or ingenuity…I say it‘s a stinkeroo.”–Film critic Russell Maloney in The New Yorker, reviewing The Wizard of Oz.

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”–Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

“Television won’t last because people will tire staring at a plywood box.”–Movie mogul Darryl Zanuck, 1946.

“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
—Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949.

““It’ll be gone by June.”–An editor of Show Biz magazine reporting on the future of the rock ‘n’ roll genre, 1955.

“I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.”–The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
–Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

“You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training.”–Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the “unsolvable” problem by inventing Nautilus, 1967.

“But…what is it good for?”–Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.”–Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads, 1968.

“The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible.”–A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service, 1973. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.

“It’s simply too vulgar for the American people. Let’s dump it and take a loss.”–The head of distribution for Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, 1974.

“So we went to Atari and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And they said, ‘No.’ So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t need you. You haven’t gotten through college yet.'”–Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer, 1976.

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
–Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

“A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make.”–Response to Debbie Fields’ idea of starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies, 1977.

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”–Bill Gates, 1981 [So, why didn’t you stop there, Bill?]

Did you know that J.K. Rowling’s first Harry Potter book, H.P. and the Philosopher’s Stone, was rejected by 12 publishing firms before it was finally given the green light by Bloomsbury? I can only imagine some of the reasons for their disinterest. “Who wants to read about a boy wizard?” “Nobody reads fantasy fiction anymore.” “Rowling is a woman. I don‘t want to take the chance on a woman writer.” I’ll bet all those publishers really regret their decision now! That was 1995. When the seventh and last book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was released in July 2007, it sold 11 million copies the first day in just the U.K. and U.S. alone.

Some pooh-pooh naysayers also once told Fred Astaire and Debbie Allen that they couldn’t dance, and they told Bette Davis and Lucille Ball that they couldn’t act. Sophia Loren was told that she could never be a movie star, because “your nose is too long, your mouth is too big, and you can’t act.” The director of Le Cordon Bleu in Paris told Julia Child that she had no aptitude whatsoever for cooking, one of Jack Lemmon’s deans at Harvard told him that he would never amount to anything in his life, Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team for incompetence, and Steven Spielberg was rejected from attending USC Film School!

I have been subject to this kind of negativity in my life and career as well, people telling me what I shouldn‘t be doing or what they think I am not capable of. While an oboe major at Indiana University in 1967, for example, when it was determined that after just three years of playing the instrument, so I was not yet a virtuoso and never intended to be, one of the music professors there, a violist (so why was he even on my jury?), and who did not know me at all, actually told me that I would never make it as a serious musician and that I should get out of music altogether. How dare he! The oboe isn’t the only thing in music to do.

It‘s good that I and the rest of all these previously-mentioned talented and enterprising visionaries didn‘t listen to those “dream squelchers” and went on to pursue our various callings anyway. As a result, I have enjoyed a long and successful career as a professional musician (including playing solo oboe and in various ensembles), the end of 2023 marking 71 years in the business! So, fuck you, Dr. Winold, who is most likely dead by now anyway! I might have suggested to him at the time that teachers are supposed to encourage students, not discourage them. So why doesn’t he get out of teaching altogether, since he sucks at it!

Due to the fact that for most of my life I have had to budget my money, I have learned by necessity not to spend frivolously and always to try to get the best deal when I purchase anything. Along with developing sales resistance as I have gotten older, I also know how to negotiate with peddlers and sales clerks and such. Never go into a transaction with the attitude that you are so desperate and just have to have this item right now today, because the salesperson will test you to see how badly you want it and how much they can get from you for it. I just decide how much I want to spend for something, and if I think it’s too much, I let them know and will attempt to walk away. If they want to get rid of the item badly enough, they will usually play the haggle game with me. Street peddlers are fun to deal with. I have gotten normally expensive items for next-to-nothing at times—used books, music scores and records for one or two dollars apiece, for example.

Some years ago at a Manhattan street fair one day, I encountered a peddler who had a brand-new Trivial Pursuit board game for sale. I wanted it so I asked him how much he wanted for it. He told me, “$20.” I happened to know that they cost more than that in the store, but I didn’t want to pay even that much for it. So I got out my wallet and said, ‘Oh, shoot, I have only seven dollars on me.’ The guy said, “Okay, I’ll take it.” So he went from $20 down to $7 in one fail swoop. He most likely had not paid that much for it himself, if anything. I thought, Well, that was easy! I should have tried to hold out for a lower price than that. When you impress upon these people that you don’t really need something or that they are charging too much, they’re going to try harder to get you to buy it. They figure that any amount of money is more than nothing at all, isn’t it?

Another time I bought a wallet on the street for $20, which was more than I wanted to pay for it. But it turned out to be a good deal and well worth it. It’s sturdy and of good quality, and it’s held up for many years now. It has a separate compartment for coins and many slots for credit cards and such.

We hear the word affordable used a lot these days by the media and even our Government. “Affordable healthcare, affordable housing…” But the word has no definite meaning. It’s vague and arbitrary. One’s affordability varies from person to person or between families if they operate on a combined income. We are not all in the same financial situation, and they talk to us as if we were. What you can afford depends entirely on how much money you have or earn. If everybody could all afford the same things, there wouldn’t be any impoverished or homeless or hungry people in the world. We’d all be riding high on the hog. In my particular case, there is no decent housing anywhere that I can afford. Before I began receiving Social Security, I could barely maintain the apartment in which I currently reside. Now if they adjust “affordable” to accommodate everyone’s individual monthly income, then the term might have some validity to it. I would be able to afford the item because it would be priced according to my personal finances.

I watch a lot of television, so of course, I can’t avoid the endless commercials that we are bombarded with constantly. They are not all bad, however. Some are quite clever and amusing, but most of them are just annoying and stupid. Any claim that an advertiser makes has to be the absolute truth. They never lie, right? Don’t believe everything that they tell you. “Get ‘em while supplies last!” they’ll announce. When a product is selling well, you just order more for your customers. It’s supply and demand. You don’t stop manufacturing an item that the masses are clamoring for. Several times now, when the Disney Corporation has released one of their feature films on video (and DVD), after only a few weeks they will announce to the media that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (or whatever) will be for sale only until [some near date], then will be unavailable forever after.” Come on, I don’t believe that. It’s just another selling ploy. Why would they take their best-selling item off the market? There must be those, though, who believe such hype. “Ooh, I’d better rush out right now and get my copy of Peter Pan! I won’t be able to buy it after this week.” Yeah, right.

One marketing maneuver is the “Make-Them-Think-That-They-Are-Saving-Money-When-They-Really-Aren’t” ploy. Merchants like to entice us into buying something that we don’t really need, just because we think it’s a bargain. You know, when you see those so-called markdown sales—that garment “usually costs $200 but it’s being marked down today for only $75,” and you think that if you buy it, you’ll be saving $125? What a deal! These people are not in business to do us special favors. Where is their profit in an offer like that? That “$200” garment probably cost the store only $25, if that much, so they just made $50 off of you while you think that you just saved $125! How do you know that something is being “marked down” when you don’t know what it cost originally? They can tell us anything. They tend to mark things up first to make us think that we’re getting some kind of discount. “This is a $50 value, but we’re selling it to you for only $14.95!” Wow, they sure are losing a lot of money in order to give little ol’ me such a good deal. Yeah, sure they are!

“Special magazine subscription for Guns and Ammo! 12 issues for just $29.97! Take advantage of this great offer and save $5.43 off the newsstand price!” I can do better than that. Why don’t I just decline your kind offer altogether and “save” myself $35.40? How about that? You’re not saving any money by buying something that you don’t need in the first place.

I was “pre-approved” to receive the “American Express Optima True Grace” credit card, which boasts “extraordinary savings” over other cards. The premise is that the card gives you an extra 25 interest-free days before any finance charges are incurred, therefore “saving” me a considerable amount of money each month. But since I always pay my entire bill every month and maintain a zero balance, I never incur any finance charges anyway. So in my case, I’m not saving anything. I passed on that one, too.

This was an actual ad: “Our FREE HMV CD Wallet is worth over $25. You can buy it for just $4.99 at any HMV (His Master‘s Voice–it was a record store). On the other hand, why not get it for FREE? The HMV CD Wallet is ABSOLUTELY FREE with any purchase of $50.00 or more at HMV.” Hunh?! What am I, an idiot spendthrift? I could buy the thing for $5, but if I spend $50 or more at their store, they will give it to me for “free”? And this one. “As we are so anxious for your business, we’re going to give you a video absolutely FREE!” Then in the very next sentence, “For a nominal $10.00 handling fee, you’ll receive your FREE video!”

I saw a TV ad for Weight Watchers with Oprah Winfrey as their pitch person. The commercial ended with the claim, “Join Up for FREE”, then directly below that they put, “Purchase Required”. What?! Do people actually fall for such hype? When they announce that an item is “free” and then add “…with the purchase of…” it becomes a conflict of interest. It’s like “over and out” where the two options cancel each other out.

Whenever they include an additional item along with the thing that you have to pay for, instead of the misleading and inappropriate “free,” they could use the phrase “at no extra charge.” Or they will say, “Buy one, get one FREE“ instead of just saying, “Two for the price of one.” There is a brand of men’s deodorant stick for which they charge $1.50 for the 2.25 oz. size. At other times you can get a 3.25 oz. size for the same price but which boasts, “Bonus Size 30% More Free.” What’s free? You are just getting a larger size of the product for a designated price. Many grocery items come with more than one item in the package. A carton of eggs does not boast, “Buy 11, get one free!” A package of English muffins: “Buy 5 and get one free!” We are not getting anything for free. The price on the package refers to the entire contents.

One sales method to be aware of is the old “Bait-and-Switch” routine. That’s when they attempt to reel you in with some enticing offer, and then once they get you, the deal drastically changes to something else, but in their favor, of course. Some years ago I got suckered into joining a mail order book club. I’ll even tell you who it is so that you can watch out for them. It’s the Quality Paperback Book Club, or QPB. They sent me their promotional brochure, claiming that I could order four books from their catalogue for $1 apiece. This would give me membership into the club with no obligation to buy any more books. I thought that was a pretty good deal, so I selected four books and sent in the application. “Send no money now, we’ll bill you later.” You would think that I should know better, that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

When I received my books, the enclosed bill said that I owed them $17.31! Now, how did $4 become $17 all of a sudden, I wondered? Well, the price of my “enrollment package” somehow doubled to $8.31, and there was a little matter of $9 for “postage and handling.” Look, I don’t mind their charging whatever they want for their books. It’s their right. I just don’t like the false advertising and the dishonesty displayed. Just be up front with people. Do they think that if they tell you how much you are really paying for the books, you won’t want to take advantage of the offer, so they choose to lie in order to rope you in?

The mail order record and video clubs operate in much the same way. These clubs also award “bonus points” which entitle its members to “FREE” books and records occasionally. “All you pay is postage and handling,” they say. Oh, really? Since this amount seems to be arbitrary, they can charge whatever they want. But whatever amount they designate, the item is no longer free, I’m sorry. In one of the ads for Vonage they declare, “Pay no more than $25.99,” then directly beneath it they add, “Plus local and state taxes and fees, shipping and handling and activation fee.” So that first statement is already a lie. Those extra taxes and fees will certainly bring the amount well over $26.

I received an offer to join a local health club/gym, giving me the first month “FREE.” I decided to go check it out, try it for a month at least and then cancel if it didn’t work out for me. Well, not only did I not get a free month, but they wanted me to sign up for a whole year. You see, the deal was this. Instead of charging the full amount of $900 for a year’s membership, you’re charged only $825, thus receiving one month for “free,” you see. What am I getting for free? If they charged me by the month and I didn’t have to pay them anything for the first month, then that’s one thing. The way they have it worked out, all I am getting is a discount, if that’s what it really is. How do I know what the real yearly fee is? They could tell me anything. I just divide the full amount by twelve to get the monthly rate. So then, I’m not getting anything for free, am I? Again, why do they have to lie? If they make these claims just in order to get us to bite, we are going to find out what the real deal is eventually, so why not just be up front about it, to save us all time?

I was watching an infomercial on TV one night that was hawking the revolutionary My Pillow. I was interested so I kept it on, waiting for them to tell me how much it cost. They spoke of the pillow’s praises and fabulousness for a half-hour, and when they finished, I still don’t know how much it is! “Call the number on your screen to order. This promo code will give you 25% off.” (Off of what?) “Ten-year guarantee!“ Are they hoping that I want this pillow so badly that money is no object, that I will pay whatever they ask for it? No, I won’t. How much is the damned thing?

In fact, I have become wary of TV promotional ads anyway. They got me once, so now I am on to their scam, er, scheme. They make their products sound so enticing. It’s always some useful item, like a kitchen or household gadget or grooming aid or diet plan, something we all would like to own. Then they will add on extra items and features to sweeten the pot. “Risk-free guarantee. And if you call this number right now, we will double your order and waive the shipping and handling fees!“ Plus they make the price of the thing very reasonable. How can we turn it down? Initially, it was only one item for a certain price, but if we act now, we can get four of them for the same price. Why are they being so generous? It must not be costing them anything. And how do they know that I am calling “right now”? Those commercials run practically every day all day long for months at a time, so right now could be any time. They don’t care when you call, only that you do.

So you call the number to order, and the person on the phone starts to bombard you with other offers, like magazines, vacation packages, book clubs, all sorts of stuff. “No, I just want the lens repair kit advertised on the TV.“ They eventually take your order, which you pay for by credit card. And that is what they are really after–your credit card number! Once they get that, they’ve got you. When I got my next credit card statement, in addition to the charge for the item I ordered, there were more charges for other stuff that I did not order. You can call the company to complain, but they don’t care about that either. It’s a win-win situation for them. You tell them to take off the unsolicited charges, and they may agree to it, but they will take their own sweet time to do it, if ever. So in the meantime, your account gets all screwed up. I mean, they already have their money, because VISA has paid them. So now it’s the credit card company that you have to deal with. Whereas I normally always pay the full amount on my bill every month, when I disputed those unwarranted charges and refused to pay them, it caused me to incur finance charges and subsequent late fees that won‘t go away until you pay it. And now that they have your credit card number, those con artists can keep right on putting charges on your card if they want to. These scam companies also work the internet, so be careful when you order anything from there as well.

As far as added fees go, sales taxing is a bother to me, too. It’s not that I mind paying it, I just don’t need to know about it. I’ll see this big garish sign, “Special today—99 cents!” But a dollar is not enough. I have to give the cashier $1.08. So why not have the sign read, “Special today—$1.08! (tax inc.),” since that’s what it actually costs? Or better yet, just make it an even dollar. That’s blatant false advertising when they do that. I mean, if the sales tax were optional—“If you are feeling particularly magnanimous today and would like to give our illustrious Government a little extra amount for this item (based on a suggested 8&1/4% per dollar), your total comes to $216.50. However, if not, just give us $200 even. Thank you.” But since it’s not an option, then why even tell us about it?

In fact, I wish they would do that in all buying instances. I think that the practice of pricing things at less than the nearest dollar is silly, too. $499.99 is $500. Why don’t they just say that? Do they actually think that we think that the other price is cheaper? It’s additionally silly by the fact that when they do add on the sales tax (and in the case of mail order, postage and handling), it’s going to be more than $500 anyway. Don’t even mention to me the sales tax and service charges and handling fees and such—none of that shit. Just tell me how much money you want from me for this purchase, okay? You can then divvy up the proceeds any way you want. I don’t need to know from it.

In the matter of income tax deductions, I realize that we all have to pay our share in order to help run the country. But I would like to have some say-so about how my tax donations are spent. I don’t like having my hard-earned dollars going to support wars and exorbitant defense expenses, which I am totally against. Maybe a lot of taxpayers don’t mind giving their money to the Government so that they can kill people, but I, for one, don’t like doing that. I would rather it be spent for education, health care, the arts and social services, for example. Just like the tax return forms ask us if we would like to donate a portion of our earnings to support a politician’s campaign, they could ask us to designate exactly for what we would like our money to be used, just as if we were giving to our favorite charity.

Speaking of which… I am reminded of the celebrities that go on TV game shows as contestants, but instead of winning money for themselves, they will donate their earnings to their favorite charity instead. “Oh, how kind of them to give all that money to a worthy cause.“ But it’s not their money, is it? It’s really the show’s producers, or whoever, who is making the charitable donation. The celeb merely acts as the middle guy for entertainment, ratings and publicity purposes. But they can still submit the money in their own name and receive a tax write-off for it. So they don’t lose anything, and it benefits others as well as themselves.

Let’s get back to media advertising ploys. Some products will introduce a version that is “new and improved.” If it’s already the best thing on the market, as they claim, how can they and why do they need to improve upon it? Pine-Sol came out with “Professional Strength” (whatever that means) Pine-Sol, which is supposed to be better than regular Pine-Sol. So given the choice, why buy the regular Pine-Sol when the “Professional Strength” one is supposed to be so much better? They are creating competition for themselves. They also claim that one bottle of Pine-Sol is equal to several bottles of other (unnamed) brands. The woman (the same one that is used in all of their ads) then says that that’s proof that Pine-Sol is the best. What proof? Again, just because you say so doesn’t make it so. They are paying you lots of money to say that!

One Pine-Sol alternative product is the “Never-Wash-With-Dirty-Water-Again” option. This one has something in it that draws the dirt from your mop to the bottom of the bucket, leaving the water therein clean. This woman shows us two buckets, made of some clear substance so that we can see inside. But the bucket with the purported dirty water in it, because this special Pine-Sol wasn’t used, is a light, chocolatey-brown color. Whenever I mop with a bucket, the water is always black or at least a dark gray. What would cause dirty mop water to be brown? They must think that homemakers have no minds of our own and will believe anything that we’re told. And why would they think that brown water looks less disgusting than black water? They could be mopping up shit for all we know!

“Are you tired of changing the bathroom tissue roll? Then get Charmin Triple Roll! It lasts three times longer than the regular roll!” Yeah, but…it still will run out eventually and will have to be changed, just maybe not as often. I mean, how much work is that? “I get so tired of changing the toilet paper roll! What can I do about it?“ The same goes for those Energizer batteries that “keep going and going.” Those commercials go on as if their product will never run out! Nothing is forever.

Then there are products that they want you to use a lot of so that you will need to buy more. Some drain cleaners, for one, instruct you to use the entire bottle to clear out a clogged drain. The stuff is expensive, too, and they expect us to buy a new bottle every time we get a clogged drain. If the stuff is supposed to be so good and powerful, why do we have to use the whole bottle for one little clog? One of them, Liquid Plumr, along with its regular product for bathroom clogs, now has one made specifically for kitchen clogs, or so they claim. So the one that you’ve already been using for the bathroom sink is not good enough for the clog in your kitchen sink. You have to buy, in addition, Liquid Plumr Kitchen for that purpose, you see. Do people really fall for that?

“We have sold over 20 million bottles of Lipozene. That proves that it works.” No, that only means that you suckered a lot of people into ordering your product, if that sales claim is the truth, that is. Their say-so is not proof of anything. You won’t know if the thing works until you’ve tried it yourself for the first time. That’s like when a new movie opens in the theaters. “Inception took in 15 million dollars during its first weekend. It must be really good!” No, that only means that a lot of moviegoers went to see it right away. It has nothing to do with how good the film is. Will the statistics be the same in the following weeks, when word has gotten around about it? It wasn’t, by the way.

Then there is the elderly couple, “Maureen” and “Raymond,” who used to do the Phillip’s laxative commercials. In all of them Maureen was always embarrassing her husband by revealing to strangers that he suffers from constipation. Each time she gives him Phillip’s to relieve his problem. After many years of this TV ad campaign, I began wondering, if Phillip’s is supposed to be so effective, why is Raymond still constipated all the time? If they had used different actors in subsequent ads, we could then assume that Raymond’s problem has been taken care of.

There is a commercial for Rid-X that boasts the power to kill household pests–roaches, ants, whatever–for good, and prevents against re-infestation. So this woman comes on and declares that Rid-X is so fabulous and effective and says that she has been using it for years. But if it’s so good and effective, as she says, why is she still having to use it all these years later? That’s like Tallulah Bankhead’s comment about the ineffectiveness of cocaine. She said, “Cocaine is not addicting, dahling. Why, I’ve been taking it for years!“

Do these ad people even listen to what they say in their sales pitches? Chicken Man Frank Perdue used to do his own TV commercials until he died, and now his son does them in his place. In one ad Frank Jr. boasts and shows us how well he treats his chickens, giving them free range and the best chicken feed available…just before he kills them! Similarly, the regular cartoon spokesman for Starkist Tuna is Charlie Tuna, who proverbially sells his own homies “up the river,” as it were. “Starkist wants tuna that tastes good! Take my wife…please!”

But the ones that I found to be so ludicrous were the commercials for Wrigley’s Extra chewing gum. A woman was on a Whale Watch, and her chewing gum reportedly lost its flavor, so while she was looking (literally) in her coat pocket for another piece of gum, she missed seeing the whale jump out of the water. The voiceover told us that if she had been chewing Wrigley’s Extra, she wouldn’t have had to look for another piece, as the flavor lasts extra long. How does he know that the woman wasn’t chewing Wrigley’s Extra and the flavor had finally run out right at that moment? But the part that gets me is, who “looks” in their garment pockets for anything? One needs only to feel around in there to retrieve something. It’s too dark to see anything anyway, so why are you looking?!

Then there was another one (for the same product) with an astronomer waiting for the appearance of Halley’s Comet. But he, too, missed it because, as the thing was whizzing by, he was looking in his jacket pocket for a piece of gum! “Aw, gee, now I have to wait another 75 years!” he bemoans. I think that it served him right, for being so damned stupid. And, too, both of these idiots couldn’t have waited a moment longer to replace their gum? They had to have it at that exact second? Give me a break!

A guy takes a single, thin, flimsy paper plate and loads it up with a pile of food and then attempts to transport it somewhere by holding the food-full plate by the very edge with only one hand. Of course, the weight of all that food causes the plate to give way and spill everything all over the floor. Now anybody with any presence of mind would know better than to do that. How about holding the bottom of the plate with both hands when you lift it? But for you nincompoops who can’t figure that out for yourselves, Dixie has a solution for you. Why don’t you purchase their more sturdy paper plate so that when you hold it by the edge with one hand (why do you refuse to use both hands?!), it won’t fold so readily. The basic single-ply plates are not completely useless, however. They work for lighter fare, like cheese and crackers or hors d’oeuvres, perhaps.

Another one that gets me is the Pringles commercial where they show people getting their hand stuck in the Pringles can while trying to get those last chips at the bottom, instead of just tipping the can. Who does that?! The hapless victims that fall prey to this unavoidable fate are a college professor, a judge and a surgeon! If this can happen to the likes of these purportedly-intelligent professionals, then it can happen to anybody, I guess. And somebody is actually paying those ad people (and a lot of money, too, I’m sure) to come up with these ridiculous ideas!

There is this “new” Colgate Total toothpaste whose big claim-to-fame is that it continues to fight cavities and germs between brushings. What?! Is that something new and revolutionary? No other dentifrice has this amazing effect? So what they are telling us is that up until now, all of our teeth-brushing has been all in vain and effective only for the moment, because apparently Colgate Total is the first one “that is so advanced that it keeps working between brushings!” Can they stop?!

But they later topped that commercial with an even more ridiculous one. A human couple are in the woods and encounter a cartoon beaver flashing a big, toothy grin. The woman asks, “Mr. Beaver, how do you get your teeth so white?” The beaver replies, “I use Colgate White Toothpaste!” Now, do they actually expect us all to run out and buy this product on the endorsement of a talking, cartoon animal?! If it works that well on a non-existent creature, then it must be good, right? Again, do they think that we will believe and buy anything? And why this current preoccupation with teeth-whitening anyway? People have always had teeth, so why now, all of a sudden, do they have to be the whitest and brightest than ever?

Charmin has an ad campaign that features families of cartoon bears to sell their product. A trio of blue bears prefer the softer variety, while three red bears hawk the stronger one. The fact that none of these bears have anal cavities, and even if they did, they don’t wipe their asses after a shit or use toilet paper, makes these commercials all the more preposterous. And why did they make them blue and red? I suppose that if humans were used as their subjects, it would prove too real.

Advertisers are always trying to convince us that we are not perfect and that their product will make us better or at least as good as everybody else in the world. We must always have and be the cleanest, the whitest and the brightest. By the same token, another advertising tactic is trying to shame us into buying a certain product. There was a TV commercial for some detergent (who can keep them all straight?) that featured a group of young boys (there were about 5 of them) executing their karate moves for their parents. It was like a student demonstration. They all were wearing their little white karate uniforms, but the outfit of one of the boys was slightly dingy, not as white as the others’. The mother of the dingy boy was so embarrassed because she didn’t use Tide (or whatever) on her family’s clothes; now she has to suffer the public humiliation. The boy was doing his training very efficiently, so what if his shirt is not as perfectly white as his teammates’? Is having the whitest white one’s ultimate goal in life? They’re telling us that we can’t truly be a success in life if everything we have is not the whitest and brightest.

Some detergents claim to be able to get out milk and blood stains, but what about the more difficult ink stains, cum stains and shit stains, or is that what they mean by “protein” stains? Then some of them try to play upon our naïve gullibility by telling us that if we don’t use a particular product, we will miss out on some very important opportunities in life. We must always keep milk in the house, for instance, so that when those contest people from that radio quiz call, we won’t get caught with our mouth full of cake and not be able to answer the question! Plain water or any other beverage will not suffice, mind you. It has to be milk. Give me a break! They like to create these very specific scenarios that probably will never occur in one’s lifetime, but you should always be prepared by buying their product, just in case it might happen.

Other advertisers exaggerate the truth and make meaningless claims to sell a product. I saw a Campbell’s Soup TV commercial that boasts that only fresh mushrooms are used in their soups. Now, my question is, Fresh as opposed to what? Frozen? Dried? Synthetic? I would assume that all of their ingredients are fresh at one time, until they are processed, and since all their soups are canned, how can they be “fresh”? That process alone negates their fresh claim. While I’m on the subject of mushrooms, here is a question I have pondered for a while now. Who first discovered that certain mushrooms were edible? Was it a trial and error situation? I mean, after somebody tried one that turned out to be poisonous, who was willing to keep doing the taste test until they found one that was non-fatal?

I am not impressed by brand names on consumer products, per se, by the way. I don’t care who makes it or what they call it, I just buy the product. My only criteria are the ingredients, the quality and the price. I do prefer certain brands over others, but not because of their names. I just like that particular product. I happen to prefer Quaker’s Quick Grits over the store’s lesser brand, for instance. But I would buy the other one if it was as good as Quaker’s, and I will buy a generic brand over a name brand just because it’s cheaper, especially if the contents are basically the same. I mean, mayonnaise is mayonnaise to me. It doesn’t have to be Hellman’s. Aluminum foil is just that. Writing “Reynolds” on the box does not make it any better. I love the guy in the TV commercial who would say, “Will you please pass the jelly!” He is the only real person at the table. All those other pretentious snobs say, “Will you please pass the Polaner All Fruit.” Come on, who would say all of that? Tell it like it is. Just pass the damned jelly!

There must be many brands of cottage cheese on the market. I expect they all are made and processed the same way. I mean, it is what it is. There is a TV commercial with a repetitive jingle that insists, # Only Daisy Cottage Cheese will do. # So of all the brands there are from which to choose, only Daisy Cottage Cheese will do. I declare.

When I shop for greeting cards, I pick out the special card that I want. It doesn’t have to be a Hallmark card, necessarily. Talk about your needless commercials! The sole sponsor of TV’s “Hallmark Hall of Fame” is, of course, Hallmark Cards. Now why would they need to spend all that money to advertise such a thing? People who, like myself, buy greeting cards on a regular basis (or at least, I used to), select them for the occasion and the message conveyed therein. Who goes looking specifically for a Hallmark card, and who cares what brand of card it is? I suppose there are those, though, influenced by those ads and who are unable to think for themselves, who probably do seek out Hallmark cards specifically. I, however, am not that easily impressed.

In fact, and I hope I am not the only one, although I don’t really care if I am–I have thought about this and have come to the conclusion that all commercial advertising is completely wasted on me. Other than the aforementioned ads that I did succumb to years ago, anything that I buy nowadays is something that I need or want, not because I saw a commercial for it. There is hardly anything advertised on TV that I personally purchase or have any use for. Even when I go grocery shopping, I don’t seek out the products that I see on TV. I get what is available at the particular store I’m in. Many of my regular staple items are things that I never see advertised anyway.

There are a lot of food and chain restaurant commercials on TV, especially late at night–Applebee’s, Arby’s, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, whatever–that show fresh, crisp, enticing food, which always looks better on TV than it does in real life, by the way. Do they really expect me, or anybody, to drop what we are doing, namely, watching our favorite shows, get dressed, go out into whatever weather it happens to be at the time, and find one of these places at which to eat, which are probably not open, and it’s not even mealtime?

There is other needless advertising for certain products and companies. Once a product has been introduced and established into mainstream consumerism, people will either make use of it or they won’t. For instance, who does not know what Coca-Cola is? Now I don’t mind visual advertisements on billboards, magazines and the like, and there is enough “product placement” in movies to remind us, so we don’t need to see soda commercials on theater trailers and television as well. Everybody knows about McDonald’s fast-food restaurants. They are virtually everywhere. People frequent them because they want to, or they avoid them. I don’t think that advertising McDonald’s on TV is going to make anybody go there any more than they already do. TV advertising should be reserved for introducing new products on the market or special offers—you know, tell us something we don’t know about.

We all know the fast-food stores’ menus—they don’t change all that often. And even when they do, who cares? “Oh, look! Mickey D’s has a double cheeseburger now. Ooh, we must go there to check it out!” “But the only McDonald’s is way on the other side of town. There is a Wendy’s right here. They have double cheeseburgers.” “But I want to go to McDonald’s!”

I believe that people make their eating choices by preference and availability, not by advertising. The millions (even billions) of dollars that McDonald’s and others spend yearly on advertising could be used for much worthier causes. Just recently McD’s employees were asking that their minimum wage be raised, and the company has resisted their request. Well, here’s an idea, Mr. Kroc (or whoever). You could use a portion of your advertising budget to raise all of your employees’ salaries, and it would not make a dent in your overall annual profits.

Another unimpressive selling ploy (at least, to me) is advertisers trying to convince us that their product is “the best that money can buy.” If the product does exactly what it is supposed to do, then its degree of performance is unimportant. Why does it have to be “the best,” and how do we know what the best is anyway? The best implies that a thing of better quality than this does not exist anywhere. How can such a thing ever be determined? Theoretically, there is always something somewhere better. So what difference does it make? If it does the job sufficiently, then that’s all I require. Some people equate “the best” to be the most expensive. The best lawyers are the ones who charge the highest fees, and the best doctors are the ones most in demand and with the respected reputations, for example. There is an unfounded belief that the more one pays for something, the better it has to be, so then the less expensive something is, the poorer the quality it will be. Neither of these is always the case. I have paid a lot of money for things that turned out to be lemons and I have gotten some really top-grade stuff for very cheap.

A case in point. I like drinking vessels, mugs especially, so my souvenir purchase from Harrods in London was a frosty mug which cost me $10. After just about a week I noticed cracks appearing in the plastic and very soon the thing began leaking and became unusable. I soon found the very same kind of mug at Jack’s, my favorite discount store here in NYC, for one dollar, so I bought it, partly as an experiment. This one lasted me for many years, intact and developed no cracks. So my cheapie dollar mug apparently was made of sturdy, good quality material, while that tourist con job, which cost me ten times as much, turned out to be a flimsy, inferior piece of crap.

Some merchants have the nerve to put a price tag on defective inferiority. I go into a store that has two portable CD players for sale. One is priced at $25 and the other is $75. The two machines are pretty much the same except for the difference in price. So naturally I buy the cheaper of the two. The time I get home, the thing is already acting funny. I’m told by friends, “Well, what do you expect? You paid only $25 for it.” But $25 is $25! My point is, if the damned thing don’t work, they shouldn’t be charging anything for it! “Dear Consumer, as this item is a worthless piece of shit, there will be no charge to you. Accept it at your own risk” Caveat emptor (Buyer beware). In other words, if you want just to throw your money away, then buy this item that is no good. But if you want one of some quality, then you’ll have to put out a lot more.

Jack’s had clothing items in the store from time to time–T-shirts, caps and socks–selling for only a dollar apiece. Most of the time these items were of fair quality. But this one time I bought some socks (in a package of 3) that were so crappy that they started unraveling as I was putting them on for the first time! I wonder if some people take any pride at manufacturing when they can turn out such inferior products with no sense of guilt or shame. I suppose that there may be those who don’t like to wear anything more than once, so these socks would be suitable for those individuals. “Disposable socks! Wear them one time then throw them out! They won‘t last beyond that anyway!” Just be honest with people. If we choose to purchase them anyway, then it’s nobody’s fault but our own, as they tried to warn us about it. I soon after purchased a new contour sheet for my bed at another store which sells household goods. As I was applying it to my mattress the very first time, I noticed that the corner seam had already given way and was split! And that was $20 this time, which I don’t consider all that cheap. A friend of mine bought a wall clock for his apartment, and by the second day one of the hands had dropped off!

When the Tutankhamen exhibit was making its rounds in 1977, I saw it when it was in New Orleans. After we left the museum, Lloyd and I visited some of the souvenir shops in town where they were selling, for the tourists, replicas of the artifacts that were on display in the exhibit. We had just viewed the real articles—masterpieces of artistic achievement that those ancient Egyptians put their blood and sweat into to create and have held up intact for over 3000 years. So those tacky, inferior imitations that were mass-produced on an assembly line, that probably would not endure a minor drizzle, simply paled in comparison. The stuff looked so cheap and phony, I wouldn’t have any of it in my possession. Have they no shame at all?!

There are some exploitative crooks in this country who hire so-called illegal aliens to work in sweatshop clothing factories for very little money. The scam is that they make regular, generic garments and then put fraudulent designer labels on them. So the merchandise is manufactured very cheaply and then sold for lots of money to distributors who may or may not be in on the racket.

I don’t have the same criterion for material items and visual art, however. I would not spend a lot of money to purchase any work of original art, for example. If I like a certain picture or painting, a copy or reproduction of it will do just fine. It doesn’t have to be real cotton, real leather, real fur or real precious gems either. What do I need with a diamond? Other than monetary value, what practical function does it serve?

I don’t care about designer labels on articles of clothing. I buy shirts, pants, socks and shoes. Fit ’em, git ’em, thank you. I just buy what I like, I don’t give a hoot who designed them. Once while on tour with the New York Vagabonds, I had forgotten and left my black costume shirt at home. While changing planes at the airport, I stopped in a clothing boutique to see if they had a similar one that I could purchase. The salesgirl there was glad to help. She showed me a nice shirt that was appropriate for what I needed. Then she showed me the price tag on the thing–$400! For a shirt?! I don’t think so! She said, “But it’s an Armani, sir.“ I told her, ‘I don’t care if it’s a Stradivarius, I’m not paying $400 for a shirt!‘ Why would anyone? I will go nekkid first. I don’t pay for names. It’s only a piece of fabric. Then there is the brassiere created by Victoria’s Secret, with all kinds of precious gems sewn onto it, which they assess at 2.5 million dollars! I would think that given the choice, any woman would go without a bra, if she had to pay that much for one.

The actual cost of any item is completely arbitrary anyway. A thing costs only what the merchant chooses to charge for it and what we choose to pay for it. That is evident in any auction or bidding situation. The items up for sale have no specific cost or real value. It costs whatever the bidder is willing to pay for it.

New York City is a place where one can pay almost any amount for anything. I heard of a Manhattan eatery that charges $100 for a pizza! And apparently there are fools who are buying them or they wouldn’t be able to get away with it. So what if it has things on it like caviar, truffles and gold shavings!? There is no food item that I would pay $100 for. It’s sinful besides, for somebody to refuse to give that homeless person they just passed on the street one dollar, then go in there and pay $100 for a pizza. Why don’t they give that money to charity and order a sandwich or something?

I live right next door to a chichi Japanese restaurant. I have not eaten there and I expect that I never will, but I did check out their menu one day, posted out in front. Everything is so grossly overpriced, and the most expensive entrée I found on the menu is their whole Peking Duck, served with caviar–$285! When I saw that, I gasped in horror. Who in their right mind, even though they can afford it, would spend that much money on a single food item that they don’t even need? Give me $300 and I’ll let you have this delicious whole roast chicken that I purchased at my neighborhood deli for only $5.00. You do like chicken, don’t you? Does it have to be Peking duck? Considering that someone would not eat out alone in a restaurant such as that, with the other meal items–appetizers, salad, beverages (wine and other liquor), dessert and tip–for only two people, their bill could come to well over $500…for one meal! I could eat very well for three months or longer for $500.

On Queen Latifah’s show one day an audience member won a designer handbag which she said retailed for $1300! (For “a handbag?!?!?”) I was sent a complimentary issue of the chichi Dujour magazine, which apparently caters to very expensive tastes, judging from the ads and features therein. Whoever sent it to me must not know who the hell I am, because I can’t afford anything in there, or rather, I choose not to purchase anything in there. The magazine itself costs $7.00 an issue! There is an ad for some designer wristwatches, one of which costs $30,400! And that’s not counting the sales tax and probable luxury tax to be added on. That is utterly outrageous for a watch, something that is easily stolen or lost or damaged. I don’t know who this Hublot is, but I wonder how they can stay in business charging such ridiculous prices for their creations.

Out of curiosity I went online to see what this Hublot guy is about. The least expensive watch on his list is $300, already too much, in my opinion. But then I came across one that the asking price for is $134,000! Are you clutching your pearls as I did? Now I ask you, what selfish, inconsiderate person would pay that much money for a stupid watch? I don’t care if it has parts made of 18-carat gold and whatever else. My $10 generic brand watch that I got at K-Mart is sturdy, durable and keeps perfect time. If something happens to it, I just replace it with another one. I would hope that a person wearing an expensive watch like that doesn’t go around bragging about how much it costs. He would just be inviting potential thieves and muggers to relieve him of his property. So if he keeps that information to himself, is that enough to justify his having it at all?

If somebody told me that they were considering purchasing that particular watch, I would tell him, ‘So, since you need a new watch and you apparently have all this money at your disposal, I’ll tell you what. You give me the $134,000–I won’t even charge you sales tax–and you can have my perfectly-good watch in return. Is it a deal?’

Alexandra von Furstenberg also wants to sell me a set of eight monogrammed, plastic (well, “acrylic”) coasters for $110! I got my set of thick cardboard coasters given as free souvenirs on a cruise ship. You may be saying, “You’re just an old cheapskate!” No, I am practical and frugal. Not ever having a lot a money, I don’t spend it unnecessarily. While you are trying to impress people with your extravagance and pomposity and putting yourself in tremendous debt in the process, I have these same items in my possession, but I am totally debt-free! So there!

I recently learned of some more extravagances for the filthy rich. If you think that that $100 pizza is a bit much, how would you like to have “Dinner in the Sky,” where diners are hoisted by crane 150 feet in the air for a 4-course meal? Prices vary but start at around $400 per person.

If you prefer to stay on the ground but want to throw away your money, you can go for chef Paco Roncero’s “gastronomic show” dining experience in Ibiza, Spain, at which you can enjoy a fabulous meal that includes music, dance, illusionists and a light show projected on the walls and table. This runs upwards of $1,000 per person, which does not include the cost of airfare to Ibiza or lodging accommodations.

Still not satisfied? If you have $10,000 to spare, why not get the prix fixe dinner at the Wynn Encore Hotel in Las Vegas. What do you get for that much money? Certainly nothing that I couldn’t do without. In addition to your gourmet meal, you are served their special cocktails made with very expensive, rare cognac and champagne, fresh-squeezed orange juice and apricot puree, and served in a jewel-encrusted glass. (Whoop-dee-doo!) They also throw in some souvenirs for good measure–for the gentlemen, 18-karat gold cuff links and for the ladies, an 18-karat white gold necklace with a Tahitian black pearl.

The Houstonian Club in Houston, Texas is an exclusive gym/country club to which one has to apply for admission. When approved they then fork over a $25,000 initiation fee, then after that the cost is only $350 a month. The facility has several tennis courts, several pools, a rock-climbing wall, and of course, every conceivable exercise program.

Hey, do you want to smell really good? Well, if you have $5,500 to spare, pick up a bottle of Clive Christian No. 1 for Men Pure Perfume, which offers a deliciously irresistible blend of lime, bergamot and Sicilian mandarin. The bottle itself has to be luxurious, too, made of Baccarat crystal, 18-karat gold detailing and a cut diamond.

Even if they can afford it, I think it’s downright sinful to spend their money on such unnecessary frivolities and whims, when it could be used for more important things. But the way it is, if you want to pay a lot of money for something, you can, and if you want the same thing for very cheap, you can find that, too. You just have to know where to shop.

At Jack’s I found a block of imported French brie for $1.29. At the Food Emporium grocery store down the street from me, they have the exact item–same brand, same size–but they want $9.50 for theirs! Now if one store can sell the thing for a little over a dollar, it must not cost them even that much, or they wouldn’t be making any kind of profit from it. So for the other store to be charging almost ten times as much, they are really getting over on people, that is, those who don‘t know any better. Some stores sell empty jewel cases for CDs for a couple of dollars or more apiece. I know a store in the Village where I get them ten for one dollar! And for me, it’s worth the trip down there to get them. I keep a supply of them for my many homemade CD projects.

I absolutely loved my aforementioned “dollar” store where I could get a wide variety of food items—meat, bread, butter, eggs, cheese, milk, cereal, pasta, condiments, canned goods, beverages, snacks, sweets—as well as kitchen and other household and office supplies, CDs, DVDs, batteries, greeting cards, vitamins, medications, toiletries, even articles of clothing for only 99 cents per item. And these all are top-quality brand name items, too. Can you imagine how much money I saved on my daily and weekly shopping? But starting a few years ago, the store managers just couldn’t resist giving in to the so-called “economic crisis” and decided to raise the prices on most store items that used to cost only a dollar apiece. Now some of the same things cost as much as what I pay at my other grocery stores. Although I did continue to shop there, I was not pleased about the price raise.

I think that this economic situation is just a convenient excuse and means to implement more corporate greed. They did it with gasoline in the past. In fact, they are still doing it. There is such a shortage on petroleum, they tell us, which causes the price of gas to skyrocket due to the fact that it is such a rare commodity. Yeah, right! So when the price of anything goes up, they tell us it’s because of the economy. That doesn’t make any sense to me. If times are so hard now, as they want us to believe, how are they helping the situation by increasing the inflation? How is that helping my economy? If they wanted to give us poor suckers a break, they would lower the prices of everything rather than raising them, or at least keep them the same.

It’s the selfish blokes who live beyond their means and abuse their credit privileges who are partly responsible for the economic crisis. They charge things that they either are unable to or have no intention of paying for, as well as borrow large sums of money which they can’t pay back, and they get so deep in debt that many are forced to declare bankruptcy, which in turn leave the banks and other lending firms to foot the bill. The banks and companies are who encouraged and granted the loans in the first place, then expect the Government to bail them out or reimburse them, and of course, they don’t have the money either. So everybody gets screwed, including those of us who have chosen to live within our means and have managed always to stay out of debt.

Despite my optimism of life, I tend to be cynical about certain things. One of them is the suspicion that some modern appliances are manufactured with planned obsolescence. They just don’t make anything to last anymore. They want us to buy another one as soon as possible. Don’t you think that it’s a little strange that very soon after the warranty on your VCR or vacuum cleaner runs out, the thing goes on the blink or conks out or something? With my suspicious mind, I suspect that the technicians must implant some kind of microchip that’s on a timer, and which can be activated upon purchase, so that after a certain length of time, like 90 days or 12 months or however long the warranty is for, the gadget will malfunction. That would explain why they recommend those Extended Warranty insurance policies as if their need is a guaranteed certainty.

Instead of making things that are going to wear out in little or no time so that you can buy another one, I would think that they would make the effort towards higher quality and durability. Then if I have need to replace an item, I will prefer to go with the good brand instead of those inferior ones, especially if the prices are about the same. I own several different brands of underwear briefs. They all eventually wear out. They develop holes, and the elastic bands get stretched out or separate from the lower part. But I notice that my few pairs of Jockey brand briefs are still intact and not at all ragged. So the next time I am shopping for underwear, I will seek out Jockey instead of Stafford. They probably cost more, but if they tend to last much longer, then I shouldn’t care. I noticed, too, on the labels that the cheaply-made articles were made in the USA, whereas the Jockey ones were made in Central America, probably in slave-labor sweatshops somewhere. So if various concerns prefer us to buy American-made merchandise over foreign, then make those items better! Instill some national pride in your designers and factory workers, as they do in other countries.

In all fairness, though, there are some exceptions. One is a window fan that I bought at K-Mart in 1972, and it finally died the summer of 2017! That was a good old fan! It ran almost continually during the hot summer days, it was quiet, and it never required any kind of repair or maintenance, except for cleaning. My RCA Victor TV set held up for more than 30 years, and my 11-year-old Commodore 64 computer I never had any problem with as long as I had it.

I have a cast-iron pot, in which I do much of my cooking, that I also have had for 52 years now. I brought it with me from South Bend. It was left in the apartment, in which I stayed, by the previous tenant. I don’t know how long he had it or how old the thing really is. But this pot is so sturdy, easy to clean, and cooks fabulously. I wish that they would make everything as durable and long-lasting.

I have gotten away from purchasing superfluous store items, too. I used to buy “facial tissues,” napkins and paper towels, until it occurred to me that I didn’t need all of those extra paper products when the towels can do the jobs of the other two as well, if not better. For instance, Bounty has now come out with paper napkins, which are touted to be strong and absorbent, just like their paper towels. And they expect us to purchase both products. But what do we need with both, since the towels can be used as napkins, too? Do they think that we are too stupid or impractical to figure that out for ourselves? I live alone. I don’t need to impress anybody by serving actual napkins with my meals.

I still buy toilet paper, however, but I don’t buy shampoo, because I can wash my hair as well as my body with regular soap. And since I keep my hair cut very short nowadays, I don’t have enough to shampoo anyway. Sliced bread precludes the need for buns for burgers and hot dogs. Some of my grocery stores still give out recyclable plastic bags with our purchases, which I can use for my personal trash disposal.

Some fast-food franchises (like Burger King) now employ get-it-yourself soft drinks dispensers in their restaurants. You pay for an empty cup, then you can get as many refills as you want. The impracticality of the situation is that they still offer three sizes of cups, at different prices, for the drinks, but since you are allowed limitless refills, one size cup will serve that purpose. It seems that some people have not figured out the stupidity of paying for the largest size cup when you can get the same thing with the cheaper, smaller cup. Duh!

There have been some consumer reports of late about food frauds. Certain restaurateurs were discovered serving pork to their customers who had ordered veal and charging them veal prices. Some of them even passed the buck to their distributors, saying that it was they who sold them the wrong meat and that they were unaware of the deception. Oh, sure, since pork and veal are identical in appearance and taste, who can tell the difference? We used to be told that ignorance is no excuse. I don’t buy that “playing the nut role,” either.

Some manufacturers are using false advertising in promoting their consumer food products. That Juicy-Juice that comes in the little cardboard boxes, that you can’t see what is really inside? It’s all sugar and favored water, although the outside of the box claims that it is 100% juice. Other apple juice brands have been proven to be fraudulent as well.

I don’t like any of those so-called diet drinks and sodas or anything with aspartame in it. I don’t like the flavor of the stuff. If I want sweet, give me real sugar, thank you. I do have a suspicious nature, I admit it, but my paranoia is based on real feelings. Do you remember when it was announced that saccharin and other artificial sweeteners, like Sweet ‘n’ Low, had been proven to be carcinogenic, they came out with this aspartame stuff (tradename Nutrasweet) as a safer alternative? When it was first introduced, it did have a good taste, almost like real sugar. But then after a while, when people got used to it, I noticed that the taste of it changed. Now, to me, it tastes suspiciously like saccharin again! Could it be that maybe saccharin is a lot cheaper to manufacture than aspartame, so the Powers-That-Be have pulled a switcheroo on us? Maybe what you all are really ingesting is the same old harmful saccharin, but we’re being told that it’s Nutrasweet (Splenda is another brand with a similar taste), hoping that we won’t be able to tell the difference, and most people can’t, apparently. But I can. I prefer plain, unadulterated seltzer water. There are only a few brands that are that way. I have found that most of them add aspartame to it. Why do they do that?! I hate it.

Here is more false advertising. Diet cola and other sodas are not for not gaining weight. “Diet” only means that there is no sugar in it. If you are dieting, you shouldn’t be drinking sodas anyway! Instead, drink unsweetened tea, fat-free milk or water! Some of these people don’t realize, or care, that our organs are geared to process natural sugars, but when those artificial sweeteners are introduced into our bodies, the pancreas, for one, get confused. It doesn’t know how to process those foreign agents, and it’s what causes diabetes and other insulin-related ailments. We have been informed of this by the health officials, but some people just refuse to give up their Diet Coke and other “sugar-free“ food items. And why do most of my regularly-purchased condiment and other items contain high fructose corn syrup? They put it in ketchup, pickle relish, Worcestershire sauce, salad dressings, soft drinks, seltzer water and juices, almost everything, and it’s totally unnecessary. It’s added to things that already have sugar and other sweeteners in them. It has become so prevalent that now products that lack it announce on the label that they contain “no high fructose corn syrup.”

I don’t like imitation anything. Don’t give me salt, sugar or egg substitutes. If I can’t have these things in my diet, then I’ll just do without them. I don’t have to have eggs so badly that I would settle for that imitation stuff, if I were egg and dairy food intolerant, for example. Don’t give me instant mashed potatoes or Minute Rice either! I also don’t eat anything with “Chef-Boy-Ar-Dee” on the can. Fresh rice and pasta are so easy and quick to prepare, why settle for that mealy, tasteless crap that they try to pass off as delicious, nutritional food?

Although a rare occurrence, I have ordered cocktails in certain bars and nightclubs which must have had little to no alcohol in them. If I can’t taste it, then as far as I am concerned, it’s not in there. What’s the point? A Vermont company that supposedly sells “100% pure maple syrup” is actually passing off beet sugar instead. I am also on to the several companies and franchise places that push frozen “yogurt.” That stuff is not real yogurt. Who are they trying to kid? I know what yogurt tastes like. It’s not that any of these things taste bad or are harmful, and we don’t have to eat them if we don’t want to, but what I object to is the deliberate dishonesty. Why do they have to lie?

Subway (the deli chain) was called on the carpet recently when it was discovered that their “foot-long” sandwich rolls were actually only 11 inches or less long. The ones who make them had to have known that, they just must have thought that nobody would notice or check. Well, somebody did, and they were outed by the media and shamed into restoring their rolls to the originally-advertised length. For me, they don’t have to change the roll length. Just stop lying to people that they’re 12 inches, when they know they are not.

I had lunch after my church service one Sunday with food prepared by people from Togo. There was some strange-looking, mystery meat being served, and when I asked the server what it was, she told me that it was chicken. As much chicken I have had in my life and in many forms, I know what chicken looks and tastes like. This thing had an unusual bone structure and meat quality. As far as I know, it could have been wildebeest or hyena or something! If the woman did not know what it was, she should have just admitted that, instead of telling me that it was chicken. It was not to my liking, by the way, whatever it was.

At least McDonald’s and the other fast-food places call their drinks “shakes,” not “milkshakes.” NYC experienced a milk strike some years ago for a few days, and while in McD’s, I noticed that they still had shakes on the menu. I asked the young woman who waited on me, how could that be when there wasn’t any milk? She said, “Our shakes don’t contain any milk.” I couldn’t object, because they never said that they did. So knowing that, if I still choose to drink them, they have done nothing wrong. But if people have to lie and deceive in order to sell something, that’s when I get huffy.

Just like at the movie theater, if you don’t have any real butter for my popcorn, then don’t offer it to me and try to pass off some cheap imitation instead. Just say, “We don’t have any real butter, only this Golden-Flavored Oil.” Pray tell, what does “golden” taste like? For that matter, what does a ranch taste like, as in “Ranch Flavor” tortilla chips and dressing, or “Oriental Flavor” ramen noodles? And this. “Gee, Mom, our pillow cases smell so April Fresh!” “Well, kids, it’s because I use Downy.” What in the hell is “April Fresh,” and what does it smell like, please?!

The journalistic news program “20/20” once did an exposé on consumer fraud, and I am quite dismayed by the blatant lack of moral integrity displayed by greedy and unscrupulous businesspersons. This goes even beyond the shoddy, defective merchandise that I criticized earlier. I am talking about products being sold, like prescription medications, cosmetics and toiletries, that contain harmful ingredients. The report told of facial creams being sold which contain carcinogenic beryllium, among other toxic additives, and toothpaste with antifreeze in it! People in need of certain medicines but don’t have the proper insurance to cover the cost look for ways to get what they need cheaply, so they end up being conned by fraudulent vendors with no moral conscience who sell them ineffective, sometimes even long-expired drugs. These enterprising, though apathetic, mountebanks don’t seem to care whom they hurt, or even kill, as long as they get paid something for their bogus wares.

No matter how or where a pizza is made, according to a certain TV commercial, when one is delivered somewhere, it apparently takes on a distinctive flavor. “It’s not delivery, it’s DiGiorno!” they exclaim. Huh? Gee, it sure does taste like somebody delivered it! Raisins, which, I hope you know, are actually dried grapes, don’t seem to have the same negative reputation that prunes do for some people. Prunes are considered by some to be merely a laxative food that old people eat to aid their regularity. So to appeal to the younger consumer, let’s market them as “dried plums,” why don’t we? Ah, that’s much better! We don’t have to tell folks that it’s the same thing. It seems that all types of dried fruit is all the rage these days. They do it with apricots, cranberries (craisins), kiwis, papayas, pineapples and tomatoes.

Something that I can’t find any logic in is why healthy, natural and nutritional food items are so much more expensive than junk food. We are charged less for food products that have added sugar, salt, chemicals and preservatives, which I would think would cost more money to produce because of the extra ingredients, than for something that is absolutely natural and unprocessed. That doesn’t make any sense to me. It appears that the food manufacturers are telling us that it doesn’t require a whole lot of money to jeopardize your personal health and safety. But if you are really concerned about what you put in your body and want what’s best for you, then you’re going to have to pay dearly for it. Good nutrition ain’t cheap, it seems.

Some years ago some friends and I were having dinner at a popular Szechuan Chinese restaurant here in the City. As I was perusing the quite extensive menu, on the last page I came across the “Special Healthy Choices Menu,” which listed the same dishes from the previous pages, but these were prepared with the best ingredients, pure and fresh cooking oils and no added MSG. I’m sitting there thinking, Why the two menus? If they are capable of preparing top quality, unprocessed food, why would anybody choose the substandard fare instead? I mean, given the choice, who willingly chooses shit over ambrosia? I thought that was very strange.

But airlines do the same thing, or at least used to. On meal-included flights all passengers could have kosher food upon request, but most would settle for the common, I assume, not-as-well-prepared meals instead. Some restaurants give diners the choice of soup or salad with their entrée. I usually have a problem with that. Now I can see having the choice of onion rings instead of fries or coffee or tea as a beverage, but soup and salad are not the same thing at all. That’s normally two separate courses. I oftentimes want soup and salad with my meal. Of course, we can have both, but we will be charged for the extra item.

Nowadays, most packaged, store-bought food items come with a “Nutrition Facts” chart, which includes dietary information and a calorie count for the product. As I am on a diet where I want to watch my daily calorie intake, I pay attention to these charts now more than ever. But the calorie count is done as an arbitrary “servings” breakdown that I find to be impractical and misleading. I think that they have it backwards. Junk food items, for instance, I purchase for my own exclusive partaking and will most likely be eaten in one sitting. So what is the point of telling me that this bag of potato chips has 150 calories per serving, but a serving size is considered to be one ounce and there are 3.5 servings to the bag? So if I eat the whole bag, as I am wont to do, I have to figure out the caloric content by multiplying 150 x 3.5. Their idea of a serving is always so tiny, like we’re all anorexic little babies, or something. This is another prime example of the white man’s supreme control over the world, their deciding for all the rest of us what a normal serving should be.

I buy spaghetti in 16-ounce packages. The chart puts one serving at 2 ounces, which they say yields 8 servings for the whole package. At most I may get four servings a package. I always make pasta as my main meal, not as some minor side dish for something else. The box says that this 15-ounce Entenmann’s Raspberry Danish Twist is 8 servings. I divided it into the most meager of slices and it still came out to only six. They divide a little 6-ounce can of tuna into 2.5 servings! This tuna is for me, not my kitten! When I prepare a can of soup it makes just one bowl full, which is one serving, not the designated 2.5 that it says on the label. It’s not enough to share with anyone or not finish as a leftover for later.

A pint of ice cream (or yogurt or sorbet), too, is one serving. I intend to eat it all right away. The label on the thing says that it is four servings. Who told them that I was sharing this pint with three other people or at four different times? Just put on there that this container of ice cream contains 720 calories, not “180 calories per serving.” If I should not eat the whole thing myself, then at least I will know that my own calorie intake was less than 720.

They do the same thing in recipes. “…yields 4 servings.” That would depend, wouldn’t it? They don’t know who is going to eat it. With me and my one eating companion, it might yield only two servings. Everyone has their own appetites and eating habits. A serving, therefore, is an indefinite amount. It depends on the amount of the item served. Again, just give us the total statistics for the whole thing and let the consumer determine what a “serving” is, then I can divide it any way I want. By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, Haagen-Daaz, for one, has decreased its “pint” container down from 16 to 14 ounces. Of course, they did not lower the price accordingly Actually, they raised it!

All gay people are consumers, and always have been. In terms of demographics, gays are the ones with powerful handfuls of disposable income. In fact, the total buying power of American GLBT(Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered) consumers at present has been determined at $690 billion. Somebody posted this satirical protest sign on Facebook. “Gays and Taxes! Why not hate both at the same time? Write your Republican Congressman and tell him to ban gays from paying taxes. That gay money goes to your schools, roads and military, and turns them gay! Then they try to say that paying taxes grants them equal rights. It’s time to tell Obama that this is a Christian nation and it’s time to pay for it with Christian cash only!” I guess one cannot be both Christian and gay, then? Why don’t we take them up on that? What an idea! Let’s make all gay people, male and female, exempt from paying any taxes whatsoever. I’ll bet all the closet cases would come out then! Even some who aren’t gay would admit to it just to get the exemption. Yes, they do want and need our money all right, but they still want to deny us certain rights.

Why aren’t there more homosexually-oriented ads proliferating the airwaves? It’s because of straight America’s wish to keep us invisible. They don’t want to be reminded constantly that these degenerates actually live among them, shop at their stores and eat at their restaurants. The cowardly advertising executives try to use the excuse that gay ads will hurt product sales. That’s nonsense! I think it would help it. They tried to use that same excuse years ago with regard to blacks. “If we put colored people on television in prominent roles, people will stop watching it,” not acknowledging the fact that it is the People-of-Color who are doing much of the TV-watching! We gays don’t boycott products that are touted by heterosexuals. By the same token, do they actually think that all coffee drinkers will stop buying Taster’s Choice if the ex-husband of the woman and the father of her son in that romantic sequential ad campaign turns out to be gay? So what if Mr. Whipple is gay? People still have to buy toilet paper. Not enough people to matter are going to stop using the telephone just because they show an ad of a woman calling her female lover via Verizon.

At least some enterprising ad executives have taken a bold step to capitalize on the new gay consumer sensibility. Witness the TV ad some years ago for Ikea which depicted an apparently-gay male couple shopping for home furnishings at an Ikea store. It seems that the commercial outraged some people, although I can’t imagine why. Homosexuals buy furniture, too. Versace and Diesel, as well, have since adopted a sapphist look in their ads. Do you remember Penny Marshall and Rosie O’Donnell for K-Mart? If that wasn’t two dykes out shopping together, I don’t know what was! Of course, that was before Rosie came out publicly, but I already had my suspicions.

More recently, Ellen Degeneres was chosen spokesperson for J.C. Penney, prompting some women homophobes to protest publicly. They’re not going to shop there anymore, they aver. Do they really think that Penney’s business is going to suffer at all by their lack of patronage? Most people don’t even care. Besides, Ellen is so well-loved by many, it may even help the business. There is a new TV commercial for Campbell’s Soup which depicts two men feeding their little boy. We assume that they are domestic partners and parents when one of the guys says to the child, in a Darth Vader-like voice, “I am your father.” Then the other guy says, “I, too, am your father.” Ah, so the kid has two fathers! I was so pleased to see that. These new advertising campaigns are quite overdue, in my opinion.

More than the pointless junk mail that I receive on a regular basis, I really hate those unsolicited phone calls when they try to sell me something that I don’t want or sign me up for some kind of plan or club or something. I get them so often that I am on to their game by now. They will start out with a cheery greeting. “Hello, Mr. Townsend! How are you today? (What do you care how I am? You don’t know me. Anyway, I was asleep. I don‘t know how I am yet.) I have some great news for you today!” Oh-oh, here we go. “You have won a prize!” ‘Oh, really?’ “Get a pencil and paper, and I’ll tell you what you’ve won!” ‘Uh, let’s just cut to the chase. What are you selling?’ Then they get all flustered because I interrupted their spiel, but then will often persist anyway. But now in this age of A.I., live operators have been replaced with recorded solicitors. Now they don’t even address you when they call, because they don’t know who you are, or care. It’s the same message for everyone. You can’t ask them any questions because they recognize only expected remarks. But this way, I get to hang up on them at my leisure.

They do that on the internet as well. They start out by trying to get you interested in whatever they are pushing, make the product or service sound so enticing that you don’t care how much it costs, you just got to have it. For me, however, the bottom line is the cost. I don’t have the means to be throwing away money on frivolous notions that I don’t even need or want. Tell me how much it is, and if I consider the price reasonable, then you can give me your spiel. It saves everybody a lot of time. I don’t need to listen to their long, drawn out testimonials before they tell me that the thing costs hundreds of dollars to purchase. You should save your breath and tell me that first off. When I answer the phone, just say, “Good morning, sir. Are you interested in purchasing timeshare property in Florida?” ’No, I am not. Thank you. Goodbye.’ Next! Short and sweet. See how much time we saved?

I get calls from companies who try to get me to take advantage of their services, but I respectfully tell them that I am not interested at this time. They seem to accept my declination, and we would hang up the phone. So, the very next day or even sooner, I get a call from the same company with the same sell as before. After the third time, I’m a little annoyed, so I tell them, ‘Look, do me a favor. Wherever it is that you have my name and number, make a note beside them that I have repeatedly expressed my disinterest in your kind offer, and write on there, “Do not call this person ever again. Or better yet, just cross my name off the list, why don’t you? Thank you.’ Now, why do I even have to tell them that? When somebody turns me down more than once, I stop asking them!

Sometimes they will try to sell me magazine subscriptions or something else that I don’t need. I might tell them that I am not working right now and I have to watch my pennies, not that it’s their business. They’ll say, “Oh, I didn’t know that.” ‘Of course, you didn’t. You didn’t ask.’ Don’t presume that I am gainfully employed and with disposable income just because my name appears on some mailing list somewhere and I have a good credit rating.

Just like they presume that, like most normal Americans, I drive a car, own a house (in midtown Manhattan?!) and am married, with children, or at least straight. I get almost daily calls from people wanting to help me lower my mortgage rates, start my own home-based business, get a burglar alarm system and solar panels installed in my “house“ and front yard (!), to further my education by going back to school, cruise vacation and timeshare offers, credit cards for gas and AutoAdvantage clubs, and they even ask for Mrs. Townsend sometimes when they call. I always think, If this person doesn’t know who the hell I am or anything about me, why are they calling me? All old people are not loaded with unlimited retirement pensions. They are always trying to get me to spend money on frivolous endeavors and to make charitable contributions to everybody.

Before they offer to help me manage my chronic pain due to my diabetes, for example, first ask me if I even have diabetes! “Oh, you don’t?” ’Well, whoever told you that I do?’ They even blatantly lie. “Hello. I understand that someone in your household suffers from hearing loss.”…”So, you were in an automobile accident recently.” ‘I was? Who told you that?’ They never answer my questions. Another: “You posted online that you would like help in managing your arthritis and lower back pain.” ‘I never did that.’ Even if I had any of those problems, I would take care of it myself. I have my own doctors. Do they think that I lie around here in pain and discomfort, just waiting and hoping that they will call to offer me much-needed help?

I am finding of late that to be a senior citizen gives the unwarranted impression to some corporate racketeers that we all suffer from dementia and Alzheimer’s. I get phone calls on a daily basis testing my presence of mind and intelligence. Someone claiming to be from my electric supplier, Con Edison–I know it’s not them, because they never call anybody on the phone–will ask me to “verify” my account number for them. I then tell them, ‘You have my name, address and phone number, so you must have my account number as well, if you are who you say you are. Tell me what number you have for me, and I will let you know if it’s correct. I happen to know what verification means, even if you don’t.’ “Uh, I can’t do that, sir.” ‘Well then, I can’t help you. I am not giving you my account number.’

If you don’t know, I don’t have any children. I have gotten several of these calls lately. “Hey, Grandpa! This is your grandson. How are you doing?” Curious to see where this is going, I play along. The voice is obviously a white man’s, too. ‘Oh, hi, boy! What’s up?’ “Well, I am in a bit of financial trouble, and you are the only one who can help me.” Oh, so that’s it. I either make up some excuse to end the call or I just hang up. But I am always amused by these people’s audacity. They must have a list with my name, phone number and age. So I must have some grandchildren, right? Doesn’t everyone my age? And since I am probably senile, I won’t remember which grandson this is calling me. The presumption of these people!

They must presume that I am white, too. I received in the mail one day a brochure for a singles’ dating service, which consisted of pages and pages of eligible white women! Just pick out whom I like, pay the agency their fee, and they will set up a meeting with me and the foxy babes of my choice. Now I realize that I must be on a lot of corporate mailing lists, judging from all the unsolicited junk mail that I receive every week (it’s every day for e-mail), but I find this particular mailing to be annoying and insulting by its sheer presumption. Okay, they take me to be male by my name, and they may have me on a list of eligible bachelors, but how does that follow that I and every man on their list all must be in the market for the same thing, that is, white women? If they want our business, it would behoove them to expand their options. Why don’t they offer men with their service, too? I may be bisexual or into interracial dating. Shouldn’t we have a varied choice? There are hints of chauvinistic sexism, racism and homophobia, plus I consider it sexual harassment, their trying to foist their women on me against my wishes. I never requested such a service.

A while ago somebody gave me a subscription to, of all things, Field and Stream, that I never asked for. It couldn’t have been any friend of mine, because they would have known better. It must have been someone from a magazine promoter. This is primarily a hunting and fishing magazine, neither of which I have any interest in, another instance of someone making an unwarranted assumption about me just because I am a man. So now that they are also under the false impression that I am an avid hunter, you see, I get an invitation by mail to join the North American Hunting Club! With my paid membership, I can even win free shotguns! Wow! I eventually had to write the publishers an irate letter to get them to stop sending me their magazine and told them in specific terms why I didn’t want it.

I once received a call to answer a survey. As a member of the National Rifle Association (I am?), what is my stand on the anti-gun laws that the Government is trying to implement? I must write my Congressmen to protect my rights to bear arms. I asked this person on the phone, ’Why are you calling me? You apparently have no idea who I am, or you would know that I am totally against guns.’

Now I certainly don’t mind the International Male catalog, that I have received a few times, or the Advocate Men magazine or the brochure for gay porno films! My point is, I wish that these companies would find out who people are before bothering us with irrelevant and inappropriate solicitations.

The latest racket that has cropped up in the last few years is scammers calling me to inform me that I have won millions of dollars in a sweepstakes. I have been sending in entries to Publisher’s Clearing House for decades and have never won anything. Now, all of a sudden, they have found all this money lying around and want to give it all to little ol’ me. My goodness, how lucky can I get?! I didn’t believe them the first time it happened. But when I would get a call from a different person with varying award amounts every couple of days for many months, I knew that something was not kosher.

The winning amounts range from 2.5 million to 10 million dollars and most throw in a brand-new Mercedes as an extra bonus! I must have won twenty of them in just this year alone. I don’t know how they can stay in business, giving away all those cars for free, and to me who does not even drive! They all say that they have a check for me in the designated amount. But in order to claim it, I have to purchase some kind of verification card, which also varies from one offer to another. I always ask them, ‘Why do I have to pay you money to receive money that I did not ask for in the first place?’ Some of them want as much as $4,000! I say, ‘Why don’t you take that $4,000 out of my winnings and give me the remainder?’ “Oh, we can’t do that, sir.” ‘But how do I know that the check you have for me is any good? You might take my money and like Matilda, run Venezuela.’

By entering so many of those sweepstakes for so many years, they obviously have my name and have been sharing it with everybody else in the same racket. At this point in my life, I don’t know what I would do with 2.5 million dollars, let alone 10 million. Not knowing how much time I have left, I probably would not get to spend much of it anyway.

One of my earlier goals in life was someday to own a house. I would set ten-year intervals for myself. ‘I will have a house by the time I turn 40.’ Then it was 50, and by the time I was nearing 60, I had given up the notion. I still would like to have one, of course, but I have never had the financial means and at this late date I don’t expect I ever will.

Condominiums and cooperatives seem to be popular options for people in the market for buying a home. But what I don’t understand or agree with is all the money that you still have to pay after your purchase. I thought that the purpose of buying a house is so that you can own it free and clear and not have to pay rent anymore. So then why, after “buying” the co-op apartment or condo that you live in, for hundreds of thousands of dollars sometimes, do you still have to pay at least $1000 each month to somebody for “maintenance”? I could consider the many thousands of dollars that I have given my landlords the last 50 years to be maintenance as well. They must use some of it to maintain the building. You can call it whatever you want, but you’re still paying rent, aren’t you?

How is this for senseless absurdity, in my opinion? The penthouse apartment in one of Donald Trump’s residence buildings here in Manhattan sold (when reported) for $22,000,000! But wait! If you pay cash for it, then your maintenance will be only $22,000 a month. I’m sorry, but if I give you 22 million dollars cash for anything, that’s all you’re getting! What maintenance? Whatever else needs to be done, do it with that 22 million I just gave you! I don’t understand. If this property is now supposedly mine, to whom am I paying this monthly fee? They should be paying me something. I suppose that paying the building manager’s salary is the tenants’ responsibility, but we shouldn’t have to pay general salaries for the people we have on retainer. If I need some kind of repair or something done to my apartment, I can hire a service person and pay them directly for their work. Whatever it is they have to do, it shouldn’t cost the amount that I am paying out every month.

In the case of a house, you have yearly taxes and mortgages to pay. I can’t feel like something is really mine if I’m still constantly paying for it after I supposedly have bought it. I mean, a house is a big enough expense as it is. After you buy it, you have to furnish it, fix it up and pay monthly utilities. Who needs the added expense of constant maintenance fees and property taxes?

When I heard about a man who made a hobby of collecting feces specimens (from men of various nationalities, no less, which he kept in labeled jars!), I decided that there must not be a single object in the world that somebody somewhere does not collect. I figure if they will collect shit, they’ll collect anything! You know what I’m saying? And he is not the only one. There is a guy who goes all over, looking for petrified specimens of dinosaur poop! One would think that that would be the final frontier of collectible items.

I expect that every type of animal, object, gadget and doodad figures into somebody’s collection. Lisa Whelchel hosts a cable series entitled, “Collector’s Call,” which features fanatic collectors around the country showing off their prized possessions. She has visited individuals who have amassed vast collections of guitars, movie posters, video games, and memorabilia involving Batman, The Wizard of Oz, “Star Trek,” “The Twilight Zone”, Winnie the Pooh, KISS, Elvis Presley and Elton John, for example. What follows is a random sampling of some of your more unusual collectibles I have come across. For ongoing collections and being that it’s been some years since I first reported these findings, you should expect the amount of cited items to be many more now than what is mentioned here.

I once ate at a restaurant in Austin, Texas, whose ceiling is covered with hubcaps. I heard of a man who has decorated his entire house with matchsticks, over a million of them, and another man who makes all his home furnishings out of animal bones! There is a U.S. postal worker who has tattooed his body with 1,800 Disney cartoon characters! There is a woman who has over 4,000 Pez dispensers. One contestant on “Jeopardy!” boasted of possessing every issue of TV Guide ever published. Think about that.

One well-traveled woman keeps sand samples, in individual labeled containers, from every place she’s been to that has a beach. Still another well-traveled game show contestant admitted that he owns over 300 barf bags from all the different airlines that he has flown on. The mother of one contestant has a collection of every variety of Campbell’s Soup ever produced, each still unopened and in the can, one woman claims to have 1000 sets of salt and pepper shakers, while another contestant’s family is a collector of hundreds of bedpans and urinals!

An eleven-year-old (when I first wrote this), Kyle Krichmann has been collecting different kinds of vacuum cleaners since he was 4 and had about 125 (at the time), and a 10-year-old girl who keeps various species specimens of live tarantulas as pets!

Now although a cat is not an unusual pet to have, the number of said animals would be considered obsessive. A woman guest on “Dr. Phil” was revealed to be in possession of 200 cats which she housed in her home and on her property. But she has been topped by a contestant on the newly-revived “To Tell the Truth,” who boasted of owning 1000 cats!

In an attempt to make his country safe, he explains, a Cambodian man seeks out still-active land mines, digs them up, diffuses them then adds them to his home collection of over 5,000. One Virginian man, “a collector of the McDonald’s eating experience,” claims to have eaten in 10,893 McDonald’s restaurants in North America alone. It would be more by now, if he is alive and still doing it. I wonder how his health is?

Comic juggler Andy Martello collects recordings of the ‘60s song “Louie, Louie,” and apparently, there are a whole lot of them. He already has 150 (at least) and counting. Jay Leno is a collector of cars, trucks and motorcycles. He owns some 180 motor vehicles which he keeps housed in hangars at the Burbank Airport and are tended by three full-time mechanics. Actor Corbin Bernsen has a collection of over 6500 snow globes. I have heard of certain museums that display people’s personal collections—toilet seat covers and burnt food (!), to name only two.

The ancient Egyptian King Menephta, after defeating the Libyans in 1300 B.C., returned to Karnak with a collection of 13,240 penises taken from his adversaries, as a token of his conquest! What he did with them then and whether he displayed them in some way, I have no idea. Are you convinced now as well about my omni-collection claim?

I maintain a few relatively-normal collections myself and, I can admit, some maybe not so normal. My largest accumulation of like items is my record collection. I have been buying and acquiring records since the late ’50s, and now with the advent of compact discs (commercial as well as homemade), I have well over 5000 LPs, 45s, CDs and cassette tapes. I have not done an inventory count in a while now, however. My taste in music is as eclectic and varied as everything else in my life. I won’t give you an itemized breakdown of my various music acquisitions at this time, but suffice it to say that I own virtually every type of musical genre, even modern rap and hip-hop, which I basically loathe.

I will tell you that one of my regular record projects in the past was Christmas albums, and the two songs that I have the most recordings of are “Silent Night,” with no less than 143 renditions and “Jingle Bells” with 144 renditions! I am on a mission to acquire everything recorded by Burt Bacharach, the Beatles, Elton John, Barbra Streisand, Dionne Warwick, and John Williams (the composer). Most of those are nearly complete, I am pleased to report.

For the last few years I have been converting many of my records to mp3 format to store on my computer. I have an external drive which serves as a virtual jukebox. As a result, I don’t buy records anymore but rather now collect individual songs, which are filed in organized directories on the drive.

I have a fun hobby of compiling thematic music sets for my listening pleasure, mostly. Since I have such a vast record library from which to cull, the eclecticism of the song subjects is part of the appeal for me. If I don’t have a certain song that I want for one of my theme sets, I search for it on YouTube. I have many books and printed music, too, with an emphasis on reference books and especially dictionaries of all kinds. My favorite collectible authors are Dan Brown, Stephen King and Armistead Maupin.

Now for the rather unusual, if my previous admissions don’t qualify. I pick up every business/calling/name card that I come across. I have over 3,000 at last count. They are all alphabetically arranged on display in an album. I am also an avid list maker. I compile filmographies and discographies of various actors and recording artists, for example. I have separate lists of every movie, play, TV show and video that have the words “black,” “green” or “kid” in the title. I have lists of movies that feature parade scenes, dentists, train wrecks, “bitchfights,” Godzilla, movies in which someone dances the tango, a list of Agatha Christie and Stephen King film adaptations, actors who have portrayed Tarzan and Ebenezer Scrooge.

I keep a list of “punonyms,“ which are parodied names of celebrities. Examples: Warren Beauty, Truewoman Capote, Sandy Dense, Jes’ Enormous, Linda Hrunt, Disgrace Jones, Ursula Undress, Sofia Vulgara. Some of my other lexical collections consists of palindromes, anagrams, oxymora and thousands of trivia questions, from when I used to host a weekly online trivia game. I still collect bits of trivia on the slim chance that I might some day get a job writing questions for “Jeopardy!” or some other quiz game show. I have drinks that begin with the letter “C”, “Bowl” stadiums, wacky song and book titles. Being a truly zealous logophile (a lover of words), I collect hippopotomonstrosesquipedalians, very long words of 20 letters or more (speaking of which, for example).

I also collect Virgo birthdays. I keep a written, alphabetical list (per date) of everyone I encounter who was born between August 22 to September 23, and incidentally, I have more entries for my own birthday, September 5, than any other date. If you are a Virgo and you give me your name, the day you were born (the year is optional), I will add you to my list.

Since my college years I have retained some souvenir of virtually all of my performances: programs, flyers, press clippings, reviews, fan mail, etc., and these are arranged chronologically in 24 scrapbooks. Twelve of these books are reserved for The Flirtations. For the five-and-a-half years I was with them, I appointed myself the group’s archivist, saving virtually everything on which our name appears. I started one with the New York Vagabonds as well. In addition to many pictures of myself (well, I didn’t take them!), my family, friends and acquaintances, I maintain two volumes of celebrity pics, alone and in groups. I save the Playbills and programs for every stage show that I attend. To date, I have seen 256 stage productions during the time I have lived in NYC.

Since I have traveled so extensively, I would never be able to keep track of where I have been in the world if I didn’t write it all down. Therefore, I have a written account of every place that I have ever been, an alphabetical list of cities arranged by state, province, island and country, as well as a list of every institution of higher learning I have visited. With that, I have a record of every plane flight I have ever taken, all 526 of them! In addition, as souvenir reminders of where I have been, I have a massive collection of snapshots and picture postcards, which are assembled in 12 more multi-paged photo albums. And since I’ve gone digital, I also have an increasing collection of photos stored on my computer. All pictures are arranged thematically, grouped with similar images.

Some sample subjects include architecture, with special emphasis on state capitols (I have 37 so far) and other buildings with domes, churches, arches, famous landmarks, skyscrapers and towers, including water towers (more on that in a moment), monuments, windmills, lighthouses, places I’ve played and places I’ve stayed; sculpture (a particular favorite art form of mine), life form art, including statues of Liberty, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christopher Columbus (although I am over him now), composers, religious icons, animals, people on horseback and winged figures; modern art, including red sculpture, works by Henry Moore, bells, unusual clocks and totems; nature scenes: mountains, unusual or strange rock formations, fountains, waterfalls, dams and bridges (I am particularly fond of covered bridges).

I snap amusing signs and pictures of anything that has my name on it: stores and businesses, buildings, vehicles, street signs, whatever. So, I’m self-indulgent! I actually have my own intersection in the Bronx, where Clifford Place crosses Townsend Avenue. 5 being my favorite number, I have pictures of things on which the number 5 appears, including a framed reproduction on my wall of Charles Demuth’s The Figure Five in Gold, which I love.

When I used to do my cross-country concert tours with various vocal groups, I got into the weird, photographic diversion of “chasing” water towers. What I mean is, I started a photo collection of interesting, colorful and/or unusual water towers that I encountered on the road. So when I spied one, I had to get close enough to it to get a good picture, as most of them have the name of the town painted on them for identification. Since I didn’t have a car on tour, this sometimes required me to walk clear across town from where I was lodging. Some towns have more than one. In fact, I think I reached my saturation point in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, which has no less than eight water towers spread out all over town. When I had finished that little misadventure, which took most of the day and exhausted me physically, I came to realize the folly of such an activity. Why am I doing this?! I asked myself. Still, I have a total of over 100 water towers in my photo collection! Hmm, I suppose this would qualify as an unusual collectible item? You think?

[These are English language signs from around the world.]

The sign in a Norwegian lounge reads:
LADIES ARE REQUESTED NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE BAR.

Tacked on the door of a Moscow hotel room:
IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST VISIT TO THE U.S.S.R., YOU ARE WELCOME TO IT.

An airline ticket office in Copenhagen reminds you:
WE TAKE YOUR BAGS AND SEND THEM IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

In a certain African hotel you may choose between:
A ROOM WITH A VIEW ON THE SEA OR THE BACKSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.

A sign on a clothing store in Brussels read:
COME INSIDE AND HAVE A FIT.

A hotel notice in Madrid informs:
IF YOU WISH DISINFECTION ENACTED IN YOUR PRESENCE, PLEASE CRY OUT FOR THE CHAMBERMAID.

This notice was posted on a Rumanian hotel elevator:
THE LIFT IS BEING FIXED FOR THE NEXT DAYS. DURING THAT TIME WE REGRET THAT YOU WILL BE UNBEARABLE.

In the window of a Swedish furrier the message reads:
FUR COATS MADE FOR LADIES FROM THEIR OWN SKIN.

The room service in a Lisbon hotel tells you:
IF YOU WISH FOR BREAKFAST, LIFT THE TELEPHONE AND ASK FOR ROOM SERVICE. THIS WILL BE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO BRING YOUR FOOD UP.

This sign was posted in a Scottish harbor:
FOR SALE BOAT SINGLE OWNER GREEN IN COLOUR.

A sign at Budapest’s zoo requests:
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS. IF YOU HAVE ANY SUITABLE FOOD, GIVE IT TO THE GUARD ON DUTY.

A Polish hotel informs prospective visitors in a flyer:
AS FOR THE TROUT SERVED YOU AT THE HOTEL MONOPOL, YOU WILL BE SINGING ITS PRAISE TO YOUR GRANDCHILDREN AS YOU LIE ON YOUR DEATHBED.

A Seville tailor makes clear how he will handle commissions:
ORDER NOW YOUR SUMMER SUIT, BECAUSE IS BIG RUSH; WE WILL EXECUTE CUSTOMERS IN STRICT ROTATION

A dentist’s doorway in Istanbul proclaims:
AMERICAN DENTIST, 2TH FLOOR. TEETH EXTRACTED BY LATEST METHODISTS.

The concierge in a Sorrento hotel lets guests know he’s on the job:
CONTACT THE CONCIERGE IMMEDIATELY FOR INFORMATIONS. PLEASE DON’T WAIT LAST MINUTES, THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO ARRANGE ANY INCONVENIENCES.

Some German hospitals now display the sign:
NO CHILDREN ALLOWED IN THE MATERNITY WARDS.

A Roman medical doctor proclaims himself a :
SPECIALIST IN WOMEN AND OTHER DISEASES.

The sign at the concierge’s desk in an Athens hotel reads:
IF YOU CONSIDER OUR HELP IMPOLITE, YOU SHOULD SEE THE MANAGER.

A sign in a Kowloon hotel warns:
IS FORBIDDEN TO STEAL HOTEL TOWELS. PLEASE IF YOU ARE NOT PERSON TO DO SUCH IS PLEASE NOT TO READ NOTICE.

Visitors in Czechoslovakia are invited by the tourist agency to:
TAKE ONE OF OUR HORSE-DRIVEN CITY TOURS. WE GUARANTEE NO MISCARRIAGES.

A Rome laundry suggests:
LADIES, LEAVE YOUR CLOTHES HERE AND SPEND THE AFTERNOON HAVING A GOOD TIME.

A sign posted in Germany’s Black Forest reads:
IT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN ON OUR BLACK FOREST CAMPING SITE THAT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT SEX, FOR INSTANCE, MEN AND WOMEN, LIVE TOGETHER IN ONE TENT UNLESS THEY ARE MARRIED WITH EACH OTHER FOR THAT PURPOSE.

A London eatery advertised for help this way:
WANTED: MAN TO WASH DISHES AND TWO WAITRESSES.

A notice in a Vienna hotel urges:
IN CASE OF FIRE, DO YOUR UTMOST TO ALARM THE HALL PORTER.

In December I wrote a piece about Jesus’ suspicious birth. This being Lent and leading up to Easter, I’d now like to speculate on his mysterious life and the circumstances surrounding his questionable death.

For the record, since I have no concrete proof to the contrary, like the Jews and some Christian sects, like the Unitarians, I, too, am a psilanthropist, which means that I believe that Jesus was a mere mortal man and not of divine birth or legacy. Well, think about it. If the Jews themselves don’t even claim their own soul brother as being the Messiah or the “King of the Jews,” why do Christians accept him so readily as “All That”? In fact, Judaism does not acknowledge Jesus at all, at least the services in which I have participated. I would think that he would be accepted for the mere fact that he was a practicing Jew like themselves. He was even a rabbi!

Some people can be so fickle. The story goes that on the day that Christians commemorate as Palm Sunday, Jesus arrived in Jerusalem amid much pomp and ovation by the people. They’re cheering him, weltering him with palm fronds and calling him “Hosanna, Son of David” and “King of the Jews,” and only five days later (liturgically speaking), it’s probably these same people who are clamoring for his hide, wanting to kill him.

A Latin passage from the Nicene Creed is often translated as, “He suffered under Pontius Pilate…“ Jesus’ subsequent suffering was not Pilate’s doing, according to the Scriptures. The Roman governor didn’t want anything to do with him. He tried to pass him off to Herod, but Herod didn’t want him either, so he was sent back to Pilate, who still couldn’t find any valid reason to detain him or have him killed. So he turned him over to the people to let them decide Jesus’ fate. They are the ones who demanded that he be crucified. See how quickly people will turn on you? By the way, was it the Jews who named it “Good Friday”?

Incidentally, even though I don’t regard Jesus as divine and such, like Thomas Jefferson I do agree with his Biblical philosophy and try to follow his teachings. You know, it’s rather ironic that so many people who call themselves Christians are such judgmental racists, homophobic hate-mongers and advocates of war, which is so anti-Christian, and I who love everybody, but because of my beliefs, or rather lack thereof, I cannot be considered a true Christian. Is that fair? I am a follower of Christianity as a way of life, but I can’t be a “Christian.” So I guess I am more of a philosophical Christian than a denominational one. These faux Christians like to redefine Christianity to suit their own purposes.

Here is a reminder for the anti-Semites, those who hate all Jews but claim to be Gentile Christians, like some of your Klansmen, Nazis and Skinheads. They try to justify their bigotry by reminding us that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. But since Jesus himself was a Jew (and probably not all that white either!), why should they even care? They don‘t like Jews either, do they? And people of like persuasions are always killing each other. So, what‘s your beef? “Blessed Mother” Mary and all of the original Apostles also were Jews. The scriptures that they like to quote are all of Jewish origin, as well as most of the Biblical characters. The aforementioned all practiced Judaism, too, and it wasn’t Jesus himself who founded Christianity. It was established later on in his name, by Jews! It is they who were the original “Jesus Freaks.”

My point is that these people cannot be both. It’s hypocritical to bear hatred toward another fellow human being, including Jews, and still maintain their devout Christendom. But since these people’s attitude and sentiment is most likely based on their own ignorance, they haven’t even considered and probably are not even aware of what they are protesting against. They just accept what their parents tell them. They don’t bother to think for themselves.

In the widely-circulated King James version of the Bible, and others, too, I’m sure, why are there written accounts only about Jesus’ birth and the few days before his alleged death and resurrection? For somebody this important to humankind, I would think that his every move would have been observed and followed and documented and that there would be complete records somewhere of his entire life. Where were all the reporters and paparazzi when we really needed them? Why did they lose track of him for all that time? I guess he apparently was not considered to be all that special until much later on. It was the people around him who made him what he was. A person normally doesn’t declare themself a hero, for example. They are proclaimed so by someone else.

In 1966 when John Lennon made that offhand comment about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus ever was, he received much public outcry and criticism from religious zealots, at least in this country, calling him disrespectful and sacrilegious and campaigning to boycott the group’s records and concert appearances. Some people take minor things so seriously. In my opinion, that was nothing to get all bent out of shape about. John was just stating a fact, and although I consider his remark uncalled for and totally unnecessary, it is not at all untrue. The Beatles at that time were more popular than Jesus. Jesus never made 25 million dollars in one year’s time or sold millions of copies of his sermons and performed to sold-out crowds. But why state the obvious? Some opinions should be kept to oneself. It was just the subject reference Lennon used that caused the controversy. If he had said that they were more popular than, say, Adolf Hitler, I don’t think anybody would have minded.

There were originally some eighty Gospel accounts written for the New Testament, most of them telling a very different story about Jesus. One of these is the Gospel of St. Thomas, which relates the childhood of Jesus. Although I don’t know if he considered himself divine, at an early age Jesus was already displaying attitudes of self-importance and worth. He was even described as an arrogant brat, a real “Dennis the Menace.” He argued with his teachers and fought with his playmates. There is a report of him pushing another little boy off a roof where they were playing and killing him! It was Constantine the Great who set about to rewrite and edit the New Testament, omitting all of those books that regarded Jesus to be a mere mortal man and instead turned him into a divine entity who could do no wrong.

The Gospel of Mary tells of Mary Magdalene’s relationship with Jesus and of her role as the true founder and proponent of Christianity, not Apostle Peter, as other versions contend. There is the recently-discovered Book of Judas, too, that depicts the disciple as a misunderstood hero rather than the hated traitor that he is believed to be by most people. What did he do that was so wrong or terrible? Jesus told Judas what he was about to do, so he chose not to make a liar out of him. Why should he have turned down the money offered him? Wouldn’t most anyone have taken it? Maybe he figured that Jesus could take care of himself.

And why is Peter let off the hook? He was just as traitorous as Judas. Several times he denied even knowing Jesus when asked directly. Why? Was he afraid of guilt-by-association, that he would be hauled off, too, as an accomplice? Did any of the other disciples intervene when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus? So I don’t think it’s fair to single out Judas as the only betrayer. They are all guilty, it would appear.

It seems that all of our unanswered questions and speculations about some Biblical characters and events are the result of suppression and can be found in those omitted Gospels, and the version with which most of us are familiar is all a whitewashed and biased fabrication.

I relate in my On the Road with Cliff blog, that during my tours in Israel in 2008, I was dismayed by the fact that many of the Biblical historical landmarks have been obliterated and replaced with a church or some other edifice, to make them more tourist-worthy, I suppose. Just about everywhere that Jesus walked or did anything noteworthy, there is a church on the very spot to commemorate it. I would have preferred instead to see how all these places looked originally, to get some sense of the historical integrity of the locations.

(# O sacred ‘head’ now wounded… #)
January 1, being a week after Christmas, has also been designated the Feast of the Circumcision, the day that Christians celebrate Jesus’ circumcision. I tell you, everything that involves that man is a big deal. Since we know so little about Jesus’ life, I suppose that everything he did is deemed to be important. I’m surprised that they haven’t designated the day that Jesus first became potty-trained and celebrate that event every year, with a church on the spot where he took his first dump! But I am wondering why was it necessary for Jesus to be circumcised anyway? I know it’s a Jewish thing and all, based on prospective procreation practices (see my For the Bible Tells Me So essay for the explanation). But if he was destined to die young and remain a purported lifetime celibate (for those who don’t accept the following married-with-children scenario), what difference would it make if he kept his foreskin? Who was even going to see it? That right there, for me, questions his supposed divinity. But how do we know if Jesus actually was circumcised? Who performed the procedure? Might Joseph have been his mohel? There are too many unwarranted assumptions about a lot of things related in the Bible. Who actually witnessed all of those events? Just because it’s written somewhere does not make it so.

Someone so important to our humanity, I would think that somebody would have taken a closer account of Jesus’ life and activities. Without those missing gospels that we have not been privy to all these years, we know next to nothing about his growing-up years and young adolescence, only of the few months (or possibly few years) before his subsequent crucifixion. Where was he and what was he doing during all that time? Some scholars have conjectured that Jesus might have gone to India and studied Buddhism there. He apparently was quite educated in religious and spiritual matters, which I’m sure he didn’t learn from anyone in Nazareth, or wherever the hell he grew up.

Now, thanks to Dan Brown’s mystery novel The Da Vinci Code and other publications, a long-buried, much more controversial account of Jesus has finally come to light. For those who are not familiar with the book or the movie made from it, it involves the legend of the Holy Grail with a new twist. You see, the Spanish word sangreal can be divided in two ways. “San greal” means “Holy Grail,” but “sang real” means “royal blood.” Until I read the book, I always thought, just as most of us, that the Holy Grail referred to the cup, or chalice, that Christ and his disciples drank from during the Last Supper. Other accounts claim that it’s the cup which held his blood at the Crucifixion, which may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. You see, it turns out that the Grail is not just a cup, if really that, but so much more. The Grail holds symbolic and metaphorical proportions.

According to Brown and other theological historians, the Grail is actually Mary Magdalene, as it involves her marriage to Jesus Christ and their royal lineage, since Jesus and Mary M. both were descended from kings. So the Grail did contain the blood of Jesus, or rather his bloodline, but in the guise of a person, namely Mary Magdalene, not a tangible chalice, although the chalice is the symbol for the sacred feminine, or more directly, the woman’s womb. See how it all ties together?

Now, although the present Bible does not state that Jesus was married, his being an orthodox Jew, it certainly would have if he were not. There was a legal requirement for the heir to the Davidic throne to marry and produce further heirs. That would mean, then, that Jesus didn’t die how and when we have thought, but lived a full life with his wife and family. But even if their association ended with Jesus’ alleged death, Mary could have already been pregnant with their child during the time of the Crucifixion. They go on to say that she fled to France, then known as Gaul, and had the baby there, a girl named Sarah.

The Holy Grail, therefore, can also refer to the set of protected, secret documents that record the bloodline lineage of Sarah and her subsequent offspring, which certain people believe have survived to this very day! And this is what everybody is looking for. I find this evidence to be conceivably plausible. You have to read the book for all the fascinating details. The point of the story is, the reason that we didn’t know any of this is because of the elaborate, centuries-old conspiracy to cover it all up. But as with everything else, with conflicting accounts and without actual eyewitness proof, it all comes down to what we choose to believe.

Now, if you don’t buy that married-with-children scenario about Jesus but instead the commonly-accepted Biblical version, there is another aspect of denial among many Christians. And that is their resistance to the notion that Jesus might have been a homosexual, or at least bisexual. Well, why not? Let’s consider the circumstantial evidence. If you want to believe that he didn’t ever marry and had no romantic attachments with any women—except for Mary Magdalene, which doesn’t mean that he was having sex with her—then he must have preferred the exclusive company of other unmarried men. Jesus was human, so he must have had natural sexual urges. Whether he acted upon these urges with his male companions is open to conjecture. There was no reason for him not to. And being gay is not always about the sexual act anyway. Even if he was celibate, who would deign to wash a bunch of men’s old dirty, nasty feet, unless he was really into them?

In St. John 13:23 he is actually making out with “one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” (scholars say that it is John himself). Why is John singled out over the other disciples? It appears that John was Jesus’ main man. It says that John had his head on Jesus’ breast, but what does that mean? It sounds as if they were necking. Even while Jesus was allegedly dying on the Cross, he made John the guardian of his mother, a situation reminiscent of what would happen if one half of a partnered couple dies before the other.

There are those who like to think that Jesus denounced homosexuals in the Bible. Where? He never did. There is no mention at all of homosexuality in the New Testament. On the contrary, Jesus always tried to impart to his listeners of his sermons to “love thy neighbor.” He didn’t qualify it with, “except your sinners, lowlifes, degenerates and homosexuals that you may come across.” Jesus repeatedly declared his undying love for his disciples and tried to get them to love each other as well. He never made a similar appeal to his girlfriends. Brotherly Love is a peculiarly gay philosophy.

It is written that when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas identified him by planting a kiss on him. Why a kiss? He could have merely pointed out Jesus or shook his hand. He didn’t have to kiss him unless he wanted to. Maybe that’s where the Mafiosa got their “Kiss of Death” thing from. You know, just before they have you killed, they will give you an apologetic, farewell kiss.

Just before Jesus allegedly “ascended,“ he three times asked Simon Peter, his other favorite, if he loved him. He sounds a bit insecure, doesn’t he? These Bible fundamentalists don’t want Jesus to be married and they don’t want him to be gay. They seem not to want to accept either notion. They don’t care what kind of person he actually was, I guess. People are going to believe what they want, but how much proof do they need? Do they have to catch them in the act to be convinced? Since the Bible’s writings are all about individual interpretation, I, too, can take certain passages to mean what I want them to, just as everyone else does.

It’s not unusual for someone to refer to God as their Father. We hear it all the time. When people pray, they call on “Our Father, Who art in Heaven…”—thus begins the popular Lord’s Prayer. One problem that I have with Jesus’ being divinely conceived is in deciding what the “Son of God” should be. Of all the people who existed at the time, why did God choose a Jewess peasant to have His child? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I still wonder, why her specifically? That would suggest that God is a racist or white supremacist, thus making It a gnostic person rather than a mindless, indiscriminate spirit. It causes me to conclude that Jesus’ conception and birth was all a natural occurrence and not of any mystical, planned prophecy.

We all suppose that Jesus loved animals and regarded them all equally. So why would he say (if he actually did) during his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:15), “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep‘s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”? This has been paraphrased as a deceiver being “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” That’s saying that the wolf is a predatory villain to the honest, trustworthy sheep. But aren’t all animals, including humans, “ravening” when they get hungry, not just wolves? Jesus is trying to make a point, of course, but would he willingly disparage one of his Father’s creatures over another? I think something may have gotten lost in translation. It is modern Man who frequently gives wolves a bad rep.

“God so loved the world that He gave His only [?!] begotten Son, that whoso believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Oh, really? “He“ doesn‘t seem to love the world so much when “He“ keeps destroying it all the time. “Jesus Christ, our Lord, God’s only Son, was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.” But isn’t that everyone’s situation? I consider all embryonic conception to be begotten by God, therefore we are all “God’s Children.” So how did Jesus get that unique distinction? As far as the known Gospels go, he himself never said so. It must be a manmade pronouncement, because God Itself couldn’t have told anybody such a thing either. Moreover, in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, one of his Beatitudes states, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God.“ Well, I have been a peacemaker all of my life, so then am I not a Child of God?

But for the sake of discussion, no matter how often this has been quoted, sung or explained, it still doesn’t make any sense to me. Since people have given God human personification and attitudes, why would “He” have “His only begotten son” killed for the purported purpose of saving the souls of humankind from damnation in the afterlife? What does the one thing have to do with the other? And what does Jesus’ suffering and Crucifixion have to do with any of us personally? Was he doing us all some kind of favor? Who asked him to?

I also hear all the time that “Jesus died for our sins.” What does that mean? There is also, “O Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world…“ Oh, really? Where did it all go? Everyone is still sinning just as much as they did before and even since Jesus came along. Then are we now absolved whenever we do something bad, not like before? So if we are all absolved of all our sins, what’s stopping people from doing anything that they damned well please? That is what they are doing anyway. But how is his purported dying supposed to accomplish this absolution? And then to add to my confusion, if he allowed himself to die in order to save us, why didn’t he stay dead? What kind of sacrifice is that if he’s going to get right back up again? A martyr needs to remain dead in order to retain their martyrdom. I just don’t get it.

(# Were you there when they crucified my Lord?… #)
Well, were you? I wasn’t. How can we be absolutely sure that Jesus actually died on that cross? He might have been only rendered unconscious from sheer exhaustion and lack of food and water, exposure to the elements, whatever. A person’s pulse and heartbeat can slow down so much as to be undetectable. There was no mention of any doctors or a coroner at the scene to determine if he was really dead. How did anyone know for sure? Many people have been known to have been buried alive. Or consider the possibility that he faked his own death. That has been done, too, you know. One way to stop someone from torturing you is to play dead.

This is not solely my idea either. Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield suggested this very notion way back in 1965 in his book The Passover Plot. And Jesus had performed magic tricks in public before. Its being the Sabbath and all (how convenient!), they couldn’t do anything with him until Sunday, which is what he was counting on, so they just wrapped his body and laid him on a slab in a tomb. If he had been subject to our modern postmortem techniques, such as being drained of all his blood, pumped with embalming fluid, then put under the ground, or even cremated, I guarantee you that there would have been no getting back up three days later, or ever, I don’t care whose son he was!

The same goes for Lazarus. There is some documented evidence that he wasn’t dead either. What if all the lame people that Jesus made walk already could walk? Maybe they didn’t know that they could, because they hadn’t tried in a long time. Jesus told them to have faith in themselves, and it worked. I’m sure that all of those so-called “miracles” in the Bible can be explained scientifically, too, that is, if they even happened at all. Nope, I don’t take much stock in blind faith when it comes to Biblical matters. Without any real proof of anything, again it all depends on what we choose to believe.

Still keeping an open mind, however, as I like to consider all possibilities, suppose that I contend that Jesus did die as a result of his crucifixion? Then this newly-risen Christ that everybody thought they were seeing could have been only a spiritual apparition, a ghost, if you will. As it is even now, I’m sure that even in those days, people didn’t readily believe in ghosts. So instead of admitting that’s what it was, they chose to believe that Jesus was alive and well. He wouldn’t let anybody touch him, because he knew that they couldn’t. Some, however, like Jesus’ homeboy, Thomas, at first didn’t believe that he had returned from the dead. He had to show him his nail holes and pierced side before he would accept it. Why didn’t Thomas recognize him? His appearance apparently had changed drastically in just a few days. I think it was probably because his ghostly image would have been vague and undefined.

During the forty-day period between his “resurrection” and “ascension” Jesus appeared here and there several times. One of the Gospels reports that once while Jesus was breaking bread with his disciples, he miraculously vanished from their sight. Well, ghosts are known to be able to manifest themselves and vanish at will. So then his ultimate, so-called Ascension must have been really his “passing over” or “going into the Light.”

Or perhaps he is really an extraterrestrial from another planet and proceeded to go back to where he came from. Maybe that’s where he was during those missing years when we didn’t see him. He might have come back here to take care of some unfinished business, then went back again. (“J.C., phone home.“) What did Jesus mean when he told his gang, “I am going away, but you cannot go where I am going. You are from below, but I am from above. You belong to this world, but I don’t.”? They wouldn‘t have reported that Jesus disappeared into a spaceship, not knowing that there was such a thing. So instead it‘s said that it is a cloud that Jesus disappears into.

A ridiculous notion, you might be saying? I don’t consider that explanation any more ridiculous than the one that’s in the Bible. At least my scenario has some element of plausibility, if you accept the probability of alien space travel, whereas the other story borders entirely on the supernatural. “He ascended into Heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.“ Really, now! Who has actually seen him there? Jesus’ being an alien would explain how he could do those miraculous public displays of faith-healing, fantastic illusions (like walking on the surface of the water) and prestidigitation (changing water into wine). Maybe that is why they couldn’t kill him. Despite my original contention that Jesus was a mere mortal, what if he was the original “Superman“?!

Once the disciples were convinced of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, they went about the land relating the story to others. Then they, in turn, proceeded to spread the word, and many were killed for spouting such nonsense. So, you see, religious genocide is nothing new. People have been killing each other for their religious beliefs for all times. (See my A Critique of Catholicism for more horrific revelations.)

Religious zealots are always talking about the Second Coming of Christ (that is, if it would be only his second return), but what do you think would happen if Jesus did come back to Earth for a visit? First of all, almost nobody would believe it. Think about it. Some guy comes along and claims that he is Jesus Christ Incarnate. I mean, he would have to identify himself, wouldn’t he, for who would recognize him? “Hey, look, isn’t that the real Jesus Christ there?” “Well, it must be. He looks just like all his pictures!” How would anybody know, unless he himself told us? You know that very few, if any, are going to take him seriously. He must be either a charlatan or a nutcase. It’s just like when somebody claims to be the real Santa Claus. They didn’t respect him the last time, what makes you think anything will be any different next time? I imagine that he would be ridiculed, persecuted, arrested, incarcerated and lynched, just as before. The idea! Somebody’s claiming to be Jesus Christ! How dare he!

Well, what do you know? I stand corrected. I have been proven wrong somewhat about my The-Return-of-Jesus theory recounted in the last paragraph. It has since come to my attention through the media that there is a guy going around today claiming to be Jesus Christ Incarnate! And I must have human nature all wrong, too, because instead of next-to-nobody buying this guy’s claim, he has thousands of believers worldwide, who follow him around everywhere and give him regular donations for his “Creciendo en Gracia” (Growing in Grace) ministry. He is a sexagenarian evangelist who goes by the name, José Luis De Jesus Miranda and lives in Doral, Florida, near Miami. His disciples don’t seem to mind that he is Puerto-Rican(!), divorced, became a heroin addict at age 14, and served time in prison for theft, before he received his “divine calling.”

I guess that the common people are more gullible, more easily-influenced and accepting than I gave them credit for. Some people just seem to need to have something and/or somebody to believe in, no matter how improbable or impractical they may be. Of course, there are those, too, who do take the cynical approach and think that this Miranda guy is more like the Devil or even the Antichrist. He constantly receives death threats which compels him to have bodyguards with him at all times. So actually, I wasn’t too far wrong before after all. I just didn’t count on the mindless lemmings in the world who tend to believe anything they’re told.

(# …Those dear tokens of his passion still his dazzling body bears, cause of endless exultation to his ransomed worshippers; with what rapture gaze we on those glorious scars!… #)
How romantic! The lyrics of some of our Christian hymns sound like an admirably amorous love affair going on with Jesus. His dazzling body? (Ooh, baby!) Glorious scars? Come on, doesn’t that seem a little weird? And rather sadistic as well, constantly glorifying Jesus’ cruel suffering and purported death. Whenever I see crucifixes displayed in churches and other places, Jesus is always almost naked except for a sash or something draped around his midsection, covering his genitals. I would think that when Jesus was hanging on the cross, he must have been butt naked. That’s part of the humiliation. They wouldn’t even give the man water to drink when he requested it, but they were so concerned about his modesty? I don’t think so. I can imagine an onlooker exclaiming, “Christ, are you hung!”

Here is one final thought. Jesus’ seven last utterances from the Cross have been recorded in the Scriptures, starting with “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” and ending with, “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” But I suspect he might have said one last thing before he allegedly croaked, and that is, “I’ll be back.” So Arnold Schwarzeneggar didn’t originate that famous movie line. He stole it from Jesus!

[Related articles: A Critique of Catholicism; For the Bible Tells Me So; Heaven and Hell; I Believe…; Let’s Have an Outing; Nativity Negation Redux; Oh, God, You Devil!; Sin and Forgiveness; The Ten Commandments]

I don’t like this Governmental bias about which controlled substances should or should not be legal. If some are legalized then I think that all should be, no exceptions. Why are some dangerous drugs, like alcohol, nicotine and some prescription drugs, okayed and accepted by the Government and Society, in general, when others, some less harmful, are not? I think it should be a matter of personal choice, just like everything else is. The excuses given for anti-legalization don’t hold up with me. “If we legalize all drugs, then everyone will want to do them and become addicts.” How absurd! Most people don’t govern their behavior according to what’s legal anyway. I don’t smoke cigarettes even though they are legal, and I wouldn’t take up heroin just because it became so. People who want to do these dangerous drugs, do them anyway, regardless of their legality.

We hear the meaningless buzz-phrase “the war on drugs” thrown around all the time, but it’s a futile battle because nobody is trying to win it. Come on, don’t you think that the Government could stop illegal drug trafficking if they really wanted to? I can’t get a little bottle of plain tap water through airport security, but people can manage to smuggle kilos of cocaine and heroin through on a daily basis! But why would they prevent the drug trade when they are being paid off by “organized crime” to keep it illegal? Legalization would destroy the black market and take away all that revenue from the crooks. It’s always about money. Why pay your local pusher $200 for an ounce of grass when you can buy a pack of 20 joints at the 7-11 for only $5?

But legalization would also encompass regulation. Safety standards would be implemented as well as cautionary health warnings on the containers. “Caution: This substance is highly addictive and has been proven to be quite injurious to your health and well-being. The manufacturers cannot be held responsible for its detrimental results. Therefore, abuse it at your own risk. Not to be sold to minors or pregnant women.” Just tell people what it is and let them govern themselves accordingly.

It seems rather hypocritical to me that alcohol is a legal substance, but it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle while “under the influence” of it. The need to drive has a much higher priority in our society than the need to drink. If it is so dangerous to drink and drive, then why it is okay to drink in the first place? Maybe it’s because alcohol has been known to muddle and confuse the senses and cloud your judgment. Marijuana, on the other hand, tends to heighten the senses and make one more alert. A stoned motorist is going to be more careful and aware about their own safety and that of their passengers and try to keep from being stopped by a law officer. They tend to be more in control with what they’re doing. A drunk driver is usually unable to keep it together even when they are trying. We are always hearing about traffic fatalities involving drunk drivers but hardly ever, if any, about those caused by drivers who were stoned on grass at the time.

Now that marijuana has been deemed beneficial for treating a number of medical ailments, like glaucoma, and has been found to relieve the nausea and discomfort associated with chemotherapy, I would think that it would be legalized for the mere reason of its medicinal benefits for a lot of people. It is certainly less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. So why are those substances still legal when they have been proven definitely to have often fatal effects with excessive use, and the non-fatal, even beneficial, marijuana is still deemed illegal in most places? What is up with that?

Again, I say, let adults be responsible for their own actions and choices in life, without arbitrary, especially Governmental, intervention. You must realize, too, that our biggest and most blatant drug-pushers are protected by the law. They are your physicians and your pharmacists. There are more people hooked on prescription drugs in this country than there are potheads. They sustain themselves on diet pills, pep pills, painkillers, stimulants, antidepressants, all sorts of potentially-addictive substances, but they’re all perfectly legal.

There was a time in our distant past when the most dangerous drugs were all legal and used by the common public on a regular basis. The taking of morphine and smoking opium was as common a practice as cigarette-smoking is today and the recent past. These and other drugs were marketed as secret “patent medicines.” This was before the Food and Drug Administration was established, and manufacturers were not required to list the ingredients of any product. So people willingly ingested these elixirs and tonics without knowing what the hell they were taking. They just knew that these medicines did indeed make them feel better, although the eventual side-effects was often addiction. Coca-Cola, or “Coke,” originally contained cocaine, hence the name. Heroin was originally introduced as a commercial cough syrup! Clueless mothers were unwittingly getting their children as well as themselves hooked, turning them into inadvertent, unaware junkies. It was this widespread addiction epidemic that eventually brought about the FDA, stricter regulations and even Prohibition.

Both TV news programs “60 Minutes” and “20/20” have recently reported about the present heroin epidemic in this country. And it’s not in the big cities’ ghettos either but in the small towns and suburban areas in states like Ohio and New Hampshire, of all places. And it’s not the older generation but high school teenagers and younger that are the primary junkies. Some athletes and others get injured and their doctors prescribe addictive pills to manage their pain. But then these kids discover that heroin is not only more available but is cheaper in the long run and provides a much better high than the pills do. And it’s so easy to come by. Those interviewed said that it was easier to get heroin right there in their little town than it was to score marijuana.

The reporter said that there are 26 deaths every day from overdoses of heroin! And that’s only those that are reported. Those distraught parents have learned not to say, “My child would never do heroin,” because they have discovered that it’s their kids who are the town junkies! They say, “But Johnny is a good kid,” as if they assumed that all drug abusers are bad people, until it’s their own “good” son or daughter who has became an addict. They all used to think that this sort of thing happens only to other people, not realizing that they, too, are “other people.”

Discarded needles and syringes are turning up just about everywhere. Young kids have found them on the playgrounds, in the parks and on the street while walking to and from school. The dealers, too, can be found everywhere, soliciting and recruiting new customers. There is an available drug called Naloxene, which can counteract the effects of a drug overdose, and now grade school kids as young as ten and eleven are being taught how to administer the drug, in case the need arises. With all that kids have to deal regarding their regular studies, now they have to worry about saving their sister or brother or parent from ODing on heroin. It certainly puts a new perspective on important parental concerns. I imagine that discovering your kid is gay is not as bad anymore as founding out that they’re a heroin addict! If you had your druthers, I guess you don’t feel so sorry for your sissy son now, do you?

The common over-the-counter cold remedy, Coricidin HBP (geared for people with high-blood pressure), which contains dextromethorphan, is not harmful if taken as directed, that is, one or two tablets at one time. Well, somebody discovered that the drug taken in large amounts carries with it hallucinogenic, mind-altering properties, and many teenagers are now taking it to get high. It’s relatively cheap, and they don’t need a prescription or a pusher to score it for them. They can just get it right off the shelf at their friendly neighborhood drug store. The kids have learned to disguise the pills as Skittles candies; there’s nothing to smoke, snort or inject, and the pills don’t make the eyes red or puffy, so their parents are none the wiser. It’s not until the reckless youngster ODs one night and has to be rushed to the hospital that their parents even realize that the kid has been doing the stuff for many months without their knowledge.

One boy on a TV news report admitted that he once had upped his dosage of 16 pills (which, in my opinion, is already ridiculously and dangerously too many) to 72 pills at one time! Of course, it almost killed him. So, you see, legalization of all drugs is not going to make things any worse than they already are. Humans can and do abuse any substance, regardless of their benefit, detriment or legality. If someone badly enough wants to kill themself in a pharmaceutical manner, there are plenty ways to do it, without breaking the law.

There was a public announcement campaign on TV, with parents trying various ways to talk to their kids about drugs. One had a mother using the “rap” approach. “Don’t do drugs. Drugs are bad…” That advice is about as valid as the “Never talk to strangers” mantra that I debunked in another article (Parenting 101). Most drugs are not bad, only just a few. So not to do any drugs whatsoever would mean to forbid all doctors from prescribing any sort of medication to their patients and to do away with pharmacies altogether. That admonition is also vague and confusing. Don’t do which drugs? Be specific. Do you mean that I shouldn’t take a Tylenol if I have a headache or some penicillin to treat my gonorrhea infection? They should either cite which specific substances that they don’t want their children to “do” or amend the advice to “Don’t abuse drugs.” The fact is, one can overdo anything, no matter how harmless, or not, it may seem. I contend that moderation is the key to personal safety and relative non-harm.

I have heard hypocritical friends and acquaintances berate your hardcore drug addicts while I watch them light up another cigarette, order yet another martini and gulp down one after another cup of coffee or can of cola. They don’t consider nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine, potentially-dangerous drugs, because they are legal, you see. But my dictionary says that a drug is “a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.” I think those three therefore qualify. The individuals who have to have coffee as soon as they get up in the morning and drink many cups of it throughout the day must be addicted to the caffeine. I can’t imagine that it’s the flavor of the coffee that they just cannot do without. I love eggnog, but I don’t have to have it all day every day.

Another TV ad shows a kid asking his parents, “Did you ever try drugs?” How can anyone answer that question truthfully in the negative? Who has not ever ingested a single drug in their entire life? What, no coffee or an aspirin? You have never puffed on a cigarette? Again, they need to specify which drugs. “Dad, have you ever done crack?” for example. I have heard of people drinking themselves to death and killing themselves with doctor-prescribed pills (Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and others!), but I don’t know of anyone who ever tried to overdose to the point of death on marijuana alone. There are quicker and easier ways, to be sure.

This is a continuation of my discussion about gender issues and appearances as they pertain to age.

What is with this obsessive preoccupation with youth and aging? Aging is a natural and unavoidable process in the progression of life. If we stay here long enough, we will get old. That’s just the way it is. Why not accept that fact and just deal with it? I happen to think that age is not all that important, but it apparently is to our societal and moral structures, and I do realize that people are quite judgmental and opinionated about people’s ages.

There is a lot of age discrimination out there, especially with regard to gender. A man between 50- and 60-years-old is said to be “distinguished” and “coming into his own,” while a woman over forty is already “over the hill” and “all her good years are behind her.” That may be what causes women, in particular, to have such hangups and apprehension about their age. Many women never want to admit their real age, as if the passage of time is not going to tell off on them eventually anyway. They are just deluding themselves. Who do they think they’re fooling?

Who is going to believe that a woman with grown children already in their 30s and with grandchildren even, is still only 39? Some of them are even younger than their own daughters! Although it’s not as bad with female celebrities anymore, whose exact ages tend to be public record, there are still those who consider it rude or in poor taste to ask a woman her age. I don’t understand that. Why the reluctance and denial? Are they afraid that they will be judged if they think that they look older than they really are? But what if they’re self-assessment is wrong? I think that the older a person is, and especially if they still look good and take care of themself, will solicit more compliments from people if they admit their real age, rather than trying to put it back several years.

I am told all the time that I don’t look my age and that it’s hard to discern most black people’s exact ages. It’s true in many cases that “black don’t crack.” In 1982 when Lena Horne was playing on Broadway, she turned 65, and people were saying, “Boy, she sure doesn’t look 65!” ‘And why not,’ I asked them? ‘Maybe that’s what 65 is supposed to look like.’ Just because she was still fabulous-looking with clear, smooth skin and in good health and not all broke-down and decrepit, she didn’t look her age? Sixteen years later she still was looking good and still had a voice. When they ran her TV ad for Gap then, I thought, ‘Bless her heart. I hope that I’m still doing singing commercials when I’m 81!’

Just as with physical height, I think that white people perceive age from their own viewpoint. If any of us look better and hold up longer than they do, then they think it’s something special or remarkable. I have noticed that in general, white people seem to age earlier and at a faster rate than blacks do. White women mature sooner but they seem to retain their youth longer than the men, however. Most of the white men I know or encounter in life who are the same age or younger than I am, appear to be older.

When I browse through my high school yearbook, I notice that the black seniors look like teenagers, which they are, but many of the white girls look like 30-year-old women! Of course, I’m generalizing, but there is some validity to my observations. At my 30th and 35th high school class reunions, for example (the only ones that I have attended so far), the few black former classmates who were there looked basically the same. Our bodies had changed, of course, but we still had the same recognizable faces. The white alumni, however, had aged and changed drastically. Many of them bore no discernible resemblance to their yearbook pictures. And since we are all the same age, I think it is a fair assessment.

Seeing how movie stars age further illustrates my point. Compare some actors when they were in their twenties and thirties to when they were in their sixties and beyond. Here is a random sampling: Marlon Brando, Charlie Chaplin, Joan Crawford, Tony Curtis, Bette Davis, Dorothy Lamour, Laurence Olivier, Mickey Rourke (what happened to him?!), Jane Russell, Frank Sinatra and Lana Turner. When Judy Garland died, she was only 47, although she looked 70, hardly any resemblance to her younger self. Some exceptions, that is, those who look, or looked the same up until they died, and without facial surgery assistance, are George Burns, Dick Clark, Jackie Cooper, Olivia De Haviland, Sally Field, Bob Hope, Robert Mitchum, Maureen O‘Hara, Shirley Temple and Betty White.

No matter what people do to themselves to make them look younger, it doesn’t change their true age. Just like a 70-year-old woman who gets a facelift, she is still just a 70-year-old woman with a facelift! She may look younger, but we know that she must be much older, or else why would she need the facelift?! I really don’t understand the philosophy behind this irrational prevalence of cosmetic surgery. Has “Society” brainwashed these people to be ashamed of their deteriorating appearance, due to aging? Are most of humanity really that superficial and harshly judgmental about other people’s looks retention or lack thereof? I suppose they are, but that doesn’t mean that we have to play into it. If it is the attractive youths who are the ones setting the rules and standards of physical beauty, don’t they realize that someday their turn will come and others will judge them the same way they did when they were young and attractive?

Aging is an unavoidable fact of life, and no amount of plastic surgery is going to prevent that fact. Any surgery is only temporary anyway. It lasts only a few years, if that, then they have to keep doing it again and again to retain that desired look. It’s futile, in my opinion, and blatantly dishonest besides. Just like the balding men who wear fake hairpieces, we can always tell when somebody’s had a face job, and I, for one, don’t think any more or less of someone who chooses not to have work done on themself. I always liked Phyllis Diller and Joan Rivers because they were funny, not because they kept wanting to look younger than they really were.

Of course, we are all critical and judgmental about everything, myself included, but that should be our own problem, not anyone else’s. Sure, that actor is looking a little haggard these days, and that other one is really showing her age, too. Oh, yes, I will talk about you, but so what? Don’t go through all of that trouble on my account. I’m not anybody that you need to impress. For myself, too, and not that I need it, I refuse to subject myself to the pain and discomfort and expense of cosmetic surgery just to receive possible universal acceptance. And you’re not going to please everybody anyway. What you see is what you get. This is it, honey!

In the 1973 film Ash Wednesday Elizabeth Taylor feels that her husband, Henry Fonda, has lost interest in her. So she has a facelift, thinking that it will help restore her marriage. But after she goes through the operation–the whole procedure is depicted in the movie–hubby Henry couldn’t care less. It was all for naught. His disinterest has nothing to do with her face. He just doesn’t want her anymore.

A colleague of mine once told me that I should color my hair to cover the gray, presumably to make me look younger. I told her, ‘What do I want to look younger for?’ Everyone who knows me knows how old I am. What would that prove? Betty White was still a blonde up until she died, but we know that the woman was 99! Besides, age deterioration is more apparent in one’s face and body, not their hair color or presence of same. There are people in their twenties who already are bald or have gray hair.

People seem to have a fear and dread of getting old but usually feel quite differently when they get there. As I am one who is aging relatively gracefully, I am not all that apprehensive about getting older. My age has affected my health more than it has my appearance. I never lie about my age. I am thankful for every birthday I make it to. Instead of dreading that I am another year older, I celebrate and rejoice in the fact that I survived another year of life. So many of my friends didn’t make it this far. Singer Patti LaBelle is grateful that she was the first and only of her siblings to make it to age fifty. I, too, consider growing old to be an accomplishment, certainly not a curse.

Realize that age is only a number, and you’re only as old as you feel. I know people much younger than I am who are always sick and in pain and all broke down long before their time. I have more stamina than some guys in their thirties. A woman I know once expressed to me some years ago her desire to go back to school to pursue a nursing career, but she was worried about the amount of time it would take. She said, “I’ll be fifty by the time I finish my schooling.” I gave her this to ponder. ‘How old will you be if you don’t do it?’

There is something to be said for aging. With age comes wisdom, experience and hopefully, respect. It gives one a different perspective of life and your priorities change. Little things that I used to obsess about and bother me when I was younger, I don’t give a shit about anymore. What can you tell a centenarian, someone who has outlived everybody they know and has probably seen and done it all? I wouldn’t dare try to advise or contradict such a person. Of course, one is never too old to learn something new, but that’s different than some young whippersnapper telling a much older person how to live or criticizing the way they choose to do something. My way seems to have worked for me this long, so how dare you try to make me change for your benefit. Make it to my age and experience everything that I have gone through in my life, and then you may be able to offer some useful advice. Otherwise, shut up and leave me be.

Here is more double-standard hypocrisy. It is perfectly and sociably acceptable for an older man to be involved with a much younger woman, but not so when an older woman is with a much younger man. Age of Consent certainly is a controversial issue with many people. It is difficult for us not to generalize about how old a person should be before they are legally responsible for their own sexual activities, proclivities and attractions. The exploits of sexually-active teenagers who are approximately the same age—except for their parents’ possible disapproval of their having sex at all—are not subject to any particular legal intervention. But if a teen chooses, as should be their right, to have sexual relations with a consenting adult, then the relationship is looked upon by many as sick and perverted, on the part of the adult, referring to them as a pedophile or child molester. It’s not molestation if the so-called child is a willing participant. That’s why I consider the imposed notion of statutory rape to be unconstitutional. I never gave the Government permission to determine by law whom I can or cannot have sexual attractions for. Therefore, I think that Age of Consent should either be redefined, or because of its mere unconstitutionality, be done away with altogether.

A fact is, you can’t rape the willing. Realize, too, that statutory rape is a sexist imposition. The dictionary’s definition applies only to females, which would infer that young women don’t have the right to choose their own love interest, based on his age, as young men do. Now, I don’t mean to imply that people don’t rape or molest children, but those are specific criminal acts that should have nothing to do with age. A man who sexually abuses a young girl against her will is no worse than one who rapes a grown woman against her will. They both are serious violations. But when it is qualified with the “statutory” designation, that means that someone else other than the couple having the sex is objecting to the union. In probably every case, the girl is being sexually-active by her own doing, and it is her parents that are in denial about their “innocent little girl” and choose to blame everything on the man instead. He should know better than to take advantage of a child. But what if that child is a precocious little slut who seduced the man? It’s not always the man who is the aggressor.

I have found that even some word definitions take on new meanings to reflect modern times. The word pedophilia, from the Greek, used to mean simply, a fondness for children. There’s nothing wrong with people liking children. I would think that all parents and especially anyone who works with children–schoolteachers and administrators, camp counselors, scout leaders, day care workers, etc.–must like them, or why would they be having them and working at those jobs? But as humans tend to do, we always have to reduce everything to sex. The more recent dictionary definition of pedophile now states, “an adult who has a sexual attraction to children.” I think that is negatively judgmental and blatantly presumptuous. So now if a man says that he likes children, some take it to mean that he is a sexual predator. If they are going to change the original meaning of an innocent word to mean something with aberrant connotation and criminal intent, then they need to give us another word to use that is less accusatory.

Having an attraction for something or someone and acting upon it are two different things. And then many of the aforementioned may love children for their mere being but do not desire them sexually. That’s an unfair stigma to impose upon someone. A person is what a person does, not necessarily how they feel about something. We can’t help how we feel about something, we can only control our actions. A person may contemplate murder, for example, but does not become a murderer until they actually carry out the deed. When an adult molests a child against their wishes, call them what they are, a child molester. Michael Jackson never denied being a pedophile, per se–so, the man enjoyed the company of children–he only denied having sexual relations with them. There is a big difference in sentiment, which the current definition does not acknowledge. Now when someone is deemed a pedophile, it is automatically assumed that they are sexually molesting underage children, which may not be the case at all. Having positive feelings towards certain people doesn’t always have to involve the sex act.

That being said, the widespread incidence of child molestation against young boys has recently come to public light. Men by the droves have finally come out to admit that as children they were sexually abused by adults. Not surprisingly to me, many of these predators are your trusted local parish priests who went on for years undiscovered, because the parents were unaware and unsuspecting, and the boys themselves never told anyone what was being done to them. Some were and are victims of family members, including their own parents and older siblings. And when the perpetrators are those who the kids love and trust, their actions tend to go unreported and they often get away with what they’re doing. They don’t want to send their own father to prison. I mean, other than “that,” he is a loving, providing parent. In the case of those priests, even when they are found out, they are never convicted. They are protected by the Church. They are merely reassigned to another parish where they can continue their seductions on a new batch of innocent, impressionable little boys. I discuss this topic in more detail in my blog A Critique of Catholicism, or check out the Best Picture Oscar-winner of 2016, Spotlight, for the inside scoop.

I hope you don’t think that pedophilia is some new reality. Adult men have been lusting after children for all times. Author Lewis Carroll loved little girls and boys, as did James M. Barrie. Artist Edgar Degas was apparently into them, judging from his countless works of art depicting young ballerinas. Edgar Allan Poe married his own cousin before she was 13, as did singer Jerry Lee Lewis.

Other musical artists from the rock ‘n’ roll era seem to have been obsessed with youths as well. Chuck Berry sang about children often. To name a few, “Johnny B. Goode,” “Little Queenie,” “Sweet Little Sixteen” and his “Memphis, Tennessee” is about a 6-year-old girl! Dee Clark sang, # Hey, little girl in the high-school sweater, gee, I’d sure like to know you better… # Oh, you would, now? Since he is not another student, he must be a teacher or perhaps the school janitor. Del Shannon also had a song called, “Hey, Little Girl.” Steve Lawrence once warned, # Go away, little girl, before I beg you to stay. # No restraint, huh, Steve? There is the Beach Boys’ “Little Girl, You’re My Miss America”. The Beatles observed, # Well, she was just seventeen; you know what I mean… # Uh, not really, guys. What do you mean, exactly? Since you just “saw her standing there,” you must have been cruising.

Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs gave us # Hey, there, Little Red Ridin’ Hood, you sure are lookin’ good… # Sam is being a predatory “wolf” and is not even hiding that fact. Neil Sedaka did “Happy Birthday, Sweet Sixteen” and the Crests put “Sixteen Candles” on the birthday cake of some young sweetie in their life. Johnny Burnette sang, # You’re sixteen, you’re beautiful, and you’re mine. # I hope that’s his daughter rather than his love interest. How old is “Little Darlin'”? Is she an adult little person or a child? The list goes on and on. These blatant declarations of pedophilia are apparently overlooked and accepted, whereas they certainly wouldn’t be in real-life situations. It’s more hypocrisy. Musical humorist Anna Russell used to say that in opera you can get away with anything, as long as you sing it. I guess that would apply to childlust as well. So it’s all right to display your desire for underage children, as long as you express it in a song.

What about the pedophilic-themed novels Lolita and Death in Venice? During Greek and Roman times, when love between males was a common occurrence, older men usually took on beautiful youths as the objects of their affection. Many of the famous homosexuals throughout history maintained boy lovers. If there was some objection to the relationship, it was because they were gay, or even a matter of class distinction, not because of their age difference.

Along with statutory rape, Age of Consent is a modern institution, created so that the Powers-That-Be can have more control over everybody’s lives. We can’t have sex with just anybody. Somebody has to monitor our irresponsible behavior. Then we have your self-righteous hypocrites (I know a few myself) who are really “chicken queens” at heart themselves, but because of the so-called Age of Consent laws—and that is the only thing that’s stopping them—will not act upon their desired inclinations. Although I admire their restraint, these same people will then condemn and badmouth anyone who does have the courage of their convictions and who might actually act upon their desires, and will talk disparagingly about pedophilic organizations, like the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). By their own admission, if there were no age laws, they would be doing exactly the same thing. So what these apparently jealous guys are actually doing is vicariously punishing themselves by attacking and persecuting others. “If I can’t have this beautiful little boy, because of my own personal hang-ups, then I forbid you to have him either!”

I would like to say a word here in defense of NAMBLA, which is commonly held in public disfavor. I understand the premise of the organization to be that sexually-aware male children, who are considered “underage” by certain segments of our society, have the right to have sexual relations with men older than themselves without a moral judgment attached to it, because of the age difference. It’s a consensual thing. The club is for men who like young boys and boys who prefer older men, which should be both their options. A boy old enough to be aware of sex and his own desires should have the right to choose with whom he wants to do it. Unfortunately, there are men who do indeed prey upon little boys against their will, and will use the organization as a means to fulfill their unwelcome fantasies. So now what happens is, that convicted child molester is discovered to be associated with NAMBLA, therefore NAMBLA must be made up entirely of child molesters. That is an unfair conclusion.

It is the same with racism. The news media regularly reports that drug-related crimes are committed by black youths. So then any black youth that you encounter on the street should be regarded with fear and suspicion, because they are all drug-dealing thugs. If one person from a Moslem country commits a single act of terrorism, then every Muslim in the world should be considered a terrorist. As with every social group, it only takes a few to damage the reputation of all the others. Why should one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the whole bunch? Oh, incidentally, former juvenile actor Corey Feldman has publicly reported that although he was sexually abused by several industry child molesters as a youth, his close friend Michael Jackson was never one of them. So there!

So you see, one should not automatically assume that an “underage” person involved with an adult succumbed against their will. Juvenile seducers abound just as adult ones do. Some of your prostitutes and street hustlers begin as teenagers, some as young as 12-years-old. In my own case, for instance, ever since I became sexually aware, at the tender age of 14, I was always attracted to older guys. I did play around with my schoolmates and such, but when I went out street cruising, I was looking for a man! But I never was molested or abused by anyone. I was always the instigator and the seducer, or at least a willing participant, as is often the case. All children aren’t as innocent and naïve as their elders think they are, or would like them to be. Even as I got older, I still preferred older gentlemen than myself, but now at 76, I prefer men who are within my generation and younger. For an ongoing relationship, however, I don’t want them to be too young. I want to be around people that when I mention the names Tom Lehrer or Laura Nyro, they don’t say, “Who?!”

There is a certain irony involved in that a man can be much more easily convicted of statutory rape, even when the girl was totally willing and the charge was made by somebody else. But a man who sexually assaults a grown woman against her will often gets acquitted or not convicted at all because of lack of proof or because the woman is reluctant to press charges, due to the harassment and persecution that she herself is put through by the court system. So that young girl’s consensual older lover gets sent to prison while her mother’s rapist gets off scot-free. What kind of justice is that?

Why should everyone have to stay within their own age group when it comes to romantic relationships? Adults can make their own choices. Some people go for men and/or women older than themselves, while others prefer them to be younger. In the same respect, adolescents should have the same rights as an adult. There is nothing wrong with a 40-year-old man involved with a 30-year-old woman. But people think differently when just 15 years ago this same man was 25 and the girl was only 15. It’s the same 10-year age difference, so why should the moral standard be any different?

Recent news tells of 26-year-old schoolteacher Debra LaFave who had been displaying a romantic interest in several of her younger students, much to the country’s disapproval. Americans are still outraged about then 36-year-old Washington teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau’s torrid love affair with a then 13-year-old boy, and although the two claimed to be in love with each other (their union has even produced two children), people just cannot accept theirs to be a viable relationship. What could they possibly have in common? Well, offspring, for one thing! But Mary Kay is regarded by most as the sick one and is the one who had to serve prison time, even though the affair was consensual. The couple even married when she got out of prison. In fact, at last report, they were still together raising their children. She is 50-something now and the guy is in his 30s. So it’s no big deal now. Mary Kay did not seduce the youngster. In fact, the boy was the instigator, so why was he not being punished, too? If he is old enough to father a child, then he should take equal responsibility for the act. It takes two to tango, you know. Why should it be anybody’s business with whom two people choose to procreate? Now if they want to get her for adultery, since she was still married at the time of the initial affair, then that’s another story. But as of yet, adultery is not punishable by imprisonment. If it were, there would be a whole lot more incarcerations and a lot fewer people protesting.

As I said, people tend to place too much emphasis and importance on age. People are “too young” for this or “too old” for that or “not old enough” to do something. Age is merely a state of mind and completely a matter of individuality. Everyone has their own rate of growth and maturity. How and why can we arbitrarily decide that someone has to be at least a certain age to accomplish something that could possibly be achieved at an earlier age? The same thing goes for forced retirement. If a person is still productive after the age of 65 and wants to continue working, they should be allowed to. If certain requirements or standards are established for a particular privilege, skill or activity, then anyone should be allowed to apply, regardless of their age. Everyone who drives a motor vehicle must pass a test to get their license, so why does one have to wait until they’re 16 to drive when a kid might be ready at, say, age 13 or 14? As long as the child is tall enough to reach the pedals, operate the vehicle properly and pass the driver’s tests, why shouldn’t they be allowed to drive like someone much older? All traffic mishaps and violations, if hardly any, are not caused by beginning teenage drivers, you know.

There was a boy who piloted his father’s plane and flew across the country, when he was only 9-years-old! How old should a person be to be able to begin public school or vote or serve in the military, get married, have sex, have children? I think that it’s up to the individuals involved. And then, too, just because someone is of “legal age,” it does not necessarily mean that they are ready or able to perform certain functions in life. One couple could be mature enough and be responsible to marry while they are still teens and make it last for many years, while another couple, in their 30s, may not yet be mature enough to take on the responsibility of marriage and child-rearing. How old should you be to vote? Some of those that do, frequently make stupid decisions, don’t they? High-schoolers could have better insight and political knowledge than your veteran voters. How old should one be to die for one’s country? At 76, I’m still not old enough for that!

There are children who are more talented and have higher intelligence quotients than some adults. Child genius Michael Kearney graduated from college at age 10, the youngest ever. So, as I said before, age is merely a number which does not necessarily have anything to do with the amount or degree of a person’s knowledge, ability or life experiences. All human beings should be judged solely on those aspects, nothing else. When someone says that everyone is created equal, it does not mean that they first have to be a certain age, male, Caucasian and heterosexual. Even the last line of our Pledge of Allegiance says, “…with liberty and justice for All.” As if!

[Related articles: Gender Issues and Sexism; “How Do I Look?”]

Sexist attitudes are not inherent. They are instilled in us by our parents and society in general. They start on us as newborn babies to establish some kind of arbitrary sexual identity. Little babies are dressed a certain way, according to their gender. Blue and green are for boys and pink and yellow are for girls. Playthings are designated “boys’ toys” and “girls’ toys.” Only girls are supposed to play with baby dolls. Why? Because girls need to learn how to take care of their real babies when they get them someday. So there is no circumstance where a man ever would be required to know how to care for a baby, to bathe and dress and feed it? Childcare is strictly a woman’s job? How about when the mother dies in childbirth or while the child is still an infant, and the father has to raise the baby alone?

I think that’s one of the problems of paternal child-rearing right there. Instead of teaching parental values to a young boy that will be useful to him and his family later on in life, fathers, especially, attempt to instill aggression and relative insensitivity in the child by giving him war toys and brute activity paraphernalia to play with. We’ve heard fathers refer to their baby boys as “Slugger” and say, “That’s my quarterback!” Come on, it’s a baby! He may not have any future interest whatsoever in baseball or football.

If the truth be told, though, realize that little boys actually do regularly play with dolls; they just don’t acknowledge it as such. Those little toy soldiers and superheroes that are popular with boys are not referred to as dolls, but as “action figures.” Well, Barbie and Chatty Cathy can be considered action figures, too, but they all are dolls just the same! A doll is “a small-scale figure of a human being used especially as a child’s plaything.” Okay? Then that would include your puppets and marionettes, too, as well as ventriloquists’ dummies. So there are grown men who play with dolls for a living and get paid lots of money for it, too! What I think these fathers’ main objection is, they don’t want their sons playing with girl dolls. It’s the same with real people. Ugh! Yucky girls! They don’t mind so much if the dolls are male action figures, however.

Consider this scenario. A man is toy shopping with his young son, and the boy asks his dad to buy him a Barbie doll. The father is dismayed and outraged at his son’s request and suggests that he get him a Ken doll instead. Do you get what I’m saying? This guy seems to be worried about his son’s being an aspiring faggot. I mean, if he plays with a girl doll, that must mean that he wants to be like a girl, right? No, it could be that maybe he already likes girls. So Dad steers the boy away from that Barbie bitch and towards the more appropriate male role model, Ken?! I guess he doesn’t realize what a big ol’ queen Ken is. Interestingly though, in the Child’s Play (1982) horror thriller, it is a young boy who begs his mother for a Chucky doll, and she readily gets him one without any of the usual sexist criticism from his peers. But since the doll is in the form of a little boy, I guess that makes it all right then.

My new doll is squooshy soft,
She dimples when I touch her;
I love my old doll very much,
But I love my new doll mucher.
–Ogden Nash

There is the old nursery rhyme, which sounds to me that it might have been written by a woman, because of its negative bias on one side, that tells what boys and girls are made of. Little girls are made of “sugar and spice and everything nice,” while little boys are made of “snips and snails and puppy dogs’ tails.” What in hell is a snip, by the way?

The sexist indoctrination is continued by informing children what activities and occupations are suitable, or not, for their particular gender. All boys are supposed to love rough-and-tumble play and getting dirty, while girls should be confined to their dollhouses and E-Z-Bake Ovens. Boys go out for team sports, and girls, since they cannot play themselves, become cheerleaders. Boys take machine shop at school, girls take home economics. Boys enroll in martial arts classes, girls take ballet lessons. Boys play the tuba, girls play the flute. Girls don’t have low voices, boys after a certain age, don’t sing soprano. Certain household chores, like cleaning, ironing, doing the laundry, and even cooking, that some men just cannot be bothered with themselves, by default become “woman’s work.” Real men don’t ever cry or display their affections to another man. Men have to resort to pugilism to prove their manliness. Only a wimp or a sissy would walk away from a fight. Women are weak, defenseless and helpless. A woman cannot feel complete without the love of a man, and vice versa.

Of course, all these platitudes are meaningless and have nothing to do with gender. Any and all of the aforementioned activities and preferences can be experienced equally by both males and females. Humans are always trying to point out the differences between men and women, but the differences occur between individuals, not between the sexes themselves. A man is not one thing and a woman is something else entirely. This particular man and that particular woman might be totally different, or they both could be virtually the same. My definition of sexism is bias of human difference based on gender alone.

Parents are especially responsible for perpetuating male chauvinism in children. There’s not as much pressure on girls, though, as there are on boys. If a girl is somewhat of a tomboy, that’s not such a bad thing. It’s even considered cute and sometimes encouraged when a little girl wants to play sports, wear baseball caps and overalls and get into scraps with her schoolmates. But if a boy is not interested in sports, wants to stay in the house to play with his dolls and help his mother with the housework, then he’s deemed a sissy and is given a hard time by his family and peers.

Why is doing “girly” activities such a terrible or shameful thing? The message they are giving boys is that females are inferior, second-class beings, not worthy of any respect, that any activity that is associated with girls are not worth doing and should be avoided at all costs. And why in the world would you want to be or act like one if you were fortunate enough to be born male? Who in their right mind would want to be a woman if they didn’t have to be?

This chauvinistic attitude is used all the time to belittle or insult males. “You throw just like a girl! … He drives like an old lady!” So what’s wrong with that? Your point being? What girl are you referring to anyway? The pitcher on the girls’ softball team? The national freethrow champion at some time was a 13-year-old girl. Which old lady? I know old ladies who are excellent drivers. If you mean that there is not much power behind his throw or that he drives below the recommended speed limit, then say that. There is no need to bring gender into it.

So boys grow up with this attitude toward all women, and even girls are taught to feel the same way about themselves. We often hear the comment, “She was behaving just like a schoolgirl.” What does that even mean? How do “schoolgirls” behave? And what kind of school are they referring to? Nursery school? High school? Medical school? Law school? Beauty college? Convent? What the phrase is really implying is, “She was acting like some silly white child,” and leave it at that. Her gender and/or scholastic status is inconsequential.

Another girly trait is showing one’s emotions. Only females are free to cry and show their soft “feminine” side. Males have to hold it all in. Crying is a sign of weakness, and as a man, we can’t have that, can we? “Stop that crying, Billy! I forbid it. Be a man.” Consider the restraint and inner turmoil a young boy has to endure when he is not allowed to cry or display his vulnerability. That is why a lot of these boys harbor pent-up rage and aggression. They have to get their frustrations out somehow. It’s done with females as well. “Please don’t cry, Sis.” Why not? If someone is crying, there is a reason for it. Leave them alone. Let them cry if they want to. The need to cry is a human right, not reserved for only one sex. Everybody cries, regardless of gender. Crying is cathartic, a welcome release, just as laughter is. Suppose we were forbidden to laugh or even to smile? What a joyless world it would be.

A young mother is Halloween costume shopping with her 10-year-old son. When the boy expresses to his mother his desire to go as a princess for Halloween, she freaks out. “You can’t be a princess, Timmy. That’s a girl’s costume.” But why not? He’s only pretending. He’s not Spider Man either, but she wouldn’t object to that. Instead of supporting her son’s decision and preference, I think she is more concerned about what other people will think about it. Maybe the kid doesn’t care what other people think. He much more cares about what his parents think. It’s they who have a problem with it and are passing the buck to protect the feelings of strangers. His mother is the one who told him that he couldn’t be a princess. He didn’t hear it from anyone else. She is blaming her own bigotry on the world at large. If the boy is attempting to express some preliminary gender identity awareness, it would behoove his parents to take heed now, but let the child be. They can’t stop him from being who he thinks he is.

I believe that it is this arbitrary gender delineation that causes transsexualism in certain individuals. Of course, everyone is different and has their own story to tell, but I think that most transgendered persons may be a bit confused, and/or harbor certain feelings of homophobia and self-hate. I have heard them complain that they feel that their problem is that they are of the wrong gender and were born into the body of the opposite sex. But that would imply that they have a pre-conceived notion of what each sex is supposed to be like. Why should common human feelings be exclusively reserved for one sex or the other?

A transgendered woman reports that when she was a little girl, she hated wearing dresses and preferred to engage in “boyish” activities. Well, that doesn’t make her a boy. She was just a girl who didn’t like to wear dresses! This same girl hated it when she developed breasts. She found them totally unnecessary, as she had already decided that she didn’t want to bear children, therefore would have no need to breastfeed—which is what they are for in the first place. There are many women who don’t want to bear children even though they are able to, but that doesn’t mean that they must be a man mentally. Just like there are men, I’m sure, who would like to experience actual childbirth, although they can’t, but that doesn’t make them a woman.

I think that male and female identity are strictly a basic, physical factor and not all that psychological. When a child is born, its gender is determined by its reproductive organs alone. If it has a penis, it’s a boy, and if it has a vagina, it’s a girl. The attending birthing participants don’t look at a just-born baby and declare, “Hmm, outwardly this looks like a boy, but I expect he was born into the wrong body.” The sex organs are what determine one’s sex, nothing more. Boys and girls both cry when they are spanked at birth. Their early development is the same, and they have the same bodily functions. Men go through their own “change of life” (referred to as “andropause“), just as women have their menopause. But only a woman menstruates and is capable of childbirth, and only a man can produce sperm. That’s what makes you what you are, not what you think you are.

It is parents and society in general that teach and condition children to regard the sexes differently and that each gender has to follow a certain criterion. And if we should dare deviate from this arbitrary set of rules, then there must be something terribly wrong with us. How can someone be born “into the wrong body”? I don’t think that God makes that kind of mistake. “He has male genitalia but a female brain.” How absurd!

Maybe there is more to this that I just don’t understand, or maybe it is as simple as I am making it. When a man says that he feels like a woman, what is he basing that on, having never been one? How does a woman feel anyway? How does a man feel, for that matter? Feelings are an impulse of all living things, that have nothing to do with a specific gender. Anyone can feel any way that they want to.

Many contend that men and women think differently about certain things, but do they really? If so, often it is just a biased double standard at play. When a man knows his own mind and takes charge of a situation, he is a forceful and respected leader. If it is a woman doing exactly the same thing, then she’s a bossy bitch. When a man is indecisive, we give him a break. He is just considering all aspects of the situation. If it’s a woman, however, it’s expected, because they can never make up their mind anyway, you know. If men and women do think differently, however, that could stem from their individual life experiences. Women have certain problems and personal issues to deal with on a regular basis, which may cause them to regard things differently than a man might. A man doesn’t know what it’s like to have to endure the menstrual cycle for most of their life or what it feels like to be pregnant and bear a child. So, it could be how our perception of things and how we cope with issues influence men and women’s thought processes.

Gender bias can stem from parental influence, conditioning, circumstance, personal treatment and upbringing. When a mother continually chides her young daughter with, “Don’t do that, dear. It’s not ladylike,“ the girl might think, “Well, gee, I must be a boy, then.” What, girls never fart? That is strictly a male thing? Again, where is it written that all human activities and behavior must be relegated to a particular gender?

Here is another case of life imitating art. One season of “Saturday Night Live” (which inspired a 1994 feature film as well) introduced a series of comedy skits, starring Julia Sweeney, called “It’s Pat!” about an androgynous being, whose plots always involved the other players’ trying to discover Pat’s true gender. One of my former church choir positions was at an Episcopal church in Brooklyn Heights. The first Sunday I was there, the rector who came out to officiate at the service was this androgynous person of indeterminate gender. My first thought was, It’s Pat! When I checked the church bulletin, I discovered that the rector’s name is Patricia Wilson-Kastner. Too much! I thought. Well, how do you like that? It really is Pat! I wonder if Julia knows her, and if she was the inspiration for the character.

Gender mis-identity could possibly be a matter of a hormonal imbalance in certain individuals. I believe it is possible to have too much of the opposite hormone, that some men can have an overabundance of estrogen in their physical makeup and that testosterone can predominate in some women, giving them the delusion that they are of the wrong gender. Sure, he’s rather fey, but he’s still a man, and she is quite butch, but she’s still a woman. How I think that homophobia plays into it is when, let’s say a man this time, has strong romantic feelings towards other men, but rather than consider that he might be gay, he decides that he is really a woman born into a man’s body! I mean, a man can’t be attracted to other men, can he? But to go through the traumatic ordeal of a sex-change operation just to avoid being labeled a homosexual or so that one can experience or “be” the other gender seems rather extreme, don’t you think?

I’ve met a few “trannies” in my day, but I don’t have any as close friends whom I can talk to about their particular orientation. I have heard some of them claim after their transition that they are happy with the change. But why did they need to change their gender? If you don’t like who you are, how is changing your sex supposed to fix it? As I discuss in another blog, personal happiness is a choice. You can choose to be happy and accepting of yourself or you can choose to be miserable.

“60 Minutes” did a report on the subject, focusing on the current trend of adolescent individuals who desire to change their sex. What I found interesting and disturbing is that many of these kids are being influenced by internet sites propaganda and promotion, then when they proceed with their transition, even to the point of irreversible surgical procedures, they often change their minds, regretting their decision and feeling much worse about themselves than they did before, even contemplating suicide. They are also subject to mistreatment, physical abuse and public ostracism.

Listening to Chaz Bono (formerly Chastity) talk about their transition, I found to be quite revealing. You will indulge my use of various pronouns. “They” admitted that other than our genitals, boys and girls are basically the same. Well, duh! They reported that even when “she” came out as a sapphist at a young age, it wasn’t enough for her that she preferred women. She got it in her mind that she wanted to be a man. So she went through the procedures as far as mastectomy and hormone injections go, but when asked if they were going to get a penis to complete the deal, as it were, they actually said that having a penis was not of any concern to them. Say, what? Our penis is what defines us as men, as any man will tell you, just as a vagina is what defines a woman. That’s what made me realize that his thinking that he is a man is just in his deluded mind. How can he call himself a real man if he doesn’t have a dick?! And doesn’t at all care about having one!

I can understand their reluctance, though. It was explained to them that penile construction is a complicated and not always effective procedure. It’s not as difficult for trans men, since it’s easier to remove something than to replace something that was not originally there. If they use clitoral tissue to try to reconstruct a penis, it’s never very big, and if they try to build an artificial one, it will be just that, fake, and won’t have any feeling. The truth of the matter is, they haven’t yet figured out how to create a real, functioning penis on a woman. So, I say, Why even bother with all the rest then? All that trouble and expense to what end? After her/his double mastectomy, Chaz said, “This is the first time I feel like a whole person.” What?! Most women who undergo a mastectomy say the exact opposite, that they don’t feel like a whole woman anymore, and that one (or two) of the main things that define her as a woman is her breasts.

Chaz as a woman is now without breasts and as a man without a penis but considers themself a whole person. How twisted is that? It’s just another “Pat,” in my opinion. I try not to be judgmental, but really now! Also, their longtime girlfriend, who is a real sapphist and fell in love with “Chastity” because she was a woman, pretty much admitted that she has remained with Chaz and has accepted their choice to become more “manly,” but only because she still has the luxury of a pussy to play with. If she wanted dick or to be with a man, I suppose she would get a real one. To add to his identity confusion, Chaz is still calling himself gay, although his romantic partner is a woman. (::Cuckoo! Cuckoo!::) I learned that “Caitlyn” Jenner, too, has not gone all the way and chose to retain his penis. So he did not have a complete sex change. He is just your basic run-of-the-mill transvestite/drag queen, or what I discussed in my article, On Being Gay, a chick-with-a-dick!

It seems that certain people always have to have someone to discriminate against. Why can’t they accept everyone and let people be? Transgender individuals, including and especially youths, already have enough to deal with, just being who they are. They don’t need the added problem of not being allowed to use whatever restroom they choose. There are now public schools around the country that are implementing this hateful policy with the excuse, “What if a guy pretends to be a woman so that he can gain access to the women’s restroom for the purpose of molesting a woman in there?”

I hate how the Powers-That-Be are always making monumental decisions for groups of people, based on hypothetical what-ifs and just-in-cases. It has not happened yet and probably never will, but what if it does? Well, you can apply that notion to any situation. “The reason I carry an umbrella with me at all times is, what if it should rain?” “I wouldn’t live in San Francisco. What if there is another major earthquake?” “Never venture into Central Park after dark. What if somebody is in there lurking about?” “Don’t let those kid trannies use the school’s restrooms. What if they are in there only to stalk innocent prey?” You get the idea. But, so what if? I don’t live my life considering all the bad things that could happen in any given situation. If I thought that way, I wouldn’t do anything. But one is not absolutely safe anywhere. What if my ceiling or floor collapses while I am sitting here in my apartment? I just take my chances and hope for the best. Que será será. What will be, will be.

Pardon my somewhat digression. We were talking about restroom discrimination. Why need there be separate facilities anyway? Everybody does the same thing in there, regardless of their gender. Of late, unisex restrooms have been cropping up in some public venues. It doesn’t bother me. The women use the private stalls to do all their business, and the men have a choice of using the urinals or the stalls. So those using the stalls, it shouldn’t matter who is in there or what they are doing. Consider that, unless they have their own private toilet, the bathrooms in people’s homes are used by everybody in the family. Some people try to make so much of a big deal out of nothing.

Commentator David Susskind used to have a late-night talk show in the ’70s. One night he had on a group of individuals who seemed to be going through some sort of identity crisis. I’ve already expressed my views about so-called transvestism (in my blog, “How Do I Look?”), but for the sake of explanation, let’s say that these guests on the show were men dressed as women. They explained to David that the objects of all their affections were women, which isn’t so unusual, as many cross-dressers are, in fact, heterosexual. But these particular drag queens chose to identify themselves as “male lesbians”! Hunh?! They were men who had sex exclusively with women, but rather than be “straight,” they preferred to impersonate women and call themselves sapphists! What a world, huh? It takes all kinds, doesn’t it? I even heard of two man-to-woman trannies who became domestic partners and parents. But are they sapphists now that they have become women? It’s all very confusing.

Society also should be blamed for contributing to the unhappiness and negative self-image of a sexually-confused individual. Their being persecuted, ostracized and considered freaks by the general public sure doesn’t help their well-being, adjustment and self-worth. Even with hermaphrodite births, the parents are encouraged by physicians to decide which predominate gender the child should be raised as. Why choose for someone else one sex over the other? Suppose the parents tell the doctor to make their child into a boy, and then when the child gets old enough, “he” decides that he would rather be a girl instead? As a parent, I would not make such an arbitrary decision for my sexually-ambiguous child while they are still a baby. I would leave them alone and allow them to grow up to decide for themselves which gender they want to be. After all, it’s their life.

Therefore, hermaphrodites (or what is the current more-PC term: “intersexuals”), are your true bisexuals. Maybe they won’t choose one sex over the other but will decide to experience both camps. I think it all goes back to individual self-image and accepting yourself as you are. I was born male, black and gay, and that’s the way I intend to stay. I don’t want to be anything other than what I am. If anybody does not like either of those identities, then it’s their problem, not mine!

There was a time not so long ago when a real man was not even allowed to carry a shoulder bag, which is, in reality, a purse, even though long ago purses were originally used by men. It’s only the matter of the design of the thing anyway, as they all serve a similar purpose. But now the sexual barriers are breaking down somewhat, because, in addition to sporting purses, now men can wear high-heeled shoes, perfume, makeup, earrings and other jewelry in public without it being considered effeminate or sissified.

This is the dictionary definition given for the word effeminate, by the way: “having feminine qualities, as weakness or softness, inappropriate to a man; not manly in appearance or manner; marked by an unbecoming delicacy or over-refinement.” Wow, that’s a loaded one! Since the word feminine definitely applies to women, I guess we are to assume that effeminate applies only to men, because of the phrase, “inappropriate to a man.” So brute strength and coarseness are manly traits and to be weak and soft is “inappropriate,” just as to be a man is to be offensive and uncultivated because to be the opposite is “unbecoming.” I think that’s insulting to both sexes. Again, the message is, to behave “like a woman” when you are not, is inexcusable. I think that a definition of this sort should simply describe without being judgmentally biased.

There is even some chauvinistic sexism associated with a particular aspect of music theory. There are two types of cadences (musical endings) that are classified as masculine and feminine, the masculine being one that ends with a stress, while the feminine cadence is one that has an unstressed, or weak, ending.

On TV and in the movies some characters are so reluctant to use the word date. A guy will ask a girl out to have dinner with him or go see a movie perhaps, but will then assure her that this is not a date. Why isn’t it? It happens even in real life. Two people are seeing each other and going out on a regular basis, to parties and concerts and ball games and such, but they claim that are not dating. What’s wrong with calling it what it is? I suppose they think that someone will want to read romantic intentions into it, which the word itself has nothing to do with, necessarily.

As I am always curious about the real meaning of words, I looked up date in the dictionary, and I was surprised and appalled at what I found. Of course, the word has multiple meanings, but in this particular instance, it reads, “an appointment for a set time for a social engagement with a person of the opposite sex” and “to have social engagements with persons of the opposite sex.” It doesn’t mention anything about romance or affection between the persons involved. But how irresponsible is that to define a common word with such heterosexist connotations. So two people of the same sex cannot go on a date? It applies only to male-female couples? That’s not right.

And it doesn’t always have to be a “social engagement” either. Two people can have private one-on-one trysts without others around. I go on dates with men all the time with guys who are not my boyfriends. I often go to dinners and movies with more than one friend, but I still consider it a date nonetheless. When a person goes on a “blind date,” they don’t know what the outcome will be, having not yet met the other person. How can they even be sure that their date is of the opposite sex?

Fortunately, the antiquated notion that women are not allowed or expected to participate in certain occupations or activities that are more common to men is passé, and nowadays women can do everything that a man can do, and more. Females are never, or hardly ever, referred to as “woman doctor” or “lady cop” or “lady truck driver” anymore. She’s simply a doctor, cop, truck driver or priest. But I still hear people say, “He is a male nurse” or a “male model” or a “male prostitute,” or if a man takes care of the house while his wife works elsewhere, he is referred to as a “househusband.” After one’s gender has been established by an appropriate pronoun, the occupation itself does not need further gender designation. He can just be a nurse, a model, a prostitute or a homemaker, just like a woman.

Firemen and policemen are now firefighters and police officers. We have also done away with the sexist “-ess” and “-ette” designation on some professions that have become common to both sexes. Flight attendant has replaced stewardess, she is a server rather than a waitress, an usher instead of an usherette, and a person who acts for a living is an actor, whether they be male or female. Jane Lynch and Neicy Nash are TV game show hosts, not hostesses. I suppose, however, that women of royalty and nobility (baroness, countess, duchess, empress, princess) must remain so in order to distinguish them from her male counterparts.

Unlike most of the contributions by Afro-Americans that have virtually gone unacknowledged by White America, at least women’s historical achievements have not been completely disregarded, that is, as long as they are white. In most nations of the world, there have always been female rulers and heads-of-state. Queens, Empresses, female Prime Ministers and such are no novelty in other places outside the United States. So to elect a woman for U.S. President could have been a reality in a recent past election–it just didn’t happen. It was more the candidate than the fact that she is a woman. A lot of voters just don’t like Hillary Clinton. Now with Kamala Harris, a women-of-color, as our Vice-President, it could happen sooner than we think.

The modern Feminist Movement grew out of the desire for equal rights for women in a male-dominated society. What’s in a word? The very name given to the female of the species as well as the species itself are male-oriented. We are all members of the human race. The word woman is an acronym for “w(ife)-o(f)-man.” The word female stems from male. Even the pronouns she and her contain a “he” in them. It’s as if women cannot have their own identity without the man’s influence. I can understand why the feminists have changed the spelling of the word to “womyn” and “wimmin,” just to get that “man” out of there.

Now feminists have their own recorded account of past events that they call “herstory,” which can be studied right along with history. But it’s men who usually have hernias and it’s women who menstruate, go through menopause and have hysterectomies. He can have herpes and be guilty of heresy, too, and a female actor also may give a display of histrionics. Mannequins are made in women’s images as well as men.

Consider some of these advertising practices. In your supermarket you will find Manwich Sauce and Swanson’s Hungry-Man Dinners. What about all those hungry women out there in the world? Sony Walkmans, Discmans and Talkmans were purchased and used by probably as many women as men. It’s always a snowman that you build and a gingerbread man that you bake. Females can participate in the game of Blind Man’s Bluff right along with the males, just as women who work on street construction or in the sewers can make use of manholes and their covers. In folklore we always deal with the Boogeyman, Candyman, the Muffin Man, the Sandman, the Wolf Man, and the new movie baddie, the Bye-Bye Man. All first-year high school and college students are referred to as freshmen, although there are probably just as many women in attendance. We hear reference only to cavemen, but the women must have been living there with them as well.

Remember Animal Crackers, those little flavorless cookies in the form of various animals? Well, there is a version for dogs called People Crackers. These tasty pet treats take the form of mailmen, milkmen, firemen, policemen and dogcatchers—nary a female in the bunch. And of course, all the figures have obvious Caucasoid features, not that my sister and nieces would consider it any great honor to be depicted as dog food.

How about those annoying (to me, anyway) television ads for Sports Illustrated magazine? Especially around Christmas and Father’s Day, they would do a big subscription campaign by offering a special Swimsuit issue featuring scantily-clad, buxom, white women models. The promoters promise that this is “the perfect gift for every man.” (What about your sports-minded sapphists?) How insulting and offensive that is! My friends would not dare give me such a gift. And I know many men who have no interest whatsoever in sports, or nekkid women, for that matter. They are also implying that you have to be heterosexual to like sports and that even those who do, all prefer big-breasted, white women over all else. It’s sexist, racist, looksist, exploitative, all of that.

That tradition of the woman taking her husband’s surname upon marriage is another demonstration of male ownership. “You belong to me in every way now, so you have to share my name as well.” Of course, nowadays, wives can retain their maiden names or use both their and their husband’s name, but it wasn’t always that way. Women had to fight for that right, too, just like everything else. They all were not like Katharine Hepburn, who, when she married Ludlow Ogden Smith in 1928, made him change his name to S. Ogden Ludlow, so that she would not be confused with the other Kate Smith. What a control queen! That was hardly even necessary, since she did retain her professional name, which was also her real name anyway.

I consider myself a feminist and I am all for equal rights for women. I don’t condone any kind of discrimination, including sexual. I don’t think it’s fair for women to be treated differently, just because of their sex. They should receive the same pay as men for the same job, for instance. They should not have to pay more than the men for the same consumer products and services. Do you know, for instance, that car salesmen deal with women (especially women-of-color) differently than they do with men? They admittedly try to take advantage of the woman’s imagined ignorance in such matters by making their bargaining rate much higher than they would a man’s, because they presume (or hope) that women don’t know any better.

There has been considerable protest from certain people, especially feminists, concerning the exploitation of women in beauty contests and other situations where they are ogled, whistled at, manhandled or used merely as sex objects. Well, the truth of the matter is that these women put themselves into those situations voluntarily. It’s they themselves who agree to compete in beauty pageants and pose for magazines and films, pornographic or otherwise. They work as models, strippers, exotic dancers and prostitutes because they want to. They don’t have to do that, you know.

So the feminist protesters should just shut up and mind their business. Just because they don’t like it, they shouldn’t forbid all women to do certain things. It’s like people who protest demeaning sports like dwarf-tossing. But if the dwarf doesn’t mind, then let them be. Many women are exhibitionists, just like men are, and they enjoy displaying their wares in public arenas. So why shouldn’t they get paid for it, if they can? They are providing a welcomed outlet for your horny voyeurs.

Up to this very day, women have been constantly victimized and degraded in movies, mostly at the hands of male writers and directors. But these actors willingly take those roles and do whatever the directors tell them to do. If they don’t want to be exploited like that, then they should refuse to do those things. If every working female actor simply refused ever to allow herself to be a gratuitous victim, then these writers would have to stop including those scenes in their scripts, because there would be nobody to play them. But I doubt that they will ever do that. As long as these women continue to agree to play these roles, they are always going to be there.

Women are aware of how straight men are and how they treat women, so why should they be surprised or outraged by men’s behavior? Why do women get all dolled up and always are so concerned about their appearance, if not to be admired and revered by the men they encounter? She’s not wearing all that makeup and perfume just for herself. Oscar Hammerstein wrote this lyric for “I Enjoy Being a Girl” from Flower Drum Song: # When I hear a compliment’ry whistle, which greets my bikini by the sea, I turn and I glower and I bristle, but I’m happy to know the whistle’s meant for me. # Of course, you are. If a woman dresses provocatively, in skimpy clothing, she must want to be noticed and is trying to attract male attention. So they shouldn’t get all indignant when a man flirts and tries to come on to them. Isn’t that what they want and expect from guys?

Of course, some women argue that they should be able to present themselves attractively without being harassed. But that’s not how things are in the real world. They can’t have it both ways, expecting men to read their minds or to know what their real intentions are always. If you present yourself as a hooch, expect to be perceived as one. Country singer and actor Dolly Parton tells how she models her professional persona after the town tramp, where she grew up. She admired the woman so, who purposely set out to make herself the center of attention. Dolly proudly tells people in interviews, “It takes a lot of work to look this cheap!”

The news scandal du jour is the male celebrities and men in powerful positions being accused of sexual harassment of women. First, it was that isolated incident back in 1991 with Chief Justice Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Then a few years ago Bill Cosby was called on the carpet for his inappropriate behavior. Then the next more recent big story dealt with Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. Now it seems that the floodgates have been opened, and they are coming out of the woodwork.

Roger Ailes, Aziz Ansari, Scott Baio, Mario Batali, Tom Brokaw, Billy Bush, Louis CK, Michael Douglas, James Franco, Al Franken, Morgan Freeman, Mark Halperin, Dustin Hoffman, Garrison Keillor, R. Kelly, Matt Lauer, Peter Martins, Danny Masterson, Leslie Moonves, Roy Moore, Larry Nassir, Bill O’Reilly, Brett Ratner, Charlie Rose, Russell Simmons and Jeffrey Tambor so far all have been accused of sexual misconduct. There seems to be a new offender every day. These men’s public outing has resulted in their losing their jobs or positions, some of them.

Bill Clinton was impeached from only an accusation, and in his case it was consensual. And although former President Donald Trump was added to the list for similar, but non-consensual behavior–he outwardly admitted publicly to some of his past indiscretions–no disciplinary action has been imposed on him yet. Has he (or somebody) paid some of these women to keep their mouths shut? Does Trump think that he is above the law? He must be. He should be held up to the same scrutiny as everybody else. Only time will tell.

Some of the aforementioned have in fact denied the charges, and I don’t believe that they all are actually guilty, but for those who are, what I don’t get is, why are these women “victims” just now reporting what was done to them–it’s many years ago with some of them? They claim that they were taken undue advantage of and they had no choice in the matter. That seems a bit naïve to me. You always have a choice. I have said before that the only thing we have to do is die. Everything else in life is a choice. You either do one thing or you do something else.

Although I don’t condone any of those guys’ actions, I think the women have to take at least some responsibility for what happened to them. They can’t all be so innocent. Most have made the claim that if they did not succumb to these guys, they would lose their job. I don’t buy that. No one can legally be fired for not having sex with their boss. And come on, most of the men on this list are not exactly disgusting old trolls. What straight woman would object to Scott Baio or James Franco, for instance, coming on to her? I would think that she would welcome the attention. (I certainly would!) Does she think that she is “all that” and/or therefore off-limits?

Women throughout history have been relentless seductresses to men. I, myself, have been a victim of their wiles from time to time. I don’t believe for a moment that all of those accusers are completely innocent of any compliance whatsoever. But then, if they don’t like the guy, just tell them, “No, I am not interested” and move on. They shouldn’t blame him for asking. How will they know if they don’t make the attempt?

I always contend that people will get away with what you let them to get away with. I am pretty sure that these lechers did not succeed in seducing every woman that they tried it with. They succeeded only with the ones that allowed it. Some of these women willingly accepted the advances, went home with the man, let him have his way with her, some even more than just once, and then years later feign remorse and try to convince us that she was an innocent victim. So many of these women must have been complicit. If it was such a traumatic ordeal for them, they would have told somebody at the time. If they had turned these guys in the first time they tried something, someone might have stopped them from doing it to other women. Now it’s, “Oh yeah, he did that to me, too.” And you are just now complaining about it? I wonder if any of these alleged victims have been offered money to tattle on these guys at long last?

Of course, to be fair, I shouldn’t leave our gay brothers out of the equation. After all, they are men, too, and therefore guilty of the same sort of behavior. The vast number of Catholic clergy discovered of committing child molestation doesn’t get as much public attention because they are not famous, even though it is so prevalent. We want to know about the celebrities, like the late James Levine and Kevin Spacey, who were recently outed for sexual improprieties with male youths. (Spacey has since been cleared of all charges.) Although it might be a little different in the gay men’s cases, in that I believe it is often a consensual situation with them, therefore not always reported. It’s only when one of these kids or their parents want to get some money from of these guys that they will choose to go public, when they refuse to make a private settlement, perhaps.

These alleged victims have started a protest movement–“Me Too.” This looks all too much like the McCarthy-Hollywood-Communist witch hunts of the 1950’s when all it took was to mention someone’s name to get them discredited and blacklisted. Now when a woman (or man) wants to get someone in trouble, all they have to do is accuse them of sexual misconduct. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. All it takes is an accusation, because the proper thing to do is always to believe the accuser.

For years women have been doing this to get back at certain men. A good and well-liked high school teacher flunks one of his female students on a test, and out of spite the girl accuses the teacher of sexual molestation. There is no way for him to prove his innocence, so he is fired from his job and even made to register as a sex offender. Even if the girl eventually confesses her deceit, the damage has already been done. After people have made up their mind about you, it doesn’t matter whether you are guilty or not.

What I find to be disturbing about this whole thing, because of its hints of unfairness and hypocrisy, is that none of this is anything new. Straight men have been disrespecting and coming on to women for all time. That’s what they do! Why now all of a sudden is it not being tolerated? Construction workers, for example, have been known to make “mancalls” and use inappropriate language to passing females, but since they are not famous, they never get the business about it. It’s only the celebrities that now are not excused for doing what regular joes do on a daily basis. If we don’t know you, the media doesn’t care what you do, apparently. Women, as a rule, have always welcomed men’s attention to them and even trash talking. They didn’t mind it and rather expected it. Now it seems that almost anything a man says to a woman, she takes offense to it.

I don’t agree with the common notion (perpetuated by men, of course) that women are of the “weaker sex.” Please! That is so condescending. A person’s physical stature does not necessarily determine one’s strength. A woman is perfectly capable of committing every dastardly deed that a man is capable of, including violence and murder. There have been movie titles and themes that suggest: “Deadlier Than the Male”. Just to be a female in this society requires incredible strength, and I commend them for it. They have to deal with men, for one thing, and their chauvinism and disrespect every day, plus they have their own special situations with which to cope as well, including menstruation, pre- and post-.

I think that anyone who can endure the ordeal and utter pain of childbirth again and again must have remarkable stamina. That fact alone makes Woman superior, in my opinion. To start a baby requires little to no real work for the man. In fact, with today’s conception methods, the physical man is not even a requirement. And even when he does actively participate, it takes only a few seconds on his part, while to make the baby and carry it to term for nine months is quite a bit of work, as any mother will tell you. I heard about a woman who was in labor for 36 hours. I wouldn’t like to do something that feels good for 36 hours! I’ll bet you that the majority of men would balk at the possibility of experiencing actual childbirth. Most men are such wusses when it comes to real pain.

I think that women are sexually superior to men as well, due to the fact that they are able to achieve multiple orgasms, which I imagine can be more intense than a man’s. It doesn’t require as much effort, and they don’t always need penile or other phallic stimulation to accomplish it. With most men, it takes more work, and once they come, they’re finished.

Once, while flying back to Newark from the West Coast, I was made aware of a woman sitting directly behind me on the plane who, every minute or so, would sneeze and then do a little giggle. This sneeze and giggle routine went on for some time, until one of the flight attendants came over to her to see if she could be of some assistance. “Excuse me, Miss, but I’ve been watching you and I am curious to know what is so funny about this chronic sneezing of yours?” The young woman explained, “Well, you see, I have this very rare allergy condition that whenever I sneeze, I experience the most incredibly fabulous orgasm!” “Oh, I see. So are you taking anything for your allergy?” “Heh, heh, I sure am,” she replied. “Ragweed!” (You go, gurl!)

Theoretically, a woman can do everything a man can do, plus bear children, thus creating actual life, which a man is not capable of, yet. Therefore, that makes Woman the superior sex, doesn’t it? I have male friends who vehemently reject that supposition. They just can’t accept the concept of female superiority. I have no problem with it myself. I have gotten used to my second-class status in our society as a person-of-color, so playing second-fiddle in the scheme of gendered species is not going to degrade my dignity any further.

In the animal kingdom, too, it’s the female that is the dominant of many species. Insects, especially, have your queen ant and queen bee and black widow spiders and praying mantises, it’s the female mosquitoes who are the bloodsuckers, and lionesses are the hunters for their prides. The simple fact of the matter is, the chauvinistic concept of human superiority of any kind is a self-imposed, theoretical phenomenon anyway, not based on any reality. Actor/dancer Ginger Rogers used to say, “I can do everything that Astaire can do, but I do it backwards, and in heels.” (::Snap!::)

But although I do admire and respect women, I am so glad that I was born male. I don’t envy women one bit, and I have never desired to be one. My identity and psyche are definitely male, whatever that really means. I love the fact that I have a penis and a male’s physique. I can appreciate that one’s sexual identity and behavior can be influenced by Society’s regard and response to the individual sexes. But Woman as the weaker sex? I think not. So I don’t think too much of women who like to work that weaker sex mystique to their advantage when it suits them, or when they employ their feminine wiles to get men to do their every bidding. All a woman has to do is bat her eyelashes and throw her crotch up in his face, and a straight man will do virtually anything she asks of him. He will betray his family, friends and his country, even commit murder for her, just for the expectation of getting that pussy! Of course, that tactic is completely wasted on me, so don’t y’all even try it!

Just as I am for equal rights as it pertains to women, on the other hand, and in all fairness, we could do with some equal rights for men, too, in some instances. Why is it always “ladies first,” for example? A woman can hold a door open for me when she gets there first. She can also give up her seat to me if I want to sit down. Why should I stand up when a woman enters or leaves a room, or when I am introduced to one? She’s not required to stand for me. Perhaps the men are trying to show these ladies some respect? Well, respect them in more important ways that matter to them rather than those meaningless social proprieties. Stop sexually harassing them, for one thing, and if they are employees of yours, pay them what they’re worth. Most modern women don’t care if a man stands for her, tips his hat to her or kisses her hand. Just show her the money!

Women can have both boyfriends and girlfriends. A girl hangs out with her girlfriends, but she dates her boyfriend. A guy can have more than one girl friend, but his having a “boyfriend” takes on a different meaning. A woman can compliment another woman’s looks—”Heather has really got it together; I think that she is so pretty”—and it’s no big deal. But a man commenting that “That man over there is too fine,” must mean that he’s sexually attracted to him. Shouldn’t men be allowed, just as women are, openly to acknowledge masculine beauty as well as feminine beauty without there being an ulterior motive?

When I was growing up, girls could dance with each other at parties and school dances and nobody thought anything of it, but only sissy boys dance together. Girls and women also can hold hands, embrace each other, even kiss in public, and it’s socially acceptable. But two men doing the same thing must be homosexuals, although innocent male affection doesn’t seem to be so taboo on the screen and in real life nowadays, as it was in the past.

I’ve seen this done only on TV and the movies, never in real life. Why do purported straight guys have such a feigned aversion to the human penis? Whenever a character’s dick is exposed in the presence of another, especially if it’s a friend, they always act so disgusted by the sight of it. “Cover yourself! I don’t want to see your junk, man!”–“Get that thing out of my face!” It’s something that they all have themselves, but the sight of one, other than their own, they find to be utterly repulsive. How stupid is that? It must be that if they feast their eyes on a man’s cock or admires it in any way, they will be thought of as gay. Come on! I find that to be such an unrealistic reaction whenever I see that. In reality I think that all men are curious of how they measure up with other men. How would they know unless they make studied comparisons? Most straight women don’t have a problem looking at another women’s breasts. I can’t believe that men are that squeamish either.

As always though, there are exceptions. On TV’s “Rescue Me” the cast of male firefighters, one day while sitting around the firehouse with nothing to do, agreed to have a contest to see who of their crew has the biggest dick. They even award a prize for the winner. It is Daniel Sunjata who wins, by the way. And I can personally vouch for him, because I actually saw his impressive wares when he appeared naked on the Broadway stage in the baseball play, Take Me Out. Even when I was a young teen, my homies once had a Let’s-See-Who-Has-the-Biggest-Member display at my house one day. I remember that it was little, skinny Larry Mays who reigned supreme at the time.

Why are women allowed to wear their hats in church and other edifices when men are not (except in the Orthodox Jewish religion where men are required to wear their hats inside)? On more than one occasion I had been asked to remove my cap in public places where other people, namely women, were allowed to wear their hats in the exact same situations. Always ready for an argument, I would ask, ‘But why? Those people there have their hats on.’ “What do you mean? They’re women,” they would tell me. So? Your point being what, please? That sounds like sexual discrimination to me. For whatever reasons that women are allowed to wear their hats indoors, I should be afforded the same privilege for the same reasons.

Fortunately, things have changed in my favor, as my wearing a cap indoors, even in church, is not the terrible infraction today as it once was. People don’t seem to care anymore. More often than not, my cap is part of my ensemble. When I color-coordinate my clothes, I wear a matching cap to complement the outfit. There are many male celebrities who wear hats all the time, even when they make TV appearances. So if it’s all right for them to do so, why not for me as well?

Also there was a time, not anymore thankfully, when shopping in certain stores, only the male shoppers were required to check their shoulder bags and packages at the door, when females were not required to check their bags and purses. I didn’t object to checking my bag (although it was a bit of a nuisance), but if I have to check mine, then everybody else, including the women, should have to check theirs, too. What, women don’t ever shoplift? So, equal human rights should apply to everyone, regardless of gender, not just when it suits one’s particular purpose.

[Related articles: Age Is Just a Number; Gay Pride and Homophobia; “How Do I Look?”; Let’s Have an Outing; On Being Gay]

Now, I don’t mean to pick on any one religion—well, actually I do—but if I had to be anything, a Catholic would be the last thing I would choose. The Catholic faith is so hypocritical, egotistical, elitist yet self-deprecating, sexist, avaricious, mercenary, superstitious, judgmental, intolerant, vindictive, arrogant, bigoted, narrow-minded, bullying, controlling and chauvinistic, as well as misogynistic. In the following paragraphs I intend to illustrate and validate all of these claims.

For the last few hundred years the President of the United States has been the highest position in the land and one to which many white men aspire. But there was a time when the Pope was the guy who many wanted to be. The Pope had more power and influence than most kings, and he was allowed to make monumental decisions for the entire world, whereas a king has only limited, regional jurisdiction. In those early days all of western civilization and Society in general were ruled and controlled by the Catholic Church. The Pope excommunicated Henry VIII because he would not allow the King to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, as if their marriage, or anybody else’s marriage, was any of his business. I will have more to say about that particular Pope a little later.

When a man gives an account of something that involves both sexes but makes him the prime element over all else, I tend to be rather dubious. It appears that my personal theory about female predominance over the male is not mine alone. My convictions have been confirmed after reading The Da Vinci Code. Although a work of fiction, much of its historical background is based on fact, which I have verified from other sources.

It’s true that the ancient pagans were proponents of goddess and nature worship, Mother Earth and all that. It was the early Christians, and especially the Catholic Church, who successfully converted the world from matriarchal divinity to patriarchal preponderance by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the “sacred feminine,” obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever. Their three-hundred-year conspiratorial crusade to “reeducate” feminine-worshipping religions was brutal and horrific, to say the least.

The Catholic Inquisition published an evil book called Malleus Maleficarum, or The Witches’ Hammer, which indoctrinated the world to “the dangers of freethinking women” and instructed the clergy how to locate, torture and destroy them. Those deemed witches by the Church included all female scholars, priestesses, gypsies, mystics, nature lovers, herb gatherers and any women “suspiciously attuned to the natural world.” Midwives also were killed for their heretical practice of using medical knowledge to ease the pain of childbirth—a suffering, the Church claimed, that was God’s rightful punishment to women for Eve committing the Original Sin, which is a major indication of their misogynistic attitudes. But Adam committed the exact same sin as well, so where is the men’s painful punishment? In that they are basing this action on a ridiculous myth, makes it even more inexcusable. Furthermore, to whom did “God” make this particular admonishment, and why was anybody so readily willing to go along with it? During these witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake over five million women! Why, they are just the Christian Taliban! How are they any different than that Afghani militant movement or ISIS or Hamas that are so greatly maligned and feared nowadays?

But as there is always an exception and being the hypocrites that they are, there is one woman that the Catholics think really highly of. And that’s Jesus’ mother, Mary. They just love them some Mary, don‘t they? She gets as much attention (maybe even more) as her Son. There are countless images and statues of her as well as churches and other edifices, colleges and universities, even cities all over the world are named in her honor. Anything called “Our Lady” or “Notre Dame” refers to her. There is much music written about her as well. There are numerous settings of “Ave Maria” and “Stabat Mater,” for example. Remember, they gave her that special Immaculate Conception distinction (See my Nativity Negation Redux blog for the explanation). They even made her a saint. When Catholics go to Confession, they appeal to Mary to absolve them of their sins. In Titanic (1997), as well as other movie versions, when the ship is sinking, they show some passengers praying to Mary! I thought, What are they praying to her for? Do they think that she is going to save them?

I was watching some religious channel on TV one day, where a theologian was discussing Catholic tenets with a priest. This guy made the observation to the priest that the people of his faith worship Mary. The priest denied it by saying that they didn’t exactly worship Mary. It was more of an honor or “veneration” to her, he said. I thought, Uh, isn’t that the same thing? He’s just mincing words. The definition of worship is “to show religious devotion or reverence for; to adore, venerate (hello?!) or idolize; devotion, love or admiration of any kind.” So, why can’t they just go on and admit it? They worship Mary! Incidentally, if Heaven is supposed to be off-limits to all persons of the Jewish faith, according to the Catholics and other Christian sects, how did Mary, a practicing Jewess, get to be the “Queen of Heaven,” aka Regina Coeli)?

The Catholic Church was and still is to some extent the component of power and world control, and at some point in its notorious past also even went so far as to put to death anyone who would not convert to Catholicism. Their imposed Spanish Inquisition, which lasted from 1478-1834, campaigned to convert not only Jews, Muslims and other non-Christian sects, but even baptized Christians were considered heretics, and many thousands more were burned at the stake for refusing to convert. Isn’t that the same thing that some of our political leaders accuse certain Muslim fanatics of doing? I suppose that they hadn’t forgotten how only a few centuries before, the Catholics themselves were held in abject lowest esteem to the point of genocide, by being fed to the lions as public entertainment. So now that they have acquired some degree of power, I guess they decided to take mortal revenge on others, as if that is the Christian thing to do. That’s their vindictiveness.

Even when they weren’t killing everybody, there were your proselytizing missionaries who went all over the world attempting to make everybody Catholic. They pretty much succeeded in much of Europe by making Catholicism the primary religion in several countries, like Andorra, France, Ireland, Italy, Monaco, Portugal and Spain, but which subsequently spread to Central and South America, the Philippines and other island nations throughout the world as well.

The Church has a worldwide organization that they call Opus Dei, which means “God’s Work” in Latin. That is so arrogant. They can, and do, make that anything they want it to be, and say that they are merely operating on God’s behalf. God doesn’t need them to do Its work. It can manage quite well without their help. Do your own work, why don‘t you?! Their goal is to inspire everyone towards sanctification, that is, to live your life according to Catholic mores and beliefs.

Besides that, they even meddled in the Hollywood film industry during the ‘30s and ‘40s when they created a watchdog committee that monitored every movie that was produced, to decide if it was suitable for public viewing or not. Yes, they just have to be in everybody’s business! As most movies already tend to be unrealistic as it is, this group considered practically every aspect of normal life to be taboo. There could be no premarital sex on screen, certainly no extramarital sex, no depicted or even suggested sex at all, if they got their way. Of course, they preferred that all visual images and dialogue be positive and non-offensive. Sure, just take all of the fun and interest and controversy out of all movies, why don’t you? That sounds just like the world of “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s 1984 or South Africa’s Apartheid era or even this country’s current book police. Fortunately, the studios ignored these strict pooh-pooh naysayers when they could and managed to get by the censors and produce their films like they wanted to.

I was surprised to learn that there are native black people in Ireland. Well, they are of mixed race, actually, as a result of African and Irish interbreeding. But the thing is, after these often unwanted children are born, they are given up, abandoned and subsequently taken in by the local orphanage, which was established and is maintained by the Irish Catholics. The place is run more like a Dickensian workhouse, however, where the children in their care are mistreated and abused by the nuns and priests in charge. So much for your “Christian charity.” There is never any chance of adoption for any of these interracial kids, so they are doomed to remain there and suffer the abject indignities until they age out of the system and are allowed to leave, but even then are still subject to prejudicial disrespect and social apathy by the gentry.

So, do you think that the Church condemns homosexuality? Well, maybe they do now, or claim that they do, but that hasn’t always been the case. Actually, as I will illustrate in a moment, they don’t really condemn it even now, they just want us to think that they do. The fact that they will outwardly protest it while they are actually guilty of it themselves shows you what hypocrites they are. They and other Christians haven’t always been against same-sex marriage either. As early as the 12th and 13th centuries, churches not only sanctioned unions between partners of the same sex, but some of their wedding ceremonies were actually performed in the Vatican, by the Pope himself! It was probably only when the Nazis came into power that this practice was looked down upon and outlawed thereafter.

And how do they explain and justify their several Popes (only nine are cited here, but there probably were many more) who were notoriously queer and/or corrupt besides? How is this for your papal infallibility? Pope John XII [937-964], aka “John the Bad,” ran a brothel out of St. Peter’s, ordained a 10-year-old boy as bishop, used the papal treasury to pay off his gambling debts, and was finally murdered by a jealous male lover.

Party animal Pope Benedict IX [1020-1055] held lavish homosexual orgies in the papal palace. He also was a murderer who dabbled in bestiality, witchcraft and Satanism. His riotous conduct was considered appalling, however, and he was eventually deposed. This also points out the fact that the current sexual indiscretion among your Catholic priests is not a new occurrence either. It’s been going on for centuries.

Pope Sixtus IV [1414-1484] took his beautiful young nephew as his lover and made him a millionaire by plundering the papal treasury. He is best remembered for appointing Torquemada as inquisitor-general for the Spanish Inquisition. Hey, now that was a real Christian gesture, wasn’t it?

Pope Paul II [1417-1471], known to his cardinals as “Our Lady of Pity” for his tendency to cry at the slightest provocation, had a fondness for glitter and finery; he even wore an expensive papal tiara. He allegedly died of a heart attack while being sodomized by one of his favorite altar boys. So I guess he was literally fucked to death!

Pope Alexander VI [1431-1503], the father of Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia, had a lifetime history of murder and corruption. He even killed members of his own family. He died as the result of ingesting the poisoned food that he had intended for someone else. In the words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “Hoist with his own petard.”

Pope Leo X [1475-1521] acquired the reputation of being wildly extravagant. This dude would play cards with his cardinals, allow the public to sit in as spectators, and would toss huge handfuls of gold coins to the crowd whenever he won a hand. His expenses for both cultural and military endeavors, along with his taste for increasingly ornate papal gowns, drove the papal treasury into bankruptcy.

Pope Julius III [1487-1555] was lovers with his two sons (Aha! Pedophilia and incest, too? Quel scandal!) and made both of them, as well as numerous other handsome teenage boys, cardinals. He allegedly enjoyed bringing them all together for orgies where he would watch them fuck each other. Giovanni Della Casa’s poem In Praise of Sodomy was dedicated to him.

Pope Paul III [1534-49] is best known for excommunicating Henry VIII. Paul also poisoned several of his relatives, including his own mother, to gain control of a family inheritance and enjoyed an incestuous relationship with his daughter. He killed a couple of cardinals and a Polish bishop over a theological point and was the greatest pimp in Rome’s history. He kept a stable of 45,000 prostitutes, who paid him a monthly stipend.

Now, you know that I’m not one to gossip, but… I have it on pretty good authority from a guy who lives in Rome near the Vatican. I recently learned that one of the reasons why Pope Benedict XVI [2005-2013] was asked to step down, is because he became a disgrace to his office. He was spotted on many occasions frequenting the gay bars in town and picking up young men. It appears that today’s Pontifical College is not as lenient or forgiving as they were in the past, at least on the surface. They used to tolerate and excuse all sorts of criminal and immoral behavior and indiscretions, including murder, but now mere bar cruising is grounds for termination? Tsk, tsk! The rule is not to display your controversial activities out in the open but to operate on the down-low, like any good Catholic.

The current Pope Francis recently gave gay Catholics permission to be gay. Wasn’t that white of him? Man, they don’t need your permission! That’s like when Anita Bryant first told us by TV commercial that orange juice is not just for breakfast anymore. Really? You mean that we can drink it any time that we want to? I would think that the Pope should embrace gay acceptance, since he took his name, after all, from St. Francis, a sissy.

Other popes have advocated, even participated in, major wars and the killing of their so-called enemies. I thought that Christians were supposed to love their enemies. For one, the papacy ordered the complete annihilation of the Knights Templar because they had become more powerful than the Church, when they once had been revered by it. I told you what they did to all the women who threatened their indoctrination and authority. How dare these modern Catholics sit back in moral judgment of anybody!

Just as the local police departments anywhere tend to protect their own, unlike them, the Catholic Church does not employ an Internal Affairs unit to investigate, reprimand and punish those in the diocese who do something criminal or merely unethical. The Catholics, as a rule, like to settle any wrongdoing in-house, without any outside interference. That way they have managed to get away with all sorts of underhanded shit over the centuries. I just told you what some of their popes were guilty of. But sexual hanky-panky goes on everywhere, not just at the Vatican.

Their biggest and most inexcusable indiscretion, however, is the acceptance and cover-up of their rampant molestation of children, mostly boys but girls as well. These priests use their influence and position to seduce innocent, lonely youngsters, and their actions go unreported because of fear, shame, guilt and intimidation on the part of the victims. When these predators are eventually discovered, they are never prosecuted or convicted, but merely transferred to another parish, where they are allowed to continue their deviancy.

This issue is given a great, comprehensive treatment in the critically-acclaimed, Oscar-winning film Spotlight (2015), when a Boston newspaper team sets out to expose the true events of the local scandal and cover-up by the Catholic Church. What was found out during their investigation is staggering. The news guys were so shocked. I, however, was not surprised at all, since I already knew what was going on. Practically everyone involved, too, knew what was going down, including various lawyers, the press, even the kids’ parents, but nobody did anything about it. One mother wrote a letter to her parish priest, telling him that she knows all about her seven sons being molested. But she will keep quiet about it, so as not to cause any trouble for the priest. What?! Is it any wonder that this activity has occurred for as long as it has? The conspiracy of silence is a regular and constant perpetuator.

The Church does not want any of its members to think for themselves either. There was a time when practitioners of the faith were forbidden to read the Scriptures. Their local clergy would tell the folks what they needed to know, you see. To confuse and keep the people in the proverbial dark even further, they conducted their masses in Latin. I can’t imagine attending regular church services for years and not knowing what the hell anybody is saying! What is the point of that? Even today every decision that they make in life has to be approved and cleared by the Almighty Pope (infallible, indeed!) and his Chain-of-Command of assorted cardinals, monsignors, archbishops, bishops, priests and nuns. They lay down a whole set of life rules for you to follow, and if you don’t, you have sinned and “you will burn in Hell.”

But that doesn’t stop them from doing anything themselves that they want to do, however. You know, it’s do as we say, not as we do. They like to hang heavy guilt trips on everybody, too, especially the children, to keep them in line. I have heard many horror stories from my Catholic-raised friends about growing up in parochial schools with those frustrated, sadistic, deranged nuns they had for teachers. They often resorted to severe corporal punishment on their charges, which now is considered child abuse, but which the Church and the public allowed to go on for many years. Maybe they still do in some places. It seems as if anything goes with them, as long as they keep quiet about it.

But wait, there is always a convenient escape clause! As long as you confess your sins (not to God Itself, mind you, but to a mediating priest), you may be absolved of any wrongdoing. So the Catholics learn that they can do anything that they damn well please, because they can go to Confession, admit their misdeeds, say a couple of “Hail-Marys,” the priest will absolve them, and all is forgiven.

There is a movie (one of several with a similar plot) about a Catholic priest trying to track down a local serial killer. At the end, when the killer, during a fight, falls to his death, the priest bends over him to give him his Last Rites and to absolve him of his sins. I thought, What are you doing?! The man was a despicable, remorseless mass murderer! Why are you blessing him?! Why don’t you damn his soul to Hell instead? If anything they do is forgiven, including murder, why even be righteous and law-abiding in life?

Ignoring the Ten Commandments is a common Catholic infraction, not that they should be taken seriously anyway. I also take on that controversial subject in another post. With the various Italian crime syndicates, therefore Catholic, the taking of human lives is a regular occurrence, for example. So is stealing and covetousness (extortion and procuring for themselves what others have), among other vices.

In Cop Out (2010) a Latino character, therefore purportedly Catholic, but is a gang leader and drug runner, is in the church praying when one of his gang members shows up and tells this head guy that he botched an important drug deal. The guy prays, “Father, forgive me, for I am about to sin.” Then he turns and shoots the other guy dead right there in the sanctuary! What is the point of confessing? There is such gross hypocrisy involved.

And why do you need to tell some man, who is not a licensed therapist, mind you, all your business and personal secrets and such? You can deal with the Lord directly; you don’t need a middle man to intervene for you. I think that they set up this whole Confession thing just so they can keep tabs on what everybody in their parish and see is doing. And what is preventing any priest from using or revealing the information that they receive from their confessors for their own ends? Of course, they are not supposed to reveal anything they learn in the confessional, but just like with doctors and lawyers, you will pardon me for not being that trusting. They may not willingly divulge somebody’s secret, but everyone has their price for betrayal. Would a young parish priest, for example, be willing to give up his life to protect the secret that some errant stranger told him in the confessional? Who is that noble?

We already know how they manage to get around everything. He doesn’t have to say outright what he knows. He could leave some incriminating clues lying around for the police to find for themselves. Then the priest is off the hook. “I didn’t tell them anything. They figured it out for themselves.” And now that the Church’s scandal about pedophilic priests has finally come to light, I expect that their general trust quotient has been lowered even further.

I might mention that this confidentiality proviso applies only to the actual church confessional, by the way. If you are anywhere else, however, anything that you tell a priest is not protected and could be divulged without his breaking any self-imposed restrictions. See how they manage to circumvent any limitation that they impose upon themselves? But then, they could use their own excuse by telling what they know, confess to the sin of betrayal and ask for forgiveness. I’m sure that priests have their own confessors, and wouldn’t they be required to keep the other’s secrets as well?

Of course, there are priests who actually do honor the sanctity of the confessional by keeping everything that they learn from their parishioners secret. They cover up the most heinous of misdeeds, like murder, incest and child molestation. With the aforementioned serial killer, for instance, the local priest knows who it is but won’t help the police, out of his sense of moral duty to secrecy. He also knows about the young girl who confessed to him that she is having regular sex with her own father against her will but keeps quiet about it. When the girl’s mother eventually finds out what’s going on, she goes to the priest and blesses him out. “You knew, didn’t you, Father? You ought to be ashamed of yourself!” Excuse me, but how is any of this the priest’s fault? She is your daughter. Why don’t you know what is going on under your own roof? Don’t be blaming him. He did advise the girl to tell you. You expect him to keep your secrets, but he is supposed to divulge everybody’s else’s then? You can’t have it both ways. It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Catholics even take liberties with the institution of marriage. They tell joined couples that marriage is forever, but they allow their followers to divorce if they desire. Then if they want to get married again to someone else, the Church allows them to get an annulment first, so that they can have a church wedding. This is being done with people who have grown children and even grandchildren! An annulment signifies that the previous marriage never took place, and the kids don’t even exist. What did I tell you about their always finding a way out of anything?

Catholics always manage to justify everything that they do, too, no matter how unsavory. Take, for instance, the centuries-long practice of castration for the alleged purpose of serving God in song. A Catholic dictum declared, “Let women keep silent in the churches.“ None of them had anything important to say, apparently. “Just sit there and keep your mouths shut!” So since no women were allowed to sing in the church choir (or the stage) during the 16th century, their high pitch of voice had to be provided otherwise. Young boys could do so, but they eventually grew up and their voices changed. (So why not just replace them with other young boys?!) But somebody got the bright idea that by cutting off their balls, they could preserve these boys’ precious soprano voices for “the glory of God,” you see.

There soon opened up a number of “eunuch factories” in France, which supplied these castrati to the Roman church choirs and stages of Italy and Spain. I suppose that the wealth and fame that these young men achieved outweighed their genital sacrifice, because nobody seemed to mind or thought that anything was wrong with this barbaric practice. So this went on for about 300 years (!), until Pope Clement XIV woke up one day in 1770 and thought, “Hey, you know what? Instead of mutilating all these boys, why don’t we just let women sing in their place? What‘s the harm?” (Well, duh! Gah, I coulda had a V-8!) But the practice still was not outlawed completely until another hundred years later.

By the way, I refuse to address any priest as “Father.” I am not being disrespectful. It’s just that I am not Catholic, so their conventions don’t apply or mean anything to me, and I consider the epithet to be inappropriate besides. He is not my father, or anybody else’s (presumably), so why should I call him thus? It makes no sense for a 75-year-old person to call a 30-year-old man “Father.” I have known some who are young enough that they should be calling me Father! I don’t at all object to terms like “Pastor,” “Reverend” or “Rabbi,” which means “teacher,” but I think that it’s rather elitist and arrogant to adopt hierarchical titles like “Father,” “Monsignor” (which means “my Lord”), “Excellency” and “Mother Superior” for themselves, being mere mortals like everybody else, and, ironically, alleged childless celibates besides. It could prove to be confusing and ambiguous at times, too. When someone prays to “Our Father, who art in Heaven…” are they referring to God, to Jesus, to their parish priest or to their pious, biological parent who just died?

A more appropriate and less chauvinistic term for priests would be “brother,” just as their counterpart nuns are called “sisters.” To me it comes off more humbling as one’s peer rather than their superior, and I would not have a problem with that. “How are you today, Brother Patrick?” The Episcopalian priests that I know, on the other hand, don’t mind at all being called by their first names. The mere fact that Catholics still won’t allow women to have any real major authority in the Church is one indication of their sexist chauvinism. From what we have read, Jesus welcomed women into his fold, and some accounts even have Mary Magdalene as the one that he appointed to succeed him and carry on his ministry.

The highest rank that a woman can ever attain in the Church is the Mother Superior of a sexually-segregated convent. But she is still merely a nun. They are not allowed to be priests, bishops, cardinals or popes, for example. At some point, however, this position must have gotten a promotion (or demotion? in name only), because in The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945) the head nun, played by Ingrid Bergman, is referred to as “Sister” Superior. Why do the men object so strongly? What’s their problem? For years now the Episcopal Church has welcomed women in authoritative positions.

I have often wondered what would possess a young, fertile woman to want to become a nun anyway. What a life’s sacrifice that is! In The Nun’s Story (1959), starring Audrey Hepburn, we are given a glimpse of what it is like to become a nun. The novitiates have to give up all worldly desires. Anything that derives any kind of pleasure is a mortal sin. In essence, life is not to be enjoyed at all. They must give up the notion of self-worth and pride and learn abject humility. They are taught to consider themselves to be worthless creatures, not deserving of any respect. They are made to denounce their families and friends and give up all personal possessions. It’s like a captive cult.

They also participate in a ceremony where they get married to Jesus Christ, a long-dead Jew! It’s a multiple wedding, too, and the novices are all wearing white bridal gowns! But doesn’t that make Jesus a polygamist, which is supposed to be against their own moral law? What is so silly about it, is that it is merely a symbolic marriage anyway. Their being Jesus’ wives compels them to be sexually faithful, even though they know that they are not really married and that their “husband” is already dead. But I guess it helps them to justify their carnal sacrifice. See how absurdly ridiculous that all is?

There is another scene in the film which shows Audrey’s hair being cut off before fitting her in a habit. But isn’t that one of the inexcusable “abominations” cited in Leviticus that I mentioned before? (See my For the Bible Tells Me So blog.) So it’s all right for them to cut their hair, which is a definite no-no, but I am not allowed to “lie” with my boyfriend! I think that a woman who will willingly subject herself to such a life, does not hold herself in much high regard. She is controlled by men and is not allowed to think for herself or enjoy any of life’s vices, but must do whatever she’s told to do and must not mind the disrespect afforded her. No wonder so many of them are frustrated and angry. If she wants to be a teacher or nurse or just wants to help people, why not do just that? She doesn’t have to be a nun to pursue a career in public service.

The men, too, put themselves into a sacrificial situation when they enter the priesthood. They cloister themselves away in abbeys and monasteries, cutting themselves off from the outside world. What purpose are they serving humankind? How are they helping anybody in their seclusion? Some orders of monks don’t speak, some don’t eat for long periods of time, don’t laugh and deprive themselves of all earthly pleasures. Some even indulge in self-flagellation for penance. Penance for what, I ask? They never do anything to be sorry for! It’s as if they feel the need to be punished merely for existing. And as with the nuns, they all choose this life voluntarily, since nobody has to do any of that. They make up these ridiculous and restrictive rules for themselves and others and then willingly abide by them without question or protest.

Oh, by the way. This same Roman “dirt” source of mine tells of an order of nuns, whose convent is located just across from the Vatican and consists entirely of sapphists! They enter the order as couples and live together, two to a room. It must not be a secret, since more than a few people know about it, including the person who told me, and now you know, too.

I find most of the Catholics’ Eucharistic rites—like genuflecting and bowing to the altar every time they pass it, prostrating and crossing themselves to make the Sign of the Cross, and especially washing people’s feet during Holy Week—to be pointless and stupid. But that’s me. Who are they doing all of that for? What do they think will happen if they don’t? Here is where the superstitious aspect of the religion comes into play. Do they actually think that God chides and scolds them if they forget or neglect to cross themselves when they pass the altar? “Aha! You did not genuflect, my child! I shall now sentence you to eternal damnation!”

“May the Saints preserve us!” I hear them say. What does that even mean? Whenever TV detectives, William Murdoch and Catholic priest, Frank Dowling, encounter a dead body, they always cross themselves. Why?! Instead of wishing someone good luck, these religious devotees will say, “I will say a prayer for you” or “I will light a candle for you.” How are either of those supposed to accomplish anything? “The show was a complete success. It must have been because of that prayer and the candle that you lit for me.” Yeah, that must be it. The performers and stage crew had nothing to do with it.

They also apparently believe that the rite of christening is a sure guarantee for personal salvation. Some are firmly convinced that by sprinkling or pouring water on a baby’s forehead will guarantee their place in Heaven. And not to do it, then that person is doomed for Hell. Of course, the Baptists are just as bad with their full immersion ritual. Why do people believe such inanities? And what about that so-called “holy water”? They take plain ol’ tap water, and a priest says a prayer and blessing over it, and it then becomes holy. The water itself doesn’t know that it is special, but it will severely scald a vampire when it’s thrown on them. How silly is that?

Many, if not all, of the Christian religions practice a little ritual known as Communion, which commemorates the so-called Last Supper of Christ. In my home church and in other Protestant services that I have attended, Communion is taken only once a month, usually the first Sunday of each. Once a month, every four or five weeks, that seems reasonable to me. But not every day! The Catholics and most Episcopalians hold Communion at every service, every time they get together, even at weddings and funerals. I mean, come on! Isn’t that overdoing it a bit?

Whatever the ritual is supposed to accomplish, it must not have any lasting effect. It’s apparently only good until the next time they get together. I consider the ritual itself to serve no real purpose and is a complete waste of time. I mean, really, what’s the point? “Do this in remembrance of me”? Did Jesus really say that? The whole thing is based on some accepted myth. But even if he did say it, he was talking to his disciples there with him. What does it have to do with any of us these many centuries later? If it is meant to be some kind of solidarity thing with them and us, then why don’t they all allow themselves to be crucified in remembrance of him?! Go all the way, why don’t you, or don’t do it at all.

Somebody told me that he knew of a Catholic man who brought his dog to church with him one Sunday and then took him up to receive Communion! They do try to be accommodating, don’t they? Did that guy actually think that his dog knew what he was doing, or even cared?

Mercenary, too, I did say? A man approached a Catholic priest requesting that he do a Mass for his dog who had just died. The priest flatly refused. “I can’t do that, sir. That is simply unheard of.” The man then said, “But I am willing to give the church $5000 for the service.” The priest replied, “Oh, well, my son. You didn’t tell me that your dog was Catholic!” So that changes things, then? Not that it should have made any difference. For that amount of money, that priest wouldn’t have cared if the dog had been Atheist!

Now consider for a moment this aspect of cannibalism and vampirism that is at the heart of Communion, which is what caused much of the criticism and disapproval from the early non-Christians. Of course, the act is merely symbolic, but transubstantiation is the Catholics’ belief that the wafer and wine actually turn into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. “Eat of my body, drink my blood”? Yeah, it’s easy for them to say that and go through the ritual because they know that it’s really bread (or wafer or matzo crackers) and wine (or grape juice) that they are consuming.

Did you know that the term “hocus-pocus,” commonly used by magicians and conjurers, is said to be based on the Latin phrase, “Hoc est corpus meum–This is my body”, which is uttered during Communion in masses conducted in Latin? So they even have associated magic and witchcraft with the ritual. “Good people, I will now turn this bread and water into the body and blood of Jesus Christ! Hocus-pocus! Abracadabra!” “Wow, that’s amazing! How did he do that?”

I wonder what their attitude would be if actual blood and human flesh were used for the Eucharist? Would they all be so eager to partake then? Somehow I doubt it. The main characters in Armistead Maupin’s More Tales of the City certainly were horrified when they discovered a group of worshippers engaging in that very thing. One guy shocked himself into self-imposed amnesia because of the traumatic experience.

I don’t care much for their modus operandi either—everybody sipping from the same vessel, exposing themselves to each other’s germs and diseases. At my home church, for one, they used grape juice, in individual little bitty shot glasses, and crumbled matzo crackers. Then only after everyone had been served, would we partake all together, like a toast. “Here’s to King Jesus! Long may he reign!” (::gulp!::) To me, this seems to be a more “communal” way to do it than the other way.

And then they have the nerve to be restrictive about it. If you are not Catholic, you cannot receive Communion in their church, as they consider only their taking of Communion to be valid. The ministers of all those other sects, including the Episcopal church, are not properly sanctioned by “The Big Guy” (the Pope) to administer Communion, so none of them count. I’ve heard it said, “Giving Communion to non-Catholics would imply that there is some union between religions, which does not exist.” But Jesus was a Jew. These people have changed the man’s religion and have claimed him solely as their own! Can they stop?!

(# When I survey the wondrous Cross… #)
Did you ever think about the fact that “Christians” have adopted an instrument of torture (the cross) as a worshiping icon? There are a number of love songs written about it. At some churches during Holy Week services, they include a “Veneration of the Cross” ritual, where they bow to, touch adoringly, and even kiss an old dirty plank of wood! Who knows where that thing’s been? I would no more do that than I would touch my lips to the Blarney Stone!

I suppose that if Jesus had been executed in 18th-century France, devotees would be wearing little guillotines around their necks! And I wonder then if the common trinket that corresponds to the Crucifix would depict Christ without his head? But then I guess they would have to leave his head (face up) in the bucket so that we would know that it’s supposed to be him. How morbidly absurd, you may be thinking, as if any of that other stuff makes any practical sense!

Most religions are maintained on tradition and rituals and such, and Catholicism is no exception. And whereas everything is for a reason, certain Catholic conventions, too, had to have gotten their start somewhere. Why are the Catholic clergy not allowed to be married and, moreover, required to take vows of celibacy? It was a matter of economics, but don’t most decisions in life ultimately have to do with money in some way? This “vow of poverty” stipulation was set up so that any and all monies collected from the people would go directly to the Church, that is, the Vatican. If any of these priests were married, they would probably have children, grandchildren and their in-laws’ families to support. They would also own land and property. So when a priest dies, who gets his estate, his family or the Church? Naturally, the Church would want it. “Instead of paying all those clerical salaries, let’s give everything that we get to the Pope himself.” Think of all the money they save. So then, since they are not married, it follows that they are not allowed to have sex either. You do know that one cannot have sex unless one is married, right? At least, if they are having sex, His Eminence certainly doesn’t want to know about it.

(# Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate #)
So in order to keep the Papal coffers brimming, as it were, they opted to put the monetary responsibility and obligation on the common gentry instead. They needed to sanction a way to breed as many Catholics as they can by outlawing every type of birth control and convincing their followers that marriage and procreation are next to Godliness, and that every sexual union must produce issue, or else, why bother? There is no such thing as recreational sex, heaven forbid!

This is another case where the Pope needs to get with the times. The Church has enough money now. Let your priests and nuns and everybody else get married, those who want to. What’s the harm? Religious reformer Martin Luther [1483-1546] was a rebel. He was a Catholic priest and his wife was a former nun. He probably said, “To hell with this celibacy bullshit! I like sex. If I have to quit the church and start my own religion, I’ll do just that.”

Even if the Catholic clergy choose not to marry, they should be allowed to have sex with whomever they want (they’re doing that anyway, behind each other’s back, of course), and be permitted to raise families, too. This was not always the case, as I have told you that many of your past Popes were fathers and some probably even married. It’s hypocritical for the modern-day Popes and their minions to insist that their followers keep having more and more children when they are not having any themselves. I don’t see them helping that poor family with ten children, when the husband dies suddenly and the mother, who is unskilled in any kind of lucrative endeavors, is forced to go on welfare. What is Father O’Malley’s position now, the one who encouraged them to have all those damned kids in the first place?

The Church imposes upon their parishioners several Days of Obligation throughout the year, like Christmas and Easter but some other days as well, when they are required to attend Mass. If they fail to show up on one of these compulsory days, they have to go to Confession and beg for forgiveness. They tend to be flexible and very accommodating, too, as I said. Many Catholic churches hold an extra service on Saturday early evening to accommodate those parishioners who just can’t make it to Mass on Sunday, due to a hangover, perhaps, from Saturday night carousing, just wanting to sleep in, or whatever.

Also, I know of a Catholic church in the Bronx that holds their St. Patrick’s Day Mass the night before, because the priest thinks that very few of his Irish members and revelers will show up for the holiday service. Why should they care if somebody does not come to Mass or not? What’s in it for them? My guess is that they don’t want to miss out on that offering that they don’t receive when people don’t go to church. I suspect, and try to prove me wrong, that they’ve always been more concerned with taking people’s money than about their so-called salvation. That again exemplifies the mercenary aspect of the religion. Of course, all religions take up a collection in their services–after all, the church does have weekly expenses with which to honor–but the others don’t demand that everybody attend church. It’s completely voluntary. They have to get what they can whenever.

What about the burning of incense during the Mass? How did that come about? I believe it was a matter of diplomacy. In the olden days, before there was deodorant and attention to personal hygiene (bathing was a rarely-done activity), can you imagine the rampant B.O. that must have permeated through the church during services? But even as stinky and dirty as they were, the clergy still wanted people to attend Mass regularly. So in order not to offend anybody, you see, somebody got the idea to start burning a fragrant incense as part of the Eucharist ritual, to help blot out the bodily odors that they had to endure previously. That makes a lot of sense to me. Otherwise, what does incense have to do with anything sacred?

Of course, to justify it, they came up with something about the smoke rising up as a symbolic sacrifice to God or some such nonsense. Then to elaborate further on the use of incense, at some point a queen must have been put on the case. “So if we’re going to use this stuff, let’s really work it!” If anything, the Catholics are resourceful and adaptable, as closet gays tend to be. (Oops! Did I say that?) There is an Episcopal church in midtown Manhattan, called St. Mary the Virgin, that uses so much incense on a regular basis that the church has acquired the epithet of “Smoky Mary.”

(# Soldiers of Christ, arise, and put your armor on… #)
The Catholic religion also practices other anti-“Christian” attitudes. By our Biblical accounts Jesus Christ was a humble, itinerant peasant. The Catholic Church operates on wealth, power and control. The clergy wear elaborate vestments and put on a spectacle of a show in the form of their Mass services, while Jesus went about wearing the basic dress of the common folk of his day and preached on the street, on country hillsides, wherever people would gather publicly. He was more like an errant evangelist. He preached about loving your fellow man and that those who made peace with their enemies are the blessed ones. He was a confirmed pacifist. His disciples were not “soldiers” on his behalf.

The Catholics and other so-called Christian groups have been involved with war and persecution and genocide for all time. The Knights Templar and the Crusaders, for example, were real soldiers who went to war in the name of Christianity. Francis Duffy [1871-1932], whose statue stands in Times Square in Manhattan, was an Irish-Canadian Catholic priest who served as a soldier and chaplain in the Fighting 69th Regiment during the Spanish-American War and World War I and was highly decorated for his service. The fact that he willingly participated in those wars must mean that he condoned the fighting and killing that occurred. A chaplain can work anywhere. He doesn’t have to be on the front lines of a battlefield, unless he chooses to be.

They say that they are against abortion and murder but they don’t seem to mind killing those whom they deem heretics, who don’t follow the same religion that they do. They support all sorts of human punishments, capital and otherwise. Avowed “Christian” former President Bush’s purported preoccupation with global terrorism activity and making it his personal mission to combat it was not what Jesus was all about.

0

The name Peter, or the Greek “Petrus,“ means “rock.” So when Jesus purportedly told his disciple Peter, “Upon this rock I shall build my Church,” most likely it was his intention for Peter to carry on his ministry in his, that is, Christ’s name. The Catholics arrogantly and with disregard of the Greek pun, proceeded to build a cathedral over the spot of Peter’s purported grave, developed it into an entire complex, The Vatican, and made it the seat of the entire Roman Catholic Church. But as Jesus and his minions were all Jewish, why wasn’t a massive synagogue/Temple built on that same spot instead? They didn’t honor Jesus’ wishes but their own. He meant his church, not yours!

So whether you are Catholic or not, I don’t think that anyone can refute any of the claims that I have made about the religion. As unbelievable as some of it appear to be, I have not made any of it up. Everything I have said has been thoroughly researched and can be verified. Catholic practitioners may not like what I have said about you, but the truth needs no justification. I just calls ‘em as I sees ‘em! Try to prove me wrong. If more practitioners knew the history of the Church as I have just laid it out for you, maybe they wouldn’t be so accepting and devout.

[Related articles: For the Bible Tells Me So; Gender Issues and Sexism; Heaven and Hell; I Believe…; Jesus H. Christ!; Nativity Negation Redux; Oh, God, You Devil!; Sin and Forgiveness; The Ten Commandments]