Sunday, March 11, 2018

Things I occasionally think

(Images used are either public domain or are being used as fair use.  No copyright infringement is implied nor ownership claimed).

Things that occur to me:

If the government wanted to arrest David Koresh and his followers for supposed child abuse they wouldn't have pumped flammable gas into the compound for children to asphyxiate or burn if it was ignited.  Unless they didn't care about the children in the first place.

If a president wanted to bring stability to a region in southeast Asia, he would not have encouraged provocative actions near the much better equipped, led, and motivated sovereign people living in the upper half of that country.  The North Vietnamese were the legitimate leaders and the French, US and the rest of the world was complicit in the death of many thousands of people who were trapped in the political wars of the cold war conflict.

It has been said that JFK Jr was quoted as saying he was going to use the magazine GEORGE to help him reveal who killed his father.  Naming the magazine what he did either refers to the first president of the US, or, the name of the person he could not outright name as the killer of his father,  GEORGE HW Bush.

I think sometimes with the JFK Assassination we fail to use common sense.  Of course it was a magic bullet.  Of course this president who challenged the mafia, Cuba, the Soviets, and his own CIA, FBI and the power brokers in US Government, had only one lone nut with a gun who was barely ranked as a shooter on the range could put two or three bullets on target.

If we agree to the phrase, the science is settled on global warming, why, with hundreds of years of civilian gun ownership rights in the US, why isn't the gun-ownership matter settled.  If we don't know by now, when the hell will we ever?  No.   I know, the answer is no, we don't know and will never.

People who like comic books are great.  People who only like comic books are usually, ummm, well, not normal.  If you love a comic that is fantasy, go read Tolkien, RE Howard, if you like horror comics, try Lovecraft, Lumley, Stephen King or Anne Rice books.  Watch a fucking movie, or documentary.  Please, there is so much more in life than comics.  Or books, or games or whatever thing you focus on to the exclusion of everything else.  I love comics.  Trust me.  I might write shitty ones, but I love em. ( I also think that if you sit on your couch watching the world happen on your television in news, sports and reality shows, you've stopped living and you are letting others live for you.  So, if you live vicariously through others, at least choose well.)

Friday, March 2, 2018

Stuff to think about

“Is it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?”― Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange

I am not perfect.  I am flawed.  But I've still decided that people suck.  Most people mostly suck, at least.  There is a disease on the internet where people are not allowed their own opinions.  Now, they might not leave comments, that can be deleted, they send emails with complete expectation of non sharing with the public.

“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
― George Orwell, 1984

For example... I don't know the answer to mass shootings, but I suspect it involves guns and homicidal people. Anything dealing with both is better than anything concentrating on one. But that doesn't mean I know the answer. Quite honestly, I find it remarkably similar to hearing and then smelling a chorus of farts in a closed room, all of the commentators who think they have the answer.  We live in a country of many divisions, and our enemies use those divisions to break us.

“knowledge, absolutely sure of its infallibility, is faith” Yevgeny Zamyatin, We

I wrote about Transgender people, had four people having issues sending hate filled emails, and one that was ok, but needing clarification.  I wrote about gun laws and guns in the US, and had people on both sides send me email threats.  I wrote books about death and life, and people invite me to experience one of them soon.

“The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.”  Jack London, The Iron Heel

I have had experiences in the past when I wrote an essay or blog entry that was not meant to convince other people but instead to explain my view.  And then received hatemail when people took issue with the things that I am moved by that explain my view, and then they say I should not be motivated by them... Yes, it is idiocy and madness.  I hope you, the reader, have a good life.  I hope you are happy.  But I do not, exactly, care if you agree with the things that move me to believe whatever it is I believe. To put it simply, if you like Dirty Dancing and think it is art, watch the hell out of it, enjoy it, and be happy.  I dislike it.  I am bored by it.  But it wasn't made for me.  King Kong versus Godzilla was.  And I enjoy it.  This isn't entirely to shat upon opinions.  It might seem that I am saying you shouldn't think something.

“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

What I am saying is, try to perceive my point of saying it.  Am I trying to convince you?  Or am I reporting my experience?  Whatever it is, is it really worth your time to send hatemail?   Again, I do not care what you like, and I am happy you like it.  Please show me the same respect.  Well unless I suggest abuse or evil deeds are good for me.  Lastly, if you write to me about guns and suggest I should be shot, I think you need to consider the language you use, or you won't be respected as a rational observer.

“Take stock, citizen bacillus,
Now that there are so many billions of you,
Bleeding through your opened veins,
Into your bathtub, or into the Pacific
Of that by which they may remember you.”
John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar


Since people seem to desire to have me be their strawman, to be the subject of false arguments so that you can shred him, I suppose I should try to explain me.  I am not some sort of science minded thinker.  Despite having a relatively high IQ, I am more of a creative artist than science mind.  I don't think on the lines of math, on reason, but upon fire and heartbeats.

I like movies that stir new thoughts in me, I hate movies that pretend to tell something new but are instead old, tired, and stupid.  I like poetry because it lifts me to higher thought.  I like King Kong versus Godzilla because it allows me to not think, just enjoy.  I hate liars.  I hate lying.  I lie.  I wish I didn't.

I read to stimulate my brain.  I read to entertain my brain.  And I read what I do to create new thoughts.  I get tired from being constantly ill.  I have arthritis in three specific places that causes me to have pain that causes my mind to scream.  I have volunteered at many non-profit organizations, but don't do it because I am any kind of great thinker who can change the world.  But I do find that what I do has some success because I am far different than any of the people I've worked with at such places.  I have also given away thousands of books, comics and dollars, despite having few of such things.  And, having said all this, I think that is what I am called to do.  I am called to speak truth when I see it, share of what I have in abundance, and I hope help others.

I've been told by a number of people that I am a fool.  This is true.  None of us can control how we emotionally respond to things, and when I see beauty, kindness or truth it makes me emotional.  It strikes when I am unguarded.  And others seeing this often see this response as weakness, but I promise, it is not.  "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." - Mahatma Gandhi

You may not support my work.  You might.  I do not do this for any single person, well, other than myself.  I write every day.  I love writing.  And writing allows me to understand issues better.  I am close to the end of my publishing life.  I can't continue to publish work without financial reward.  Very few people who bought my first work are around to buy my current works.  I thank those who have persevered and remained steady in their support.  I'd like to suggest, if you liked my early work I've improved as a writer.  If you did not, I understand. 


Tuesday, February 27, 2018

One side says up the other side says down

I do not write about gun laws very often.  I don't see any benefit to reader or myself if I do write about them.  Why do I say that?

“Consider the fact that we now have on the lawbooks of this nation over 20,000 laws governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms.”— Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., congressional hearings, 1965

It isn't that I think we have too few or too many gun laws, it is that it is only half of the issue.  If we constructed gun laws that worked would have to also take into account need.  That is, hunting, self defense, and defense against governmental intrusion into the home all seem reasonable, but murdering a school full of children, killing cops, killing the family do not seem reasonable.  How do you make sure those who buy are those who use, and how do you make sure someone who was rational and unlikely to be a loose screw and doesn't now go bongo for whatever reason, and kill someone after acquiring and then using a gun?

There is a desire by many to remove all of the guns in the hands of Americans.  There are those who believe in gun rights but with limits.  And there are those who believe in full gun rights.  Getting these three very different sets of people to come to a common ground might be impossible.  The same sort of grouping exists for abortion and abortion rights.  And the same can be said for most any greatly contested subject.  One side is all for, one side is all against, and there is an inbetween group who have more nuanced views.

While the presence of different views is therefore common and to be expected, there is a difference upon this issue, that, the direct use of the gun can kill many, whereas abortion kills one at a time.  No matter how right or wrong abortion is, the result is a single death, if it is death, at a time.  The dead from mass shootings necessarily is more than any act of abortion, and it involves more than the person raped, procreated, or virgin conceived.

I believe that guns are a part of American culture.  I believe they are never going to be properly considered by laws, as they possess too much power and presence in the American mind.  But guns used by the insane, by the angry, and by the aggrieved kill people.  Should we remove them all we harm those who are innocent and use them for proper reasons.  Should we remove guns from the masses gun use will still happen, by criminals, those who know how to cheat the system, and by the police and military.  I have heard dozens of people say guns are the problem.  I don't believe that.  I have heard gun advocates say the insane, the angry, the aggrieved who use guns unlawfully are the problem, and I say to that, well sure, but, that isn't all of it.  We need to scour our hearts and minds to achieve a solution that is fair, but potent.

The problem is, despite numerous laws working, is that we cannot predict most killings and killers, and we cannot divine the use of otherwise lawfully purchased guns.  You can make the argument, I believe successfully, that if you make guns illegal the criminals will still use them, because they do not obey the laws.  Additionally, with many mass shooters, much like terrorists, do not intend to remain alive after their acts of violence.  You cannot punish the dead.  You cannot punish the dead's estate other than by removal of assets but that doesn't punish the dead, it punishes those who are now living in the stigma of being the relatives and those connected to the one doing the evil.

I don't have an answer.  I believe in the Death Penalty, but not as any sort of deterrent, instead as a means to punish permanently.  But that wouldn't work here either.  And those who think 10-20,000 gun laws aren't enough don't really get it. The issue isn't really the gun, it is the evil ones who use the gun, our inability to predict that they'll use it, and the lack of punishment that is efficient.

Sunday, February 25, 2018


(Disclaimer: I am not a social scientist, genius, good writer or even good person.  I am a flawed, jerk with limited intelligence.  Read the following article at your own risk.)


I was asked if I found a woman attractive, who thereafter said she is a man but lives as a woman.  After which she said she "was a woman, period."  And she said, if I didn't agree, I was a bigot.  To be clearer, she hasn't had surgery, so she is a woman in mind only.  But does her desire to live as a woman minus the equipment, mean she is one?  If I were to say I am a Ford Trimotor Aircraft, because I've felt that way, am I?  Well, no.  I really don't believe that line of argument, but, here is what I think about transgender people and sexual expression of gender different than that of their birth...  I think it doesn't matter what technically they are, because as a matter of course, they live as the gender they desire.  If I don't feel their gender is correct, it doesn't matter.  Only if I were to engage in sex with them would it matter, and I am married and don't fool around. 

The truth is, we live in a society that is more open, it is also easier to live as a different gender since there are hormones, plastic surgeons and communities of support for those who are transgender.  I accept that with the change they become the gender they are transitioning toward.  And in the process, I accept that they deserve to be called what they see their end point gender will become.

I was asked by a different person if I'd be so "open" about transgender acceptance if it were my son who was expressing a change.  I have to say, I love my son, and whatever he chooses he can become.  All I pray and hope for him is that he is able to find a role in the world, and to find love and happiness.  I think when it is all said and done, I want that for anyone I don't find to be an enemy, and my religious ethos would suggest I should even want that for my enemy, but that is less easy than for those I love, like or have no issues with.


I haven't had so many political discussions lately, as in this new era of the internet it is nearly impossible to have an honest discussion without someone getting angry or abusive.  I think a lot of things that most people do not, I vote my own conscience and not a damn bit of a party line thought.  I am me.  So, it is increasingly becoming clear for me that it isn't even productive to have conversations about anything deep, political or religious, and that I should avoid the bullshit by keeping quiet because the consequences of openness are distinctly in the negative.  I believe many things, and those things I believe will remain true if I say a lot about them, or absolutely nothing.

Despite having friends on both sides of the present political divide, I can make some general observations.  I find that the Left believes in free speech when it is artistic expression, and the Right believes in it about anything except patriotism or nationalist expression.  I am an artist, of sorts, and I hold some nationalist views, but mostly not.  I think the Left believes in things just as strongly, but for different reasons and various causes, than the right, but how they express themselves is very different.  I believe in Free Speech, but despite my holding of that high, it leads me to my next question/s.


"I think Barack Obama is a socialist. I think he cares for his country - don't get me wrong about that - but I think he truly misunderstands what this country was based upon, the values that America was based upon, which was free enterprise and having the ability to risk your capital and having a chance to have a return on your investment."  Rick Perry

"Comparing President Donald Trump to Hitler is perfectly accurate (“'Tyranny does not arrive in one fell swoop,’” Sept. 3): not the Hitler of World War II, but the Hitler of the first half of the 1930s who told the poor, "underdog" white German people what they wanted to hear, who created a social climate that allowed the very worst of humanity to emerge from under its rock, who scoffed at intellectuals and the media and anyone else who didn't buy into his world view. This is the Hitler that President Trump so closely resembles.

And this is why so many of us are sickened by what we are seeing him and his henchmen do to our country. Those who forget their history are doomed, doomed."  Nancy Bruggman Spies

People loved to call Trump "Hitler" and his supporters Nazis or Fascists.  People in the Obama era called him a Socialist, and depicted him as being a supporter of Josif Stalin so I am not suggesting anything about fairness.  (I argued that Obama wasn't, and that Trump isn't, so this isn't about my views on either one.)  If a group has views that are Nazi or Fascist, Socialist or Communist, why should we allow them to argue/debate in general society?  We defeated Nazis, and Communists, the ideas that made those movements act were different, but, I think both were proved wrong.  So if they were wrong, why would a free society allow continued arguments about issues that are "settled"?  Which leads me to the biggest area of questions I have.


The people who believe in Human Caused Global Climate Change often say that the Science is settled and not up for debate.  The people who suggest Global Warming and Climate Change isn't happening are called Deniers.  They are colored in the same hues as Holocaust deniers, and portrayed as being stupid.  But, they are not stupid, and the science is by no means settled.  If it is science IT NEVER IS.  Part of my motive for researching many months of articles, documentaries, scientists testifying before Congress, blogs of Climate scientists, isn't because I am naturally a skeptic, it is because my understanding of science is that it is not a static thing.  If the world is changing, there are new sets of data to examine, all of the time.  I am not a disbeliever in epic climate change.  But I do find the scientists who are skeptics to be far more honest and reasonable than those who create false Hockey Stick graphs and say the Arctic would be ice free by 2014*.  ((*Gore made that prediction to a German audience in 2008.))  It currently is also not the warmest humans have experienced.  The Roman Warm Period is one period of excess heat.

I don't agree with many of the anti-science people I've met, and I do not think most scientists secretly believe in one thing and write another.  Science is noble pursuit.  But there are absolutely vital issues that hinder modern science.  Writing for the grants, just as in education of children teaching for the standardized test, is a focus towards an end, but isn't open to new and difficult data.  President Eisenhower notified society of this, a long long time ago... 

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

The scientists called Deniers often point out that peer reviewed science journals do not accept articles that have a thesis of being skeptical of "settled science".  And to this end I suggest, if the Science minded think they are correct, then there should be no fear of debate in areas that are solidly grounded in scientific truths.  I've read and listened to the pro Climate Change side suggest that most climate skeptics are not scientists.  I have not found that to be true.  But even if it is, Al Gore is not a scientist.  Al Gore received the Nobel Prize for his Climate Change work.  Do they suggest we should ignore him as well?

What is at stake in all debates is truth.  And if we refuse to see truth because it is not our own, then we will remain ignorant.


I've lost friends recently and I hate it.  Due to  illness I've been prone to abandon the internet for days, sleep for weeks on end, and worse, become especially chatty and irresponsible when I drink alcohol, which I do for pain.  I am making a promise to myself that I never get out of control, never get DRUNK, and always remain in control of my words even if I am tipsy.  As a person who is dealing with pain issues, daily, and being ill, I do make choices that aren't made under the most optimum of conditions.  That does not give me a right to become a fool.  And that is the worst thing I can become.

I've released my latest book, called MEMORIA and it is a collection of poems and essays that consider the aspects of life that contribute to making a good life, and good memories.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Lovely works by Czarist Russian Artists

Descriptions and information culled from Wikipedia in each case. No claim of ownership is being made.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Currently Reading

Before I begin I want to make a few comments. Whenever I discuss or write about what I am reading, an audience member or the other person in the discussion assumes that I am saying this is what I believe. In no way am I saying that about these books.  I've watched and enjoyed a buttload of movies, books, documentaries without agreeing with the concepts therein.  By reading about the views of someone does not therefore mean I believe or agree with the author.  But, and I think this is my point, you can't understand a theory or a concept  if you never listen to the various views that have arisen.  I do not take sides in the debates of life, usually, because I would prefer to use my intellect to find an answer, than to debate a person who might well not know the truth.

An example of how I information gather would be the debates of the 2016 US Presidential election.  Despite my not voting for either side, I still wanted to know what both of the candidates believed.  And I was threatened with death for suggesting that Free Speech is a principle that should never be stifled, because our society needs all the information possible to make a qualified decision.

I don't really think most of the television series Ancient Aliens is correct.  But, I absolutely think many scientists, by demanding evidence rather than use simple logic to bridge gaps of info, stifled intellectual growth.  Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.  And, having said that, my main point is that I think humans were intelligent and had societies that were far more advanced than we can imagine, in the past.  Humans have not always been intelligent, but, I think the current trends in science push down possible options or solutions.  Also, if I do not necessarily believe in UFOs as major contributors to the world culture, I still can be of opinions that there was far more advancements than we are led to believe

I don't altogether have a conclusion about Global Climate Change, but I become very suspicious when the GCC people say "the science is settled".  Science might be settled in a few areas, but there is no damn way the science is settled on GCC.  And then, the people who aren't in agreement become "Deniers" or something nearly as bad, and their area of exploration and investigation becomes labeled as pseudo science.  Those who are in Science can call anything whatever they like, but I've read that there is no journal that will publish an alternative view of any major GCC theories. 

On to the books presented...  Graham Hancock asks the reader to imagine an world that rose up from a high development society, after a major deluge or disaster.  Thereafter the remnants of such a higher culture sprinkles those they deal with higher concepts and tech.  Robert Temple suggested that the Dogon People of Africa had a knowledge of stars that they technically could not have had, due to where they lived and what they knew in general.

In Death on Mars, a scientist looks at the chemicals and radiation in the sampled atmosphere of Mars, and believes that Mars blew itself up, or someone else blew them up.  This leads to a question, is the succession of technology automatically lead to destruction of the culture?  I certainly think it is possible.

In another couple books Ahmed Osman investigates his theory, that Akhenaten either directly inspired Jewish monotheism, or, even more wildly, that Moses was Akhenaten, and even more wildly, that Jesus is Tutankhamen.   But, even if I disagree, I absolutely see how it could be that a region of the world shares views of religion that are not shared in the rest of the world.  And from that smaller region, the concept spreads.

The books by David Flynn blew me away.  He doesn't suggest anything revolutionary, he looks at how an eternal god might code messages into events, places, and concepts.  I am most moved by his works, and am sad that he died 7 or so years ago from cancer. 

I hope you are enjoying a lovely book, and sharing it with others.