Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Goliath

Nobody routs for Goliath.  I mean he's just so  big and it's just so unfair.  Now, the biblical Goliath, presumably, was born that big. The real world Goliaths, however, usually got there with hard work.  When people on the bottom are looking up; they do so with contempt, they thumb their noses at them.  Talk about how they don't do shit because they always defer things down the totem pole. You hear things like, "I always tell him what to do, and he takes my advice" or "I can do his job, he just has a fancy degree" all this is complete and utter bullshit.  I will give some primary examples and then I'll end this.  I'm having deja vu, so I believe I've written about this before.

Nurses always believe they know more about medicine than doctors. I recently had an argument with a close friend of mine whose mother is a nurse. My dad is a doctor.  We argued on this issue and her only evidence is, "I know a lot of nurses and they all say this."  Well, consider the sources.  People don't want to admit that they are expendable.  I responded that I knew a lot of doctors.  This is true but I couldn't say the second part because Goliaths, like doctors, don't assert the truth that the nurses are much more expendable than they are because that's just mean.  That's like a fat person being able to make fun of skinny people all day long but if a skinny person makes fun of a fat person, it is seen as much meaner and harsher.  Nurses advise doctors and doctors judge the validity of the advice.  The best example of this is the TV show House. 

      People that don't appreciate Goliath (most of the population), could look at the hospital and say, "House doesn't do shit, he just makes fun of people, hits them with canes and has his staff figure out what is actually wrong."  Yet, as the seasons progressed, crew members left or got fired, once he got rid of everyone and used a janitor.  When that happened, the patients got treated well.  But, when the staff decided to work independently of House or when House was in the hospital, the patient care suffered.  It's very simple why.  Those at the bottom of the totem pole strike all the time, especially in Europe, but nothing really bad happens in the company except bad PR.  If there wasn't a threat of violence by the strikers, the employers could easily replace them with other workers.  But, if the employer would go on strike, the company would probably collapse in not too big of time.  Doctors and the Goliaths normally spent an obscene amount of time in school or building a company from the ground up.  They took the most risk, they deserve more money, and they know it inside and out because they have to pick up the slack the staff does for them when they're not there.

I for one, will always respect Goliath, even as a David.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Blackfish

With the CNN documentary, Blackfish, people are now petitioning to free the killer whales from captivity.  This is classic liberal thinking; "Since we don't like it, nobody can like it."

If someone is offended by the documentary and appalled at how the killer whales are treated, then they shouldn't go to Sea World anymore.  That simple.  Why feel the need to ruin it for everyone else?  The object of knowledge distribution and informative documentaries is to educate people on an issue and then let them decide what to do with it.  Unfortunately, this is not what those who sympathize with the makers of the video do.  They want to ban all killer whales in captivity and ruin everyone's fun.  

If the documentary is as powerful as you claim it to be then it by itself will cause the demand for killer whales to plummet and Sea Worlds to close.  Then the owners may have to decide to release the killer whales back into the wild.  Or maybe they'd just kill them.

I'm sure that many "experts" claim that killer whales could easily transition from captivity to the wild but I'm not so sure it'll be that easy.  They may die anyway.  Maybe if Sea World goes under, they'll kill the whale.

The point of any art, which is what the video is, is to release a catharsis or an emotion.  Real art should stand on its own and need no interpretation.  That is what Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged.

Some people who saw the video were encouraged to go to Sea World because they believe they have a chance to see a trainer get killed by a whale.  I know that's not what the video makers intended but that's art, it changes based on who's looking/reading/watching it.  Like all things, I let the invisible hand decide.  Here's the video, nobody is forcing you to go to Sea World so don't force us to not go.  Let's just see if this documentary is powerful enough to convince people not to go.  Something tells me, it isn't.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Fair is unfair

If you ever hear the term, "It's only fair" know that the person has given up on competing in any objective or rational way and is now just a whiny little bitch.  For being fair is the most unfair thing ever created.  Let's take some popular examples always keeping in mind one of my favorite quotes, "If you're ever in agreement with the majority, it's time to pause and reflect"~ Mark Twain

Title IX is the biggest most egregious "fairness" doctrine ever created.  It says that a school has to spend the same amount of money on girls programs as they do on their corresponding boys programs.  That means the University of Alabama would have to devote the same amount of resources and funds for their boys football team than their girls.  Have you ever heard of the women's Alabama football team?  I haven't, but the men are # 1 in the country right now and have one of the most impressive records in the last five years.  So, they shouldn't be slightly more compensated?  Not to mention how many more people want to be a part of the Alabama football team than the girls team, which I'm not even sure exists. Yet, legally, if a group of girls decided they wanted to put on pads and play football, the school would have to let them.  People say, "It's only fair" women and men are equal.  Well, look at television ratings, sure women's football isn't on any of the major networks but there's a reason for that; nobody would watch.  Millions of people tune in each week to watch Alabama. Many more buy tickets and products with the Alabama logo.  Men's college football is a multi-million dollar industry to the point that everyone is complaining the players should get paid.  But if you paid the players, you'd have to pay women's players the same amount.  Even though, the women's players don't bring in any money...if they even exist.
        For those of you that ridiculously claim that if women's football got TV time, they would be just as popular, let's take another college sport; basketball.  I know there's a Duke women's team.  In fact, they're pretty good, I'd say they're around the top 10 teams in the country every year.  But, they don't bring in a fraction of the revenue, fans, jersey and other product sales as the Duke men's team.  You think it's fair to devote the same amount of money to Duke women as it does Duke men?  In what world is that fair? You would need the money you bring in from the men to pay for the women's for an inferior product.
     ESPN celebrated Title IX recently by having a "nine for IX" special.  I personally found it insulting to women that Mary Decker was on it.  Here is a woman who choked in three straight Olympics and has won the same amount of Olympic medals as I have; 0.  You couldn't find nine better athletes than her?  Tells you something about female athletics.
         The most celebrated aspect of Title IX is tennis. Women need to be paid the same winnings as men.  They talk about Billy Jean King beating a pro-male and Serena Williams took a set off Andy Roddick once.  So, a woman only beat a man once and Serena, probably, the best women's tennis player of all time, is celebrated for picking up a set, not a match, a set on a male counterpart.  A female commentator (I think it was Pam Shriver) said during one of Serena's dominant performances, "Get Murray and Djokovic out here, I think she can beat them" her male counterpart said, "Now wait a minute" but she was adamant and he gave up quickly so as not to be accused of being a chauvinist.  Rather than tell you how I think that match would go, I'll let you know what Serena said when asked.  She laughed and said something along the lines of she would only have a chance if Andy Murray was not allowed to serve and Serena got the doubles alley and Murray could only have the single's.  So...why do they get paid the same again?  Maria Sharapova did have a good point when a French player said something along these lines, Sharapova said, "I think more people watch my matches than his."
       Okay, so then I have a solution to make it really fair. If your match generates x million amount of viewers, you get paid x amount whether your male or female.  That would be real objective fairness.

    The other area you see this is in radio.  Interesting you don't see it on TV.  Liberals are arguing that an equal amount of time needs to be assigned to left radio hosts as right.  They are appalled Rush Limbaugh has so many hours on the air.  The reason he does, however, is millions of people are listening for the entire time.  When left radio hosts spout their vile, slanderous, and malicious diarrhea of the mouth, nobody is really tuning in.  That's why they get cancelled, because they don't bring in good ratings and the radio needs to do whatever it can to make sure people are listening.  That's why leftists complain because they can't compete with objective numbers or ratings with right radio hosts so they have to ask the government to force companies to do it since the leftists are incompetent on their own. Bottom line is most people who work for a living hate the government stealing money from their paycheck every day and they don't want to listen to their defenders when they're driving to work.  There would be no gripe if all the radio hosts were left.  How do I know?  Well we do have TV.

     I have never heard anyone talk about the fairness doctrine with TV.  TV is all dominated by the left. The only right leaning show is "Last Man Standing" and they do provide both sides of the issue.  "Modern Family" "Big Bang Theory" every other TV show pretty much is left.  I have no problem with Modern Family being on seemingly every TV channel all day simply because it's hilarious and people watch.  Big Bang Theory is the # 1 comedy.  That may in part be because it's not on a cable channel but it is a very funny show.  How come this idea of "fairness" is never brought up with all the TV shows that are left wing but it is for radio?

The last one I will name is business.  People think that this small company is more efficient and better than the huge corporation but the corporation squashes them.  There has never been a real world example of predatory pricing (selling below cost to drive out the competition) in the history of the world.  There hasn't been because it doesn't work!  Companies stay small or go out of business because they can't innovate and they can't compete in efficiency and quality as their competitors.  One example of this, one man created a website called "Napster" and he completely decimated and obliterated the "Goliath" or "huge corporation that squashes little people" in Virgin records.  Have you seen one lately?  One man, probably in his basement, took out the corporation. Why?  Because he innovated the industry and delivered music much more efficiently than his competitor.  Odd that a few years before that mom and pop music stores complained, "We just can't compete with the corporation"  Yes you could have if you worked hard enough.

Just remember that "fair" is never fair.  The only fairness is found in the invisible hand.  The people that a capitalist society leave behind is a negative externality.  Yes, extremely minimal amount of aid can be given to them to stop them from revolting but it shouldn't be anything that a sane person would be content with.  The only people that should be content are people who just can't offer anything to society. Remember, nobody ever roots for Goliath but Goliath is the one that puts foods on the tables of millions and millions of people by employing them.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page

Saturday, October 19, 2013

President Obama and the economy

I hinted in analysis of the government shutdown how I judge policies at the most basic level.  That is by asking yourself if your life changed because of it?  That is why I don't get too upset when a Democrat wins the presidency because it normally doesn't affect that question.  With Obama, however, I have seen a change in every day life.

Earlier this year, my paycheck went down because taxes had increased.  A couple years ago my employer decided that it was too big a hit for them to take the increase in healthcare caused by ObamaCare so we( me and my co-workers) would have to contribute more toward healthcare.  We even changed healthcare coverage giving us less healthcare for a higher price per employee.  This means that when Obama said the middle class would not be affected, and only the richest 1% would be, he was wrong.  Some would blame my employer but he couldn't do anything about the increase in taxes. The middle class is getting severely affected  by Obama's policies.

Some talk to the stock market hitting record highs as proof Obama is doing good by the economy.  But, Obama is asking for a debt increase now.  When Bush did this toward the end of his second term, Obama said, "Whenever a president asks for a debt increase, it's an indication of bad leadership."  Well, apparently Senator Barak Obama  has just called out President Obama.  Just one more thing Barak Obama criticized about the Bush administration that he continued once he was given the power of being President just like keeping Gitmo open and that terrorists need to be killed.  Just for the record, in eight years, Bush increased the debt by 800 Billion dollars.  President Obama, in five years, has increased it 9 trillion dollars and counting.

Hopefully President Obama will learn one more thing on the job; socialism/government programs are bad for the economy and hurt the middle class.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page. 

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Jim Irsay and the continued pussification of the American Male
Here we go again, another example of how easily offended and retarded Americans are. Jim Irsay, CEO and owner of the Indianapolis Colts, releases a statement along the lines that under the Peyton years, the Colts enjoyed incredibly fantastic regular seasons but only one super bowl ring. He goes on to say that he's disappointed that he couldn't win more. All over, sports news anchors everywhere were screaming about how he dissed Peyton Manning. John Fox, Manning's current coach, fires back at this "classless" act by Irsay. John Fox also says, "Peyton has too much class to fire back." Well, apparently John Fox doesn't have too much class to fire back. What, praytell is wrong with what Irsay said? If you're not playing/owning a team/coaching etc. in the NFL to win a Superbowl, you probably shouldn't be affiliated with the team. I think Peyton is disappointed he only has one Superbowl ring too. When they asked Lebron James (before winning) about his MVP's and all these individual accolades, he always said the same thing, "That's nice but I'm here for one reason, to win a ring." Kevin Durant, Tracy McGrady, Derrick Rose (take a guess what my favorite sport is) have similar comments when they won their scoring titles. Were people offended? No. You know why? Because it's not offensive! You want to win championships, if you don't, don't play professional sports. This idea of celebrating mediocrity is lost on professional athletes. They want to win it all! Yes, Jim Irsay did the mandatory apology session because people are offended by everything! I think every media outlet owes Jim Irsay an apology. And if you have a problem with Jim Irsay's comments, then you are a pussy that should stay indoors crying yourself to sleep every night. If I offended you, GREAT! I don't care, you get no apology from me you overly sensitive piece of trash. Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

What I learned from the government shutdown

What I learned from the Government shutdown
The government is shut down! What are we going to do? Who are we going to blame? These are the questions that all the pundits and "experts" are battling. Well, I was raised by a scientist and all we have now is a variable that has been eliminated. Based on what happens, we can see what that variable does. So far, it doesn't seem like it does much. First off, the last two weeks, I have not noticed anything different in my life. I wake up, I go to work, I check e-mail, eat food at restaurants etc. etc. Nothing has changed except every now and then when I watch TV I see something about a government shutdown and people coming up to me asking me what it all means. Here's the answer in a nutshell...it means the conservatives are right, we don't need the federal government that much because private enterprises will pick up the slack if people want it. Let's see some examples from the last two weeks. While watching a sport channel, I looked at the ticker on the bottom of the screen and read, "Army vs. Navy game may be cancelled due to the government shutdown." Well that's a great way to get Americans upset, take away their football. Me, I couldn't care less. I've never watched the Army vs. Navy game, I am an Ohio State fan so I was looking forward to that game. That and starting at noon on Saturday there are other college football games to choose from. Who cares if one game is missing? and I do have a cousin that's an alumnus of West Point and I still didn't care. A couple days later, I was watching the same sports channel and I see something like, "Army vs. Navy has received funds from private enterprises and the game will take place." Well, apparently someone cared. Problem solved. The next Saturday the armed forces were still able to play football because they found the money. Apparently people cared even about the non-rivalry game. Alright so that crisis averted. Then we had the military controversy. If you're killed in action in the military, your family gets $ 100,000.00. Now the families of those who died and are in all those coffins coming home from Afghanistan won't get paid because of the government shutdown. Now, President Obama could just take his pen out, draft an executive order and pay these families but no he didn't do that. President Obama seemed to use this to stick one to the Republicans and their shut down so he screwed our troops. I truly believe Bush would have been crucified definitely figuratively and if the liberals got to him, maybe literally. Obama, however, always gets a pass and this time the liberals don't have to be hypocrites because they're rooting for our enemies anyway in the war. Now, the American people can be like, "see with the government shut down, the military families won't get any money." What happened though? The corporations ruined the liberal cause once again. Fisher Price(tm) was like we'll pay it. Then private individuals started donating money to Fisher Price(tm). Some schools even decided to do a fund raiser to raise money to pay the bill to the military families. A corporation showed up the government by throwing all their money around and the private citizens started reimbursing the corporation. Yea, this capitalist society is so full of greed you can't rely on generosity (sarcasm greatly involved in the last sentence). The only thing I can see is the national parks are closed. I try to hike in a national park every year and I love them. This is a case where private citizens cannot step in because they're not allowed. I have a feeling though if you were to say sell the Grand Canyon, there would be buyers. You can even put in the contract that it has to be used so people can see the view and not destroy the park for commercial enterprises. That can be done. When I brought this up to someone they said, "Don't you have to pay to get into a national park?"
Yes you do.  It's $20 per car for the day.  You can get week passes
and other denominations but that's the one I normally pay. 
Apparently national parks are run at a loss or else they would have
stayed open because it is a way for the government to make money. 
Or, this is the only thing those opposed to the shutdown could
shutdown to make people notice.  Either way, this is not too
catastrophic to me.  Like I said, if the government were gone, 
someone would buy the national park from them.  Liberals may
contend, "Yea but the entrance price would probably go up so our
poor couldn't appreciate them."  If you were so concerned about
that, you'd complain that it's twenty dollars a day!  That's a
price! Why not just have it be free?  Well the government wants some
money too.  There's that greed again.

If the government shut down is really the Republicans' fault, I say thank you
Republicans for proving my conservative views are right.  All these programs and
whatever the hell the federal government pretends to do are probably just as
ineffective and useless as I thought.  There really is too much government waste. 
So, now that we know this, let's use the federal government only for strong national
defense, to keep out national parks open (naturally keeping the entrance fees), and
the Supreme Court when we don't think our state courts upheld the constitution
enough.  There's probably a couple more things but It won't cost that much if those
are your only expenses so then you can lower taxes and give more money to the
people.  Any kind of gap this will cause will be picked up by private enterprises as
we noticed during the shut down.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be
bought at the bottom of this page

Tuesday, October 15, 2013


Obama the Stone Cold Killer

Like many of my rants, I'm going to give both the positive and negatives about
President Obama.  Barak Obama has spent a lot of time talking about change.  Some
liberal news outlets will point out that Guantanamo Bay is still open but not nearly
as loudly as they did when Bush was President.  President Obama gets a pass when it
comes to killing terrorists.  It is true that he has outlawed torture and other
"enhanced interrogation" methods.  No, our President prefers to just kill them.  I
for one, commend him on that.  The liberal media refuses to highlight this the way
they did to Bush, the warmonger president.  Let's recap Bush's eight years and
Obama's five.  Fine, we'll say Bush had seven since 9/11 and since 9/11 happened
toward the latter half, we'll just round to six.  Either way; here is the scorecard.

Drone Strikes
Obama: 292
Bush: 52

Senior Al Queda members killed
Obama: 22
Bush: 12

Now, this is a little unfair to Bush because we don't give him any credit for Saddam
Hussein , his sons and those in Iraq.  This is a bias on my part, although I was for
the Iraq war, 9/11 was about Al Qaeda and the Taliban protected Osama Bin Laden. 
President Obama did get THE target; Osama Bin Laden.  Yea, Republicans scream, "They
never would have gotten him if it wasn't for torture."  Maybe, but since I'm
skeptical of everyone, I resort to logic and common sense.  Bush left office in
January 2009 (you're a lame duck from the November election to January).  Osama Bin
Laden was killed in 2011.  That's over two years later.  I find it hard to believe
that information received two years ago was still relevant now.  Maybe he stayed in
that safe house that Zero Dark Thirty described for three years.  I don't know
though, it seems far-fetched.

Republicans who haven't ignored Obama's success at killing terrorist complain "We
can't interrogate and get information about the few Al Queda leaders we have left."

That sounds legitimate but we got Osama Bin Laden by killing everyone, so why can't
we get this ophthalmologist?  The liberals don't bring this up because they have a
school-girl crush on Obama.  That's fine, he's immune to kill all the terrorists he
wants, and some are even US citizens.  Yes, right-wingers think this is a dangerous
precedent and it is.  According to the constitution, the president can engage in
acts of war for 30 days without congressional approval.  Clinton enacted this power
more than every other president before him combined!  Now we have Obama who's
abusing his right to kill people.  But then again, as far as I can tell, he hasn't
killed anyone that didn't deserve to be killed.  I made up a ridiculous conspiracy
that as Vince Flynn and Tom Clancy died shortly after each other, it was Obama that
did it because they had the courage to call Muslims terrorists.  That would be odd
though, these people wrote fictitiously about what Obama does for real.  Maybe they
exposed some of his tactics, maybe Mitch Rapp is real (Vince Flynn reference). 
Maybe there are multiple Mitch Rapp's all over the world.  I certainly hope so!
So, kill away Mr. President.  I do believe that there are some things you do that we
the American people shouldn't know about.  But so long as you keep killing people
that have tried to hurt us, then kill away Sir.

Also, Cheney and those of Bush's administration are complaining that after
criticizing them for being war mongers, he has taken their work further.  I say
"good."  So the inexperienced Obama didn't realize the violence was necessary.  Now
that he has experience, he realizes that violence is necessary; so I'm okay with
that.

The thing that baffles me about this stone cold killer of a president we have is
Benghazi.  Our US representatives, including the ambassador, are murdered and
President Obama does nothing?  There was a little investigation but not much. There
was no manhunt; nothing.  This should have cost him the election, but Sandy saved it
for him.  Where was this man that has killed so many Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? 
I really have only one explanation.  President Obama likes working in the shadows. 
There was too much press on Benghazi, so he appeared weak.  Behind the scenes
though, he's looking for and going to kill those responsible.  At least, I hope so.

In all, when President Obama gives a speech he comes off as a terrorist sympathizer.
 He doesn't like using words like "terrorist" or "evil" and likes blaming youtube
for Muslims killing.  Right-wingers have a problem with that.  I, however, would
prefer someone talk weak and walk tough than one who talks strong and acts weak. 
His strategy has seemingly lured the enemy into a false sense of security before
Obama can kill them.   Obama can call terrorists the "backbone of our society" for
all I care just so long as he keeps killing them. Every single law enforcement
officer would probably tell you that you need to let the little guys go and monitor
them so they lead you to the big guys.  Obama kills them but his strategy doesn't
appear to be failing.  To give an article that summarizes what's been discussed here
see

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/11/more-killing-in-obamas-war-on-terror-than-bushs-war/
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Al-Qaeda-leaders-who-have-been-killed-and-arrested/Article1-551687.aspx

Monday, October 14, 2013

Homophobic gays

Homophobic Gays

 I love paradoxes. How can someone be a homophobic gay?  Well it's actually more common than what the media would like to contend.  I could search through lexis nexis and other sites to come up with these articles from "Blade" (a homosexual magazine) of people feeling guilty because they engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex when they consider themselves gay but quite frankly, I'm just too lazy.  I know they exist because when I wasn't so lazy, I have read them.  But on to the issue.  

Gays are unlike most minorities in that it's extremely hard to stereotype them nor can you definitively identify them all on the street.  There isn't a set pattern that describes them except that they engage in activities sexual in nature with the same sex as they are.  This definition doesn't even work too well as some women make out or do things sexual in nature with women to attract other males because they are heterosexual.  This type of person is the point of this essay; there is nothing wrong with calling that person "straight."  

I have met a gay man that openly say anti-gay comments like "I hate flamers."  It was odd when I heard this but he explained to me that flamboyant gays give gays like him (bulky muscles, facial hair and other "manly" features)a bad name.  I likened this to the same as Chris Rock when he gave his speech 'blacks vs. n-words' in a stand up routine in the late 90's.  I met this man in 2002, a lot has changed for gays in that time. Nowadays, gays have a new target, and it's anyone that admits anything that may provide evidence against a gay gene.  

I am very open about my asexuality.  Every one of my friends/acquaintances/family has accused me of lying with the exception of one of my gay friends.  The one friend, however, took exception when I said, "I became asexual when I was 21"  I know that it is a taboo now because the notion that you "became" a sexual preference is absolutely "beyond offensive."  But why?

This same friend recently posted a video that was captioned "After watching this, nobody will ever doubt being born gay." I had to watch this video to see what this "overwhelming" evidence was. I talk in my book how the "gay Gene" theory isn't given much validity and even gays aren't willing to take it to the next level by merely taking a blood test to see if they're really gay; much like I took a blood test to find out if I am O-.  The "nature vs. Nurture" debate, which is exactly what a born-gay assertion is(siding with nature), has been going on since Descartes debated Locke.  And since then, there has not been one issue that is definitively proven either way.  Locke, who believed we were born a blank slate (Tabla Rassa), believed everything was nurture.  He has yet to be proven wrong definitively.  At my college, a group of people argued gender was a social construct and not genetic.  Their proof, hermaphrodites have a "Y" gene(XXY) and they aren't considered male.  The logical answer would be "XY = male; XX= female" and there is a 3rd gender, "XXY = Hemaphrodite" Done.  But they didn't accept that thus leading to another chapter.  So, you're telling me, that sexual preference is the only thing in the history of the world that is exclusively nature?  I find that extremely hard to believe.  Like all nature/nurture arguments it's probably a combination of both, but this isn't an article about the "born-gay" notion.  

The video is people approaching straight people and asking, "When did you realize you were straight" to point out how ridiculous it is to ask that question.  I found out that gays are supposed to be extremely offended by answering this question.  This confused me because one of my gay friends volunteered it when she came out to me. She said, "I became gay when I was 12."  This is a normal age when people find out their sexuality.  I wish people would ask me that question about my asexuality instead of the normal, "You're lying."  Oddly, this same friend that is absolutely appalled by the question "When did you know you were gay?" has no problem when people tell me I'm lying.  What if someone accused him of lying about being gay?  If "When did you become gay" is "beyond offensive," then that I think goes into a whole new stratosphere. 

As I've talked to more and more gays, I find that either I just happen to run into the outliers or there is a real problem with the gay community.  They only accept you if you (a) Never admit to having done anything sexual in nature with a member of the other sex and (B) are liberal.  This means that the "club" normally designated LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender) is false because bisexuals now are being ostracized by the gays and lesbians because they go back and forth from one sex to the other.  This goes directly against the "born gay" notion.  Any kind of group that ostracizes it's members if they don't think exactly like they do is dangerous.  Most liberal groups in general are dangerous; see occupy wall street and the multiple rapes, murders, and millions of dollars in property damage. 

Fact is, most gays have tried to do things sexual in nature with the opposite sex.  Maybe after experiencing this and not enjoying it, it made them discover they were gay.  Hence that would be the moment you realized you were gay and thus the answer to the "absolutely appalling" question of when you became gay.  

Now, is it offensive to ask a straight person that?  Of course not!  That would be hypocritical of me.  I also don't think it's a ridiculous question for straights and the people on the video shouldn't have been that shocked.  It probably happened right around the time you got over your "girls/guys have cootie" stage.  Me, I had my first crush at 3-years-old but the bitch moved to Spain thus ending our relationship. I never went through the cootie phase but I've been asexual for the last eight years.  Have I kissed or done things sexual in nature with people since then, sure, but I haven't enjoyed any of them, thus confirming my belief that I am asexual.  You don't lose your "gay card" just because you experimented with the opposite sex.  

If gays were tolerant of gays who do that, and let them be open about this experience instead of forcing them to repress it and not tell anyone as if they did something wrong, then I would have no problem with gays. Gays have become intolerant of people for not being as gay as them.  It used to be LGBT all stood together in solidarity to be accepted and not part of the DSM-IV (List of psychological disorders) like they were in the '70's.  Now the LG's hate the B's and have kicked them out of their club because they don't fit their mold.  Gays scream about how they want to be equal and society should tolerate them but they are intolerant of gays that after coming out, try activities with the opposite sex once in a while and shun bisexuals and asexuals.  

I met a flamboyantly gay man last weekend who asked me if I was gay.  I told him no and we talked about how I'm asexual and both gays and straights ridicule me for that.  He responded, "Gays hate me too because I hate Obama."  This is the other tisk-tisk.  If you're gay, apparently you're not allowed to be a Republican. There's a group called the "Log Cabin Republicans" which are gay Republicans and the gay community hates them.  Why? What does preferring to be in a relationship with the same sex have anything to do with your views on the economy, big vs. small government, abortion etc. etc.?   Yes Republicans tend to be against gay marriage but maybe the Gay Republicans link that view to "big government" which is a Democratic ideal.  Maybe they think, "the government has no right to tell me who to be with" and they extend that to, "The government has no right taking my hard earned money."  The latter being a right-wing view.  Are you really less gay because you don't believe you should kill a fetus? Are you less gay if you look at all the government waste and realize that they suck at investing money so maybe we shouldn't give them as much? Are you less gay if you don't want to rely on the government to defend your home and you'd rather have a gun?  I would say no to all these things. I don't get much static from other right-wingers because I'm pro-abortion.  Why does the gay community give Republican gays (not all of them are officially in the log cabin Republican camp) so much static?  Why are they viewed as traitors?  Where is the tolerance they so loudly cheer for?  I guess the Gay community is like any other liberal organization; French Revolution, mob mentality.  Remember, Robespierre, one of the founders and starters of the French Revolution, would eventually get guillotined by French Revolutionaries for not being radical enough.  Seems that's where this is headed to.
Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page.