Done With Google©


Well, I am through here. Hahahahah. You may remember that line from the old Barney Miller© TV show. It referred in that case to the policeman that was accidentally outed back when being gay was not accepted as much as it is now.

In my case, it means that I have cut my final ties with the data miners. In this case it was poor Google Earth, the last program from them I was using. I actually used GE, as a research tool when writing books to locate things and terrain. But you have to take a stand. I guess I’ll go back to hand-folded paper maps. Hahahahah.

In case you think this makes me a loony, perhaps you are right. It is just that TANSTAAFL is true: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you are not paying for a product you are the product.

I don’t mind them making a ton of money. I just want it to be off other people. If they sent me a check each month for use of my habits and data, I would be alright with it. But now I am not on any social media and do not use any “free’ software except Open Source. We’ll see how it goes.




Here is a thing that bothers me a bit and I don’t quite understand who benefits from it.

The word on the street recently was that the actor Scarlett Johansson  decided not to play the role of  a transsexual person in some movie because she got flak from the LGBTQ community. They apparently claimed that the role should have gone to a real transsexual actor. Does that mean that gay actors cannot play straight men, or that lepers have to be played by actors with real Hansen’s disease? Can straight women not play lesbians? Must serial killers be played by actual murderers? Give me a goddam break. Does acting skill or availability play no part? Assholes. If you fill this role with a real transsexual that cannot act for shit, and the movie flops, who will get blamed? This is political correctness run amok.

A Very Disturbing Fact

Untitled 1-page-001

And I mean fact fact, not the bullshit ‘alternate facts’ or simple lies. These are NUMBERS and they do not lie. Here is a fact: In the 2016 election, only 60% of the eligible voters voted. You can do this math: That means the 40% of people that could have voted did not.

In perhaps the most important election since Nixon, certainly the most controversial one, almost half the goddam citizens sat home. It also means that about 29% of the electorate put Trump in office.

News people are always interviewing people asking why they supported such and such a candidate. Why don’t they ever ask the other 40% why they didn’t bother to vote. I will cut slack (but not much, because there are people always willing to drive someone to the polls) to those too old or infirm or poor to get ID cards or get to the polls.

But that cannot be nearly half the populace. I want to know why these people refused to participate in the most basic civic function of a Republic. It is easier than Jury Duty. Easier than getting a Drivers License. Yet no one ever holds their feet to the fire. No one ever says, “You sorry son of a bitch. Why didn’t you vote?”

There was an old time SF writer, Robert Heinlein, that wrote several novels that had a society where non-voters did not get to participate. They got basic food and shelter, but had no voice in other civic affairs. He had one where only those that had served in the military got to vote. I am not suggesting we go that far, but there ought to be some cattle prod to use to motivate people to vote.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that. Except that I made that pie chart using a spreadsheet graphing function.  It’s a beaut, isn’t it? I don’t mind that the red and blue are reversed, that Republicans like to be called ‘Red’ and here they are ‘Blue’.

What’s The Boyfriend As Clown Deal?

AXB50057_result        I’d like to speak to you today about clown songs. Not normal clown songs, like Send in the Clowns, but songs where the boyfriend (always it was the boy, never the girl) laments being a ‘clown’. This was a short time geologically, perhaps the 1960’s through the 1980’s.

It began, I believe, with the Everly Brothers Kathy’s Clown in 1960, continued through Gary Lewis and the Playboys Everybody Loves a Clown in 1964. The thrust of the songs is that the boy singing is a ‘clown’ for his girl. It’s never made clear what this entails, but it is obviously not a condition he desires. I was a teenager and young adult during this period and I never, not once, called or heard any boy be called a girls clown. I was part of a population of normally rowdy and cruel kids and it never happened.

So how did the songwriters get the idea that there were girls out there turning boys into clowns? And what was in it for the girls? A Clown doesn’t buy more gifts, doesn’t give the girl money.  It would certainly not enhance the girl’s appeal to have a clown hanging around her. Did she use the boy as a clown weapon, sending him out to throw confetti from a bucket on rivals or squeeze the bulb of a loud horn to irritate them? I never saw anything like that, and I was an Observer.

This clown thing reached its zenith when P.J. Proby covered the song Clown Shoes, I believe it 1987. Johnny Burnette wrote it in 1962. It is one of the most bizarre songs ever about a boy being a clown for a girl. I won’t put them here, but if you want to be entertained, find the lyrics, or better yet, the song, and listen to it.

But none of this explain why it is that the girl wants a clown, whether she deliberately created one or it was an unhappy accident, and what exactly is so disturbing to be one. I know everyone hates and fears clowns, and cross the street to avoid them. But is that the only reason? I wonder.

So This Time I Mean It!

DEO00117_resultI am leaving Facebook®, this time for good. Their latest antics, allowing some outfit to gather data on a shitload of people in order to influence the election, all in the name of money, convinces me that we are not a good fit.

I’m not a social person anyway. I originally joined with the scatterbrained idea to get people to read my books. But that only works if you are willing to sell yourself, to get out there and kiss babies and shake hands. Since I am an introvert, that behavior in alien to me and so Facebook didn’t accomplish anything. I created a page ‘Books I’ve Written’ and in several years, no one bought any books or even visited it.

So the gain (nothing) is not worth the loss (privacy and seeing into other peoples brain and view their political and religious rants). I ended up with most people blocked. I do not blame them. I just wish I did not know their opinions. It colors how I look at a person if I know their inner workings. It is a failing of mine that I cannot separate the person from their thoughts.

However, this blog will still be published and I can be reached by email if anyone needs or wants to communicate with me.

A Thought to Ponder

DET00003_resultThere are a lot of words written today about gender identification. (I could have said ‘in this day and age’ rather than ‘today’ but I find that cliche both meaningless and trite.) The spectrum is pretty much wide open, from super male to super female.

There is a category of porn called, “Chicks With Dicks”. I do not frequent the sites, but as an Observer and Writer, I hear things and research them. Believe me, I am saving you the wade through the swamp of internet porn by advising you this is true so you do not have to find it for yourself.

In the course of my research, I have seen a picture of one of these Chicks With Dicks and they are just as advertised: what appears to be an attractive female human with large breasts, a smooth body, well-made up, possessing a normal appearing male penis and scrotum, presumably capable of all the functions: urination, erection, and ejaculation. Perhaps even fertilization.

My first thought was, ‘Who is this aimed at? It can’t be male heterosexuals, as they would be turned off by the penis. Not lesbians, because they would be repelled by the penis as well. Not male homosexuals, because the breasts and such would be against their desires. Not a female heterosexual because of the same reason.

But Internet Porn did not get to be the thriving business it is without appealing to peoples lusts. This CWD category has to be for someone. I do not know, and feel there must be some sliver of human sexual desire that doesn’t fit any category.

But that’s not the reason I brought you here today, other than to introduce you to the phenomena. Here is my stand:

I Do Not Buy The Original Premise. Chicks with Dicks? No. Instead, I think it is Dudes with Tits. Think about it. It is easy surgically to add breasts to a man. It is far more difficult to add a working penis and testicles to a woman. No gender reassignment I ever hear of does the full monty, the swap of a working penis and balls to a new host. But removing body hair and adding breasts? Easy as Pie.

So when you see – or have someone offer you – a Chick With Dick, simply say, ‘You mean a Dude With Tits?’ No, Thanks.” Unless you are one of the ones the CWD category is aimed at.