Touching the third rail - again

The last time that I talked about it, I floated the idea that Social Security should be regarded as insurance against misfortune (like unemployment insurance) rather than an entitlement. It was a very unpopular idea and I could not rebut most of the arguments against. How can you argue against this? "I worked hard to pay my share and I want it back."

But the Boomers may be the last generation to collect their "fair share" of SS and everyone younger will be short-changed unless we fix SS soon. We all know that SS privatization is not going to happen. Maybe there will one day be partial privatization but I doubt it. So the only fix for SS is increased taxes.

Right now SS taxes only apply to "the Social Security Wage Base" which is $97,500 for 2007. Incomes over that amount are not taxed for SS. Total US income is nearly 8 trillion dollars. Total tax revenue is about 2 trillion. People earning over $97,500 pay over 50% of the taxes so half of the 8 trillion total US income is not subject to the 15.3% SS tax. That's a lot of money and could fix SS (as long as it does nto get used for pork.) So, we may have to tax ALL income but put a ceiling on the amount of benefits paid out.

People earning $97,500 per year pay in approx $15,000 per year (7.65% from the employer and 7.65% from the employee for a total of 15.3%) for about 40 years or $600,000. If they draw that amount out over their 20 years of retirement, they would get $30,000 a year. So let's put a ceiling of $30,000 per year on SS payments.

Yes, anyone earning more than $97,500 will be paying in more than they take out but I doubt that they will need it unless some catastrophic misfortune happens (and then they will have the $30,000 per year safety net.)

Now what about the "floor" or minimum payments? I would suggest a "floor" of $7,200 per year with amounts in between based on the amount you paid in. Why a "floor" of $7,200? Here's why.

More than three-quarters of my trailer park tenants are seniors who receive an average of $600 SS per month. Their rent is $290 a month. This includes $80 electricity, $50 cable TV, $20 water/sewer and $20 garbage collection for a total of $170.

They live in my park because the cheapest apartment would cost $300 and then they would still have to pay $170 for utilities for a total of $470 which would leave them only $130 a month for transport, phone, medicines and some food.

They also receive an average of $130 per month in food stamps and basic healthcare through Medicare. Some are better off than others: the married couples get more SS and split the rent between two people and most of them are veterans who get military pensions and VHA care as well. But it basically boils down to the fact that one person can live fairly comfortable on $600 a month or $7,200 a year.

Most of my tenants did not have high-paying jobs before they retired and earned an average of $10,000 a year for about 40 years for a total of $400,000. 15.30% of that would $61,200 but they will draw $7,200 a year from SS for approx 20 years for a total of $144,000.

SS accounting is even more complex than the actuarial tables used in the life insurance business and obviously I haven't taken into account inflation or all the other myriad exceptions such as differing life spans but, even without using actuarial tables, my simplistic equation shows that SS is not a "going concern" when only $61,200 is being paid in but $144,000 is being paid out.

Yes, I know I've always said that I'm dead against high taxes especially "progressive" taxes but I don't see another way out of the SS mess. I've got my own retirement plans (if I ever retire - which I doubt) and would happily forgo my SS payments. I don't really need or even want "benefits" but it's nice to know that there is a safety-net in case my investments go south and most people feel the same way so, as long as we want that safety net, we will have to foot the bill.

Okay, any suggestions or criticisms? I'm not an economist so don't hesitate to poke holes in my math or any other fallacious arguments I may have made.

Saturday silliness - picking presidents astrologically

Blame this silly post on the wine that I had at dinner (which was barbecued bone-in New York strip steak, corn on the cob and fat sweet ripe beef-steak tomatoes.) I'm stuffed and tipsy.

I used to love astrology in my stoned hippie days but have since realized that it's nonsense. At least it's entertaining nonsense compared with Freud's boring uber-nonsensical BS. Astrological BS is a lot more amusing than "psycho-analytical" BS and they're equally unreliable in explaining human behavior.

Here are the Western and Eastern astrological signs of the Presidential candidates. I'm not going to bother with the Dems other than Hillary who's the only one who stands a chance of being elected. The others are whistling in the wind even of one of them wins the primary.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, October 26, 1947, Scorpio/Pig. When Scorpio/Pigs are good, they're saints but when they're bad they can be truly evil. If Hillary were honest, sincere and ethical, she'd make a great Prez - except for her socialism.

And here are the Repubs:

Rudolph Giuliani, May 28 1944, Gemini/Monkey. Gemini/Monkeys are usually very clever people but, if they lack ethics, they can also be totally insincere phonies and liars. Giuliani would be okay but I have my doubts about his ethics. He could handle the job well but I don't really trust his motives. He comes across as sincere and straightforward but it's an act. He's basically vain and superficial.

John McCain, August 29 1936, Virgo/Rat.
Virgo/Rats can be sensible, serious and practical if they aren't neurotic. If they are neurotic, they can be unstable and egotistical. McCain would be fine except he does seem a bit unstable. He may be able to do the job but he doesn't seem to have strong principles and could make some bad decisions based on political opportunism rather than sincere convictions.

Mitt Romney, March 12 1947, Pisces/Pig.
Pisces/Pigs have the potential to be the most chivalrous, kind and selfless people if they're sane but, if they aren't, they can be stupid and shallow. Romney has the same signs as Washington and has potential. I think he's sane but he's also a bit shallow. I have my doubts about his sincerity and he may just be an empty suit but he would be my second choice after Fred.

Fred Thompson, August 19 1942, Leo/Horse.
Leo/Horses are usually noble, reliable and trustworthy if they're not vain but, if they are, then they can be arrogant, insensitive and self-centered. Thompson's a bit vain but not too much. He's pretty sane, sensible and realistic. Leo/Horses are strong and self-reliant and expect everyone else to be as tough as they are. They don't tolerate weakness in others - just the kind of Prez to encourage us to stiffen our backbones.

And here are the Western and Eastern astrological signs of all the Presidents. I'm not going to explain them because anyone who's interested probably already knows what the signs mean. If you don't know but are inquisitive, just ask.

George Washington, February 22 1732, Pisces/Pig

John Adams, October 30 1735, Scorpio/Cat

Thomas Jefferson, April 13 1743, Aries/Pig

James Madison, March 16 1751, Pisces/Goat

James Monroe, April 28th 1758, Taurus/Tiger

John Quincy Adams, July 11 1767, Cancer/Pig

Andrew Jackson, March 15 1767, Pisces/Pig

Martin Van Buren, December 5 1782, Sagittarius/Tiger

William Henry Harrison, February 9 1773, Aquarius/Snake

John Tyler, March 29 1790, Aries/Dog

James K. Polk, November 2 1795, Scorpio/Cat

Zachary Taylor, November 24 1784, Sagittarius/Dog

Millard Fillmore, January 7 1800, Capricorn/Monkey

Franklin Pierce, November 23 1804, Sagittarius/Rat

James Buchanan, April 23 1791, Taurus/Pig

Abraham Lincoln, February 12 1809, Aquarius/Horse

Andrew Johnson, December 29 1808, Sagittarius/Snake

Ulysses S. Grant, April 27 1822, Taurus/Horse

Rutherford B. Hayes, October 4 1822, Libra/Horse

James A. Garfield, November 19 1831, Scorpio/Cat

Chester A. Arthur, October 5 1829, Libra/Ox

Grover Cleveland, March 18 1837, Pisces/Rooster

Benjamin Harrison, August 20 1833, Leo/Snake

William McKinley, January 29 1843, Aquarius/Cat

Theodore Roosevelt, October 27 1858, Libra/Horse

William Howard Taft, September 15 1857, Virgo/Snake

Woodrow Wilson, December 28 1856, Capricorn/Dragon

Warren G. Harding, November 2 1865, Scorpio/Ox

Calvin Coolidge, July 4 1872, Cancer/Monkey

Herbert Hoover, August 10 1874, Leo/Dog

Franklin D. Roosevelt, January 30 1882, Aquarius/Horse

Harry S Truman, May 8 1884, Taurus/Monkey

Dwight D. Eisenhower, October 14 1890, Libra/Ox

John Kennedy, May 29 1917, Gemini/Snake

Lyndon B. Johnson, August 27 1908, Virgo/Monkey

Richard M. Nixon, January 9 1913, Capricorn/Rat

Gerald R. Ford, July 14 1913, Cancer/Ox

Jimmy Carter, October 1 1924, Libra/Rat

Ronald Reagan, February 6 1911, Aquarius/Pig

George H. W. Bush, June 12 1924, Gemini/Rat

William J. Clinton, August 19 1946, Leo/Dog

George W. Bush, July 6 1946, Cancer/Dog

In Western astrology there have been:

2 Aries (Jefferson, Tyler)

4 Taurus (Monroe, Buchanan, Grant, Truman)

2 Gemini (Kennedy, Bush Sr)

4 Cancer (J.Q. Adams, Coolidge, Ford, Bush Jr)

3 Leo (B. Harrison, Hoover, Clinton)

2 Virgo (Taft, L.B. Johnson)

5 Libra (Hayes, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter)

4 Scorpio (J. Adams, Polk, Garfield, Harding)

4 Sagittarius (Van Buren, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson)

3 Capricorn (Fillmore, Wilson, Nixon)

5 Aquarius (W.H. Harrison, Lincoln, McKinley, F.D. Roosevelt, Reagan)

4 Pisces (Washington, Madison, Jackson, Cleveland)

In Eastern astrology there have been:

4 Rat (Pierce, Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr)

4 Ox (Arthur, Harding, Eisenhower, Ford)

2 Tiger (Monroe, Van Buren)

4 Cat (J. Adams, Polk, Garfield, McKinley)

1 Dragon (Wilson)

5 Snake (W.H. Harrison, A. Johnson, B. Harrison, Taft, Kennedy)

5 Horse (Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, T.Roosevelt, F.D. Roosevelt)

1 Goat (Madison)

4 Monkey (Fillmore, Coolidge, Truman, L.B. Johnson)

1 Rooster (Cleveland)

5 Dog (Tyler, Taylor, Hoover, Clinton, Bush Jr)

6 Pig (Washington, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, Buchanan, Reagan)

Hurray for the Pigs! (Yes, I'm a Pig.)

My Dad

My Dad, William Ernest Scott Conlon, was born on September 11th, 1908 in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. If he'd been alive today, he would have been 99 years old. Unfortunately he died when he was only 57. He started getting sick when I was about 13. At first my Mom accused him of being a hypochondriac but, as his health deteriorated, she had to concede that he really was sick.

Scotty, as my Dad was known, had been a wrestler and was always a big man but, as the illness advanced, he shrank to a skeleton. By the time he died he was all skin and bones and his good looks had faded. At the age of 57, after a series of heart attacks, he looked like he was nearly 70.

But that's not the way I want to remember him. I prefer to remember him when he was big and handsome and jolly. Always the life and soul of the party, he would play the piano for singalongs or dance till dawn. And he was always ready for a party. His excuse was that he was a hotelier and had to be a good host.

At the beginning of WWll Scotty joined the South African Air Force and was stationed in South West Africa (now Namibia) which was a German colony. When war broke out, the Allies occupied South West Africa and handed it over to South Africa to administer. Dad was there for the duration of the war.

At that time he was married to his first wife. When he returned home from the war, he found that his wife had run off with another man. He bought a hotel in a beach resort near Durban and that was how he met my mother when she brought her parents for a vacation to Dad's hotel.

That was in 1945. In 1947 I was born in a hospital in Durban but my first home was a hotel and I lived in hotels most of my childhood. Dad always thought the grass was greener on the other side of the hill so he sold the hotel and we moved to Bloemfontein in the Orange Free State where there was a bigger and better hotel.

Unfortunately it burned down to the ground a few years later. Fortunately we had a good dog who warned us when he smelled smoke and we got out just in time but we were penniless and homeless. Dad never recovered financially and had to take jobs as a hotel manager from then on.

Still the grass was always greener anywhere but where Dad was and we moved from hotel to hotel in different parts of South Africa. I went to 14 different schools in 12 years, all the while living in hotels. To this day I love hotels.

Every Saturday night, Scotty would host a party for the hotel guests. Like his father before him, he boozed too much and it took a toll on his health. He died on New Year's Eve, 1965 at the age of 57. I was 18.

Just after Christmas of 1965, Dad got word that his mother, Flossie, was sick and dying in hospital in Johannesburg. He set off to see her eventhough he was very sick at the time. He stayed with my Auntie Leone. When Leone woke up on New Year's Day of 1966, she found Scotty dead on the living-room floor. He had had a massive heart attack. Leone phoned us to let us know but we were not at home as we were spending the day with friends.

It was a typical oppressively hot and humid summer day and we had a cook-out with our friends in their backyard. Everyone was jolly but I felt as if a cloud was hanging over me. Soon after lunch, I told my mother that I was not in the mood for a party and wanted to go home. She too was feeling uneasy and agreed. When we got home, the phone rang. It was Leone to tell us that my Dad had died.

But I want to finish with a pleasant memory of my Dad. He was my first piano and singing teacher. He taught me to play (and sing) songs that I love to this day: "Smoke gets in your eyes," "Beautiful Dreamer" and dozens of other popular tunes of the time. He also taught me to dance the waltz, foxtrot, quickstep and even the tango.

He also taught me to cook. Dad was the cook in the family. He had honed his skills by cooking in hotels and, whenever he cooked, he always made far too much. I inherited this trait but eventually turned it to good use when I decided to do what I really wanted to do and gave up pharmacy after 30 years in the business and opened a restaurant at the age of 50.

I always wondered if I would outlive my Dad. The odds were not in my favor since I inherited poor heart genes from both sides of the family (and, for that reason, was not able to enlist in the military.) And, sure enough three years ago, when I was 57, I had a heart attack. Fortunately medicine had come a long way since my Dad died and I survived thanks to three stents.

I looked for a happy picture of my dad and found this one. It's of my Mom holding me as I gaze up at my Dad. Judging by my size and the sparse foliage on the trees behind us, I'd say this snapshot was taking in Spring. I was born in May and, if this was taken in the first month of Spring, October, then I'd be 5 months old which looks about right. My dad would just have had his birthday the month before and would have been 39. This is the way I want to remember him.

The 10 political regions of the USA

Five years ago, when we were researching what part of the USA to move to, the two biggest concerns for me were weather and politics. I knew that I wanted to live on the coast but could not stand the politics of the left-coasters. Then Chas found this map. He has just posted it here. He found the map here.

That's how we found Coos County, Oregon, the only part of the Left Coast that isn't green (coastal commies.) That little sliver of yellow (sagebrush rebels) on the coast is where I live (ME.)















(The reason that Coos County is sagebrush country is because, unlike the rest of the coastal towns, it is not a cute artsy-fartsy resort town. It is dominated by Coos Bay which is a blue-collar town - the largest port between San Francisco and Portland. Eventhough the greenies have tried to stop all logging and fishing, the main industries here are still fishing and logging. It is known by the rest of western Oregon as a county full of redneck lumberjacks and fishermen - my kind of guys.)

Here are descriptions of the 10 regions:

* Northeast Corridor: the richest, best-educated and most densely populated region of the US. A traditionally Democrat-leaning area, it delivered 62% of the vote to Al Gore in 2000. That’s better than any Democrat in any region since LBJ.

* Upper Coasts: anchored by Boston (on the east coast) and San Francisco (on the west coast), this region is relatively affluent and well-educated. Arguably more liberal than the Northeast Corridor, it is less reliably Democratic: third-party candidates do well.

* Farm Belt: has the smallest non-white population, with lower than average population growth. Ranks first in percentage of people who finish high school, but don’t get a higher education. Solidly Republican.

* Big River: has been the most closely contested area in presidential elections for over 30 years. And the region isn’t easily wooed, never giving either candidate more than 55% during this period.

* Appalachia: the poorest and most rural region, but catching up economically. Showed a dramatic swing towards the Republicans in 1980 and stayed that way ever since.

* Sagebrush: named after the anti-bureaucratic Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s, this region occupies almost 50% of the US land area. The fastest growing region, it was also Al Gore’s worst region in 2000.

* Great Lakes: centered around Chicago, and suffering from population loss in smaller cities, it has Democrats chasing votes in more rural areas – the suburban counties have been tilting their way, anyway.

* Southern Comfort: fast-growing and average as to income and education, this was part of the ‘Solid South’ that squarely supported the Democratic party around 50 years ago. It has since turned into the most Republican region of the US.

* Southern Lowlands: the largest percentage of African-American voters, who reliably vote Democratic. This voting bloc is matched by some of the most Republican areas in the US, making it a swing area.

* El Norte: the youngest and most Hispanic region, it was carried by Gore in 2000. It is however not solidly Democratic, having recently sent conservative Republicans to Congress (from Florida and Texas).

And a detailed description of Sagebrush country:

Sagebrush

Occupying about half the land area of the United States, the Sagebrush region includes all or part of 17 states -- all of them a long way from Washington, DC. Most are in the west, but the region also includes like-minded parts of New Hampshire and Maine. The former is known as a libertarian stronghold (so much so that a national anti-government group called the Free State Project is trying to get its members to settle there and take over local politics); the latter distinguished itself as Ross Perot's strongest state in 1992.

This region is named after the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970s, which centered on the resentment of western states toward regulations (particularly of the environmental variety) imposed by the federal bureaucracy. The Sagebrush Rebellion helped to flip nearly a dozen US Senate seats from the Democrats to the Republicans between 1976 and 1980, an advantage that has helped the GOP hold that chamber for most of the time since.

Surprisingly, the Sagebrush region is not among the most rural in the US. It is the fastest growing region, and though its wide-open spaces undoubtedly attract newcomers, most of them settle in booming cities such as Phoenix and Colorado Springs. It ranks first in the number of residents who are under 18, and first in the number of adults who have attended college but not obtained a bachelor's degree. In 2000, it was Gore's worst region, but only third best for Bush; in presidential races, Sagebrush customarily delivers the most votes to minor candidates, from Greens to Libertarians.

The patron political saint of Sagebrush is Arizona's Barry Goldwater, whose campaign against Big Government in 1964 was a launching point for the modern conservative movement, and, thus, the modern Republican Party. Though Ronald Reagan has never been a long-term resident of what we now call Sagebrush, he exemplified the region's mindset when he took the presidency in 1980.

More recently, Sagebrush has had to compete with Southern Comfort for the soul of the Republican Party. One difference between the two regions is that Sagebrush seems more ambivalent toward religious conservatism. Goldwater himself expressed disdain for Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority during his last Senate term, and another senator from Arizona, John McCain, pretty much burned his bridges to fundamentalist groups during his 2000 presidential run. Vice President Dick Cheney, who once represented Wyoming in the US House, is a forceful voice for conservatism on fiscal and foreign-policy issues but seems less enthusiastic about advocating fundamentalist views on gay rights and other cultural issues. Yet the region is still represented by many Republicans in the moralist wing of the party, including Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a leader of the anti-abortion movement, and Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the driving force behind a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

Even in Democratic primaries, voters prefer candidates with more libertarian views (liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues). It was Gary Hart's strongest region against Walter Mondale in 1984.

Hurray for us Sagebrush rebels!

Garden report - native plants

This year I added a bunch of native plants to the garden.

This is a wild Santa Barbara mallow which came up from San Francisco by mistake as a stowaway in a pot with another plant. Normally these plants grow on the beach in California and need very little water. As soon as this plant discovered that we get four times as much rain as SF, it took off and grew six feet in the first year. It's a biennial and dies after two years. By it's second year (when it flowers) it was 12 feet tall. It then spread its seeds everywhere and now we have them popping up in the oddest places.























This a non-native Mediterranean mallow (lavatera) which I am experimenting with to see if it can handle our frosts.



















This is Lewisia (named after Lewis of Lewis and Clark fame.)

















And this is Clarkia (yep, named after Clark of L & C fame.) It is also known as godetia.























This is California blue-eyed grass.


















And California yellow-eyed grass. Both of them are actually small irises.














The next three pics are of Oregon sedum also known as stonecrop because they can survive and thrive on rocks. There are dozens of Oregon sedums. I have been amazed at how they can survive our frosts because they are succulents most of which are frozen fairly easily.

The gay Gestapo and their "outing" of gay Republicans

When I was a kid back in the 50s, I first heard the term "queer" when some boys at school called two of our teachers "queers." These two teachers, Miss Chumley and Miss Fanshaw, were pretty weird so I laughed along with the other boys. They did not like boys and seemed to regard them as barbarians but they treated their girl pupils with kid-gloves.

Miss Chumley was quite mannish. She had her hair cut very short and always wore a tweed sports-coat, slacks and a tie. She was the school's sports-master - yes "master." She insisted on that and had a fit if you called her "sports-mistress." The school did not have much of a sports program other than track and it was Miss Chumley who conducted the PE exercise classes and trained us all year to compete in the annual track event which consisted mostly of sprinting, long-jump, high-jump and relay races.

None of that was regarded by us as unusual because most of our teachers were women. There were only two male teachers: the head-master (whose job seemed to be to walk around with his nose in the air all day) and the art-master (who was a sickly-looking British fellow with thick glasses.) Naturally the job of "sports-master" fell to the athletic Miss Chumley. The oddest thing about Miss Chumley was her mustache.

Miss Fanshaw was the exact opposite of Miss Chumley. She was frail and feminine, twittered like a bird and always wore flowery dresses and too much make-up. The oddest thing about her was that she always had lipstick on her front teeth and wore so much perfume that some of us would sneeze whenever she bent over us while we were sitting at our desks.

When I first heard the other boys calling these women "queer," I didn't think anything of it. Of course they were "queer," odd and weird to me. But the school bully, Sam, insisted that was not what he meant. "My dad said they're queer," he said; "because they aren't married and live together. My dad said they're damn moffies."

I asked him what "moffies" were but he didn't know for sure so, at dinner that night, I told my mom and dad what I had heard and asked them what "moffies" were. My mom snapped at me not to use that word. Dad said, "I'll tell you later when your sister goes to bed."

After my little sister went to bed at eight, I asked my dad again. He was a bit drunk by then and brushed me off with: "It means queer - but don't call anybody that. It's rude and insulting." I was back where I started with Sam so I went into the kitchen where my mom was washing the dishes and asked her.

She also said: "Don't call anybody queer or moffie,"

"Why?" I asked.

"It's just not nice. They are cruel and ugly words," she replied.

"Okay, I won't use them but what do they mean? Why do they call Miss Chumley and Miss Fanshaw queer?"

"Because they're different," my mom answered. "Now go brush your teeth and go to bed."

All I knew for sure after that was that "queer" and "moffie" were bad words like swear words and I should never use them. (Many years later I found out what "queer" meant and learned that moffie is the South African term for homosexual. No one knows for sure how it arose but one theory is that it was slang for Hermaphrodite.)

The point of that anecdote is that, when I was a kid, it was regarded as vulgar to call attention to someone's "queerness." One simply did not talk about such things. "Queers" didn't talk about it and everyone simply treated them as regular folk.

My dad's best friend, Ralph, was a bachelor. Dad and Ralph were passionate about horse-racing. They would spend hours huddled over racing "forms" laid out on the dining-room table sipping brandy and coke and planning on what horses they were going to bet on at the Saturday races.

By the time I was 14, I had found out about the birds and the bees and also about what "moffie" really meant. Sam, the school bully, had grown up to be the village boor whom nobody liked. One day he told me that Ralph was a moffie. I was shocked and waited for weeks before I got up the courage to ask my dad if that was true.

"Yes," he replied to my question, shocking me even more; "but it's nobody's business. Ralph's a good man and has been a very good friend to me. I don't want to hear you mention this ever again."

As the years went by, I came to realize that there were quite a few moffies in this world and, if they were decent folk, nobody was bothered about it and nobody talked about it.

I have no idea what it was like in America before the 60s let the cat out of the bag and everyone started talking about everything but, in South Africa, being "queer" was no big deal. My theory is that white South Africans did not criticize each other for insignificant things such as "queerness" because they were out-numbered by Africans 5 to 1 and had to stick together. They felt that their civilization was under attack not only by hordes of what they regarded as "black savages" but also by white communists who were intent on stirring up resentment in the blacks. Regular folk who valued western civilization, private property and polite society had to stick together. "Straights" didn't criticize "queers" and "queers" did not rock the boat of western civilization.

One of our family friends, Keith, was a Scotsmen who had come to South Africa on vacation in the early 60s and had ended up living there for six years. He told us that he felt more at home in South Africa than he ever had in Scotland because he was accepted for who he was (queer) and did not have to fight for survival as he had to do in Scotland.

In 1967 Keith had to return to Scotland to help his father run the family business and in 1968, when I was 21, I had to leave South Africa and went to live with Keith and his family in Scotland but the economy was depressed there and I had to move to London to get a decent job. I arrived there right in the middle of the "sexual revolution." The hippies were having love-ins in Hyde Park and group sex in communes, the "straights" were swinging and the queers were going "gay."

But the party didn't last into the 70s. The revolution stopped being fun and became political mostly because of the Vietnam war. Only the "gays" kept on partying but, by the time I moved to San Francisco in the late 70s, the "gay liberation movement" had come to be dominated by the loudest and angriest gays. Most gays still partied madly but it was the political ones who began to get all the media attention. Then AIDS came along in the early 80s and the gay party-goers started dying. It was AIDS which changed the "gay liberation movement" from a merely "alternative life-style" (part of the whole libertine counter-culture) into a political movement full of angry "activists" and demanding "victims."

Of course liberal (and libertine) straight San Franciscans were conned by the gays' tactic of guilt-inducing emotional blackmail and the stage was set for the emergence of the gay Gestapo in the 90s.

I realize that Larry Craig brought about most of his own problems by his own bad decisions but would he have panicked and pled guilty if he had not been hounded by the gay Gestapo for months before "bathroomgate?" The gay Gestapo's most influential blogger (whom I will not name or link to) started the whole witch-hunt last year when he decided to "out" Craig. That blogger specializes in "outing" homosexual Republicans. He was the first to find anonymous "sources" who said that they had had sex with Craig. Then the Idaho Statesman used innuendo, gossip and unsubstantiated rumors to hound Craig for months before "bathroomgate."

There was no way for Craig to fight this without stooping to the level of his blackmailers. When he was entrapped in the toilet-sex sting, he panicked and pled guilty hoping that it would all go away. And, yes, it was entrapment as the transcript of the interview with the cop makes pretty clear. Maybe it was not officially "entrapment" but it sure sounds like blackmail to me.

Craig should have called the cop's bluff but he panicked and another thing is that Craig (unlike most politicians) is not a lawyer and does not think like one and immediately assume the worst. He's a fairly simple, trusting (probably naive) guy. I understand why the GOP is throwing Craig under the bus. The incident is bad for the Republican image and could cost the GOP another election (as the Foley scandal did.) Fair enough. Craig's career is over but I hope he has his day in court to clear his name. It's a pity that he was panicked by the gay Gestapo.

Two other victims of the gay Gestapo were not panicked and they were accused of far worse than what Craig did and there was real evidence of their homosexuality. They had the balls to stand up to the gay Gestapo - maybe because one is a former Marine and the other is still a Marine Reservist. Like Craig, they refuse to label themselves "gay" because of the screaming leftist gay agenda.

I'm talking about Matt Sanchez (who was attacked after he was honored by CPAC and photographed with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin) and Jeff Gannon who was attacked because he is a conservative journalist. (He has just published a new book, "The Great Media War: A Battlefield Report.")

Last Thursday Gannon posted on his blog about his run-in with the gay Gestapo. [In this excerpt from Gannon's post, I have replaced the name of the worst gay Gestapo "outer"with an X because I refuse to post his name on my blog.]

X, Violent Femme Conducts Homosexual Jihad Against Republicans:

My own experience with X came in April 2005 following an appearance at the National Press Club. I participated in a panel discussion that dealt with the issue of “Who is a journalist?” Gay activists protested my inclusion in the event since one of their representatives would not be on the panel to further their smear campaign against me. At the conclusion of the event, X rushed the speakers’ table screaming slanderous accusations. Security, already alerted to specific threats of violence whisked me out a side door. However, X skulked in the lobby and aggressively lunged at me again, jumping onto the elevator with me. Security pulled me out as the doors closed and I left the building through another exit. Meanwhile, X reached the first floor of the building and scuffled with security guards who would not allow him to return to the club floor. Subsequently, X was banned FOR LIFE from the National Press Club premises.

Such is the behavior of the Angry Gay Left. For them to achieve their radical goals, no tactic is off the table. Perhaps that is why X is so paranoid about anyone finding out where he lives, fearing he may someday have to take what he dishes out to others. As I wrote in The Great Media War: A Battlefield Report, the Angry Gay Left is a “vicious and conflicted” group. Their zeal comes from a blinding hatred for anyone who opposes them. Gay activists cloak themselves in victimhood, yet strike out against perceived enemies with a shrill ferocity that is hysterical – in every sense of the word.

Knowing that gays make up only about 6% of the population – a percentage that is a statistical constant – activists realize they can only achieve political power by aligning themselves with one political party and using the courts to impose what a vast majority of Americans reject.

Larry Craig voted the values of his constituents even though he may not have conducted his personal affairs consistent with those principles. For this, gay activists hope to drive Craig from Congress and wreak havoc among Republicans. Closeted Democrats on Capitol Hill are safe from X because they vote for the gay agenda. I can tell you there are quite a few Democrats in Congress whose personal lives would come as a shock and a surprise to the voters of their districts. These are men (and women) who have sexual relations with members of the same sex in Washington, then return home to pose for photo-ops with their all-American families.

X and his ilk are the epitome of hypocrisy. Christians love the sinner and hate the sin; the ungodly liberals of the Democratic Party love the sin and hate the sinner. Larry Craig did not invent the toilet culture for which he has been accused. Gays did. Not only did gays invent anonymous rendezvous – the practice is a significant part of the homosexual subculture.

Sanchez and Gannon thumbed their noses at the gay Gestapo. Now it may be Craig's turn to do that as fortunately he is finally getting some decent legal advice and may still beat the rap.

Senator Craig’s Legal Options:

Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, says he regrets pleading guilty to disorderly conduct in an airport restroom, and he has indicated that he will try to back out of the deal. It won’t be easy, but it may not be impossible.

“As a general proposition, a guilty plea is very, very hard to undo, and there has to be a very good reason,” said Frank O. Bowman, who teaches criminal law at the University of Missouri.

But Mr. Craig, whose staff has now indicated that he may not resign at the end of this month as he had announced on Saturday, may have more options under Minnesota law than he would elsewhere.

A Minnesota law allows pleas to be withdrawn “to correct a manifest injustice.” Just last week, a state appeals court allowed a man convicted of burglary to withdraw his guilty plea.

The man, Rickford R. Munger, conceded at his plea hearing that he had invaded a woman’s privacy by moving a curtain on her open first-floor window.

But being a peeping tom is not the same as being a burglar, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota said on Aug. 28. Burglary requires proof that the defendant entered a building with the intent to commit a crime.

Moving the curtain was enough to establish entering the building, the court said, but Mr. Munger had not acknowledged that he had intended to commit a crime inside the building.

Mr. Craig may have a similar argument. In a written plea agreement dated Aug. 1, he admitted that he had “engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment or others which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature.”

That tracks only imperfectly the crime to which he pleaded, which requires proof that the defendant had engaged “in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.”

A judge could certainly decide that the differences are trivial and hold Mr. Craig to the deal. But it is at least possible that the case could be reopened on grounds similar to those asserted by Mr. Munger.

Unfortunately we have lost a fairly reliable conservative ally and once again been blackmailed by Democrats and their allies, the gay Gestapo. I sure wish Republicans would realize that conservative gays are not the enemy. We have much more serious adversaries in our own loony leftists and Muslim fundamentalists. Maybe it's time to stick together like white South Africans once did in face of similar enemies.

I guess I've just lost my remaining three conservative Christian readers because I won't toe the party line - or maybe just because they're bored with the Craig fiasco.

Matt Sanchez with Gen. Peter Pace and, below that, Jeff Gannon.

Jury duty

Yesterday I sat on a grand jury for the first time in my life.

As I mentioned before, I was summonsed for jury duty and then got switched to the state grand jury. Sitting on a trial jury would have meant going to court everyday for a minimum of two weeks whereas the grand jury meets only once a week for a minimum of a month. I was very pleased that I only have to drive to the county seat once a week instead of every day because it's 30 miles each way from my house to the court.

I set off an hour before I was due there because I like to be early for anything unfamiliar. It took me 45 minutes to get there because I have to drive through the two big towns, North Bend and Coos Bay, to get to the county seat, Coquille. The highway runs right through the two towns (which merge into each other) and that means slowing down to 25 mph while driving down their main streets. I'm sure glad that I don't have to make that trip every day.

I knew a bit about what grand juries are but I also learned quite a few new things. Grand juries are based on the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Unlike trial juries, grand juries don't decide if someone is guilty of criminal charges that have been brought against them. Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone SHOULD be charged with a crime.

The first thing that happened was that a state circuit court judge met with us to give us instructions and swear us in. Part of the oath that we had to take was never to reveal anything about what takes place in the grand jury. The judge then told the story about a lawyer in the Barry Bonds grand jury who leaked the jury proceedings and ended up in jail for two and a half years. (BALCO Lawyer Sent to Jail for Leak - Gets 2 1/2 Years For Leaking Giambi & Bonds Grand Jury Testimony.) So, I'm never allowed to talk about the cases that we considered; not even after the case has been settled; never.

Then he swore us in and told us to pick a presiding juror (like a trial jury foreman.) Since no one else seemed to want to stick their necks out for the job, I volunteered. Well, that's been the story of my life. If something has to be done and no one else will do it, I will. The only drawback to the job is that I am the one who has to sign the indictments and those are on public record for ever. I hope no vindictive criminal ever decides to take revenge on me one day.

The other part of the job is to swear in the witnesses and to guide the jury's deliberations. In Oregon there are seven grand jurors and a quorum of five is needed to bring an indictment so the president has to try to get at least five jurors to agree. That was easy as the jurors were all my kind of people. It's a small county and a neighbor of mine from the second farm down the road from me was on the jury. There was also a dairy farmer who owns a huge cattle ranch in the Coquille Valley.

We deliberated seven cases yesterday. The DA presents his charges and the jurors question him before he brings in his witnesses most of whom are cops. The jurors question the cops. It turned out that I know one of the cops. I couldn't help grinning at him when I made him swear to tell the truth.

Most of the cases were not emotionally upsetting but one was. At dinner last night when I was telling Chas and Andy about it, Chas said "Did it involve children?" I answered, "Yes, but that's all I can say about it." It was really hard to keep something secret from Chas and Andy. I don't keep any secrets from them. It will probably be even harder once the cases go to trial. I won't even be able to brag, "I signed the indictment on that creep."

The whole procedure is democracy at it's finest. During jury deliberations after the DA presented each case, we wanted the charges changed on four of them. In one case, I suggested that a trial would cost more than it was worth to us taxpayers and that a plea bargain seemed like a good thing. My fellow jurors and the DA agreed. The jury also add charges on three of the indictments, dropped one charge against another person and indicted his "partner" instead.

I'm looking forward to next week's session. I learned a lot - mostly how important the grand jury is in holding prosecutors (and the police) accountable to us citizens.

Craig and the Catch-22 of "closet gay" conservatives

Except for Senator Craig's support for the "amnesty bill," he was a good ally of conservatives throughout his political career. He has been on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association since 1983. The American Conservative Union gave Craig's 2005 voting record 96 points out of 100. (Americans for Democratic Action gave him 15.)

I can't make any excuses for what happened recently. Even if Craig had not been married and had been openly homosexual, the fact that he was caught in indiscrete and undignified behavior (and then pled guilty) compromised his career fatally.

Right now we don't know all the facts but from what little I know I would guess that Craig has always been homosexual. He married soon after the page scandal of 1982. His wife may have been what is known as a "beard" by closeted homosexuals - a disguise or marriage of convenience. Craig adopted the three children from his wife's previous marriage but did not father any children of his own. He may not even have been "intimate" with his wife at all. Maybe she knew that she was his "beard." That will all come out eventually.

This whole Craig scandal made me think about other closet homosexual conservatives like J. Edgar Hoover, Whittaker Chambers, Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn.

[I did not write the following paragraphs. I saved them for an earlier post that I did about Hoover but unfortunately I forgot to note where they came from. They come from several sources.]

Hoover was director of the FBI for 48 years but his anti-communist work began long before that. When he was still working at the Library of Congress, he decided to create a card index of people with left-wing political views. Hoover collected 450,000 names with detailed biographical notes on the 60,000 that he considered the most dangerous.

On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested in twenty-three different cities. However, the vast majority of these people were American citizens and had to be eventually released. However, Hoover now had the names of hundreds of lawyers who were willing to represent radicals in court. These were now added to his growing list of names in his indexed database.

Hoover's persecution of people with left-wing views had the desired effect and membership of the Communist Party, estimated to have been 80,000 before the raids, fell to less that 6,000. In 1921 Hoover was rewarded by being promoted to the post of assistant director of the Bureau of Investigation. Hoover was appointed director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924.

[...]

The power of the bureau was limited. Law enforcement was a state activity, not a federal one. Hoover's agents were not allowed to carry guns, nor did they have the right to arrest suspects. Hoover complained about this situation and in 1935 Congress agreed to establish the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Agents were now armed and could act against crimes of violence throughout the United States.

Hoover now set about establishing a world-class crime fighting organization. Innovations introduced by Hoover included the formation of a scientific crime-detection laboratory and the highly regarded FBI National Academy. Hoover appointed Clyde Tolson as Assistant Director of the FBI.

[...]

In his book, The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover (1993), Anthony Summers claims that Hoover and Tolson became lovers. For the next forty years the two men were constant companions. In the FBI the couple were known as "J. Edna and Mother Tolson". Mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, obtained photographic evidence of Hoover's homosexuality and was able to use this to stop the FBI from looking too closely into his own criminal activities.

When the journalist, Ray Tucker, hinted at Hoover's homosexuality in an article for Collier's Magazine, he was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Information about Tucker's private life was leaked to the media and when this became known, other journalists were frightened off from writing about this aspect of Hoover's life.

Whittaker Chambers was a member of the Communist Party and a spy for the Soviet Union in the 1930s but he became disillusioned by Josef Stalin's Great Purge (which began about 1936) and eventually broke with the Communist Party in 1938 and became an outspoken opponent of communism. He is best known for his testimony about the perjury and espionage of Alger Hiss.

Chambers was a self-confessed homosexual. This did not lead to his persecution probably because Hoover protected him since he had turned against the communists. (BTW Richard Nixon, a loyal Chambers ally, always believed that Chambers and Hiss had been lovers.)

In 1939 Chambers went to work for TIME Magazine where he became known as a staunch anti-communist and was promoted to chief editor. After the Hiss trial, William F. Buckley, Jr. started the magazine National Review and Chambers worked there as senior editor. (BTW He wrote a scathing review of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" for NR.)

From Wikipedia:

In 1952, Chambers's book "Witness" was published to widespread acclaim. The book was combination of autobiography, an account of his role in the Hiss case and a warning about the dangers of Communism and liberalism. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it one of the greatest of all American autobiographies, and Ronald Reagan credited the book as the inspiration behind his conversion from a New Deal Democrat to a conservative Republican.

Joseph McCarthy needs no introduction. Again I did not write the following paragraphs and did not note their source because I saved them before I started blogging.

For some time opponents of McCarthy had been accumulating evidence concerning his homosexual activities. Several members of his staff, including Roy Cohn and David Schine, were also suspected of having a sexual relationship. Although well-known by political journalists, the first article about it did not appear until Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vagas Sun in 25th October, 1952. Greenspun wrote that: "It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities."

McCarthy considered a libel suit against Greenspun but decided against it when he was told by his lawyers that if the case went ahead he would have to take the witness stand and answer questions about his sexuality. In an attempt to stop the rumours circulating, McCarthy married his secretary, Jeannie Kerr. Later the couple adopted a five-week old girl from the New York Foundling Home.

Roy Cohn and David Schine may or may not have been lovers and, though Cohn was a closeted gay, his homosexuality was common knowledge among those with whom he worked.

From Wikipedia:

It was Cohn who invited G. David Schine, an anti-communist propagandist, to join McCarthy's staff as a consultant. When Schine was drafted into the army in 1953, Cohn made repeated and extensive efforts to procure special treatment for Schine.

[...]

During the Army-McCarthy hearings, he denied having "special interest" in Schine or being bound to him "closer than to the ordinary friend."

Joseph Welch, the Army's attorney in the hearings, made an apparent reference to Cohn's homosexuality. After asking a witness if a photo entered as evidence "came from a pixie," he defined "pixie" for McCarthy as "a close relative of a fairy."

Of course "Pixie" was also the name of a box-camera. That was meant as a double entendre.

During debates over New York City's first gay rights law, Cohn said homosexuals should not be allowed to be schoolteachers. Cohn died of AIDS in 1986.

So what's the point of this post?

Maybe it's simply to point out that it is almost impossible for conservative homosexuals to be open about their kinks in a political movement that enshrines "family values" and despises sexual perverts. These closet gay conservatives espouse the same values as other conservatives - even going so far as to oppose "gay rights." Maybe they are (as gay activists claim) "self-loathing" but that's almost beside the point.

The fact is that they are patriots who despise communism and socialism and do not agree with the left-wing gay political agenda. They lead double lives and stay "in the closet" because there is no place for them in the conservative movement. If they stay "in the closet", they are accepted but, by staying in the closet, they end up being sneaky and secretive and compromise their integrity (and may end up in bad situations like Craig). If they are openly homo, their careers in the GOP are finished. It's a Catch-22 predicament.

The whole "gay" thing is not going to go away any time soon. It's impossible to put that particular "pest" back into the Pandora's box of modernity. Whether you like it or not, the "gay life-style" is here to stay for the foreseeable future and it may be time to cut conservative homosexuals some slack. Many of them have been true allies in the battle against communism and socialism and the fight to preserve the American philosophy of individual sovereignty and self-determination.

Perhaps if Craig had been able to be openly homosexual, he would not have married a "beard" or had to resort to sleazy furtive sex in public bathrooms and could still now be a valuable ally in the fight for the Second Amendment and the war against our enemies who want to destroy our civilization.

Will homosexuals ever be allowed to openly serve the conservative movement? Probably not in my life-time but it will happen eventually. Homosexuality (as long as it is done discretely in private between consenting adults) is not the worst of sins - as most of the younger generation knows. Just look at the loyal following that the openly lesbian Tammy Bruce has among conservatives.

PS I do not regard the gay organization, Log Cabin Republicans as conservative. They are more "gay" than Republican but, for good or ill, they are active in the GOP.