Queer boys in “straight” roles. ¿Por qué?

Why are Queer boys cast in “straight” roles?

Hola. ¿Qué tal? I’ve been monitoring the telenovela ¿Quién Mató a Patricia Soler? (QMAPS) on MundoFox by RTI Producciones for Canal RCN Bogotá. QMAPS, set in beautiful Bogotá, Colombia is the telenovela with the conservative drab-dull colour scheme of black, coffin-gray and white. Just because the title of the novela is (translation): “Who Killed Patricia Soler” doesn’t mean everybody has to wear funeral clothes/colours. But they are the conservative colours that the sheeple have been told by their television to wear these days as moda/fashion/fad. It’s one of the first things I noticed about this telenovela was their fear of colours. Black, coffin-gray and white make for a very uninteresting-looking screen/set using all drab colours. (It that why it got moved from 9pm to 11pm?) But lately, perhaps they tired of the dull funeral colours because now I’m seeing some more pretty colours. Not many, but some. With one of the main characters, Sebastián (played by Miguel de Miguel desde España), I never see him in anything but drab coffin-gray and white. He wears a white shirt, a coffin-gray suit and coffin-gray tie. Su oficina/His office colours are black and coffin-gray. This is also the telenovela with three actors who were in Yo soy Betty, la fea: Doña Marcela, Don Mario and Dr Sánchez (el abogodo for Betty y Nicolás). While writing this I saw a very unrealistic restaurant scene in QMAPS. Everyone within camera view in this restaurante had on black or coffin-gray (or both) clothing. Now that’s getting a bit extreme, don’t you think?

For awhile now, my very reliable gaydar has told me there are at least a couple of Queer boys in the cast, but I’ve been annoyed to see them making out with una hembra (a female). It doesn’t look right. From what I’ve seen all of the roles cast are heterosexual. ¿Por qué?/Why? I wondered why that was because it doesn’t reflect society.

We’ve been told repeatedly by some delusional and wishful-thinking GLBTQ conservative idiots in San Francisco that, “gay is now mainstream.” Well if that were the case (which it isn’t), I’d see gay couples, gay couples kissing, gay couples holding hands, gay couples embracing, gay couples making out and gay couples pretending to have sex regularly on my television. But what I see on my television regularly is heterosexual, heteronormative programming all the time. I constantly see “straights” sucking face, making out and embracing and giving the appearance that they are about to fuck, and then the camera moves away. I don’t see gay couples on my television. So don’t tell me that “gay is mainstream” because that is bullshit wishful-thinking. And even when it’s noticias/news about GLBTQs, the corporate media networks feel they must show las lesbianas/lesbians embracing or kissing—because the corporate networks consider las lesbianas “safer” for their bigoted/prudish audience—instead of showing gay guys kissing and embracing. On a corporate site recently I did see one picture of two guys supposedly kissing. I say supposedly because I had to examine the picture closely to see what they were doing. After examining the picture I thought: Well that’s a new approach bigoted/prejudiced corporate media. In their attempt to sanitise the picture of the two gay guys kissing they showed the two guys but one guy was kissing near the ear of the other guy. All the way back at his ear. And the guy being kissed had his left hand holding the other guy’s head. He was not kissing him on the lips or anywhere on his face. No, you can’t have that. What will our prejudiced, bigoted and hateful readers/viewers think? So of course that’s the picture they chose to use. Nice and sanitised. We’re also told that “gays can now live anywhere.” HA! Where do people get this shit from? What delusion-inducing drugs are these people on who say this stuff? I learned sometime ago that the conservatives who have long-hated gay areas and wanted to make them “straight” and white always repeat the “gays can live anywhere” lie. Well, gay people might be able to live anywhere (and that’s very questionable) if we live in that unhealthy fucking closet. I would point out that physical violence against GLBTQs because of their sexual orientation happens daily somewhere, so don’t come at me with that “gays can live anywhere” bullshit. (Related: EXPERT: ‘Desperate Anger’ Is Driving The Rise In Anti-Gay Hatred).

The Gay Rights’ Movement fought decades for me to go back in the closet and be “discreet,” “straight-acting” and “straight-looking.”

I would also point out that if “gays could live anywhere” they wouldn’t be going back in the closet and living in the closet in San Francisco of all places! (the former Gay Mecca) and in Manhattan (as two examples). They wouldn’t be sanitising themselves by removing their bling/earrings/rad earplugs and rad-alternative hairstyles and trying to look cookie-cutter “mainstream”, macho “straight,” and calling themselves “discreet” and “down-low” and “straight-acting” and other fucked-up-in-the-head gay shame/heteronormative ways of thinking. GLBTQs seem to be having a major identity crisis. They don’t seem to know who the fuck they are. Today, they seem to be trying to be as mainstream, corporate and sheeple as possible and completely divorcing themselves from their radical history, as if ashamed of it. (Related: The “Discreet” Gay Guys in New York City). I used to see lots of Rainbow Flags flying from home and apartment windows and on bumper stickers in San Francisco’s Castro/Upper Market area during the Gay Mecca days. But today in the New Conservative Techie San Francisco? It’s rare to see Rainbow Flags at all other than on the outside of some gay bars. So if “gays could live anywhere,” gays wouldn’t be putting the Rainbow Flag back in the closet and trying to “assimilate” by being heteronormative around (bigoted?) “straights” who like taking over gay areas and turning them into sanitised, prudish, “family-friendly” (Translation: “straight” and white with lots of screaming children in condominium-sized strollers clogging up the sidewalks) conservative places (think: Walnut Creek, California) with the help of conservative GLBTQs.

So why are Queer boys cast in “straight” roles? Why don’t they cast Queer boys in gay roles? Or do they think the viewers or advertisers can’t deal with seeing gay couples making out and embracing, and pretending to have sex before the camera moves away, like they do with “straight” scenes? But I thought that “gays are now mainstream,” no? Not at all. There is still lots of institutionalised/establishment prejudice and bigotry in society which doesn’t at all get erased or legislatively removed by court orders, laws written or referendums. And from what I’ve read, same-gender marriage (for example) is way down on the list of importance to most people. And even in places where same-gender marriage is legal there’s still a lot of resentment and resistance to it especially in the US of Hypocrisy/Los Estados Unidos. GLBTQs should have the same rights as “straights,” but that doesn’t mean we have to mirror them as so many GLBTQs are doing in their desperate desire to be accepted by those precious “straights” (as if their opinion matters about and above anything). I’m not too hot on same-gender marriage to begin with. I oppose the conservative “Institution of Marriage”TM for anyone because it’s nothing but a legal contract. I remember Lily Tomlin saying that she had hoped that gay people could come up with something a little bit better than marriage and trying to emulate and be like “straight” people. Right-on, Lily! And then you have the fucked-up US public, get this: US public: Gay legal rights are good but gays kissing is bad. (WTF?) “The national study, which polled more than 1000 USans, found that heterosexuals approve more of legal protections for gay people than they do gays kissing in public.” [roll eyes] Well who gives a fuck what they think? And of course if you asked the same people about heterosexual besos, they would say heterosexual besos/kissing is perfectly fine and acceptable in public. Fucking hypocrites.

Some “straight” actors have played gay roles such as Julián Arango who played Don Hugo Lombardi in Fernando Gaitán’s masterpiece Yo soy Betty, la fea. Don Hugo’s boyfriend in BLF was/is also “straight” in real life. Then Jorge Enrique Abello (who superbly played Don Armando in YSBLF) and Patrick Delmas (who played Don Michell Doinel in YSBLF) went on to later be cast in roles as a gay couple in a telenovela. Both JEA and Delmas are “straight.” But we don’t see any besos or make-out scenes when “straight” actors are playing gay characters. But when Queer boys play “straight” characters we see make-out scenes. It turns me off because it doesn’t look right or realistic. I see a Queer boy making out with a female and I think WTF? He’s forced to make out with una hembra/a female per the role he’s cast in. I know I can’t be the only person to pick up on this. I’ve been watching the telenovela Rebelde on UniMás that cantante/singer y actor Christian Chávez was in. He later came out as a Queer boy after that, but in that telenovela he had to show affection to las chicas (per the script) and to me he looked uncomfortable doing so. He looked a bit put-off by it and it didn’t look natural for him and understandably so because he’s gay and has no interest in making out with las muchachas. There are many gay actors—even though they may still be in that unhealthy closet with their gay shame—so why not cast gay actors in gay roles and “straight” actors in “straight” roles? Or would that cause Queer actors to be out of work entirely because of a lack of gay roles and especially a lack of roles for and showing gay couples? But I thought that “gay is now mainstream?” [roll eyes] Chau.—el barrio rosa

Related:

Is it GLBTQ or LGBT?

What’s the problem with GLBTQ “assimilation?”

Can gay people live anywhere today?

What was the ultimate goal of the Gay Rights Movement?

The “Discreet” Gay Guys

The Conservative Gay Heteronormative Populace

Are gays going back in the closet?

West Hollywood puts the Rainbow Flag back in the closet

“Best bar in Castro for Closeted Gays”

Why many GLBTQs resent “straights” coming to gay areas

Why are heterosexuals so attracted to gay areas and gay bars?

It’s (now) Bad to be Gay?

The Gay Populace: The (new) Tool of The Right

Vegetarians, Vegans and Carrageenan

An animal should not have to give up its life so that I can have a meal.

Hola. If you eat any processed foods at all, you most likely eat carrageenan. Do you care? I know most people don’t care what they eat or what’s in what they eat. The expression, “You Are What You Eat” doesn’t mean anything to most people. But for the people who do care (all 2 of you), it’s best to avoid carrageenan. Carrageenan is an additive and it’s in nearly everything that’s processed to any degree at all. I like a high-quality soy cream made by a local ice cream company but I stopped buying that because they put carrageenan in it (as one of the thickeners). Whoever manufactures/markets carrageenan has done an excellent job of talking nearly all food manufacturers into using the stuff. The problem with carrageenan is that it is an inflammatory. Dr Andrew Weil says it’s best to not consume carrageenan on a regular basis. I don’t eat it at all. I don’t like eating something that I know is harmful for me and carrageenan is harmful. It’s in nearly every brand of soymilk I’ve seen, and if I’m interested in a product I haven’t bought before when I look at the list of ingredients, carrageenan is usually in there, so I put that item back on the shelf. I don’t eat processed foods whenever possible. Why is carrageenan allowed to be in so many processed foods?

Most people say it doesn’t matter what you eat, and those who think that will continue to believe that because by doing so they don’t have to change their behaviour. Changing one’s (eating) habits and behaviour is nearly impossible for most people.

Vegetarians

I have un amigo who’s been a vegetarian for over 20 years. He rarely went to any doctor during those years. He’s very healthy. He recently had a physical examination. After the exam and the blood tests they asked him: What is your secret? He wasn’t sure what they were getting at with that question. They explained that the results of his blood tests were so unusually healthy to what they usually see that they ran the tests twice to make sure it wasn’t a mistake. But the tests came back the same: Very healthy. So they asked him: What’s your secret? He said: “Well I don’t have any secret. I’m a vegetarian.” They said, “oh, we like vegetarians around here.” He told them: “I juice every day.” (He means using a commercial-grade juicer to make juice from organic las zanahorias/carrots, organic las manzanas/apples and organic col roja/red cabbage). He also told them: I eat no “meat” (dead animals) of any kind including (contaminated) fish, and I exercise regularly. Well they were amazed and said that they don’t usually see people like him in there. That’s because most people don’t eat the way he does, or care what they eat. I wasn’t amazed when he told me about this because I’ve known him for years and I eat the same way he does. And there’s no “secret” or special effort to eating well and caring about what one eats. To me and to him it comes naturally to be a vegetarian (some of our foods such as desserts are vegan) and neither of us see being vegetarian as any “special diet” as some people like to think of it. We just eat what we want to eat which turns out to be vegetarian food and sometimes vegan foods. We both find the sight of “meat” disgusting to even look at especially when it’s in its uncooked fake-induced-pink state with all that blood in the package. And it’s just as disgusting to look at after it’s cooked—this brown/gray-hued blob—sometimes with blood running all over the plate into one’s mashed potatoes. Ugh. The food industry calls that blood “au jus” (meaning “with its own juice” so they’re calling blood “juice” in their attempt to sanitise this). Well they can call it whatever they want but it’s still blood and other stuff from the animal and it’s disgusting to look at. Who would want to eat that shit?

I know from reading message forums over the years that whenever food, vegetarians and vegans are the topic that the comments below the article turn into a fucking cesspool. I won’t allow that to happen here in the comments. One can go elsewhere for that.

On the occasion when I’m with people eating, I make no comment on what they’re eating. I order my vegetarian or vegan food—which is hard to find in restaurants in San Francisco since most restaurants usually only have one token choice for vegetarians—and after I order I often hear this from someone at the table: “You don’t eat meat?” They ask that as if I’m terribly weird or something is wrong with me and as if it’s the strangest thing they’ve ever heard that someone doesn’t eat dead animals. I respond politely: “No, I’m vegetarian.” And that’s all I say about it, because I have no interest in getting into some waste-of-time “debate” with them and ruining my lunch or dinner. Some people go on to try to belittle me for not eating animals. I just listen and remain silent. I never say anything to them about what they eat but I (and other vegetarians/vegans) don’t get the same respect in return. Some people who have known me for years and who eat “meat” ask me occasionally: “You’re still a vegetarian?” as if it’s some fad they thought I would abandon, join the herd and eat dead animals like they do. I know there are probably some vegetarians/vegans who make comments to meat-eaters about what they’re eating (dead animal), but I’m not one of them. “Meat” eaters often refer to vegetarians and vegans as “sanctimonious” and “holier than thou.” LOL. I often feel like saying: Do you own any mirrors or ever listen to yourself? Because when one listens to “meat” eaters they’re often the people who sound “sanctimonious,” “holier than thou” and condescending to vegetarians/vegans. They fail to recognise that in themselves as they’re sanctimoniously lecturing vegetarian/vegans and putting us down as locos/crazies because we don’t eat animals.

There’s a local “meat” company that promotes itself as “raising livestock traditionally, humanely, and sustainably to bring you the best tasting all natural meat in the world.” What remains of the pseudo/fake-”liberals/progressives/and Left” in San Francisco—who are all really nothing but Establishment Democrats despite what they call themselves—fall for this “humanely” bull shit/newspeak and they continue to eat animals. I’ve often thought: You call yourself a “progressive” and use the word “progressive” nearly every-other-word while you’re eating dead animals and and bragging about it and claiming to be concerned about the environment. It gives them an excuse/justification for eating dead animals because like most people they’ve probably been programmed since childhood to eat “meat,” and they refuse to change their behaviour. The “meat” company I mentioned earlier and the disciples who eat that “meat” can go on about how “humanely” the animals are “raised,” but I’d like for them to answer one question: What’s exactly “humane(ly)” about killing the animal so that you can have a meal? The sheeple like to ignore that part. This “humanely” language is just more corporate bull shit newspeak to make the sheeple feel better about killing an animal so that they can have a meal because the animal was supposedly “humanely raised.” And if you had to kill the animal yourself to eat that “meat” would you kill the animal yourself? If eating cats and dogs were part of the US of Hypocrisy culture, would you kill your cat and dog (whom you presumably love) to have a meal?

There’s a lot more that could be written about this topic such as the industry cruelty to animals and agua/water requirements for raising “livestock” and the environmental degradation. Some links below address those topics.

“Any discussion of how to eat to best preserve water needs should begin with this sentence: the water footprint (WF) of any animal product is larger than the WF of a crop alternative with equivalent nutritional value.”
Source: The Environmental case for eating vegetarian in one sentence

Vegans

My opinion of vegans has changed over the years. I learned how most vegans think based on their comments on message forums. It’s been my experience consistently over the years with vegans that they don’t give a fuck what’s in anything they eat as long as there are no animal products in the food. I was surprised and disappointed by that. But that seems to be all that vegans are concerned about is the animal product itself. I used to (erroneously) think that vegan was an extension of vegetarian with the careful examination of the ingredients in food, but I’ve learned that’s not the case. Most vegans are quite content with processed foods as long as there are no animal products in it. I’m sure there are some exceptions to this but over the years I haven’t talked with any vegans who were concerned about what’s in the food (meaning the ingredients’ list and additives) they’re eating. I remember asking some vegans about vegan cheese that I was interested in so I asked them what was in the vegan cheese they buy. Surprisingly, they had no idea. They couldn’t tell me what was in it and they didn’t seem to care as long as it had the word “vegan” on it. One or two vegans gave me a brand name so I had to research that myself since they knew nothing about it. To them it was all about the lack of animal products, the taste, the texture and how it looked and melted on pizza. The high sodium level, for example, in vegan cheese and in many vegan processed foods that one can buy was not a concern either. In other words, they don’t care that additives (such as carrageenan) are in their food from my experience with vegans. They would think nothing of it. I think you could probably put road tar in their food—as long as it’s labeled “Vegan”—and most vegans would be fine with that because road tar is not an animal product.

If the reader is of the thinking that eating “meat” is the “end-all” and that humans absolutely must eat “meat” to survive, then continue to believe that. If the reader thinks that being a vegetarian or a vegan is bad and unhealthy, then continue to think that, por favor. In my mind, an animal should not have to give up its life so that I can have a meal.

This is one topic—along with religion and politics—I refuse to “debate”/talk about other than what I’ve written here. I used to debate religion, politics and food/eating well but I found that all three were/are gastritis-inducing, a waste of my time and were like hitting a brick wall with most of the people I talked with, so I no longer bother. And if one disagrees with the World Health Organisation about eating dead animals, disagree with them too, por favor. From my experience, I found that it did not matter what links I provided, what site I provided or what credible and reliable information I provided to the non-vegetarians/vegans, I still hit a Wall of Resistance as well as their Denial.
I learned years ago that most people will not change their behaviour—and that includes the way they eat—until they are forced to usually because of major health/medical problems. Instead, they will continue to make any and all excuses and justifications for eating the way they currently do.

But for the few people who are concerned about their health and if carrageenan is in anything you eat, you can read what Dr Andrew Weil says about it, and argue with him about it if you want if you can find his e-mail address. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Related:

Dr Andrew Weil: Is Carrageenan Safe?

Contaminated Fish: Mysterious deadly black fungus being found on fish in Pacific Northwest — Gov’t: There was some concern Fukushima radiation could be involved — Biologists investigating how this landbased mold is now appearing in ocean — Many reports of unusual rotting sores, growths, bumps, cancer

“Vegan Margarine” (used in vegan baking)
Say No to Palm Oil

World Health Org and UN recommend populations eat plant-based diets

UN Report: Meat-Free Diet
Good luck with this: “UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet Lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change, UN report says”

A 54.7% increase in evictions in San Francisco in 2015

800_img_6516_0566.jpg original image ( 1600x1067)

This article has been updated with a paragraph about the real el alcalde/mayor of San Francisco (see paragraph three).
Hola. ¿Qué tal? What remains of the former proudly-radical and alternative San Francisco is being evicted from San Francisco as fast as possible. The picture above shows a recent protest in thoroughly corrupt San Francisco City Hall. It was a protest to PARE LOS DESAHUCIOS EN SAN FRANCISCO/Stop Evictions in San Francisco.

There has been a 54.7% increase in evictions this year alone en San Francisco. There have been over 2,000 units evicted in 2015, and this is only mayo/May. Many people who have been evicted claim that the San Francisco Oligarchy is not doing enough to stop the evictions. Well that’s because the San Francisco Oligarchy is in favour of the evictions—despite any lies spewed to the contrary—because the Oligarchy works for and is owned by the corrupt developers, the corrupt Real Estate Industrial Complex and their Corrupt Liars (who lie and say anything to sell properties) and el alcalde/the sleazy mayor who takes his orders from one of his top corporate owners, a billionaire techie venture capitalist. (That billionaire techie venture capitalist is really the person whose name should be on the ballot en noviembre/in November for re-election and not the name of his not-so-bright puppet docked in City Hall).

Here’s some information about that conservative billionaire techie venture capitalist piece of work (the real el alcalde/mayor en San Francisco): He was a registered Republican until 2011 and then switched to “decline to state” (Translation in this instance: a closet-case Republican). He recently went to a fundraiser in San Francisco for Jeb Bush. He quietly attended this fundraiser for Bush by entering through the underground parking garage at the hotel where the fundraiser was held trying to avoid reporters. He gave $50,000 to the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000 and he worked on Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign in 1968.

The San Francisco Oligarchy want what remains of the former city residents (which are the people being evicted) GONE! The Oligarchy’s unspoken message is: “Get out of this city. Go away! You don’t belong here and ‘we’ don’t want you here. We only want people of a wealthy income bracket living in San Francisco.”

This is part of the Class Warfare agenda in this city. The bourgeois elite of the Oligarchy want only the wealthy living in the New Corporatist Conservative Techie Expensive San Francisco and they have turned this city into an expensive dormitory—with underwhelming, cookie-cutter and outrageously expensive “Luxury Designer Condos” Dahling—for the lobotomised and culture-less wealthy techies. This has been accomplished in part by giving their wealthy, predatory techie companies (based in San Francisco) corporate welfare. Meanwhile, the techies spent most of their “life” (if one can call that a “life”) keeping themselves isolated from “the masses” and hunched over, squinting at and fucking with their stupidphones day and night. Related: Smartphones are transforming society into a sea of stupid. Read more here about the protest, por favor: Housing Activists Take Over SF City Hall. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Related:

The Conservatives Love the New San Francisco

The Techie Trash

The Techies Class Warfare

The Techie-Asses in San Francisco

Why do the wealthy refuse to live like the rest of us?

San Francisco’s Real Estate Bubble

Will the Drought Burst San Francisco’s Two Bubbles?

Overpriced San Francisco

Greed-based parasitic Developers install a “curtain” for the wealthy and 1% in San Francisco

The Disappearing San Francisco Bay Bridge

A Proposal to replace San Francisco City Hall with Luxury Condos

Lobotomised San Francisco

Who’s responsible for the new San Francisco?

What Happened to San Francisco? You haven’t heard?

San Francisco’s major league corporate baseball team

Hola. Someone wrote a comment on another post about how the San Francisco major league corporate baseball team (which shall remain nameless on this blog) loses half of the games they play and then the team goes on to be declared “World Champions.” Yes, I’ve noticed that too. It makes no sense. That team does seem to lose half the time, or close to it. I have no interest in sports (also known as men playing with balls), so I like it when they lose because by doing so that means that the corporatised sheeple around San Francisco won’t be acting like out-of-control drunken lunatics just because their wealthy corporate team finally won a game. But imagine if people could get that excited/worked up over something that really matters in most people’s lives as they do over a fucking ball game with corporate sports teams! The more games the San Francisco team plays the more we see the sheeple wearing the corporate team’s expensive clothing—it reminds me of a religion to show they support the team because that’s what they’ve been brainwashed by their television to think they’re supposed to do as good little sheeple—and that generates even more la plata/money for the wealthy corporate owners of this corporate major league baseball team.

The reason I’m writing about this is because I can’t think of any other field or area of performance where losing half the time or frequently is allowed. It’s not “professional” but this team is considered to be a “professional major league baseball team.” I think they need to reexamine their standards. In any other field/area, consistency in performance is expected and required and not the drastic results this team produces. I’ll list some examples that came to mind: In law firms, consistency is expected from the word processing operators and legal secretaries to the work performed by legal assistants and los abogados/the attorneys. A word processing operator is not allowed to have lots of mistakes/typos and formatting errors on the firm’s letters or legal briefs one day and none the next. Another example: In music (the classical music field especially), an Orchestra and Chorus and solo performers are expected to perform consistently at the level of excellence they’ve come to be known for, and not have a superb performance one day and a (what sounds like) unrehearsed performance the next with the same group of performers/musicians. In international piano competitions, if a pianist performs superbly one day and poorly the next, s/he is likely eliminated from that round of the competition following the poor performance. The so-called “World Champions” in the classical music piano field are not given all of this leeway and room for mistakes/losing that these corporate sports teams enjoy. Another example: A high-quality bakery is expected to produce high-quality baked items each day. They can’t leave out the yeast, baking powder or azúcar/sugar occasionally by mistake. So again, in any field I can think of consistency of performance is required and expected, otherwise you’re out, gone, fin, the end and not declared “World Champions.” So why is mediocrity allowed with this San Francisco corporate sports team (and other corporate teams) where they can win a game one day by 9 points, for example, and they can play the same team the next day and only score 1 point? What the fuck happened to them? How is that possible? That’s very drastic scoring. It’s Loco/Crazy. For a team/group that is called “World Champions” (Ha!) one would think they would have a consistently stellar/superb record of winning nearly all the time, if not all the time, but that’s not the reality with this “World Champions” San Francisco team. They lose a lot of games. Depending upon when I look at their scores, the list shows that they lose half the time (often losing many times in a row; a couple of weeks ago they lost 8 games in a row) as that commenter wrote. How can losing lots of games be possible for so-called “World Champions?” That lofty-sounding title obviously doesn’t mean much. And they really need to change that caca too because this “World Series” nonsense only involves corporate teams from los Estados Unidos/the US and occasionally Canada. There’s nothing “World” about it. The US and Canada are not “The World”—although I guess it still is to the flat-earth believers—even though the arrogant and bullying US thinks it is “The World” with its ugly, pompous, arrogant and above-reproach psychological disorder called the US Exceptional-ism ComplexTM.

There’s got to be more to this than losing a lot of games, intense stare-downs between ball players, huffing and puffing, spitting, punching one’s fist in the baseball glove and adjusting one’s jock and baseball cap, no? Why are such drastic scores even allowed? Why is the team not eliminated when they lose multiple games in a row as is the case with this San Francisco corporate major league baseball team?

And from what I and others have noticed, around the time that the Gay Rights’ Movement died—which was roughly when the Supremes gave their ruling for same-gender marriage (that seemed to be the end of the Gay Rights’ Movement)—GLBTQs were told to “assimilate” (Translation: be heteronormative) by those corporate GLBTQ organisations. So that meant that GLBTQs were supposed to start supporting corporate sports teams and pretending to have an interest in sports just like the “straights.” Some GLBTQs have always have had an interest in sports but most haven’t from my experience and the experience of other Queers I’ve talked with. And from what I’ve read about that obnoxious local gay(?) sports bar, most of the Queer boys there have zero interest in sports and don’t even watch the television screens in the bar showing sports. I’ve heard repeatedly that that bar is full of Bottoms who get turned on by having sex with “Top” heteronormative obnoxious jock types. Also, as part of that “assimilation” nonsense, many GLBTQs around here seem to think they must support the local team (even though they had no interest in sports before the order given to “assimilate”) just because the local team has said the word “gay” a few times and the team also has a token “GLBTQ Day” (to exploit, make el dinero/$$$$$ from GLBTQ suckers) by selling the team’s “GLBTQ Day” la camiseta/shirt as well as their outrageously expensive season tickets and the team’s regular expensive sports clothing to gullible Queers. As usual, many GLBTQs have fallen for this corporate stunt. Meanwhile, back in the locker room how many anti-gay conversations take place regularly and/or privately between (closet case?) ball players while the team tries to “work/play” the GLBTQ populace?

Often when the San Francisco team does win it’s only by one point. They lost by one point today (they lost by 3 to 4 on el 13 de mayo de 2015, miércoles/Wednesday). Barely winning (by one point) is nothing to celebrate, but the shallow sheeple around here get all jacked-up over just one point because their precious corporate team finally won a game and that gives them another opportunity to get drunk. They don’t realise that once again their team just squeaked-by with that one point, so in reality being declared the “World Series Champions” [roll eyes] really doesn’t mean anything considering the requirements set seem to be so low to begin with compared to other performance areas expected in society.

Also, I should point out that most, if not all, of the players of the San Francisco team don’t live in San Francisco or anywhere near here. From my understanding they come from all over. They just have the “San Francisco” name attached to their team. They don’t have to live here which seems odd. A few months ago I read that one of the players was selling his multi-million-dollar-plus home in Los Ángeles. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Mother’s Day: Mothers remembering their sons

El Día de la Madre

Hola. If Julia Ward Howe could see what Mother’s Day has become en Los Estados Unidos/the US, I suspect she would scream the following: “What have you done to it? That’s not what Mother’s Day is supposed to be about. That was not my intent. What is wrong with you people? Don’t you read or remember any herstory?”

Mother’s Day was started by Julia Ward Howe following the Civil War. Mother’s Day was a protest to the carnage of that war and calling for disarmament by mother’s who had lost their sons. Mother’s Day was their day to remember their sons. From my research, Doña Julia was a rather organised la mujer/woman and she even wrote a Mother’s Day Proclamation (Boston, 1870). Check it out.

I know that on Mother’s Day some churches acknowledge the youngest and oldest mothers present in the congregation [roll eyes]. Some Anglican/Episcopal churches especially the High churches focus their liturgy on the Virgin Mary. But Mother’s Day was not meant to be any of that nor was it meant to be a day of restaurants, las flores/flowers and candy. That was not the original intent of Mother’s Day at all and I wouldn’t think that one would be in the mood for such things when one is remembering one’s dead son(s).

Later, en Los Estados Unidos/US, Anna Jarvis held a memorial for her mother in 1908 and then she worked to make Mother’s Day a national holiday in the US. But that backfired on her in the end. In 1914, Mother’s Day became a recognised holiday, but by 1920 Doña Anna was already disappointed with the commercialisation of this holiday.

From Wikipedia: Mother’s Day:

“Nine years after the first official United States Mother’s Day, commercialization of the holiday became so rampant that Anna Jarvis herself became a major opponent of what the holiday had become and spent all her inheritance and the rest of her life fighting what she saw as an abuse of the celebration. Later commercial and other exploitations of the use of Mother’s Day infuriated Jarvis and she made her criticisms explicitly known the rest of her life. She criticized the practice of purchasing greeting cards, which she saw as a sign of being too lazy to write a personal letter. She was arrested in 1948 for disturbing the peace while protesting against the commercialization of Mother’s Day, and she finally said that she “wished she would have never started the day because it became so out of control …”

So if one really wants to honour the original intent of Mother’s Day/El Día de la Madre and if one feels obligated to give una tarjeta/a card or gift to one’s mother (or all hell will break loose if you don’t because la tarjeta/gift are expected due to “tradition”), la tarjeta would really be of a paz/peace and pacifist nature. It would not be some cookie-cutter tarjeta from a corporate card company with a syrupy message written on it by someone in-house gushing over a mother they don’t even know and have never met and never will! But that’s the way corporate cards are. Just sign your name to the thing since the message is pre-written for you. I prefer to write my own personal message en una tarjeta than a pre-written message.

A message of peace is what is appropriate for El Día de la Madre/Mother’s Day and I’m sure Doña Julia would be very appreciative that at least someone is honouring her intent for the day. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Why do the wealthy refuse to live like the rest of us?

Hola. Why do the wealthy/rich feel the need to show off their wealth? Why is it important to them to do that? Who cares that someone is wealthy? People who are secure with themselves don’t feel the need to show off their wealth. Shallow, superficial and pretentious people do that. This is more of that “Keeping Up With the Joneses” nonsense that the sheeple have been brainwashed with.

I never paid much attention to the wealthy/rich until they began taking over San Francisco (the techie trash, for example, and some others). For example, they think they need these outrageously expensive over-priced ($1 MILLION US DOLLARS PLUS), underwhelming and cookie-cutter condos to live in. They think they need big, expensive, pretentious status-symbol vehicles. To be seen in? By whom? A vehicle is nothing but a motorised metal box with four wheels on it and seats in it. So why the need for an expensive vehicle? While the rest of the world is using their intelligence and going to smaller and more efficient vehicles, here in San Francisco they’re doing the opposite. We’re seeing more and more big-assed status-symbol vehicles with one person in the thing. When I see that, I see a self-entitled, self-absorbed idiot (often a female) in the driver’s seat. This is all part of that ugly US Exceptional-ism ComplexTM where USans have been brainwashed to think that their ass is better than anyone else’s in the world and that they are superior to other people on the planet in other countries, which of course is complete nonsense. Even our political parasites end their newspeak speeches with the perfunctory, “god bless America.” Which America? América Del Norte/North América, América Central or América Del Sur/South América? Shouldn’t the Floating Cloud Being (“god” if one believes in that nonsense too) bless the world—seems to me that might be a good idea considering the state of things—and not just the selfish, greedy, “it’s all about me” self-absorbed and self-entitled US? This US Exceptional-ism Complex is a very fucked-up way of thinking and people like that are in dire need of psychotherapy, especially D and R parasitic politicians here in The Empire. I realise I’m talking about 99.9% of the population, but nevertheless, someone has to say it. And from what I’ve seen of the wealthy, no one has ever accused them of having good taste even though they erroneously live under the illusion that they are the model of good taste. (Like hell they are!…unless one likes dull, drab and conservative). Chau.—el barrio rosa

Related:

Let the Joneses Keep Up With You

Techies Class Warfare

Overpriced San Francisco

The Conservatives Love the New San Francisco

Status Ubiquitous Vehicle Drivers Supersize their Gasoline Bills in San Francisco

San Francisco’s hate for the homeless closes Jane Warner Plaza

Jane Warner Plaza - mayo de 2015.  Where are the tables and chairs in this deserted area?  (I see yet another "straight" couple in this picture coming into The Castro...ugh.  Are they coming to get drunk like all the other "straight" couples that seem desperate to come over here?).

Jane Warner Plaza – mayo de 2015. Where are the tables and chairs in this deserted area? (I see yet another “straight” couple in this picture coming into The Castro…ugh. Are they coming to get drunk like all the other “straight” couples that seem desperate to come over here? All the “straight” bars closed in the city? What happened to the many gay couples walking together over here, or have most of them been evicted from this city due to techie gentrification?)

Hola, awhile back I suggested in this article that the Jane Warner Plaza in San Francisco’s Castro barrio be closed. Now, it looks like they’ve essentially closed it although perhaps not officially.

Jane Warner Plaza - mayo de 2015

Jane Warner Plaza – mayo de 2015

After the Castro Street sidewalk widening project was completed—which was a major waste of la plata/money and which also removed/sanitised/erased all the history in those sidewalks from the Gay Mecca days—they fucked around with the Jane Warner Plaza for awhile. Some of us couldn’t tell what they were trying to do with it, if they even knew. They removed the tables and chairs from the plaza (you can see the tables/chairs in the video below from 2013). The chairs were always stacked up and locked around 9.00pm each night by one or more of the hateful anti-homeless business owners in the barrio to prevent the increasing homeless population around here from having anywhere to sit. So very humane, isn’t it? And by locking the chairs up, no one could sit there. Officially, in San Francisco the homeless are not allowed to sit or lie on the sidewalks between 7.00am and 11.00pm because of the city’s hateful sit-lie ordinance which criminalises homelessness. When sit-lie/Proposition L was passed by a majority of those who voted in that election, that told me and others that this city had changed in the wrong direction and had become conservative. And things have only gotten worse since then. The elitist, conservative, corporatist, anti-homeless politician who pretends to represent The Castro made sit-lie a major part of its campaign when it ran for office the first time.

The Cancer of Class-ism and Class Warfare in San Francisco

Picture 088It looks like the corporatist elitist parasites (the “haves”) around here have finally closed the plaza so that the homeless (the “have-nots”) have no place to rest, sleep and/or hang out. From what I’ve observed about the way things work around here, I suspect the closure of the plaza was led by one of these useless, busy-bodied elitist barrio groups who serve as self-appointed authorities on all matters and who claim to know what’s best for The Castro. The group (which shall remain nameless) that I have in mind is run by an excessively overpaid la bruja who, from what I’ve read, doesn’t even live in San Francisco. La bruja lives in Pacifica on the San Francisco Peninsula. So why the fuck does she give a damn about anything in the city/The Castro when la bruja doesn’t even live here? But that is so typical! Meddling in a place where she doesn’t even live for a bloated paycheck. Why doesn’t she keep her elitist ass in Pacifica and stick her busy-bodied nose into Pacifica and fuck things up there? I can’t stand these elitist corporatist basura currently running this city and these conservative busy-bodied neighbourhood groups who eat the upper colon of the corporatist parasites of the San Francisco Oligarchy. They are the same conservative prudish scum who have sanitised The Castro and tried to turn it into Walnut Creek. (Related: Naked muchachos in San Francisco – Page 1). Many, if not most, of the conservative, prudish and hateful/anti-homeless residents of The Castro live under the illusion that they live in the fictional hamlet called “Mayberry,” or they’re determined to turn The Castro into “Mayberry.” If they want to live in “Mayberry” why the fuck don’t they just move to “Mayberry,” if they can possibly find a place like that somewhere? From what I’ve seen of these rabid conservative residents they are afraid of their own shadow.

Jane Warner Plaza - mayo de 2015

Jane Warner Plaza – mayo de 2015

I talked with someone who went to a neighbourhood meeting about this plaza. You couldn’t pay me to go to one of these meetings considering what I know about the conservative pretentious/elitist residents around here. I can’t imagine being in a room with them. I can’t stand to be around conservative elitist snots whose not-so-covert agenda is to hate on the homeless using newspeak. From what he told me, this meeting was exactly as I would expect it would be. He said they spoke “in code” at this meeting. They claimed this wasn’t about the homeless—then that means it was/is about the homeless—and that’s exactly what he said. He said they used code words such as “anti-social behaviour” taking place in the plaza without using the word “homeless” as their way of scapegoating and hating on the homeless while pretending this wasn’t about the homeless. These hateful Castro residents are a piece of work. They’re very transparent in their hate of the homeless and consistently so; they’re fooling no one. From what he said, the room was full of elitist, lobotomised residents of The Castro who only care about themselves (self-entitled homeowners?) and who do not possess the capability or humanity of putting themselves in anyone else’s position. In their self-entitled minds, it’s all about them. According to him, he sensed that most residents want the plaza closed. But the attention-craving conservative corporatist politician of the San Francisco Oligarchy who pretends to represent the residents around here (that piece of work certainly doesn’t represent me)—and whom many Castro residents worship and adore and see as The Holy and Indivisible Trinity—doesn’t want the plaza closed. But to me and others, it looks like the plaza is already closed whether it’s officially closed or not. The plaza area (closed 17th street at Castro and Market), which was later named the Jane Warner Plaza, was a good idea initially until they made it clear—again by using newspeak—that only certain people were welcomed there (the unspoken part: of a certain income bracket). Fucking class-ism. Then I remember when they posted this long ridiculous list of things that one could not do in this plaza. [roll eyes]. Ugh. It was at that time that I said: Just shut the thing down. Why even have it?! These pretentious, class-ist people around here are a fucking piece of work. They live in a major city but they have this hamlet/small town mentality. MOVE! Go to your utopian “Mayberry,” if you can find it somewhere. I don’t know whatever made them want to move here in the first place. So they could change it to the way they wanted it? If so, why didn’t they just stay where they were and change that place? Sigh.

Jane Warner Plaza - mayo de 2015

Jane Warner Plaza – mayo de 2015

And it’s not as if these la basura want the homeless problem solved. No, I’ve heard no one say anything about that. They just don’t want to see the homeless and mentally ill. These pretentious class-ist snots think they are above seeing, hearing or being around homeless and/or mentally ill people. These la basura belong in their own gated community where all these snots afraid of their own shadow can live together, maybe on some island somewhere. I’m not saying that a pristine island should be overrun and ruined with pretentious “people” like them, but maybe then they would be satisfied, no? Or what they then start whining and moaning about each other? Humans! Ugh.

Today, the Jane Warner Plaza looks like the images shown on this page. It is now mainly cement with some planters and the Muni (our public transport system) F line street car running through the middle of the plaza (as has always been the case). There’s nothing in the plaza now. I don’t know where the conservative Castro and this city expect the homeless to go? All this city does it to move the homeless from one place to another. Loco/crazy. Well, expect more homeless people here and throughout this country as the divide between “the haves” and the “have-nots” continues and increases. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Related:

The Jane Warner Plaza in San Francisco’s Castro barrio as seen el 17 de marzo de 2013.