There is no Gay Agenda

The only “special rights” (to use the language of the far-right) that we Queers demand are the same “special rights” that come with straight privilege. Understand?

Hola a todos. Because of some recent actions by a corporate coffee chain (which I’ll get to in a moment), accusations of “the gay agenda” surfaced again. There is no “gay agenda” and there never has been. All Queers have ever wanted/demanded are the same “special rights” that breeders enjoy and take for granted with their straight privilege. “The Gay Agenda” is merely anti-Queer propaganda from the prejudiced far-right bigots, many of whom are Queer closet cases themselves such as some anti-Queer (Republicano) politicians who are forced to resign after being caught in their office having sex with another guy. That’s so typical of gay closet case hypocrites.

These days, some Queers continue to want to have the same equal rights as the breeders, which of course we don’t have, while other Queers couldn’t care less one way or the other it seems. They’re too occupied with their adult pacifiers (their phone, which is their entire life) and they stare at the thing day and night, even while crossing busy streets. Insanity. Maybe they would wake up from their stupor and be concerned about things that really matter in life when their phone — the biggest distraction and mind-controlling device known to humankind — is taken away from them. But that’s not about to happen. Because their phone is their monitoring device, their electronic leash used by corporations and government entities for keeping track of them and their mind, in part, through extensive data-mining (especially on billionaire-owned “social media” FB), the massive surveillance state and online spying. But enough about this since most people don’t seem to care about any of it.

Speaking of agendas, from what I and other Queers have seen, I think it’s accurate to say that these days there is an agenda within the Queer community for Queers to be as heteronormative as possible. This is especially true for the conformist, pro-Establishment, pro-Oligarchy and corporatist wealthy Queers. It’s part of that “assimilating” quest/nonsense. “Assimilating with the straights/breeders” as it’s called. Unfortunately, but as expected, “assimilation” has resulted in many gay guys going back in the closet as they try to fit in with the (anti-gay in some cases) breeders as a minority (with some gay guys marrying females after they worked decades for gay marriage. Please don’t try to figure that out! And most gay guys trying to “look and act straight.” Very closeted. The opposite of “Out and Proud” of the Gay Mecca decades. Consequently, these days I and other Queers can’t tell who is Queer and who is a breeder, which was not at all the way it was during the now-dead Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement. (Related: What was the ultimate goal of the Gay Rights Movement?).

If we Queers had the same rights and respect in society as the breeders with their straight privilege and all the “special rights” they have, the Starb**ks 2017 holiday drinking cup featuring the hands of a lesbian couple would be no big deal. I was sorry to see Starb**ks take the “safe route” with the lesbian couple holding hands. Lesbians are considered a little “more acceptable” and less offensive to the prejudiced breeders than gay male couples. Seeing two girls hold hands is more acceptable to the breeders than two guys holding hands. If two children (girls) hold hands, no one thinks anything of that. “Aren’t they cute?!” is often the remark made about the two girls. But if two boys hold hands? That’s the end of the world! SCREAMS! Watch out for an instant scolding which begins with, “YOU BOYS STOP THAT NOW! BOYS DON’T HOLD HANDS.” What a fucked-up, double-standard society we live in. The boys are probably asking each other, “Why can’t we hold hands? The girls are. What’s the difference?” Los Chicos/Boys: as you’ll learn later dears, we live in a very unfair and fucked up society. As far as lesbians being a little more acceptable to the breeders, that’s also one reason from my research why the letter “L” was moved to first place in that ridiculous alphabet-soup “LGBT(Q)” acronym that one sees saturated all over the internet. Even though lesbians did not lead the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement and therefore they don’t deserve first place or “top billing.” Gay guys were the dominant group leading the movement. Before Stonewall, gay guys and transgender people really started — what would later become known as — the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement through two overnight riots at donut shops, one in San Francisco and the other in Los Ángeles.

The LGBTQIA+community? When is this nonsense going to stop?

As mi amigo/my friend said: Breeders don’t have all of these alphabet-soup letters to identify them. They’re just called “straight” or breeders. Just like Queers should be called Queers. Is that so difficult? Stop with this ridiculous and increasing-long string of letters that the corporatist conformists among us insist on using. (Related: So now it’s the LGBTQIA+community ? jesus fucking christ).

Didn’t I fleetingly see two females in a bed on The Q (the major shopping network) the other night as part of the promotion for a product they were selling? I remember saying to the television: Of course they wouldn’t dream of showing two guys in that bed sitting side-by-side. Hell no! Can you imagine the calls of disapproval from viewers they would receive for that? And again, that’s because lesbians are considered a bit “more acceptable” to the breeders. You see, it’s ultimately important that one cater to the comfort level and prejudices of breeders whenever possible. (Sarcasm intended).

There’s no gay agenda but there most assuredly is a Breeder Agenda. Just look around.

The prejudiced anti-Queer bigots never talk about the real agenda in our society which is the Breeder Agenda. The Breeder Agenda is all I see anywhere I look. I see “him and her” shoved in my face 24/7 and especially in corporate media programming and advertising. When they show a couple on The Q (the shopping network) as part of a product ad, it’s a young, white breeder couple sitting on the couch side-by-side. Little do they know that they are reaffirming that needy-her needs his constant attention 24/7. That’s enough to make me turn away. I’m so sick of seeing breeder couples, and especially young and white Millennial breeder couples in their conformist all-black uniform. That’s all I see today in my area of San Francisco, the former Gay Mecca. I used to have the pleasure of seeing nothing but Queer couples/gay boys walking by my window. Not anymore. Today it’s always him and her and other breeder basura with their screaming children. These fuckers have never heard of birth control in an already overpopulated planet.

Another example of the Breeder Agenda are the numerous gay conversion sites that I have written about here. These sites are so obsessed with gay guys and their sexuality which tells me they definitely have an agenda. Their Breeder Agenda is to “turn” gay guys into (what they call) “pussy hounds” or to at least “turn them bi.” Pussy is the ultimate sexual satisfaction these sites claim. The unspoken message being: it’s bad to be gay. The expressed message of these sites is that all that gay guys need to do is to try pussy for the first time and they will instantly be hooked on pussy, find pussy “so amazing,” and never turn back to dick, and hopefully go straight or at least bi. These sites fail to say that many (if not most) gay guys started out with pussy out of peer pressure in high school and realised it didn’t do anything for them. And the most common thing I’ve heard from gay guys (mis amigos/my friends) who started out with pussy was about the raunchy smell. They would say to me as their way of complaining about it: “Phew! Smells like rotten fish? Do they ever clean that thing out?”

So let’s put this Gay Agenda nonsense to rest.

I don’t drink coffee or support corporate Starb**ks. And who has the luxury and dinero/money of running to Starb**ks every hour or every time one wants a fucking cup of coffee during the day? What pathetic people! I’ve see them. They have their 2-3 addictions going all at the same time: Their phone in one hand and their coffee in another. Or, their phone in one hand and their coffee and cigarette in the other. Coffee addicts have never learned to grind coffee beans and properly boil water to the correct temperature? Do some people not know how to boil water these days? Apparently not, since stupid is in. The shallow and superficial corporatists among us have been brainwashed to think that they must drink corporate coffee throughout the day so they make multiple trips to Starb**ks and/or other corporate coffee chains. Just think about all the dinero/money spent on that coffee daily and on the gas getting there and back (because most people are too lazy to walk a few city blocks), and the waste involved. Does anyone ever take their own glass cup with them? Or is part of the bougi and elitist corporate coffee experience having the status-symbol cup that comes with the coffee so one can be all pretentious and be seen with it. (roll eyes)

With this lesbiana theme to holiday coffee cups at Starb**ks, I guess we’ll have to take what we can get (meaning the lesbian theme) since we’re not about to see two guys holding hands on their cups anytime soon, if ever I suspect. Even though in recent years we have been assured repeatedly by some wishful-thinking and delusional people in the Queer community that “gay is now mainstream.” Were these people on crack who said that? The rise in anti-Queer hate and violence certainly shows how “gay is now mainstream” especially since the current insane occupant of la casa blanca took office with his anti-Queer regime of closet cases. There’s been lots of Queer hate since then, and one knows that if one has been paying close attention. Anyone choosing to dispute that can use the nontracking search engine DuckDuckGo to confirm that using your own choice of keywords. There is a very anti-Queer climate now due to a very repressive and regressive regime and political climate. The protestations of Starb**ks and calls to boycott them because of their las lesbiana-theme coffee cups are yet another example of how only a wishful-thinking idiot would say that “gay is now mainstream” and that “gay people can live anywhere.” In reality, gay people cannot live anywhere even in the closet in some places.

There is little to no Queer activism today in former Gay Mecca San Francisco which speaks to the lack of any “gay agenda.” What remains of the Queer community here is effectively dead in the activism department.

As I’m writing this, it’s sábado/Saturday early evening, el 18 de noviembre de 2017/18 November 2017. Mi amigo/My friend was just in The Castro (the former Gay Mecca) and along Market Street of San Francisco. He said it was mostly breeders everywhere he went wearing all-black (as usual), with about 10 children per block, and the only word he heard anyone say was the Valleygirl word “like,” which he heard no matter where he went. One hears such intelligent and intellectual conversations around here these days! (Sarcasm intended). Very few Queers to be seen anywhere. He said The Castro was mostly hetero and Millennials and the sheeple glued to their adult pacifiers. But what he also saw was the income inequality in today’s San Francisco, which has been heavily promoted by the policies of the San Francisco Oligarchy (the current mayor works for and is owned by a billionaire venture capitalist). While the monied breeders were strutting around with their children in what was once a thriving gay area, there were the many homeless people camped outside the sterile-looking Luxury Designer Condos (Dahling) down in the Church Street area. (Related: San Francisco is unrecognisable to former residents).

Another thing mi amigo has noticed is how more and more gay guys are trying to copy the breeders in yet another way. He’s seeing more and more tall-short gay couples. Most gay couples used to be about the same height. But with the shallow and superficial Millennial breeder couples in The City now, their rule seems to be that they must be him-tall/her-short. Consistently. It’s the chauvinistic, sexist, dominant/submissive nonsense that they have been brainwashed with where the female is to be submissive to the dominant guy, rather than his equal. During the Gay Mecca Days, gay guys couldn’t care less about copying the straights and they stood for paz/peace. But since around the time that it became legal for Queers to supposedly be open about their sexuality in the US Military Industrial Complex Killing Machine, gay guys have flipped and become very “Rah, Rah” pro-US military/pro-war and feel they must copy the straights. (Related: Why do Queers want to kill other Queers ? and also this: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continues and also this: Gay Men Glorify War and Nationalism). And the latest example of that is this trend mi amigo is seeing of him-tall/him-short with gay couples, copying the him-tall/her-short straight couples. Sigh. Pathetic.

I think that most of the activists we once had have been forced out of The City as the San Francisco Oligarchy have given free rein to the Tech Industrial Complex and the greedy Real Estate Industrial Complex/developers. They have turned The City into the billionaire-owned tech capital and playground for the super wealthy. On the odd occasion that a few Queers gets pissed off enough to stage a rally or protest at Harvey Milk Plaza at Castro/Market, one hears the same tired canned speeches from the celebrity activists of “What we must do” (which ends up being bull shit and wishful-thinking) with perfunctory applause on cue along with stale chants, such as that tired, “Whose streets? Our streets.” Yeah, the cops will show you whose streets they are when they order you to get on the sidewalk NOW! The last time I heard the “What we must do” had to do with “We must stop Queer persecution in Russia.” Not a word about how they planned to do that and without a plan of how to do that, it’s merely feel-good pabulum. And I’m not sure how the average citizen in the US would go about stopping persecution of Queers in another country. I’d suggest that Queers in the US focus on their own country considering the current regressive political climate and the anti-Queer regime in power.

No Gay Agenda

If Queers today were of the same activists level as during the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement, they would be vigilant on pointing out the Breeder Agenda whenever it’s shoved in our faces. But that’s not about to happen. The Queer community today seems dead as I wrote about there. Today, it seems that the Queer community — in their desire to be so accepted by the precious breeders see the word activism as a pejorative, a “dirty word” and something of the past, as if ashamed of our past with bowing apologies to the breeders for offending them with our previous activism. That’s the impression some of us get. And with that thinking, one will end up right back where one started.

Because in the end, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance to achieve the same level of respect and the “special rights” that come with straight privilege and which the breeders take for granted and enjoy every day. Queers have a long way to go before accomplishing that. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Roman Catholics and their Disrespect for Music

If Communion were at the beginning of the Messe at La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, would the Nave be empty for the rest of the Messe following Communion? Is Communion all that Roman Catholics are there for?

Hola a todos. As an adult, I have never had a high opinion of or given much thought to the Roman Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church, whatever you want to call it. I’ve learned in the last year that some people refer to the church by various names. I always thought it was officially called the Roman Catholic Church worldwide with allegiance to The Vatican. But some Catholics disagree that they are Roman Catholics and refer to the church depending upon which country it’s in, such as the French Catholics, the Irish Catholics, the Italian Catholics and so forth.

Like most organised religions, the (Roman) Catholic Church is officially very anti-Queer while full of gay closet cases. But then that’s typical, isn’t it? Historically and to this day closet cases are anti-Queer as a way of hiding/disguising their Queer/Gay feelings, especially some US Republican politicians who come with an anti-Queer/Gay agenda. The current occupant of la casa blanca and the people of his regime are an example of that.

The US Episcopal Church — part of the worldwide Anglican Communion — is more pro-Queer/GTQBL depending upon the parish and cathedral church one is talking about. Each parish is different in their views and acceptance of Queers. Each parish Rector and the Dean of each cathedral usually determine how accepting of Queers their church will be. For example, Washington National Cathedral in the District of Columbia welcomes gay and lesbian couples to get married there, and I should point out that gay marriage became legal in the District back in 2009, long before it became legal throughout the US. The last I read, the Church of England (the mother church of the Anglican Communion) is still very anti-Queer/anti-Gay.

My interest in parishes and cathedral churches has been in the music, in part, because of my musical background, and the “theatre of the Liturgy.” I watch the Mass or Holy Eucharist as if it were a play. I’m mainly there for the music and the theatre, and not any of the god stuff or theology, since I’m an atheist. (Related: The Anglican Atheist).

Every week for about a year as of this writing, mi amigo/my friend and I have been watching the Messe/Mass from La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris. (That’s in France, you know, which is in Europe, for the stupid-is-in geographically-challenged people in the US who likely couldn’t find the US on a world map.) When we first started watching their Messe (which would be called High Church if it were Anglican), I began to think that I had the Roman Catholics all wrong for all these years, and had the wrong impression of them. Even though I had been in some Roman Catholic parishes that had a different form of Mass setting than Notre-Dame. I began to think that maybe I needed to change my view of them.

But at this point (a year later), I no longer think that. My original view of them was correct. What they do at Notre-Dame and at another Catholic cathedral church in Alemania/Germany (that we’ve watched a couple of times) is more of a European form of the Mass setting.

Their Messe at La Cathédrale Notre-Dame is video recorded by KTO-TV, a Catholic broadcasting network with a channel on YT. Over the years, I’ve watched other Liturgies online from Trinity Wall Street in Lower Manhattan and from Washington National Cathedral in the District of Columbia, both of the Anglican Communion. My musical background/experience is in the Anglican Church. Having coming from an Anglican experience, I found it odd that KTO-TV never starts recording when the Messe really begins which is when the Organist begins his organ improvisation at Notre-Dame. I also found it odd that they never allowed viewers to hear all of the Organ Sortie/Organ Voluntary at the end of the Messe. That was cut off too. Why? Over the past year, many viewers have complained about that — the disrespect for the organist and his music — but their complaints were entirely ignored by KTO-TV. Looking back through their video comments over past years, I saw that this complaint had been going on for many years and nothing was done about it, presumably, because KTO doesn’t care what viewers think. By comparison, when I was watching Trinity Wall Street and Washington National Cathedral, their production crews began recording when the organist was about to begin his/her organ voluntary/prelude, and they also had/have a camera at the organ console so viewers could watch the organist. So the Anglicans considered the music more important and a part of the Liturgy, which of course it is. There is no camera at the organ console at Notre-Dame, although there could be. Their organists are performing artists and would have no problem with cameras being around. One of their Titulaire Organists, Olivier Latry, has recorded many videos and they are available on YT. At Trinity and WNC, viewers were able to hear the entire Organ Voluntary at the end of each Liturgy. So in other words, the Anglicans (and their production crews) are far more respectful of the music than the Roman Catholics, which makes me not think very highly of them frankly.

KTO-TV and their disrespect for the music came up again recently in a video comment. A viewer who attended Messe in Notre-Dame recently wanted to hear the Organ Sortie again that he had heard in the cathedral. He said it was one of the most memorable and best organ improvisations he’d ever heard. He had erroneously assumed he could watch the video of the Messe to hear this piece again. Wrong! And that’s because only part of the piece was there because, as usual, KTO-TV stopped recording in the middle of it. This viewer said he found this reprehensible. Yes it is and terribly disrespectful of the organist and his music.

I learned something about the Catholics recently that I didn’t know, but it all now makes sense and I understand why KTO-TV does what they do, unfortunately. A commenter wrote:

“In the eyes of KTO-TV the mass is not in particular about the efforts of the musicians. According to the Catholic thought: the mass is over at the time the priest leaves the altar! What happens after that (like the Organ Voluntary) is not important in that regard and therefore they don’t broadcast it completely. I agree with you, this is rather disrespectful, but they follow the ‘rules’ (or their own rules). Only the mass should be broadcasted, and nothing more….”

(Feeling of disgust). Well, sadly, that explains it. That also explains why many people in the congregation leave right after Communion at Notre-Dame. When the camera shows the procession for the recessional, often a large group of people have already left (especially in the back of the Nave), so we see empty chairs. When the Messe began, the Nave was full. So apparently to some Catholics, Messe is over the moment after they receive Communion and they don’t care about the rest of it. I doubt that the Holy Trinity approves of that thinking. I would think that The Holy Trinity would frown upon this behaviour and the disrespecting of the remainder of the Liturgy. One should be there for all of it, not just for Communion to try to “buy your way into Heaven” which is how this appears. It’s ridiculous. I’ve seen people at Notre-Dame start rushing down the side aisles as the procession is leaving the Sanctuary area as if trying to “beat the procession”/get ahead of the procession so they can leave. How terribly rude and disrespectful. They come to this very grand and beautiful world-renowned cathedral with one of the finest organs in the world — if not the finest organ — and one of the finest organists in the world playing it and they rush out. They leave. What is wrong with people? Terribly disrespectful of the music and an organist of his superb caliber who has spent his entire life on his art.

By comparison, I can’t remember ever seeing Anglicans leave after Communion. They just don’t do that. They leave after the processional has made its way out of the Nave, or some stay seated in the pews to listen to the Organ Voluntary. Anglicans are taught in Confirmation Class that they’re encouraged to return to the kneeler below the pew to have a final prayer before leaving, then genuflect by the side of the pew when leaving assuming there is a reserved sacrament. It’s rare to see anyone genuflecting upon leaving at Notre-Dame. With the Catholics, they’re in too much of a hurry to rush out. Their thinking seems to be, “this Messe is over, let’s get out of here!” (Frown, shaking head in disgust). Why did they bother coming to begin with if that’s their attitude?

Contrast that with St Thomas Church Fifth Avenue (Anglican Communion) in Manhattan in New York City. Even though they unfortunately only audio record their Liturgy, St Thomas is all about the music. They are known for their music where the quality of the music is consistently superb. They hired a new Choirmaster-Organist from the UK (Church of England) to replace the former Choirmaster-Organist (also from the CofE) who died. Their Assistant Organist has a Masters of Music from The Juilliard School, studying with Paul Jacobs. And they have the only residential Choir School in the US for the training of their trebles/choir boys. From listening to their Liturgies, it sounds to me like everyone stays seated to hear the Organ Voluntary. And very respectfully so. I don’t hear anyone talking over it, as one can hear at Washington National Cathedral. From listening to their (Festal) Choral Eucharist at St Thomas Church, their priests and congregation give the same respect to the organist as if they were enjoying a performance in Carnegie Hall or in Lincoln Center For The Performing Arts.

At La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris where they have three Titulaire Organists who rotate playing the Grande Orgue high up in the back of the Nave, Olivier Latry is Professor of Organ at the Conservatoire de Paris (Paris Conservatory of Music). But KTO-TV thinks nothing of disrespecting him — an organist of that caliber — by cutting him off in the middle of his organ improvisation. It is reprehensible. They will focus their camera on the organ case and do an annoyingly slow-slow zoom showing the pipes, and then FIN/THE END. That’s all you get to hear. It’s as if they’re more concerned about the picture of the organ pipes, the image of the organ case for their video that they’re showing the viewer than they are about the music coming from the Grand Orgue. Viewers of the Messe at Notre-Dame videos should have the same worship experience as the members of the congregation who have the pleasure of being present in the Nave and hearing all of the Organ Sortie and all of the beginning of the Liturgy as well. But unfortunately, video viewers are never given that experience because of KTO-TV’s backward and rude approach to their own Catholic Liturgy. And their camera work is so often frustrating and pathetic. I often ask my screen: What are we doing back here in the back of the Nave once again when the priests are doing something up at the altar that we should be watching? KTO-TV have been doing this how long? — for years — and still act like amateurs. Why is the camera showing the organ pipes when they should be showing the procession which is in progress coming up the back of the Nave? What is wrong with these people at KTO-TV? Inept.

(Roman) Catholics are indeed a very different breed of people than Anglicans/Episcopalians and they approach the Mass/Holy Eucharist very differently with their lack of respect for the music and musicians, specifically. I should think that a few Roman Catholics feel as I do, but I suspect they are in the minority.

I prefer the Anglicans, although I much prefer the Gregorian Chant liturgy found in some Roman Catholic churches, such as Notre-Dame de Paris.

Over the years, I’ve talked briefly with a few Roman Catholics I worked with or came in contact with for some reason. I asked them about the music in their church, which none of them knew anything about oddly. I didn’t give much thought to it at the time, but thinking back on it, most Catholics I talked with had little to no interest in the music of the Mass in their church, no interest in the Choir and didn’t even know if their church had an organ. Or if they did, they didn’t know where the organ was. To them, it was all about the “spoken word” (“The Word”) of the Mass and nothing more. Boring. They also knew very little about the Anglican Communion, and some of them arrogantly would say that, “Anglicans need to come home to the (superior) Roman Catholic Church.” If the Roman Catholic Church is supposedly “superior,” why do many Roman Catholics disrespect their own Mass by leaving early? Have they never thought of that?

I remember reading some comments under KTO’s videos from a Roman Catholic guy in Italia/Italy who acted more like a troll. Viewers were writing comments about the music — similar to my complaints — and he was complaining about the music being too much like a performance and that the Messe at Notre-Dame should be “all about the Word.” No one agreed with him, but I think his thinking is the dominant and prevailing view about Liturgical music in the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the priests at La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris may have some respect for the music since they have a Choir School. That’s another curious thing about Notre-Dame. Having a Choir School, one would think that a Choir would perform/provide music every Sunday for the Mass, no? That’s the way it works with any other parish or cathedral church within the Anglican Communion with a Choir School. But not at Notre-Dame, or at least based on the videos of their Messe uploaded by KTO-TV. Even with a Choir School at Notre-Dame (Maîtrise Notre Dame de Paris), a Choir rarely performs. Damn odd. A Choir performs only occasionally, which led me to ask sometime ago: Why did Notre-Dame disband their Cathedral Choir? Well, they didn’t disband any Choir, I later realised. But one wouldn’t know that without spending weeks observing their Messe. They have several Choirs at Notre-Dame — with the Children’s Choir being my favourite (they should sing every week) — but most of the time they have four choristers (a quartet) leading the service music. I often say when I see who is there at the beginning of each video (as I did yesterday): “Once again, we have a quartet with a Choir School. Ridiculous.” I do enjoy the various quartets when their voices are perfectly matched — where the soprano and alto sound like one voice and have perfect intonation, or the tenor and bass voices are matched perfectly — but that’s not always the case. One gets the impression that it is not the purpose and function of the Choir School to provide music for the cathedral. And when they only have four voices, the more elaborate music settings which add so much to the Messe cannot be sung, such as the descant on the Sanctus, for example. That can only be sung when a Choir is there, again, on the odd occasion. When the four choristers (the quartet for the day; they’re not always the same choristers) don’t sing with vibrato they have lovely voices and blend well. But often, some or sometimes all choristers will sing with annoying, fluttering, wobbling vibrato — even in Renaissance music which is unheard of — and vibrato prevents the perfect blending of voices, because the choristers vibratos are not sychronised. A recent example, in the last couple of weeks, the quartet for the Messe sang the Kyrie. It would have been lovely if it were not for the soprano who sang with vibrato. The ATB (alto, tenor and bass choristers) did not sing with vibrato. And the soprano seemed unable to turn off her vibrato and because of that her voice marred the Kyrie. It did not have a smooth and polished sound because of her voice. Hasn’t her voice instructor taught her how to turn off vibrato in a choral/vocal ensemble setting? The use of vibrato at Notre-Dame has been talked about in the comments, but little changes in that regard. Sometime ago, one of the choristers commented by saying that they receive vocal instruction from some of the finest voice teachers in Europe. That’s all well and good, but that’s not the point. We’re not talking about their vocal training. We are talking about ensemble singing — which is not the same as their vocal training — and they need to learn that in ensemble singing that in order to have the perfect blending of voices, choristers must sing with a straight-tone, the exception being an Opera Chorus. This is why so many Chorus Directors of Symphony/Orchestra Choruses train their Symphony Chorus to sing with what’s called a “straight tone” for the perfect blending of voices. The reader may be asking, “Can you give us an example of what you’re talking about with a straight-tone and the perfect blending of voices?” I’ll be glad to. Listen to this superb Chorus in this video below (a superb performance of the Fauré Requiem). This is the way a well-trained Chorus should sound. It doesn’t get any better than this. Listen to those lovely tenors and soaring sopranos, all singing without annoying, fluttering-wobbling vibrato. This Chorus and Orchestra are the best of the best. Mi amigo/My friend said about this performance (which we watched together while I’ll wrote this article): I’m glad you found this performance. Even if one knows nothing about music, one should be able to hear that this is the best; you can’t get any better than this performance. He referred to “the soaring sopranos” and how “grand and glorious” this piece is at times performed by these stellar ensembles. The female soloist in this performance sings with a slight bit of vibrato but not objectionable, but her straight tones are lovely. Mi amigo didn’t care as much for the baryton soloist because of his vibrato. I didn’t have any trouble with that because his vibrato is fairly mild compared to what it could be! He too has a lovely voice. If he were in the Chorus, he would have to turn his mild vibrato off to match the beautiful straight-tone of the other choristers. Here’s the information about this performance:

Requiem (Version 1900) by Gabriel Fauré performed by the combined Choruses of (my favourite) the Collegium Vocale and the Chapelle Royale from Brussels. With soloists: Sebastian Noack (Baryton) and Johannette Zomer (Soprano). They are accompanied by their orchestra, the superb Orchestre des Champs-Élysées from Paris, conducted by Philippe Herreweghe:

I’d like to ask KTO, not that they will ever read this: Would it really put you out/pain you that much to record the entire Organ Voluntarily rather than half of it, at best, and to start recording when the Messe begins? Is it really that much of an imposition to push the “Record” button a little earlier and to push the “Stop” button a little later than you have done for years? I live under no illusion that’s about to happen, and all the commenters who have made remarks about the music have disappeared. I assume they realised that it’s futile to say anymore about it. Nothing is about to change. It’s a wonder that KTO-TV don’t start recording when the priests arrive at the altar.

The reader may be asking: What has KTO said about this in the comments? What’s their response? They have said nothing. Their response is consistently silence. They seem unable to speak. They never respond to anything. I honestly don’t know why they allow comments. They never comment. And the only comments they receive lately are little prayers. What’s the point of writing a comment that says, “Ave, Ave, Ave maria” as one commenter writes week after week. Or do some Catholics consider writing that a form of prayer? One feels the need to pray in the comments?

The Catholics certainly do come with some very outdated thinking and disrespect for music. At least in the context of their own liturgical music, would it really pain KTO-TV and members of the congregation to modernise and take a different approach where the music and musicians of the Messe are given the same respect as the clergy and the rest of the Messe? Chau.—el barrio rosa


About the writer: The writer is a graduate of a Conservatory of Music in the US with a focus on choral music, and with a major in piano and a double-minor in voice and pipe organ, and was also a chorister in three major Orchestra Choruses having had the privilege of performing with major (inter)national orchestras and conductors with frequent performances in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall as a chorister in the Choral Arts Society of Washington (Norman Scribner, Chorus Director), the University of Maryland Chorus (Dr Paul Traver, Chorus Director), and in San Francisco’s Davies Symphony Hall with the San Francisco Symphony Chorus (Margaret Hillis and Vance George, Chorus Director).

Millennials: What funeral are you waiting to go to?

This is a Millennial Safety Alert.

Hola. I’ll make this as brief as possible since it is my understanding that most Millennials can’t read or comprehend anything beyond 140 characters or more recently 280 characters.

Millennials: To be seen at night and to avoid being hit by motorists and cyclists, you must wear reflective clothing. If you insist on wearing your conformist, conservative and mandatory all-black Millennial Shroud UniformTM that you wear every day of the year — I hope you wash it occasionally! — you must wear something reflective in addition to that to be seen at night. Otherwise, you run the risk of being hit. Do you want to be hit? I think to most people this is basic sense/very remedial, but unfortunately most Millennials missed this along the way. No one ever taught you that conservative all-black funeral attire (head-to-toe black clothing) cannot be seen at night? Or you haven’t observed that for yourself? No I suppose you wouldn’t, because that would require your having to look up from your phone. Not. About. To. Happen. And motorists and cyclists (such as myself) can’t see you until we’re right up on you, at which point it can be too late. Understand? Now I know that you’re very afraid of colour (what idiots brainwashed that into you?) and you prefer to look completely zombie-like and conformist in clothes that one would normally wear to a funeral. But for your own safety — and assuming your safety is more important to you than being seen in your conformist drab and depressed-looking “uniform” — please wear some reflective clothing/item on your person with pretty bright colours in it so you can be seen at night when you’re jogging in all black, walking across the street in all black or riding your bicycle in all black and without any lights (not very intelligent). Muchas gracias. Chau.—el barrio rosa

(roll eyes)

Whoever thought I’d have to write this? People without basic sense. Stupid is in. Who are these Millennials? They are among the most stupid people on the planet with their phone in their face and absolutely no social skills whatsoever. They come with their self-entitled, self-absorbed enormous egos — they’ve been told by their parents and others how wonderful they are and that they deserve the best — with their blank stares or angry-looking facial expressions and their miserable/nasty personalities. A chip on both shoulders best describes them. I think it would break their face if they ever had to smile. And don’t expect to hear the words “excuse me” from them because that’s not in their vocabulary. All they can do is grunt or say the word “like.” This defines most Millennials from my unfortunate experience with them.

Wouldn’t you think that a “lawmaker” would have a law degree?

Think again. One can be a US Senator with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Ridiculous.

Hola a todos. Members of the cesspool called the US Congress — Representatives (House) and Senators (Senate) — are often referred to as “lawmakers” or “the lawmaker,” yet some of them (or is it most?) have no legal training at all. Did you know that? They have never been to law school. They are not an attorney and do not have the Juris Doctor degree (J.D. or JD as its known). Does anyone else find this odd, if not outrageous? The logical question then is: How can these people make laws without having any legal training or a law degree? WTF?

I began to think about this the other day when “the senior senator” (Dahling) Dianne Feinstein, who has been sitting in congress all these years without a law degree or any legal training whatsoever, and who has told us repeatedly that she thinks that the current occupant of la casa blanca/the white house could be a good “president,” and that we should expect “it” to serve its full term. Does anyone else need any additional confirmation of her intentions during the tenure of his regime? She was questioning someone who appeared before a senate committee and who was trying to keep the special counsel from being fired by the current occupant of la casa blanca. Feinstein said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t have any legal training, and she was having trouble understanding what they were telling her. (roll eyes) I thought: Then WTF are you doing in congress without a law degree while calling yourself “a lawmaker?”

That would be like me teaching in a Conservatory of Music without any music training or a degree in music. That is not allowed. With the one exception being that the non-degreed musician is an internationally-known concert artist and is hired as an “Artist in Residence” by the Conservatory or a University’s School of Music. In that instance and only in that instance can a musician be on the faculty without having an advanced degree in music and that’s because the artist studied privately with a world-renowned artist(s) before becoming an international concert artist. And in the case of piano, the artist probably won multiple international piano competitions which led to touring opportunities as a concert artist. But in any other circumstance, one is required to have a DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts) degree in music or pursuing one (often at night and teaching during the day) to be on the music faculty in a Conservatory or a University’s School of Music.

So how is it that these basura in congress (both House and Senate) can get by having a Bachelor of Arts degree completely unrelated to what they’re doing in congress? No wonder we’re in such a disaster politically. I had looked this up a few weeks ago when researching her background. Feinstein has a BA in History from Stanford University. That’s a Bachelor of Arts degree. She’s in the US Senate with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History? WTF? I didn’t think she had a law degree or any legal training, and she doesn’t.

For those who don’t know, Feinstein was on the Board of Supervisors here in San Francisco and was mayor for two terms, but first got in the job of mayor by default when Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were killed and she was board president and instantly became (interim) mayor, but neither of those jobs (supervisor or mayor) require any legal training either.

Feinstein was given one of those ugly, feel-good honorary doctorate law degrees (Honorary degree of Doctor of Laws) back in 1977 from Golden Gate University here in San Francisco. Honorary degrees are meaningless and carry no weight, although I have known some people to start calling themselves “Dr” after they received one, which is really tacky. The only doctorate degrees that matter are ones that are earned through years of study. There are some professional musicians who after earning their DMA continue to refer to themselves by their first name, rather than “Dr ____.” I think they do so because they think that even though they worked extremely hard to earn their DMA, it can come off as a bit pretentious, elitist and formal to call yourself “Doctor _____.”

Any idiot can be on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors or serve as mayor. The current San Francisco mayor is a corporate hack and shill who permanently resides in the upper colon of the techies, greedy developers, and he is also owned by a billionaire venture capitalist. Both jobs (mayor and Board member) unofficially require being a shill and hack for corporate interests while calling oneself a “moderate” when in reality one is quite conservative. In San Francisco, a “moderate” is code language for being a conservative. And today, one has to be a shill for the parasitic and predatory Tech Industrial ComplexTM which now owns San Francisco.

As for congress, any idiot can be a member of congress (House or Senate) — and that’s mostly what they seem to attract — if one is able to bamboozle enough gullible and devoutly partisan sheeple into voting for the career politician one term after another.

The US really has some pathetically lame requirements for some important positions having a bearing and major consequences on millions of people’s lives. If one has no legal training, one should not be called a “lawmaker” or even allowed to make laws. Such a person should not be allowed in the congress. In any other job I can think of, one has to have some or extensive training specifically related to that particular field, including degrees related to that field (not some Bachelor of Arts degree in History). But rather than any legal training, the only requirements for being a representative or senator these days seem to be: 1) wealth (and in many cases a millionaire), 2) being partisan, and 3) in the case of Feinstein, acting as if she’s afraid of her own shadow (“terror, terror, terror”), and 4) working to erode the US Constitution. The last I heard, about half of the congress consists of millionaires. Both Feinstein and Pelosi keep getting elected — no matter how often they serve as enablers for their close friends, the Republicans — by the devoutly partisan Democratic voters of San Francisco. I suspect most voters in San Francisco probably couldn’t tell you anything about either of them, such as details about their voting record. In San Francisco, most people vote 1) by name recognition, 2) by that “D” next to the candidate’s name and 3) based on which candidate is endorsed on their slate card. And that’s precisely why we keep ending up with the same basura — without any legal training or law degrees — one election after the other.

Oh and by the way, speaking of Nancy Pelosi, she doesn’t have a law degree either or any legal training. Like Feinstein, she also has a Bachelor of Arts, from Trinity Washington University.

These congresswomen (Senator Feinstein and Representative Pelosi) — and there are congressmen (representatives and senators) just like them — have been in congress how many years? How many terms? They’re living there in my former hometown, the District of Columbia, the nation’s capital. There are at least two fine law schools that I know of in the District: Georgetown University and George Washington University (located in Foggy Bottom). When I lived in the District, some of my amigos/friends were studying law at Georgetown and at GWU to become an attorney. Both Feinstein and Pelosi are millionaires so money for tuition can’t be a problem. Why haven’t they pursued law degrees over the years to be fully qualified and to fully understand law as a “lawmaker” in congress and to better themselves? I wonder why that might be? Hmmmmmmmm? I suppose they would say: A law degree and legal training are not needed for this job of “lawmaker,” so why should I bother with that? Yes, I suppose it would give you less time to party and to rub shoulders with influential people and corporate interests who will benefit you financially through various (war) contracts and other deals through the Military Industrial Complex et al. (Take your pick from this list: Feinstein: War Profiteer).

The Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan) doesn’t have a law degree either or legal training. He’s another one with a Bachelor’s degree. His is in economics and political science from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. I’m sitting here partly laughing at this and these Bachelor degrees for being members of congress and degrees that are completely unrelated to what they do in congress. This would be funny if it were not so serious, in that these corporate parasites of the US Oligarchy effect millions of people’s lives by the often draconian decisions they make without any legal training or background. It’s really reprehensible. But they don’t care. With their Bachelor degrees (if they even have that), both teams (D and R) work for their corporate owners and the Military Industrial Complex, et al.

On the positive side, there is at least one person in congress with an advanced degree, although it’s completely unrelated to what he’s doing in congress and that’s Senator Rand Paul who has a MD from Duke University School of Medicine with a residency in Ophthalmology where he specialised in cataract and glaucoma surgeries.

Joe Biden has a JD from Syracuse University School of Law. And you may remember that during Obama’s first campaign, his teary-eyed cultists were going on about him being “a Constitutional Scholar.” We heard that hundreds of times from them about their new-found messiah. It didn’t seem to matter though, because even though he as a JD from Harvard University School of Law, after he became president “Mr Constitutional Scholar” helped to shred the US Constitution during the 8 years of his expansion of the illegitimate Bush regime’s neocon agenda.

And the qualifications required to be president are just as pathetically lame. Any idiot can be president if they’re a US citizen, 35 years of age and able to successfully bamboozle enough of the stupid and gullible US public and electors of the outdated electoral college to get them to vote for them. Just play them emotionally and feed them feel-good pabulum. That always works. It worked for Obama with his “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In” marketing bull shit. Playing them emotionally with feel-good pabulum worked for the thing we have now occupying the oval office. That international embarrassment. As for his training — or was he given grades to get him out of the school? — he has a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Wharton School. So one can be in occupying the office of president with a BS degree. Sigh.

Wouldn’t you think that these politicians with JD degrees would sort of look down on these politicians with no legal training? I should think so. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Socialist Equality Party: Blame the Victim

Hola a todos. Awhile back I remember reading an interview with singer, Helen Reddy, wherein she said, “We’ve lost a lot” or something very close to that. By the way, Helen is still singing these days (she came out of retirement), although not exactly the same repertoire she became known for. With some of her older repertoire, she’s doing medleys of them instead. Her voice pretty much sounds the same. And she had cataract surgery awhile back. She spoke about how we’ve lost a lot in the feminist sense since the days of when she was singing, “I Am Woman.” Yes I would say that’s true. For example, much of the language changes that progressive-thinking people had accomplished over the decades have since regressed backwards from what I’m seeing and hearing. What I’m talking about is what has become known as “politically correct language.” Oh, I can hear the screams now, and feel the hate coming at me since there is this rabid hate for politically-correct language these days from all sides. This venom started from the far-right and some fake-progressives/fake-liberals have also fallen in line lockstep with them to oppose PC language. I still use what’s known as “politically-correct language” — although I usually refer to it as gender neutral language — and will continue to do so because to me it’s just intelligent language in that it is non-gender specific.

Some people never grasped the feminist concept to begin with, or outright rejected it. The one website that comes to mind where one can predict and expect a glaring lack of feminist thinking is the Socialist Equality Party’s (SEP’s/ICFI’s) website. They are quite the piece of work in that regard. The reader may be saying, “Oh you’re not going to write about them again, are you?” No more than I have to, to make my point. Our little group of San Francisco Queers met the other night and my recent article about the SEP came up. Mi amigo/My friend had been back on their site (oh you poor thing!) and told me that the SEP’s sexism had risen again. Oh? We’re not surprised, are we? But let me back up a bit. For those who know nothing about these people. The SEP is this small group (with the big heads) of pseudo-socialists who live with delusions of grandeur that:

1) the problems in our society are because of class (one’s class)
2) a revolution by the “working class” is imminent,
3) capitalism is on the verge of collapse in the US, and
4) they (the SEP) are going to change the status-quo.

They live with these enormously enlarged egos that they are such a major political force to be dealt with (ha!), when in reality most people have never even heard of them, and at s-election time their candidates are rarely on anyone’s ballot and they get so few votes that their own website never publishes or makes mention of how many votes their candidates did receive. I suspect embarrassingly few.

As usual, one of their male writers recently wrote in non-feminist style about the US congress using the language, “congressmen and senators.” As I’ve pointed out many times before, this is sloppy language, and not what one would expect from a credible writer/journalist. What that writer should have written is: representatives (not “congressmen“) and senators, and that’s because senators are congressmen congresspersons. Everyone in the Congress — both the House and Senate — is a congressmen congressperson, regardless of which body they’re in. The US congress consists of two bodies: the House (Representatives) and Senate (Senators). And I’m sure the many women in the US congress thoroughly appreciate being referred to as men, as in “congressmen.” Their congressional staff refer to them as “the congresswoman” or “Representative (name)” or “Senator (name).”

Mi amigo wanted to address the SEP’s sexism in this regard by writing a comment to them but he knows full well (as do I) that he would be immediately attacked for his comment because one is not allowed to be critical of the SEP’s writers without the SEP cultist commenters attacking the person being critical of their god writers. There’s this cult-like following among the devout/regular commenters on their site that their writers are seen as above-reproach and sacrosanct, or that’s the strong impression one gets. The only appropriate comment one can write (and have successfully posted) to one of their writers is, “You’ve hit the nail on the head once again (name of writer).” In fact, mi amigo told me he saw two instances of just that comment — “You’ve hit the nail on the head once again” — in the comments below that article. And incredibly, the females on the site are the first to defend any sexism, chauvinism and misogyny. Yes, that’s exactly what I had noticed when I was on that site. Mi amigo told me that a local Bay Area congresswoman was referred to by two commenters as “the congressman.”

As I told mi amigo, he’s wasting his time trying to fight this. They’re not going to change at this point and their cultists will rally to their defence every time. They always do. They are good little boot lickers. Just like these pseudo-socialist hypocrites are not about to change their addiction to billionaire-owned “social media” sites while out of the other side of their mouth they pretend to, claim to oppose the billionaire class. With tech, they make an exception in this instance, so as not to disturb their own comfort level.

Having been on that site in the past myself and when people mentioned something about themselves including their age, I think/suspect most of them are of the age group where they grew up at a time where sexism, chauvinism and misogyny were quite acceptable and the norm. And they’re not about to change. It’s too late for them to change, which is not necessarily the case with all seniors or older people, but I think with this group it is. Therefore, they have no intention of changing no matter how many times someone shoves their sexism, chauvinism and misogyny in their faces. They will rabidly defend their backward, outdated and puritanical thinking. Some of them seem to be stuck in a time period where “women should be barefoot and pregnant.” I remember when I was on there, I wrote in a comment (that they did post, surprisingly) that I wasn’t aware that sexism, chauvinism and misogyny were requirements for being a socialist. No one disputed that, including the women on the site. And with their backwards attitude, I think it’s quite clear why they don’t (or very rarely) write about any Queer issues such as the persecution of Queers in other countries, such as Russia. But that would be considered “identity politics” which they oppose. They see identity politics as, “a divisive, opportunist, upper-middle class conception used to advance ones career.” (roll eyes). Mi amigo and I get the distinct impression that everyone on that site — writers and commenters — is a breeder/straight and/or a gay closet case. No one has ever mentioned that they are Queer or GTQBL. Mi amigo complained to them recently about part of one of their articles which was written from a place of straight privilege. That’s the way it came off to him. He was flamed for saying that, with their cultist commenters piling on defending their messiah writer.

Helen Reddy is correct when she says we’ve lost a lot as a people in the feminist sense, (and I’ll add) in other ways too. I look at the Millennial Clone breeder couples in San Francisco — in their head-to-toe all-black conformist clothing/uniform — and I observe their very sexist, chauvinistic and misogynistic breeder behaviour as they walk around The Castro and Upper Market in the required hand-in-hand or arm-in-arm mode. By their exhibitionistic behaviour, they make it obvious that they don’t see themselves as equal partners but rather the tall guy is dominant over the submissive “little girl” short female. Rarely can they be the same height. If one didn’t know any better, watching these breeder couples one would guess they were back in the 1940s-50s. A 90-year old acquaintance of mine has noticed this extreme height difference/requirement with Millennial Clone breeder couples. “What’s up with that?” she asked me recently. She brought it up one day asking whether I had noticed it and asking the reason for it because she said it looks so odd to her. I said: Oh yes, I’ve noticed it. As I told her: The guy looks like he’s with his little-child daughter and making out with her (leaning way down and over to get to her lips), rather than making out with his girlfriend or esposa/spouse, which one would think would be closer to his height, no? My 90-year old acquaintance told me that, “back in my day all the couples I knew were roughly the same height.” My parents were about the same height.

SEP: Blame the Victim

You may be aware of what’s currently going on with an actor (initials KS) who recently came out of the closet at the same time he was accused of sexual advances allegedly taking place some thirty years ago when the accuser was 14 years old and KS was 26 years old. Other people have since come forward with similar allegations, including the “he’s a sexual predator” allegation from another actor’s son.

According to mi amigo, the SEP wrote an article about this wherein they attacked the victim who had come forward, and they spent six paragraphs gushing over KS’s career, when in a legal sense, what KS has accomplished as an actor is moot, completely irrelevant to the allegations. But I found it interesting to hear that the SEP had attacked the victim and rushed to the defence of the actor. Because as memory serves, that’s what they usually do. They attack the victim, seemingly never wanting to believe the victim’s allegations. According to them, the victim (it’s usually a female except in the case of KS) has an agenda involving other motives. The SEP typically calls this a “witch hunt” against the accuser as they have done in the case of KS. Looking back through their archives a bit, I found other stories of (alleged) sexual assault where the SEP writer was also attacking the victim. Except in the case of this Queer actor, it seems to me that this “attack the victim” mentality/approach — and again, where the victim is usually a female in other instances — goes hand-in-glove with their outdated sexist, chauvinistic and misogynistic thinking. And if it were not for that, I probably wouldn’t even be writing about this.

As I was completing this article, I went over to their site. Surprisingly, two commenters were able to have their comments successfully posted on their site. I’ve slightly re-worded both comments for copyright purposes without changing their message, so neither are exact quotes:

This so-called “socialist” site appears to be an all-male brocialist circle-jerk defending a powerful male actor who’s facing sexual assault allegations. How socialist of you. The fact of this being a mostly male group on this site with some reprehensibly misogynistic perspectives on this matter disqualifies you all as socialists. Maybe you all call yourselves a socialist, but your attitudes here betray your reactionary political inclinations. Socialism is radically feminist by definition. You can’t talk about a classless society based on equality when your own words and actions defend patriarchy. I dare any of you to go to an actual socialist organization and say the stuff you’re saying, without some consequences, and rightfully so.

I see I’m not the only person who thinks that.

Then this excerpt from a comment from another person:

As he so often does, this writer asserts his freedom from bourgeois prejudice by siding with the serial sexual predator. He did exactly the same thing with Roman Polanski, excusing his anally sodomizing a 13-year old girl who was pimped to him by her mother on the grounds that Polanski had survived the Holocaust and was a great artist. Perhaps it never occurred to this writer that even some cinematically gifted pedophiles get caught in the gears of the Nazi War machine and that Polanski was one of them. The fact that Polanski went on to say in his autobiography that all of us real men want to pound those “young colts” did not awaken this writer…

Chau.—el barrio rosa


The SEP’s Billionaire-Class Hypocrisy and “Social Media”

“How F***B**k’s tentacles reach further than you think: Vladan Joler says that all FB users are effectively working on behalf of the company; If FB were a country, it would be bigger than China” says Mr Joler, whose day job is as a professor at Serbia’s Novi Sad University.”

The Holidays began October 3, 2017. A little early don’t you think?

Hola a todos. In case you missed it, the holidays began a little over a month ago on el 3 de octubre de 2017/October 3, 2017. That was the day that The Q (the major television shopping network) rolled out their holiday trees and began decorating their twenty (20) studio sets. A little early, don’t you think? Three months early. Barely out of septiembre/September and their trees were out — all pre-decorated and stored in a large room somewhere I would guess; they just roll them out each year and plug them in — followed by other decorations. And they seem to keep adding more large trees as of this writing. They have two to three large trees per set so that there’s at least one tree (if not two) within camera view at all times, and I’ve seen a Menorah or two in the background of some of the sets. Even though as of this writing it’s not snowing in Pennsylvania where their studios and headquarters are located, one gets the impression it’s a “winter wonderland” there with the images of snow outside the faux-studio windows, most of which are real windows (I think) it’s just that they don’t face outside.

For the month of julio/July 2017, The Q featured holiday decorations for sale. They called it “Christmas in July.” After julio, they continued to sell some holiday lighting and other holiday items at times, and still are. They’ve really been working it. Around the middle of October, I think I heard them say “there’s (either) six or eight weeks before Christmas.” When I heard that in their promo, I thought: Well no, that’s Advent. Christmas doesn’t begin until December 25 and goes for twelve days until January 5. It will be interesting to see if all of their holiday decorations disappears on December 26 (the Second Day of Christmas) or on January 1 (the Eighth Day of Christmas) or somewhere in between.

When San Francisco was a Gay Mecca during the Bohemian Old City days, most people said “Happy Holidays.” But since The City has become quite conservative, the Breeder Mecca as well as utterly conformist and erased of its Bohemian character and charm, I mostly hear “Merry Christmas” from the baby-stroller traditionalist breeders and some Queers/GTQBLs. On The Q, they mostly refer to Christmas, rather than the holidays.

For those who don’t know, the reason some of us use Happy Holidays is because it does not assume that anyone is religious (as in Christmas, which means Christ’s Mass), or of any particular faith or that one celebrates anything. Some people don’t; I don’t celebrate anything at that time of year. I’m one that’s glad when it’s over. I loved it as a child and it was my favourite holiday and I felt depressed when it was over, but as an adult I find it all a bit much, too routine and predictable. And if I don’t hear that “warhorse” Händel’s Messiah again for the umpteenth time I’ll be just fine. “Happy Holidays” is also inclusive of all the holidays around that time of year. There are other holidays other than Navidad. (Related: Not Messiah again?!).

The Stress of the Holidays?

The other night I was listening to one of the programme hosts on The Q. The hosts and guests (representing the item they’re selling) routinely use the word “love” probably hundreds of times a day. They “love” everything they sell — it’s a marketing technique — and one can hear them often say, “I love that you just said that, because…” and their clothing lines are usually described as “so chic, expensive-looking, rich-looking and modern.” They are some of the retail marketing/buzzwords they use. On another occasion, I heard one programme host say, “We’re all dealing with such stress of the holidays during that time.” I thought: Did you hear what you just said? She didn’t question why there is such stress. But how ironic she would say that considering it’s her own network that encourages the stress of the holidays because they are in business to generate sales, especially during the holidays. And until the public says, “Enough of this greed fest. Didn’t we just do this a few months ago? That’s what it feels like” things will continue as they are. In reality, one of the holidays at that time of year, Christmas, has mostly become a secular holiday due to its over commercialisation. It’s become like most other holidays. It’s just a day off for most people. Oh I know that the (what I call) “Christmas and Easter Christians” go through the motions and go to church on Christmas, just because they think they must.

Kim Gravel (pronounced GraVEL, accent on the second syllable) is one of the clothing designers featured on The Q. She’s quite a character. You never know what she’s going to say (such as “Are you on crack?” she asked programme host Shawn one night when Shawn asked Kim if she were a first-time customer of The Q). Kim is probably the most entertaining and down-to-Earth guest they have in their studios. She’s often talking about boobs/”the girls” in reference to her clothing line and how she’s designed her clothes for women. Her message when she starts to “preach” (as she calls it) is that of “Empowering Women.” She also connects some of her stories about her clothing line specifically to her mother who has also been in their studios. In one of Kim’s latest appearances, Jayne Brown, the programme host at the time (and one of my favourites), said, “we’re only 7 minutes into this show and we’re already talking about boobs with Kim.” Kim can be very heteronormative. I wonder if she’s aware of that? For example, she assumes the sexuality of some of the models; she assumes they are breeders/straight when some of them may be la lesbiana. One never knows. Just because someone is a female and single it’s best not assume that someone is “looking for a husband” when one knows nothing about them and their sexuality. Kim Dear: El mundo/The world is not all breeders, even though I’m fully aware that’s the impression that nearly all media try to give. There are lots of Queer people in the world. For example, there are thousands of Queer guys still in the closet and married to females and have children – yes that’s true!. (Related: Going Backwards: More Gay Guys Getting Married To Females). And there are some Queers/GTQBLs working at The Q, and some of them may be models. Kim often has the models in stitches temporarily losing their “model composure” with laughter at something she has just said. I enjoy those segments. Kim will tell one of the models, “Look at Jackie, she’s getting all cocky strutting around here.” Jackie (always humble and modest) laughs. And most of their models seem to be very down to Earth and the nicest of people. Not at all like the snooty-looking models one often sees on moda/fashion runways where they look like lobotomised walking mannequins with no personality at all. Just empty vessels. No, The Q’s models are not like that at all. Two of my favourite models are Jackie and Maday (sp?) and they’re often scheduled together. And to be a model at The Q, one does not have to be anorexic-looking. Their models come in all sizes just like the public that they’re modeling for and selling to. This gives one a much more realistic view of how a clothing item will look on someone regardless of their body size. They all look lovely. The programme hosts also come in a variety of sizes. I think it was Carolyn who was praising The Q’s management, “Anybody can work here; they hired me when I was middle-aged” (I think she said). From what I’ve read, the programme hosts do have extensive training — I think it’s six months if I remember correctly — for being a programme host before being allowed to go on the air. All of their guest receive training as well before going on air to prevent any on-air “meltdowns” (due to nervousness).

Two of my favourite show hosts are “the Black Sistas” (as I affectionally call them): Jayne Brown and Leah Williams. I like their laid-back, sometimes “jive” style…”you go, girls!”). Put Kim Gravel and Jayne Brown together — they were together the other day in fact — and watch the “jive” flow at times. I enjoy listening to Jayne talk; she speaks extremely well. The same for another favourite host of mine: Alberti Popaj. He’s a lovely guy. He’s quite versatile as a programme host. He works with some of the guests brought into their studios that other guy hosts never work with.

I want to go back to Kim: Most recently she’s been pushing this marketing script of “class” and wealth. Does that turn off any viewers other than myself? She also heavily promotes one of the biggest data-mining and spy-machine on the internet: F***b**k. (Related: How F***b**k’s tentacles reach further than you think: “Vladan Joler says that all F***b**k users are effectively working on behalf of the company.”) And no, this is not “loony conspiracy theorists” stuff. It’s factual. Read that article, por favor. The host (egged on by Kim) said something to the effect that if you walk down a street in Manhattan in black and a bronze coloured clothing item, “you scream wealth.” And that’s important? Just a reminder that their studios are nowhere near Manhattan being out in “the wilds of Pennsylvania,” but they are trying to present this elitist, wealthy and bougi Manhattan image. Personally, I’m not at all impressed by wealth or one’s class. The people I hang with are not into wealth, class and are not impressed by such stuff. I’m not impressed by “sitting at the captain’s table” or by “being in the boardroom” which was part of the host’s script in her conversation with Kim. Some of these show hosts do enjoy putting on these airs of trying to impress based on wealth and materialistic stuff. I’ve been in enough corporate boardrooms in the corporate law firms I worked in to know that they are one boring, dull place. They were usually people sitting around a table droning on for hours with these big plans, where most of it never happens. Just a way of wasting time. Frankly, I’d be much more comfortable talking with the janitor than some captain at a table. I know there is a segment of the population who is into class stuff or an upper class mentality, and that is heavily shoved on the public these days with the US and its obsession with the British Royal Family and the every move made by William, Kate — no, she’s not pregnant with twin girls according to Kensington Palace so stop repeating that lie/rumour — Harry et al, as well as this fixation with US celebrity culture. (Related: The British Royal Baby Factory).

I’ve seen Kim paired with several different females hosts and in my opinion she works the best with the Black women hosts (“the sistas”). She seems to have a more natural and special rapport with them, as I would too. Kim has this “down home” jive to her which the Black women hosts more easily relate to. I can relate to that because when I lived in the District of Columbia, which at that time was known as “Chocolate City” because of the majority Black population, most of my female friends were the Black sistas who worked in the downtown offices around Connecticut Avenue and K Streets NW, and we got along real well. Went to lunch together. Some of las chicas looked like models right out of Georgetown, Dahling. But they weren’t like that at all. They were very friendly and down-to-Earth. My type of people. Some of the white female hosts seem to push this “class” and “screaming wealth” script more so than the Black hosts, from what I’ve noticed.

As I said earlier, some hosts and guests on The Q try to give the impression that their studios are near Manhattan. Their headquarters and studios are about 25 miles outside of Philadelphia in West Goshen Township (estimated population as of 2016: 23,000). As I said earlier, the image they’re trying to present is that of Manhattan “which screams wealth.” Of course they don’t say that Manhattan is where the middle class/working class and poor are quickly being pushed out, just like what’s happening in San Francisco (now a playground for the super-wealthy here in what’s known as Billionaire Bay) where the Tech Industrial ComplexTM owns/controls the mayor and his billionaire venture capitalist owner. Kim talked about flying in for her appearance on the network in some clothes they were selling and how she was “bumming around” in New York City in them. I thought: What were you doing in NYC/Manhattan? — assuming you were — when you needed to be in Philadelphia in order to go out to The Q’s studios? Or was that story about NYC/Manhattan pure fiction? She spoke of the 6 women she works with of her clothing line. Was she trying to give the impression they made all the clothes? I wasn’t clear on that. Yet when the camera showed an up-close shot of the Belle label on Kim’s clothes hanging on the rack, it said “Made in China” which, at least to me, doesn’t exactly “scream wealth,” bougi or elitist.

Along that same line, one of their designers who shall remain nameless (one clue: he’s nearly always wearing conservative all-black head-to-toe and looks ready to go to a traditional funeral) tries to give the impression that his line of clothes is similar to the other clothing lines on the network. The “screams wealth” script. But when you listen to him speak he’s often talking in US Pop Culture style using the word “like” over and over and ending his sentences with the word, “right?” as if needing affirmation. For example: “This is chic, right?” I’m thinking to myself: Well don’t you know if it’s chic or not? You designed it! There’s this new silly US Pop Culture fad I’ve noticed recently where people think they must end their sentences with the word “right?” It sounds really stupid. But admittedly, stupid is “in” and fashionable here in the US. Is this designer not aware that he has a clash in styles? My point: His speaking style does not match the “elegance,” “expensive-looking,” “rich-looking,” and “chic” bougi image he’s trying to present with his clothing line. That’s because the wealthier, the bougi, the elite don’t speak in US Pop Culture style. They don’t fill their sentences with the word “like” nor do they end sentences with “right?” That’s something he might want to examine. Does he want his clothing line to appeal to stupid US Pop Culture, or to the Manhattan “it screams wealth” crowd? They are two very different crowds, classes of people.


Even before the invention of these extremely addictive “smartphones” causing people to be slaves to their phones, there was the mobile phone. Years ago, I used to see bumper stickers around San Francisco that read, HANG UP AND DRIVE!!! Remember that? Other motorists were tired of dealing with distracted and inconsiderate motorists/drivers glued to their phones. I no longer see those bumper stickers now that most people have become completely addicted to (what I call) stupid phones. I call them stupid phones because these phones seem to have made the population more and more stupid and distracted judging by their behaviour, such as walking out into busy traffic without looking either direction and without looking up from one’s phone — an extremely stupid thing to do — where all responsibility is on the motorist not to hit the seemingly brain-dead phone-zombie. As I’m completing this article, I was very sorry to see The Q selling something to cause more and more motorists to become distracted while driving. It’s a magnetic item that attaches to the dashboard to hold one’s precious phone so that one never has to take one’s eyes off their phone screen. The unspoken message: Be a slave to your phone, even while driving! In the demonstration inside The Q’s grey SUV in the studio, the phone was roughly an inch away from the steering wheel. (I’ve also seen them hanging from the rear-view mirror — blocking part of the view — in vehicles in San Francisco). The guest showed the viewer how easy it would be to play with the phone while driving by poking the screen with his finger a few times. This will result in even more distracted drivers on our streets and freeways around the US. I see them in San Francisco. People distracted on their phones and they nearly rear-end other motorists even in slow-go traffic because they’re glued to their phone and not paying attention to where they’re going. That extremely important text message saying, “c u @ bar @ 6p 4 drinks” or “meet 4 sex @ noon” is more important to them than their safety. Or, such as those people who are stuck on their phone while the light turns green and multiple motorists have to try to wake them up out of their phone-zombie daze to try to get them to go, as the light turns yellow. There’s a name for people like that: Los Pendejos. Inconsiderate phone-zombies. That phone is their entire life, and their entire life is on that phone. Not very intelligent to have all of one’s information in one place. I had read some time ago that some states were going to outlaw motorists being on their phones while driving but apparently nothing has happened with that. With the insane drivers I see these days and their recklessness — and I’m mainly talking about the wealthy drivers in their status-symbol vehicles — one’s mind should be completely on driving if one wants to get where they’re going in one piece, and not distracted by a phone or anything else. There is no need for anyone to be on a phone while driving, unless one has an emergency, and even in that case one should pull over if possible. Being on a phone while driving is extremely irresponsible behaviour. But it appears that that’s exactly the type of behaviour that is “in” these days. This dashboard attachment will encourage more phone-zombie addiction. “Oh it won’t happen to me, I won’t get in an accident, I’m special, I won’t hurt or kill anybody such as a pedestrian or a cyclist. I can drive and be on a phone at the same time. I’m really super and good at ‘multi-tasking’.” (roll eyes) That’s what many people in Denial will likely say. I’ve seen many stories about people being killed — either killed themselves and/or others — because they thought they were so good at “multi-tasking” while driving: busy texting, taking a selfie or video recording themselves while driving. Sigh. What The Q should be selling are dashboard attachments that remind the driver to: “HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!” Chau.—el barrio rosa

Go to The Castro to prove you’re straight

What’s up with breeders making out at Harvey Milk Plaza under the giant Rainbow Flag?

Hola a todos. Oh they love to do that, don’t they?! Regular readers may be asking, “what’s new about that?” Oh, I know nothing is new about it. It’s just damn annoying. Presumably as a way of showing that “We, obnoxious breeders, have taken over and will continue to do so, so you faggots get out of here.” And I would not doubt that some of them or most of them use that exact homophobic language considering the anti-gay looks that some of us get around here when we make the mistake of even fleetingly glancing at these obnoxious (usually Millennial) breeder trash assholes who have moved in here. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question: “What conservative backwater cesspool of a hell hole did these adamantly conformist breeder Millennial trash move here from? jesus! Can’t stand most of these lobotomised phone-addicted zombies. Their personality is that of hardened cement. A chip on both shoulders. No ability to smile, no ability to say “excuse me,” no social skills whatsoever. And typing up to 140 characters in a box on some billionaire-owned so-called “social media” site is not an example of possessing genuine social skills.

Here’s the thing: They moved to a former gay area where there are still some Queer people left (although one never knows who lives here versus those visiting from around the Bay Area), and when a Queer guy who has lived here for decades makes the mistake of looking at them, they rear up and get offended. Well fuck off all you! Why the fuck did you move here anywhere? Were you that fucking clueless and ignorant on where you were moving and the history of The Castro? Fucking closet cases. Yes, these (closet case?) guys love to make out with a female under Rainbow Flags and in a plaza named after Queer boy activist, Harvey Milk, to prove just how straight they are. Some of us are not convinced of your supposed straight sexuality no matter how often you make out with a female, los pendejos.

Mi amigo/My friend went to his gym this morning and on the way back saw two Millennial-asshole white him-tall/her-short (they never can be the same height) breeder couples making out in the Harvey Milk Plaza, of all places. Mi amigo told me, “The guy in the first couple saw me coming and it was as if he felt he had to prove how straight he was to me. So he quickly leaned way down while I was still looking so I could see him kiss the female he was with. They had to have a make-out session right there. Then a few feet away from them, another Millennial-asshole white him-tall/her-short breeder couple felt the need to copy the first couple, so they began having a make-out session too.

Many of us Queers do not feel this is merely random behaviour, but very deliberate behaviour. It’s a very concerted breeder effort. It’s a breeder territorial thing as to say, “We, breeders, own The Castro now.” Queers don’t go down to the Marina — a traditionally breeder area of San Francisco — to make out and put on a show for the breeders down there. If we did, we would likely be screamed at, “Stop that! You can’t do that here! Take that disgusting behaviour back to The Castro!” But these breeder assholes love to come over here to what little remains of a Queer area to make out, hold hands, coo each other, and nearly fuck on the sidewalk if they can get away with it. GET A ROOM SOMEWHERE, ASSHOLES! There’s a motel right down the street there on Market Street. Get your asses down there. And apparently, this behaviour can also be seen in restaurants. Awhile back, I was reading the reviews for a restaurant on Market Street and some customers were complaining about the inconsiderate Millennial breeder couple assholes who feel the need to make-out in the restaurant while eating dinner, with other customers trying to eat their dinner in close proximity. I’m glad I no longer eat in restaurants.

I would like to remind readers that it was the breeder trash who whined, moaned and complained for years about “gay people being so in your face with their sexuality.” Well, what the fuck do you call this? I guess it’s okay when breeders do it. I guess it’s perfectly okay for breeders to make out and nearly fuck on the sidewalk, but it’s not okay when Queers do it. Hypocrites.

Mi amigo said: As far as I’m concerned, any guy who’s deliberately in The Castro is Queer — because what other reason would he be over here? — and when he’s making out with a female he’s trying to prove how straight he is, as if anyone gives a fuck! Another fucking closet case. I don’t doubt that that’s the case at all.

Early mornings on the weekends seem to be the worst for this obnoxious breeder behaviour. That’s when the Millennial-asshole black-clothed breeders are out with their fleets of black baby strollers. None of them have ever heard of any forms of birth control. They want a very over-populated planet, and they probably eat dead animals, but they use the sanitised language and call it “meat.”

Mi amigo told me that he most definitely got the feeling that the guy of the first breeder couple was ultimately concerned about proving how straight he was to him (why?). Why would it be important to a guy to prove how straight he is to another guy that he doesn’t even know? Well, closet cases do indeed think that way. That’s true. Mi amigo said: I wouldn’t be surprised if when that guy gets home he thinks to himself, “I really showed that guy this morning how straight I am by making out with a female in The Castro. I want to be straight. I want to be straight. Make me straight.” That’s the same shit I’ve read on gay conversion sites.

As I’ve said many times before, people who are secure with themselves and their sexuality don’t need to prove anything to anyone. It’s the fucked-up-in-the-head gay closet cases among us who feel the need to prove their “straight” sexuality to others and who also hate on other Queer/GTQBL people to disguise/hide their own Queer feelings. Chau.—el barrio rosa


A Concerted Effort for a Hetero take-over of San Francisco’s Castro

“Straights” come to the Castro to cheat

Closeted Gay Guy Seeking Wing-Woman

Straight Exhibitionism in The Castro (San Francisco)

San Francisco’s Straight Mecca (November 2016)

The Gay Mecca has become the Straight Mecca (The Castro Report – San Francisco)

“Proud To Be Going Straight.” At Gay Pride?