The Hypocrisy: The SEP’s cheerleading for the Billionaire Tech Industry

They rail against the billionaire class out of one side of their mouth while supporting, gushing over and even promoting the billionaire class tech industry out of the other side of their mouth.

Hola a todos. One of the people in our little local group of Queers mentioned at our get together earlier this month, mayo/May 2017, that he reads the website of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) “a couple of times a week.” Several of us groaned audibly because some of us have had bad experiences on that site. He told us that one of their very prudish writers (initials: DW) recently condemned Stephen Colbert’s jokes about El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man and referred to them as “vulgar.” LOL. Oh lord. What prudish hick town do some of these people at the SEP live in? Calling Colbert’s joke “vulgar,” is that what you would expect to hear a genuine socialist say? To me, that’s what I expect to hear from the far-right. I can’t stand fucking prudes. DW also felt the need to sanitise the word “cock” (as in penis or dick) in his article. Apparently the poor thing can’t bring himself to write sex language. Pathetic. I was under the impression that everyone who reads the SEP website is an adult, no? Of course if DW had been using the words “cock-a-doodle-do” or referring to male chickens as “cocks,” Mr Prude DW would have printed the word cock, no? So what’s the difference? Cock is cock, even though they have different meanings. They’re all spelled the same way. But he’s written very prudishly before as if he’s stuck in perhaps the Victorian era. From experience, to avoid being annoyed I don’t read what he writes. El hombre/DW has some sexual hangups since he considers a joke as tame as what Colbert told “vulgar.” I was thinking: It would be accurate to say that DW “slandered” Stephen Colbert. I say that because with the SEP anytime anyone has a word of criticism of or for the working class, the SEP drag out the Slander CardTM and accuse one of “slandering the working class.” Well, frankly I don’t give a fuck what class someone is in. If they deserve to be criticised, I criticise them. I don’t see the working class as sacrosanct to criticism as the basura at the SEP do. So since DW was critical of Colbert, was DW not “slandering” Colbert? Hmmmmmmmmm? The hypocrisy is noted.

Mi amigo also brought to our attention the following text from one of the SEP’s articles.

One of the SEP’s extremely pro-tech writers had written:

‘Advances in technology have brought humanity to a level of world interconnectivity that would have been unthinkable even 30 years ago. Cell phones, the Internet, global supply chains, and advances in transportation mean that residents of the world’s most isolated villages can communicate with friends and loved ones in the world’s metropolises and learn of world events at the swipe of a finger. This is the new technological/political-economic reality which the World working-class — and its objectively-best leadership — must master. But the potential for human progress is restrained by the fact that a handful of exploiters control the world’s productive forces and dictate the policies of governments.”

Our group responded to that and I took notes: “At the swipe of a finger” could more accurately read “at the swipe of a finger suffering from tech-itis or tendonitis” from one’s phone addiction which the SEP never write about. Maybe that’s because they’re addicted to their phones? And include in the “handful of exploiters…” the parasitic billionaire-owned tech industry itself. I’ve written about the SEP and their blind spots and hypocrisies. They rail against the billionaire class out of one side of their mouth while supporting, gushing over and even promoting the billionaire class tech industry out of the other side of their mouth. Except for one of their writers that I know of — and I take it he’s in the minority there in his views about tech — who wrote a critical article recently about one major parasitic tech company and its “$257 billion cash hoard and parasitic accumulation,” their writers have consistently gushed over and cheerleaded for the tech industry. They have failed to address the consequences, the negative ramifications of tech. Again, could that be because they’re addicted to their electronic leash/their adult pacifier (their phones), especially their writer, el pendejo: initials EL?

Yes, they claim to despise the bourgeois elite billionaire class. But that’s what tech is. Don’t they see that or do they choose not to? Tech is elitist millionaires, billionaires and billionaire venture capitalists. They despise capitalists and capitalism, but not when it comes to sacrosanct tech. And the predatory Tech Industry is thoroughly capitalistic. And these techie billionaires are why the San Francisco Bay Area is now referred to as “Billionaire Bay.: They don’t call it Billionaire’s Bay for nothing! Maps show dramatic spike in million-dollar homes in San Francisco with the MAJORITY of properties now worth seven figures or more.” The SEP have never written about Silicon Valley and the tech corporate parasites who have raped San Francisco and turned it into a lobotomised, jock-bro-mentality corporate-sports obsessed, culture-less city of economic inequality where the haves and the have-nots live right next to each other. Poverty living right next to pure Luxury (Dahling). The wealthy corporatist basura living in the ugliest sterile overpriced built-on-the-cheap dumps with their colourless boring blindly white interiors that only a !Conform, Obey, Wear Black and Gray! vapid Millennial with no taste in anything would buy. And the same for their overpriced big hearse-black SUVs.

Who has pushed for increasing anti-homeless laws in San Francisco? The billionaire class of the parasitic tech industry because when these elitist basura walk to work they feel that their pretentious and elitist ass is too good to see homeless people. Fuck off all of you! You corporatist elitist trash. And who are the homeless? Former working-class people mostly.

Tech and their complicit Real Estate Industrial Complex and their Corrupt Liars have both caused working class people — whom the SEP claim to speak for — to be forced out of San Francisco, including much of San Francisco’s Queer community.

Why does the SEP never talk about what I’m writing here when they’re gushing over the billionaire-owned tech industry? To them it’s all about how people can “learn of world events at the swipe of a finger.” Ugh. (roll eyes). So shallow and superficial.

Mi amigo told our group that some of the SEP writers have written articles about the building of Luxury Designer Condos (Dahling) in Manhattan for the super-wealthy instead of affordable housing for the working class. But they’ve written nothing about how the billionaire-owned parasitic tech industry has raped San Francisco and how the techies with their big heads and their billionaire venture capitalists have bought up the overpriced Luxury Designer Condos (Dahling), some of which sell for millions of dollars to wealthy/gullible suckers in and around San Francisco.

As for this that they wrote:

“This is the new technological/political-economic reality which the World working-class — and its objectively-best leadership — must master.”

What does “must master” translate as? Does it mean that the working class should use as much tech as possible so that the working-class helps billionaires make even more billions? Isn’t that’s essentially what they’re saying here? That’s how I interpret that. Is that why the SEP is promoting billionaire-owned F***Book now more than ever? (Related: BBC News: How F***book’s tentacles reach further than you think, “Vladan Joler says that all F***book users are effectively working on behalf of the company.”)

One of their other writers wrote:

“But for all the money [Ed. name of major tech company deleted, but I'll write it en español: Manzana] and others lay out, they essentially obtain these services for next to nothing. This is because the capacities of the mathematics, engineering and computer programming graduates they hire are a pittance compared to the outlays by society as a whole, on schools, universities and other educational facilities, without which these undoubtedly talented and gifted individuals could not have developed their expertise.”

Sigh. Ugh. You know, I wish idiot writers would stop eating the upper colon of techies and putting them up on this fucking pedestal that they don’t deserve to be put on. As if techies are somehow superior to the rest of us when they’re not. Having taught a few techies in piano classes, they were no more intelligent than anybody else I taught. Like with any other field, they have knowledge in a certain area per their training but they’re no smarter than anyone else in many other areas — and some of the techies I taught made some stupid decisions in other areas of their life — yet idiots continue to worship them and tell them what fucking “geniuses” they are. Ha! The techies I taught told me that piano study was more difficult than their training for their tech field — yet writers rarely gush over how “undoubtedly talented and gifted” well-trained classical musicians are. I didn’t find the techies any brighter, talented or gifted than anyone one else I taught. Most of my students were very intelligent. One techie I taught came to me with his superiority complex and he didn’t stay with me long because I didn’t put up with his big head. He thought he was better at the piano than he really was. Also, medical doctors (MDs) receive more years of training than techies and most MDs are not referred to as “geniuses” and “the gift to the world” as these arrogant techie assholes are. (Related: Asshole: The #1 Requirement For Being A Techie).

One person in our group whom I spoke with after writing this article asked if I was going to post this article on the SEP site in a comment. Hell no. I wouldn’t think of it! To begin with, they wouldn’t allow this on their site. But if it happened to slip through somehow in the moderation of comments — since they moderate every damn comment on their site which I find loco — I’d be rabidly attacked by the SEP cult members. They are the regulars who see their god-writers as sacrosanct and above reproach and how dare anyone speak a word of criticism about their writers or their articles, which is one reason I can’t stand their site, along with their hypocrisy.

The SEP Promotes The Billionaire Class:

Mi amigo has also noticed that they’re now more heavily promoting what Julian Assange called “the biggest data-mining spy machine on the internet.” I’m talking about F***Book. (WTF is a F***Book?) The SEP are now putting their videos on F***Book and asking readers to “Like and Follow us” on F***Book. I won’t be doing that obviously. They could be uploading their videos to (currently) non-corporate vid-me. That’s what I would expect genuine socialists to do. But the SEP brand are more like corporatist fake-socialists. (Many of them, if not all of them, eat dead animals/”meat” and don’t give a fuck about the environmental consequences.) Being corporatist fake-socialists would explain why their site is littered with corporate tech icons. They were uploading their videos to YT. By their latest actions, one has to assume that the SEP thoroughly enjoy helping a billionaire (F***Book CEO MZ) and other billionaires connected with that billionaire-owned corporation make even more billions, while the SEP complain about the billionaire class when it’s not the precious parasitic tech industry that they worship and heavily promote. Their glaring hypocrisy is noted. Chau.—el barrio rosa


Sexist and Chauvinistic Marxists (ICFI)

The Elitist Socialist Equality Party

The “i” Word Again On A Socialist Website

Jill Stein Supporters: You’re Wasting Your Time With The Conservative SEP

The Socialist Equality Party Cult

San Francisco Celebrates Manning’s Freedom?

Hola a todos. I saw a headline on my walk around San Francisco’s Castro on el 25 de mayo de 2017 that read: “San Francisco Celebrates Manning’s Freedom.” I thought: Well isn’t that’s rich? Since most of the Queer community completely abandoned Chelsea Manning after their messiah Obama declared her guilty before she even went on trial. Loco. Does it strike anyone else a bit odd that a supposed “constitutional scholar” would declare someone guilty before the person has gone to trial? (roll eyes) That seems ass-backwards to me and not very intelligent. Yet we were assured repeatedly by the Obamabots after their messiah became president what a “smart guy” he was. Upon hearing those words of guilt for Ms Manning from their messiah Obama, the Queer community abandoned Chelsea. It wasn’t until “Mr Hope and Change We Can Believe In” pardoned Chelsea that it became cool again to support her/celebrate her freedom because she now comes with Obama’s “blessings.” Isn’t that wonderful? It warms the heart doesn’t it? [sarcasm intended]. I’m glad she’s out of prison; she should have never been in prison to begin with. The one who should be in prison is war criminal and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama — Mr “Looking Forward” who protected the illegitimate Bush/Cheney regime — as well as war criminal Bush and Cheney, et al. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy here. It’s interesting how the hypocritical Queer community can turn their support for another member of the Queer community on and off like a fucking light switch just because some corporatist Democratic self-serving politician makes pronouncements about someone else. It also speaks to shallowness on the part of the Queer community. Because personally, I don’t need some corporate hack politician’s (D or R) approval of anyone for me to continue to support a person, or not. But let’s tell it like it is: Most of the Queer community are devout partisans. They go in whatever direction the wind is blowing at the time with their thoroughly corrupt and imperialistic party and its corrupt politicians. Disgusting. The Queer community dutifully keep in lockstep as good little bootlickers of their conservative celebrity Democratic politicians, whom the corporate media erroneously refer to as “liberals” and “the left” because of that “D” (for Democrat) next to their name when most of the time said politicians serve as employees of the thoroughly corrupt and imperialistic conservative Republican Party. So I found that headline about San Francisco celebrating Manning’s freedom most hypocritical considering they abandoned her and wanted nothing to do with her — and some Queers even made fun of her for being transgender — while she suffered greatly in prison. Chau.—el barrio rosa


The Cruelty Imposed On Chelsea Manning. Where’s The GLBTQ Community?

Obama commutes the prison sentence of Chelsea Manning

Transgender And In The US Military?

On another topic: Two guys stopped a techie shuttle on the same day on my walk. One of them put his backpack on the shuttle’s windshield wipers, and slammed them against the plastic(?) windshield a few times. They sat on the street in front of the blue 2-story tall shuttle for a short time. Then, probably sensing that the police had been called, they got up and slowly ended their protest. One went over to one of the stores on the theatre side of the street. Of course no one joined them because everyone else was glued to their phones and were not about to look up to see what was going on around them. In the Old City, an impromptu protest would likely have started with hundreds of people sitting in the street blocking all the tech shuttles flowing in from the South Bay. But this is the new conservative Castro now, and one wouldn’t dream of protesting and especially the sacrosanct billionaire tech industry. And considering people’s addiction to their phones, I think most people in the phone-addicted Castro absolutely adore tech because, well, it’s connected with their phone addiction. The Castro residents seem to be quite comfortable with how tech has raped San Francisco — forced the poorer Queer community out of The City — to make now-conservative San Francisco a bedroom community of Silicon Valley and a playground for the super-wealthy. The gap between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen with the poor and homeless living right next to the super-wealthy in their pretentious, sterile-looking and bougi Luxury Designer Condos (Dahling). The cops came and talked with one of the guys for a bit but I didn’t see any arrest. Most people seemed completely oblivious to the whole thing. I was the only person smiling at what I was seeing. Everyone else looked as if they had previously undergone a lobotomy and/or were disinterested, the exact opposite of The Castro of the Gay Mecca decades. Chau.—el barrio rosa

US-English Speakers Deliberately Disrespect International Languages

Hola a todos. Respected Latino journalist Rolando Nichols, based in Los Ángeles, wrote about how sad it is that US-English language journalists and talking heads parked at microphones don’t pronounce español names/words correctly. Oh don’t get me started on that, Rolando. That’s one of my complaints too. They usually don’t pronounce any español words correctly. And they don’t even try, and due to their immaturity they find it hilarious when they mangle español words because “stupid is in.” Rolando was referring to the US-English language corporate media networks in Los Ángeles. He went on to say that the people in these corporate networks are supposed to serve their community — which includes Los Latinos/Hispanos/mexicanos — and they’re not doing that when they don’t even try to pronounce español names correctly. Yes, it’s disgraceful and annoys me too. I honestly think they enjoy sounding proudly-ignorant and illiterate of other world languages with their ugly and immature US Chauvinism/Nationalism/Superiority and Exceptionalism Complex. One would think that people in the corporate media would be required as part of their job to pronounce words from foreign international languages as close to authentically correct at possible, no? I think that’s the way it used to be. But that doesn’t seem to be a requirement with the dumbed-down US corporate media today however.

This topic came to mind again with the death last year of José Fernández, the major league US baseball pitcher from Miami. Just casually observing, I noticed that the only corporate English network writing his name correctly was NBC Universal, and that may be because they own the español-language network Telemundo. The accent marks are part of his name: José Fernández. His name is part of español. Neither words are English.

Then there are the español-language networks. I have noticed that most people before the cameras at Univisión are bilingual and they can go back and forth between US-English and español fluently when they choose to or need to do so. The same may be true at Telemundo although I’ve noticed less US-English being spoken on Telemundo. I’ve read that in Miami-Dade (or I think they’re now calling that “South Florida”) where both corporate networks (Uni and Telemundo) have their production facilities that español is the dominant language or it’s very commonly spoken and it’s important to know español in South Florida. And it’s spoken as the dominant language by business owners of restaurants, for example, and the wealthier as opposed to in Los Ángeles — with its large Latino population — where it’s spoken more so by the working class. As Rolando Nichols pointed out, obviously the same is not true for the US-English language corporate media people before the cameras. Due to their immaturity, they think it’s funny and they laugh when they can’t pronounce an español word or when they mangle it. I saw Whoopie Goldberg (of all people!) act as if she thought it was hilarious that she couldn’t pronounce Univisión correctly when she was introducing someone from the network to join them on their set of the show that she’s on. I remember some clueless person (some “English-only” person) asked Jorge Ramos of Univisión why they don’t speak English on his network. (roll eyes) LOL. Well being polite, mature and a very nice person, Jorge refused to point out the obvious to this idiot that he works for an español-language network. He could have asked this ignoramus, “Well let me ask you the same question, mi amor/my love: Why don’t you speak español on your English-language network, huh?” Pendejo. But rather he politely responded by saying: “Oh we do speak English on occasion and that’s because we don’t have some words in español that are used in English. For example, in español we don’t have a word for “Social Security” so when we’re reporting on that we use the English word “Social Security” and then we go back into español.

As I’ve written before, from my experience in classical music, the Chorus Directors for the Orchestra Choruses I had the privilege of singing with brought in a language coach to assure that the Chorus was absolutely authentic in the pronunciation for the language of the choral work we were performing with the National Symphony Orchestra, San Francisco Symphony or guest national or international orchestras. I think that is standard policy in the classical music field if one expects to have any credibility. I remember when the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus went to Alemania/Deutchland/Germany and performed with the Berlin Philharmoniker, the review of their performance said that their German for Brahms’s Ein Deutches Requiem was better than the German of their own Choruses there in Germany. I understand that comment and that’s because when a language is one’s first language, the pronunciation of words can get sloppy. But I can hear someone screaming: “Political correctness!, Political correctness!” (since there seems to be major campaign against political correctness these days here The Cesspool as we head backwards to the Dark Ages). No, this has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with a respect for international languages and not sounding like an illiterate fool, or a stupid-is-in US’an in other words.

There also seems to be an (unspoken?) rule — which I don’t follow because it seems disrespectful of other international languages– that whenever a non-English word is written in an English sentence, that the non-English word must be sanitised/stripped of all its accent marks. Presumably that’s because English doesn’t have accent marks. Well the problem with this ridiculous thinking/policy is that the word that is being stripped of its accent mark(s) is not an English word to begin with even when written in an English sentence, so the word should remain authentic as it appears in its original language, whatever that language is. So for example, when websites write the word “Iván” (a guy’s name) or “México” they should retain the accent mark over the “á” or “é” respectively. Unfortunately, most sites are notorious for sanitising español. What I’m suggesting is also being respectful of the original/authentic language. When I write “México” in an English sentence, I retain the accent mark over the “é.” I don’t strip it of its accent mark because the word “México” is from español and it’s authentic to español. It’s not an English word to begin with, so why try to make it one? All of the English language corporate networks are guilty of this — including NPR (National Public Pentagon Radio — when they talk about the español language network Univisión (pronounced uniβiˈsjo̞n). They constantly disrespect and mangle that and pronounce it as if it were an English word, according to mi amigo. I haven’t listened to NPR in years — not since that Cokie Roberts was gushing over George W Bush and referred to him as “a very attractive candidate” (had the woman been drinking before broadcast time?) — but I saw a clip of an interview that NPR did about Univisión awhile back so I listened to the first minute of it just to see how they pronounced Univisión. As expected, they mangled it too and tried to pronounce Univisión as if it were an English-language word. And apparently there is no one in all of NPR or their member stations that speaks español that they could have checked with to confirm that their report was correct in regards to español authenticity? I guess they couldn’t be bothered! Mediocre standards? I remember when Jorge Ramos of Univisión tried to question El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man at a news conference during the septic 2016 presidential campaign. The arrogant, terribly ignorant and elementary schoolyard Bully Trump didn’t want to take a question from Jorge and told him to, “go back to Univisión” but unfortunately Trump — who seems to live under the illusion that he’s an authority on all matters — didn’t pronounce Univisión correctly and Jorge apparently didn’t want to make Trump look like the willfully-ignorant fool that he is, so he didn’t correct him. I would have corrected him by saying: “It’s Univisión (pronounced uniβiˈsjo̞n), por favor, basura.” Of course El Hombre Naranja wouldn’t have known what I said.

Mi amigo asked: Why was San Andrés (as in Falla de San Andrés = the San Andrés fault) that runs throughout América del Norte or North América changed to San Andréas? I’d like to know the answer to that myself. Why did English feel the need to add an extra “a” in there? English speakers can’t say San Andrés?

With español, I’ve noticed that the only thing that is not stripped/sanitised is the diacritical tilde (ñ). They seem to leave that alone for some reason. I’m not sure why that’s off-limits to the español-sanitisers. For those don’t know, the ñ is used for the word año, for example, which means year.

Also, that international “sharing-economy/ride-sharing” parasitic taxi company receiving terribly bad publicity these days and which goes by the name üb** — which is a word from Deutsch/German — writes that word incorrectly too. It’s supposed to be üb*r, not ub*r. One would think they would write their company’s name correctly, no? Why did los pendejos feel the need to sanitise that German word?

The hypocrisy here is that the “English-only” crowd with their misplaced superiority complex always demand and expect that their “precious English” be written perfectly even when used in a sentence of another language. Well, I’d like to inform the “English-only” basura that words from other languages are technically not correct without their accent marks and other markings. Therefore when writing them in an English sentence words from international languages should be written authentically retaining their accent marks, meaning as they would be written in a sentence from their original language.

There are those in the US who use words from other world languages but they don’t bother to use them correctly or with the correct spelling. For example (in this case from español again), some people write, “do they have the cajones [sic] to do it?” It’s cojones (with an o), not cajones.

“Foreigner” and “Foreign Country:” The Language of Ugly Nationalism

Finally, on another topic — which I know probably no one will agree with me on based on my previous experience — but directly related to language: There are those who insist on using the word “foreign” and “foreigner” instead of international. Why? Because that’s what people were taught probably as children and they’re not about to change. But what is “foreign” about a country? Is it “foreign” just because it’s outside of US borders? “Foreign” also usually implies something unknown. With the internet at one’s disposal, there’s no excuse today for one to not know something about any country that one is referring to or interested in, its people and cultures. And with borders — which have created that “foreign country” [sic] that people like to go on about — one is getting into nationalism. I support a world without borders and feel that people should be free to live where they want on Planet Earth because borders have caused nothing but problems around the world. Some of us feel that the word “foreign” is a pejorative word — despite its dictionary definition — rooted in a different era. Although the far-right/conservatives and some fake-liberals/fake-progressives reject this. They say they will continue to use the word “foreign” and “foreigner.” They don’t care who it offends. From my research, some schools and student programmes are aware that some people find the word “foreign” offensive and they have accordingly changed their names from Foreign Student Exchange Programme or School to International Student Exchange Student Programme or School. The corporate media are especially bad about using the word “foreign.” They constantly refer to “a foreign country” rather than saying “another country” or “an international country.” People also refer to “a foreign language” rather than “an international language” since all languages are of el mundo/the world or international. What’s “foreign” about a language? Is it because of one’s ignorance of said language? The corporate media have referred to El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man’s current trip outside The Cesspool/The US/Los Estados Unidos as “his first foreign trip” rather than “his first international trip.” The latter sounds much better to me. All countries are international. Why does a country have to be labeled with the word “foreign?” Why can’t people call other people of the world “internationals” instead of “foreigners?” “Foreign” and “Foreigner” do not sound inclusive of other people. Both words sound exclusive and divisive (as in “us versus them”). Whereas the word “international” and “internationals” sounds very, very inclusive. But this doesn’t matter to most people. And I know most people are not going to start using this language I’ve suggested, because most people have been deeply programmed to use the language they currently use and they use that language out of habit, and they frankly don’t give a fuck about my suggestions. In fact, most people would attack me just for even suggesting this change — just as some people have attacked mi amigo/my friend when he’s suggested these same changes to people in YT video comments. All he got in response was adamant, 100% resistance and hate. As he told me from his experience: “Commenters responded to me as if I were asking them to change their own name! Such closed-minded people.” No one agreed with him because it meant that people would have to make changes within themselves. They would have to change their own behaviour in their own use of language. And I think we all know how that would turn out: Not. About. To. Happen. Chau.—el barrio rosa


Why are USans so afraid of other languages?

The Breeders’ Guide To Making Out (in Queer areas)

In order to beso/kiss her, “cup and hold” her head with both hands as if holding a cantaloupe before going in for the landing. Remember, it’s “cup and hold.” “Cup and hold.”

Hola a todos. I’ve written a lot about the breeders (straight couples; mostly the Millennial basura1 (see footnote below, por favor) who wear all-black and/or black and gray clothing) who have invaded San Francisco’s former Gay Mecca, The Castro, in recent years. For some reason, they do so enjoy parading their in-your-face breeder sexuality over here — I don’t see it anywhere else — along Market Street and in The Castro Village with their mandatory hand-holding and make-out scenes. Often it’s the non-feminist, submissive-to-him little her who is walking one-half step behind him seemingly of the 1950s chauvinistic thinking that she is not his equal. At least that’s how she looks. She’s latched onto him with her right arm hanging onto his left arm, that is, if they’re not in the #1 mandatory hand-in-hand routine. This behaviour is presumably to let us all know they they are both taken and are a couple. Who the fuck cares?! Is she so insecure with herself and their “relationship” and her ignorance of Queer boys that she thinks a Queer boy is going to rush over and take her guy from her? Ha! Don’t flatter yourself, Millennial basura. Just because your guy has a dick doesn’t mean that any Queer boys would have the slightest interest in him. But to answer the question: Is she that insecure? Yes, she is, absolutely from what we’ve seen around here from the super-needy, overly-high maintenance, demanding females in these breeder couples and they’re usually the Millennial basura. As my straight amigo often says, “I don’t know how these guys can put up with them. That’s why I don’t date often. I wish I were gay.” Well yes, Queer couples have it much easier in this regard, which I’ll get to later. These breeder couples (or is it needy-her again?) enjoy stopping on the sidewalk and putting on their own telenovela for everyone to see as if they’re trying to instruct the Queer community that remains here how to kiss and make-out, as if we don’t already know. We don’t need or appreciate your instructions breeder basura. They do so love putting on a show and they try to seem as though they are oblivious to anyone watching them, even though many of us think los pendejos absolutely thrive on and adore the attention, especially that needy-female. Maybe she’s thinking, “Finally, a guy is kissing me in public on an unobstructed street corner for all the world to see.” Ugh. I would point out that Queer couples don’t typically go into traditionally straight areas of San Francisco and engage in the same obnoxious behaviour.

Fortunately, on Día de las Madres/Mother’s Day 2017 along Market Street and The Castro it was mainly Queer boys walking around as it had been the past few days on my walks in the area, or at least that was the case around the time I was there. It was dead out, surprisingly. There were a few breeder couples, but thankfully they were in the minority. But even when there’s only a few, some of them feel the need to stop on street corners and make-out. They’re quite the exhibitionists.

What caused me to write this article was the breeder-couple spectacle I witnessed during my walk on Market Street. They were determined to give a matinee. It was the south side of the street which is becoming more known as the breeder side of the street. There they were: the cookie-cutter and ubiquitous him-tall/her short breeder couple. Of course he was 12-stories tall and she was only 1-story tall. Obviously I’m exaggerating but hopefully you get the point. I looked over at them out of the corner of my eye knowing what was about to likely happen while waiting for the light to change. I groaned and thought to myself: Oh here we go. The “can’t wait to fuck” breeder couple.

“Cup and Hold”

I was correct. He turned to needy-her, bent way over to where her face was (approximately at his waist level) and had to take both of his hands and form a “cup” with them to “cup and hold” her head as if he were holding a cantaloupe to beso/kiss her. It was quite a procedure I can tell you that. I was thinking: Well good lord, all that just to give her a kiss? WTF? Why don’t the two of you carry around a portable step-ladder with you that she can use when you do these matinees to bring her face up to your face and make this kissing process a bit easier? It’s got to be hard on the guy’s back.

Well, he wasn’t done yet. After the “cup and hold” ritual, he then slowly went down farther and then reeled her in for the landing presumably to properly place the beso on her lips. And because of their mandatory extreme height differences, he looked like he was making out with his little toddler daughter quite frankly. I thought to myself: This looks right out of a telenovela. This is signature telenovela. His kiss to her was the typical cookie-cutter kiss that one sees so often in telenovelas and in movies. This guy was merely emulating the behaviour he’s seen hundreds or thousands of guys do on television and in movies. After that spectacle I stopped looking, waited for them to finish and for him to come back up into place.

What is wrong with these fucking breeders? Do they not know how ridiculous they look? Again, it’s learned behaviour. I saw the exact same breeder-couple behaviour while writing this article on one of the español language networks I monitor. On television, the guy did the exact same thing to the female he was about to beso.

All that just for a kiss? jesus fucking christ! I would not have the patience for that nonsense. Why the need to “cup and hold” her face? And where had his hands been that he’s putting all over her face? Apparently it wasn’t her concern.

It made me wonder why breeders have to make such as fucking big deal out of kissing? Well it’s not just kissing. They make a fucking big deal out of most of these ridiculous things/requirements they do. They have all these other outdated, 1950s-type chauvinistic and sexist requirements, like him having to open her door for her, or pull out her chair in a restaurant, or do this for her and do that for her. I wouldn’t do any of it, with the exception being helping someone with medical problems by opening their door for them. Helpless her can’t pull out a damn chair? Then she can sit her big ass on the floor until she’s able to do so. Helpless her can’t open a fucking car door? Then she can part her ass on the hard sidewalk by the parking meter (put some money in it). I don’t know how much they charge for ass time these days. But that’s the way I feel about this chauvinistic and sexist behaviour. I won’t have it! And that’s precisely what I see from these !Conform, Obey! Wear Black and Gray! Sexist and Chauvinistic Millennial trash who have ruined San Francisco. What conservative, backwater cesspool of a small hick town did these basura come here from? They certainly don’t act cosmopolitan yet they like to give the impression of being “chic” and “modern” while really they’re rather superficial, shallow and pretentious. And many (most?) of the Millennial techie guys come with this misplaced superiority complex. And mi amigo/my friend has repeatedly told me about the many anti-gay looks he has received if he made the mistake of fleetingly glancing at one of these “hipster” Millennial techie trash guys who have poured into San Francisco in recent years.

Anyone I’m with will be my equal, not subservient or dominant. And again, Queer boys don’t do this nonsense. Queer boys just kiss, or hug and kiss. There’s none of this preparation or preparatory routine/nonsense that must first be done in order to kiss. And with Queers we’re usually the same height; we don’t have this fucked-up head-trip where one person has to be 8 stories tall and the other guy has to be the height of a little child. The more I see from breeder couples and their silly behaviour, the more I can’t stand them.

It was nice to see a few Queer couples on my walk yesterday. All the same height. The guys in one of the couples were going in different directions at Castro/18th Street. They gave each other a quick kiss on the lips and hugged, said a few goodbyes and went different directions. Their behaviour was the opposite of what I had seen from the breeder matinee I described earlier.

No, Queers don’t have these issues going on where one person is to “be strong, manly and protect the other and be the dominant to protect the submissive other.” This breeder behaviour is so terribly outdated, chauvenistic and sexist, but that’s what I’ve come to expect from these Millennials from observing their behaviour around here. And the breeder couple who gave us the matinee performance were Millennials. From my research, this fucked-up head-trip is because of the female and her many issues. From what I’ve read, the guy in the breeder couple doesn’t give a shit about height differences. This is entirely her thing. She’s been indoctrinated with this thinking that the guy she’s with must be tall, dominant and protecting of submissive little non-feminist her, and she feels she deserves lots of/all his attention. I think she would be quite comfortable barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That’s seems to be the mentality. Does she hope and/or fantasise about getting pregnant so she can be like all her pregnant friends — who seemingly moved to San Francisco to pump out babies — and fit in here in San Francisco’s Baby Factory (Read: San Francisco’s Baby Explosion and The Stroller Brigades?) Then they can all talk about their pregnancies on their phones and when they get together.

As mi amiga/my lesbian friend said: Why doesn’t the bitch go get some therapy for fuck’s sake?! That’s not likely to happen mi amiga. This is societal programming that females learn from various sources, especially television and movies.

Another thing about breeders with children is that they think it’s hilarious that people can’t get through to where they’re going or get by them on the sidewalk because they (the obnoxious and inconsiderate breeder assholes) are taking up the entire sidewalk with their fleets of huge baby strollers and fleets of dogs. It seems to be a requirement that they have a huge dog (or two) with their condo-sized black (or black and white) baby strollers because “everybody else does and I want to fit in.” !Conform, Obey! These obnoxious breeder basura just laugh and laugh because someone is giving them, their children and their dogs attention that they crave. Los pendejos. I ignore them. I don’t even look at them. I don’t care to give them the attention they’re constantly desperately seeking. And these are the shallow and superficial Millennial trash — I say that based on overhearing their insipid conversations — who have ruined San Francisco. Chau.—el barrio rosa



1 Regarding the Millennials I wrote about in this article: To be clear, I’m not saying that all Millennials are basura/trash. I would not say that. I’m specifically talking about the type of (breeder) Millennials who have moved to San Francisco in recent years and the type I’ve unfortunately experienced since San Francisco became a playground for the super-wealthy. The Millennials I’m talking about say the word “like” every other word. It’s like, she’s like, I’m like, go like, he’s like, like, like. Stupid-assed people. They sound tongue-tied when they talk. They are not at all articulate. It takes them forever to say anything important because their “sentences” (if you can them that) are cluttered with the word “like.” And many of them clip the word “like” by saying it so fast that it sounds as if they’re saying the word “lick.” They have ruined their speech with “Valley Girl” language so that they can “fit in” and sound stupid like their amigos. (How do these Millennials possibly keep a job talking in such a stupid-sounding manner? And who would hire someone who speaks like this?) They can’t speak in complete sentences. They uptalk (meaning they end all sentences with a question mark). They sound fucking stupid and illiterate. I know that some Millennials are very good, high-quality people. Absolutely. They speak very intelligently and are very articulate, but I don’t know of any of them personally and they are not the Millennial trash I wrote about in this article. To be clear, from our experience, the very good/high-quality and intelligent Millennials are unfortunately not the majority of Millennials who have moved to San Francisco. I have nothing positive to say about the ones who have moved here in recent years. They are from the bottom of the barrel. I don’t know where these people came from.

Most people are gay or lesbian

Hola. Despite statistics and data showing that only a small percentage of the population is gay or lesbian, after you read this it should be quite obvious to most intelligent people that the majority of people worldwide are Queer, specifically gay or lesbian.

I remember growing up that when people came to visit our family, after the initial time — approximately 10-15 minutes — of being together as a group all in the living room, the women always moved to the kitchen and the guys always stayed in the living room. Mi amigo/My friend said that’s exactly what happened at his house too as a child.

The Burning Question is: Why would all the men want to be together without any females in the room if they weren’t Queer? A reader is now screaming at me: “Oh you can’t say that!!!…just because the men all want to be together doesn’t mean they’re Queer?!” It doesn’t? And how would you know that? How do you know that they’re not Queer? Or do you just want to believe that they’re breeders because you have some internalised anti-Queer feelings? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Or are you thinking the men can’t be Queer merely because they went through the charade of being married to a female? Ha! That means nothing. Thousands and thousands of gay closet cases are married to females and that is continuing to this day. And the same for las mujeres/the women? Why do they always want to be together? It’s obvious the guys are more comfortable with each other and being around each other. The same for las mujeres/the women.

Lucille Ball in “I Love Lucy” did an episode on this topic. Lucy and Ethel were always in the kitchen (the same with my mother) and Ricky and Fred stayed in the living room (the same with my dad and his amigos). Lucy made a point that they should all stay together in the living room and talk and share interests, but it didn’t end up like that. The women called it “girl talk” when they went in the kitchen. I always hung out in the “girl talk” room because that was far more interesting to listen to with all that juicy chisme/gossip they had to dish with each other — it also meant that they didn’t need to spend 2 hours on the phone that day with somebody listening in on the “party line” — than to hear guys go on about boring sports and men playing with balls and about this team and that team while halfway-watching whatever sports game (usually) was on television during the visit. That seemed to be all that the guys talked about other than their jobs. I couldn’t care less about sports and that’s still true today. I found Lucy and Ethel’s chisme/gossip more interesting than Ricky and Fred’s sports talk, which was often about boxing as I recall. That episode of “I Love Lucy” was a very accurate representation of straight life in the US at the time and I think that still is. Although I suspect when people get together these days, they talk for a few seconds and then immediately get out their electronic leashes/their adult pacifiers (I’m talking about their phones) if it’s not already embedded in their hand, and they begin to text each other sitting side-by-side and show each other their screens in a “show and tell” followed by “tee hee, tee hee” sounds. Laughing hysterically over little nothings on a screen. I’ve seen people do that in restaurants. Other than their laughing, they were completely silent during dinner. Didn’t say a word the entire time. What limited social skills they had were for their adult pacifier. They could have been sitting in their own home texting the same phone zombies in their homes. Didn’t need to get together in a restaurant to do that! What pathetic people. And of course they wasted much of the food they ordered because they were too busy with that phone.

It seems to me that breeder couples are paired off wrong. Are they really straight or do they think they must be — or rather pretend to be — per their family’s script/plans for them and society’s 24-hours/7-days a week heteronormative dictates? I read this article which said that guys are horniest in the mornings. Whereas females have the least interest in sex in the mornings. That doesn’t sound like a very workable situation for breeders. It’s a hormone thing. When I read that I said to myself: Well that right there should tell anyone that breeder couples are paired off wrong. They are a mistake. He should be with a guy and she should be with a female and then they would be on the same biological clock for sex, and they wouldn’t have all of these obnoxious breeder dysfunctions that one sees around here. These breeder couples are constantly having dysfunctions and often it’s about something absolutely trivial, such as he forgot to charge their phone (roll eyes) and of course she’s having yet another emotional melt-down presumably because she won’t be able to spend hours on billionaire-owned F***Book, the headquarters for those pathetic and lonely people without any genuine social skills. These breeder couples love to talk loudly and broadcast their dysfunctions through the neighbourhood. From my experience, Queers (gay and lesbians couples) have far less dysfunctions than breeder basura. (I’m getting rather fed up with breeders, I have to admit. I’m sick of them being in my face with their sexuality).

Again, it seems to me that the genders are paired off wrong when they’re in the male-female arrangement. Society teaches “you must be ‘straight’ to be ‘normal.’” Ludicrous. This would also explain why there are all of these gay closet case guys on sex sites who are married to a female but are pursuing what they really are: Queer. Although some of them call themselves bi. It would seem that they’re completely burned out on that pussy and that whiny and needy female they’re with which they coldly and unaffectionately refer to as “The Wife,” “The Girlfriend,” and/or “The Bitch.” It becomes obvious they would like to dump her as soon as possible but haven’t quite figured out how.

So, because of all this, this is why I’ve concluded that most people are gay or lesbian. It makes sense to me. Chau.—el barrio rosa

[This article is written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although what I've written here is true, although as with many -- or most of the -- things I write, most people won't want to hear it. The truth and non-popular views make many people uncomfortable.]

When I was teaching private piano instruction

Hola a todos. I taught private piano instruction for many years. My classes were the same type of individual training that piano majors receive in a Conservatory of Music, if that’s what the student came to me for, in part, because that’s my training. I was a piano major with a double minor in voice and pipe organ at the Conservatory of Music where I trained. But I didn’t shove that in people’s faces. I didn’t strut around saying, “I’m Conservatory-trained Dahling, aren’t you impressed?!” No, I didn’t do any of that. When I first started teaching, I used the language “Conservatory-trained” in my advertising because I thought that would be/might be important to people, particularly the more serious students I was interested in attracting. But I later stopped using that language because I found that people felt intimidated by it, so I stopped mentioning where I trained altogether, and no one ever asked me. They went on other things I said in my advertising along with how I taught them, our rapport together and how I played. With all of my students, we had an excellent rapport. Well make that all except one: an arrogant techie. I didn’t get along very well with him because of his big head and he didn’t stay with me that long fortunately. I was glad he left.

After interviewing a prospective student and understanding the goals of each student, we proceeded on with classes. Most students who came to me — regardless of their skill level — were not interested in the intense, very-disciplined Conservatory-style setting of piano training, although some thought they were until they experienced it.

After I began the first class with beginner students and the student learning the notes on the music scale and where the corresponding notes were on the piano, that’s often when a student would bail/quit with the usual reason/excuse being, “I had no idea it was going to be this hard.” This hard? We had just begun! We hadn’t even covered the basics.

Students quickly began to realise how difficult music training is and that they would not be able to play instantly or immediately as they had erroneously thought would be the case. Most students did not want to work. They expected music training to be “fun and easy,” (sounds like retail/sales language doesn’t it?) and I got the sense that most students thought they would be able to learn to play the piano in a matter of a couple of weeks. One student told me, “In a couple of weeks when I’m playing everything in this book…” WTF? Well, music training does not work that way. Music training is hard work, it works the brain, and most piano teachers will not tell a student what I’m writing here and what I’m writing here I did not tell students until they’d been with me for some time and they already knew how difficult it was. So I was just reaffirming what they had come to already know. And what I’m writing here is “in house” stuff based on my teaching experience. The reality is that the “fun” part in piano study comes from hearing one’s progress and ultimately being able to play a piece to completion with hopefully some level of refinement. Although usually with beginner students there’s no polish or refinement. Just playing the notes correctly, having the timing correct, having the note and rest values correct, and having the piece sound somewhat musical (one hopes) and getting through it is quite an accomplishment at that stage. Unless one is working with a child prodigy, but I didn’t teach any child prodigies. I didn’t teach children. I only taught adults.

When a student first came to me and when they began sight-reading or playing a piece, they would ask if they could start over every time they made a mistake and they would absolutely hate it when I said, “No, keep going.” Students stopped asking “Can I start over?” after about 2-3 classes because they realised it was futile to ask. I generally would not allow a student to start over because that gets into a very bad habit. One can’t “start over” in a performance if there are a couple of wrong notes at the beginning. Just keep going and forget about the mistakes as best one can. One should strive for accuracy but “the fingers have a mind of their own” especially in a performance setting — one can make mistakes in a live performance that one has never made before! — and there may be one or more wrong notes no matter how well drilled/studied a piece is. With the more advanced students, I was not so much concerned about the occasional wrong notes as long as I knew that the student knew what the correct notes were. Often a more advanced student would take the initiative and say, “Got it” after playing a wrong note just to let me know s/he knew what the correct note was. That was helpful. Also, nearly every new(er) student would open up the score to the beginning of the piece. So I’d then pick up the score off of the piano’s music rack and open it up to the back or ending of the piece and that’s because we usually started at the end and worked backwards. This initially annoyed students until they understood the reason for it and came to appreciate this approach. Starting at the end and working backwards — which requires discipline to do — assures that the piece is learned more evenly (as well as in sections) so the ending of the piece is not neglected, which can be the case if one always starts at the beginning. After a few classes with me, a student would leave their score on the music rack unopened and wait for me to open it or give instructions on where to start. I’ve attended performances by some local pianists where I could tell that s/he had spent more time working on the beginning of the piece than the latter half. The piece started to deteriorate in quality about half-way through the closer the pianist got to the end. Did s/he always start at the beginning?

Students commented on how patient I was, but to me an near-endless amount of patience is required in teaching because each student is different and has different learning abilities and talent, or lack of. And when teaching, I explained things in various ways to help the student understand what we were working on. There was not one way that worked for all students because, again, everyone is different. The only time my patience ran out and I sometimes blew a fuse — although may not have shown it — was when I felt a student was taking advance of me and trying to disrespect the training. Such as constantly being late for their class. With these students, I would look out my door and I could see them sitting in their vehicle glued to their electronic leash/their phone. Their phone was more important to them than their piano class and their phone had priority over piano. Week after week, I would look out my door and see them sitting in their vehicle embedded in their phone. In the student’s mind “my teacher will wait for me” and they expected me to do so. When they arrived for their class (usually 15-20 minutes late), each week I would hear, “I’m sorry I’m late” and/or “I’m sorry I’m late, the traffic was terrible.” After weeks of hearing that lie, I stopped responding to the “I’m sorry” excuse and gave the student a cold silence. I felt like saying the following (but never did):

“Well no, you’re not sorry at all that you’re late because you do this every week, and if you were sincerely sorry, you would change your behaviour. Also, I look out my door each week at class time and you’re sitting in your vehicle playing with your phone because that electronic data-mining/surveillance-state leash you’re addicted to is much more important to you than piano. This has nothing to do with being late and terrible traffic because you were here on time. It’s just that you spent the first 15-20 minutes of your class time sitting in your vehicle fucking with that phone. And you see absolutely nothing wrong with being 15-20 minutes and disrespecting me and my time. You enjoy practising your phone more than you enjoy practising the piano, which you rarely do. I can teach ‘phone’ if you’d like and “baby sit” you with ‘phone’ for an hour, but I can assure you I won’t run overtime with ‘phone’ as I sometimes do with teaching piano.” This scenario happened on a regular basis with some students, but I never told them that.

Another piano instructor reading this might be thinking: “You needed a Studio Policy. That works well for me in dealing with disrespectful/bad student behaviour.” I had a Studio Policy. And it’s wonderful that yours works for you. Good to hear it. But mine didn’t work for me. Probably because you and I live in two very different places, I suspect, where things are different. I once had a know-it-all teacher who lives in the redneck suburbs of the Bay Area try to instruct me on what I needed to do to attract more quality students. She was an abrasive and lecturing piece of work who came with this omnipotent superiority complex. She was very patronising; she talked down to me as if she thought she were superior to me. (I can’t stand basura like that!) I think her advanced degree — she had a PhD and not a DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts) — had gone to her big head. I tried her suggestions but they didn’t work and I knew they wouldn’t work before I tried them because we live in two very different communities. She taught children where the parents were responsible for the child’s behaviour and punctuality. I taught adults who were only casually interested in learning the piano. She was teaching out in the sticks and I was teaching in a major US city. As I said, I had a Studio Policy but most students disrespected that too. And if a Studio Policy works for you then clearly different people are coming to you than came to me. As I said, I taught only adults and most of them were scattered adults with no serious interest in piano. So one can shove a Studio Policy at them and they will say they agree to it and sign it, but I found that most did not take it seriously — except for the first week or two after signing the policy — and they didn’t expect me to adhere to it either. I think they considered a Studio Policy a joke. After a couple of weeks, the student’s behaviour returned to the usual, “I’m late, and my teacher can wait for me” way of thinking. To them, my Studio Policy was nothing but a formality. With one of my flaky student, after she signed the Studio Policy she couldn’t believe it when her “nice teacher” (as she described me) charged her for a class that she skipped and failed to cancel or make any contact with me about. I called her, “Ms. Considerate” [sarcasm intended]. She saw nothing at all wrong with me sitting around waiting for her for an hour and did not expect any consequences. This happened several times with this particular student. I was very lenient with students, in part, because I had talked with a couple of other very nice local piano teachers at the local music store at that time on one occasion and their experiences were similar to mine. They both told me, “The stories I could tell you!…hell, you have it easy.” So it wasn’t just me. Many of us local teachers advertised on the same site, and I could tell by the way teachers were writing their ads, and rewriting their ads, and adjusting the wording in their ads (reading between the lines), that their experience was similar to mine.

One student came to me after being rejected by the Keyboard Department of a School of Music at one of the local universities. That student thought that things would be different with me. They weren’t. She didn’t want to believe what they had told her at the university which was “you have no career in music.” The unspoken part was: Because you don’t possess the talent required nor do you possess a good ear for music. In the end, after teaching her for a few months I agreed with the decision of the Keyboard Department at the local university since she just did not posses the talent or the intelligence to do what she said she wanted to do at the piano. She wanted to be a concert artist, and there was no way in this life that was going to happen for her. Period. Nada.

I had one unusual situation during my teaching experience. It was a time where the competition between local teachers was rather intense. Another local teacher came to me pretending to be a beginner student as her way of “checking me out” to see what I was doing (differently than her?) in my piano studio. During my interview with her, I caught on to what she was doing after awhile since she wasn’t the best actor, but I never let on that I knew she was another local teacher, or I suspected she was. She stayed very quiet during our initial interview presumably so I wouldn’t suspect anything. But she gave himself away when I asked her to pretend to play a little bit to get a feel for the keyboard. She put her right hand on the keyboard and miraculously already had what’s known as the natural hand position. I said to her, “Oh, you already have the natural hand position, so we won’t have to work on that.” LOL. I thought but didn’t say, “Wonder how that happened?” No other new student had ever done that before because the natural hand position has to be taught/learned. At that point, I realised I was under surveillance by my competition. She left saying she would think about it and schedule a class time, but of course that was all a lie and she wasn’t fooling anyone here. I was on to her!

Most of the students who came to me, again for some mysterious reason, were under the impression that just by sitting down with me they would be able to play just like me. Loco. I have no idea where one acquires such thinking. They expected to play Rachmaninov and Scriabin just by sitting down with me without any training. Insane. After awhile, I concluded that this thinking on their part was because we live in a very instant gratification society. They want it now!!! They wanted to play now and expected to play now even though they’d never studied piano before and did not know how to read music. But of course, one can play the Rachmaninov Études-Tableaux instantly just like one’s new teacher even though the student has never seen a score from Rachmaninov’s piano repertoire ever. Yes that’s realistic! [sarcasm intended]. I think some of these students may have seen some infomercials on television where “you can play instantly” — with the index finger and following numbers rather than reading music — and they therefore concluded that this is how serious piano instruction works. Apparently they had not ever watched any performances of piano artists to observe that’s not how well-trained pianists play.

With each student, I tried to get the student to play as quickly as possible, if one knows what I mean by that. Some teachers will hold a student back for the teacher’s financial interest. I didn’t do that. I wanted students to progress as quickly as possible — and the piano repertoire is enormous so there’s no shortage of pieces to work on/play — and I offered them very thorough training, if they were receptive to that.

For the more advanced flaky students, we worked on sight-reading a lot which was extremely beneficial (if one is a good sight-reader one can play/read pretty much anything), some music theory, and selected repertoire and sometimes scales and arpeggios. I wasn’t big on technique (such as Brahms’s Exercises, for example) because I’m of the opinion that one can pretty much get one’s technique from one’s pieces. So for example, we would work on a scale/arpeggio that was part of one’s piece, rather than something completely unrelated. Another example, if you’re working on the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No. 2, you don’t need to be “drilling” Brahms’s Exercises because they’re too much alike. Does the reader know what I mean by that? Instead, drill/work on what you’ll actually be playing in the Rachmaninov as your “technique.” There’s plenty of “technique” in Rachmaninov piano works (especially in his concerti or the Études-Tableaux, or the more difficult piano repertoire of Chopin, for example).

Occasionally, a student wanted to work on music from the “pop music” genre, so I would research the piece and try to find the best transcription/arrangement closest to the original, or to what the student had heard and what inspired him or her to want to work on the piece. That sometimes turned out to be a disappointment for students because they expected what they played in a very simple form in their piano arrangement to sound nearly-identical to the recording they had heard, which is just not the case because often the original is recorded with an orchestra or at least a few other instruments as well as a singer. Or if I knew the piece they wanted to play, I’d play my own transcription of the piece “by ear” — to show the student how an arrangement/transcription can be done — and the student would often say, “Wow, I want to play that. That was great.” I’d say: Well gracias, but what I just played was “by ear” so my transcription/arrangement/improvisation is not on paper anywhere, and I don’t feel like going through the effort of writing it down, even if I remembered what I just played! Also, my transcription was far more advanced than what the student was able to play. Also, none of my students played “by ear” and they found it amazing that someone could do that. As I told them when talking about improvisation, Roman Catholic — such as at my favourite La cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris — and Anglican church organists are required to improvise all the time, especially in the High Church). It’s part of their job to be able to improvise.

Then there were the students who wanted to work on Beethoven’s Bagatelle No. 25 in a minor, more commonly known as Für Elise (which most people mispronounce). I would think: Oh yes why not! Let’s drag that out! Well it’s a very nice piece if it weren’t so over-performed. Whenever a student asked for that piece I would think (but not say), “Oh, not that. I know where that’s going to go.” With a piece such as Für Elise, the student only wanted to learn the familiar part — which I think is only 2 pages (and it repeats), if I’m remembering correctly — and the student had absolutely no interest in playing the rest of the piece. I would encourage the student to work on the rest of the piece by saying: Well, if you decide you would like to programme this piece at some point you can’t just play part of it. You have to play all of it. It’s tacky to play just part of it or a movement from something, in fact, it’s usually frowned upon. I compared it to going to hear a performance of Georg F. Händel’s over-performed and ubiquitous Messiah every holiday season and all that they performed was the Hallelujah Chorus. The student usually agreed and “we” worked on the rest of it until I realised that it was futile for me to keep pushing the student to learn the rest of the piece because s/he only wanted to play the well-known part.

A song has to be sung. A piano piece is not a song.

Piano music is not a “song.” Flute music is not a “song.” Violin music is not a “song.” And so forth. With most new students, they called every new piece, “a song” which is just ignorance and many non-musicians refer to all music as “songs.” I quickly corrected that mistake (usually at the first class) — and my students rarely made that mistake again and if they did I corrected them again — because a song has to be sung and there’s no vocal parts for piano works. A piano concerto is not a “song.” It’s a piano concerto. Yet many ignorant people on YouTube will say about a piano concerto, “I love this song.” Ugh. It’s not a “song,” idiot. Who do you hear singing in that piano concerto? No one. No one is singing. So that piano concerto you love is called a work or a piece or a concerto for piano and orchestra. I’ve noticed that even some trained musicians make this mistake of referring to all music as “songs.” WTF? Where did they train? Some podunk school?

I’ve previously written a lot about the lobotomised, elitist and wealthy Millennial tech zombies in their black-gray uniforms who have ruined San Francisco. Los pendejos live under the illusion they are the “gift to the world” with their tech coding skills and tech engineering background. I’ve also written about how well-trained classical musicians spend decades on their art yet most of them don’t strut around with their nose in the air and with an ugly superiority complex like the tech basura do. Arrogance and/or a superiority complex are a sign of an insecure person. Over the years, I taught a few techies. Two of them turned out to be los pendejos. One techie was a really nice guy and therefore he got out of tech. I also taught a dentist. The dentist told me that music training is far more difficult than his training in dentistry and that there’s really no art to dentistry other than some colour matching for tooth shading. Dental procedures are pretty straight forward; there’s a standard way for doing root canals, for example. After they had been with me for some time, I asked the techies to compare music training with the training they received for their tech job. Nearly everyone said that music training is far more difficult than the training they received for tech. They said it’s very different also because artistry and talent are involved in music. Many things are not black and white in music, such as one’s interpretation of a piece. One’s performance of a piece should not sound like that of another pianist even though both pianists are playing the same notes (hopefully) and observing all the composer’s markings in the score.

Also, when I was teaching, whenever possible I used the best editions available (Urtext, authentic performance editions). I did that in part because I always use the best editions available and I wanted to instill that in my students. Should the student be so inspired and decide to pursue their music at a more serious level, s/he would already have the finest scores and not have to replace previously-purchased inferior editions. Not all scores (Editions) are the same — it depends upon what editors do to them including changing the key of a piece in some instances (bad!) — and one should not choose an Edition because it has a “pretty cover” (roll eyes) as I observed amateurish people doing in the local music store on occasion. That’s also why I acquired all the scores for my students rather than leaving it up to them to get their scores to avoid them walking in with the wrong edition. Some people think that all scores are the same but that is not true. I remember one occasion where I was ordering the Boosey & Hawkes edition of a Rachmaninov piece, the salesperson at the local store said to me, “Ah, you know the difference between scores.” He went on to say that they had previously made the mistake of carrying an edition of Bach pieces where some editor (of that edition) had changed the key from the original to make this Bach piece supposedly easier to play, which made it no longer authentic to Bach’s wishes.

Also, another advantage with using Urtext, authentic/performance edition scores is that they come with minimal fingering already indicated (such as with Editions G. Henle Verlag, for example). Good fingering is critically important in good piano playing and it’s to the pianist’s advantage to take the time to work out the best fingering — because it helps one play the piece smoothly and fluently — and everyone’s hands are different and a different size, and the fingering that works best for one person does not necessarily work the best for someone else. The superb Henle editors usually only put in obvious fingering, so their scores are very minimal with fingering which allows the pianist/student to write in what works best for him or her. During the years that I taught, I think there was only one instance where a student wanted to change the fingering in one place in a Henle edition to fingering that worked best for him.

I did a lot of “baby-sitting” when I taught. Most of my students didn’t really have the interest in piano. Only a part of the person had an interest in music training. It was clear to me that a part of their person wanted to study piano but another part of them did not, so I think they had this struggle going on within them. One student even shared their psychological issues with me and confided in them that they were studying piano with me because their mother opposed music training when the student was a child and even though the person’s mother was dead, studying piano with me was this student’s way of “dissing” the mother with resentment for the years that the mother would not allow the student to study piano. The student also said that they chose me because I allowed them to progress at their chosen rate of speed. There are all kinds of psychological issues going on with students.

Most students lacked the discipline to practise and I always knew when they hadn’t practised so we practised during their class time with me. That way they got quality, disciplined practise time. Many students preferred it that way and they slowly accomplished playing the pieces they wanted to play. I didn’t select all the repertoire. If a student said they wanted to work on a piece they had heard somewhere I would order the score for them and we’d begin focusing on that piece, even if I knew the piece was way beyond the student’s skill level at that time. I usually didn’t tell the student that a piece was way beyond them. I would allow them to realise that for themselves after s/he began working on it. I would say on occasion when the student told me they wanted to work on something, “Oh that’s quite difficult. We can call that your challenge piece.” Some students had one or more challenge pieces. Many of my students stayed with me for years, often cancelling or going through a period of weeks where they would show up for class but would say, “I haven’t had much time to practise.” Nothing new there.

With most students, I and the student saw their progress despite it being slow-going. If they had practised on a regular basis most students could have accomplished a lot more and I occasionally gently said that/gave them that nudge in a subtle way. Some of my students went from playing very remedial music to playing rather advanced pieces such as a Rachmaninov Prelude or a Chopin Ballade. It took much longer than it would for a serious student at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, for example, but again, a part of the student was interested.

I don’t miss teaching today. Although, I thoroughly enjoyed teaching — the few students who were serious students — and I do miss teaching students like that, but usually students like that study at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music or a School of Music at one of the local universities or colleges. It was more work for me and a bit boring and frustrating teaching students who were not serious. With them, I was more “babysitting” than teaching. It was not work teaching students who were serious about it. That was a pleasure and I often went overtime getting so involved in watching and hearing the student’s progress.

But these days, how many people listen to piano music or have a serious interest in piano music? Not many. Other than shallow pop culture type stuff. Unfortunately, music education is not at all valued or respected by our shallow and stupid-is-in US culture. And as of this writing, El Hombre Naranja plans to eliminate funding for The National Endowment For The Arts. There’s always plenty of dinero/money to throw at, waste on the bottomless pit called the Military Industrial Complex Killing MachineTM but because of fucked-up priorities and septic politicians, we supposedly don’t have dinero for music and art programmes. That’s an indicator of a very a sick society.

When I started studying piano — I started playing “by ear” at age 5 and started studying the piano at age 8 — we had excellent music education programmes in the public schools, which had a major musical influence on me. In elementary school, I always looked forward to our music class. On the days that our music teacher had the day off, the teachers asked me to play for the students. I played “by ear” the same music she was teaching us to sing. I thoroughly enjoyed that. Another major musical influence on me included my excellent high school choral director whom I credit as directly responsible — along with my superb piano instructor who prepared me pianistically for my Conservatory audition — for inspiring me to pursue a degree in music. During that era, some people had a piano in their home. That’s not at all the case today. In fact, I have a sad but true story to tell about that. Mi amigo/My friend used to work in construction and whenever he went to the dump he came back telling me about all the pianos he saw at the dump, including grand pianos. He said some of them looked perfectly fine. Some looked like new pianos. (shaking my head in disgust). Only a very sick and septic society with no respect for music and music education throws pianos to the dump. It’s really disgusting what the US has become, which is why some of us accurately refer to Los Estados Unidos/the US as “The Cesspool” and it’s quickly being made even worse so by the insane, bloviating, bullying lunatic I refer to as El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man and the basura around him. Chau.—el barrio rosa


Pianists: Use your scores. Screw these outdated traditions.

The Original Meaning of Mother’s Day


The woman who started Mother’s Day would be pissed at what it is today.

Día de las Madres 2016

Día de las Madres

Hola. If Julia Ward Howe could see what Mother’s Day has become en Los Estados Unidos/in the US, I suspect she would scream: “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 mothers who had lost their sons. Mother’s Day was their day to remember their sons. From my research, Doña Julia was a rather organised mujer/woman and she even wrote a Mother’s Day Proclamation (Boston, 1870). Check that out.

On Mother’s Day, some churches acknowledge the youngest and oldest mothers present in the congregation [roll eyes]. Roman Catholic and some Anglican churches, especially the High Church (Anglo-Catholic tradition), focus their liturgy on the Virgin Mary, the mother of the Holy Trinity. 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/in the 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/Día de las Madres 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 should 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 Día de las Madres/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

[Article originally published mayo de 2015/May 2015].