Um, we pay HOW much?!

By Joseph Walther

I know it’s a bit early, but we’ve got to talk about this. Before we know it, we’ll be clenching our fists and extending our middle fingers toward Washington, DC because of it. And, since next year is an election year—a presidential one, to boot—some of the political rhetoric is bound to mention it.

No, it’s not the Iraq war. It’s not terrorism, either. You’re probably thinking that I’m referring to the millions of people without adequate health care or the means to obtain health insurance. Wrong, again! It’s far worse than this.

There’s a book in our Nation’s capital. It’s a long one, too. Yes, it’s even longer than the ones Bill Clinton writes. In fact, it’s six times longer than one of the most popular books ever written: “War and Peace.”

I’m talking about the tax code. Its current edition is 20,000 pages (about 8-million words). Keep in mind, also, that this is AFTER Reagan’s 1986 coup of income tax code simplification.

Since then, Congress has added over 14,000 additional clauses to it—each of which is every bit as complicated as all of the previous ones.

How complicated it is? George Will researched it. He discovered that Americans spend around 6.4 billion people-hours, along with an estimated $265 billion, just trying to comply with the code and stay out of jail.

So, each election year—more so in a presidential one—Congress turns up the windbag dials on their bullshit disseminator devices and promises to simplify the tax code.

In his 2004 address to the Republican convention, George Bush promised, FAITHFULLY, to do this very thing.

Of course, we are talking about a man who, by his own admission, does not read books and stuff. Again, by his own admission, he doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking too deeply about most things, either.

There are two main hindrances to meaningful tax code simplification. The second is dependent on the strength of our collective desire to perpetuate the first one.

First, Americans who earn enough to pay taxes ALL claim to want tax code simplification. I say this with tongue in cheek because…

They are also in favor of tax breaks that benefit THEM, as individuals. If the tax breaks include some complexity, so be it.

So, on the one hand, they want simplification, but not too much, especially if it eliminates personal benefit. See any inconsistencies here?

You should because, technically, this sort of logic constitutes a psychological conflict between simultaneously held beliefs and attitudes. Shrinks call it cognitive dissonance.

The second hindrance comes from K Street. For the uninitiated, K Street is headquarters to Washington lobbyists. They work on behalf of their paying clients, none of which gives a flying damn about the average American.

Congress, undoubtedly, has to consider reform soon. The 2001 tax cuts will expire in 2011. The problem is that each time they “simplify” the system; fewer people understand it, including the IRS.

The favorite expression among Conservatives is “tax cut.” They inevitably claim that they (tax cuts) curb government spending. To some extent, way back during the Goldwater days, this was true.

It’s a big, fat crock today, though. Both Conservatives AND Liberals spend with equal tenaciousness. The present administration is a prime example.

Even without the war, the Bush Administration has increased the size of government as much as, if not more, than many of past Liberal ones.

As it applies to tax rates today, the law should permit us citizens to shoot anyone who says that tax cuts curb government spending.

Conversely, Liberals LOVE the word “fair.” They’re constantly trying to make things “fair” for everyone, especially the “little” people. And, I’m not talking about children, either. They can’t vote!

Contrary to what many Liberals tell us, redistribution of wealth is alive and well. Accordingly, tax increases are their tried and true means to accomplish it.

They seem oblivious to the fact that it, more than most things, hinders the creation of the very wealth they seek to redistribute. It’s also a prime factor in the perpetuation of tax code complexity.

William F. Buckley said it best, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. “We should electrocute the everyone who uses the word ‘fair’ in the same sentence with income taxes.”

Current tax brackets (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, or 35-percent), comprise the tip of the income tax iceberg. I guarantee you that we’re paying a much higher rate than this.

The math is simple; all it takes is a literate-level ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. There’s absolutely no need for a mastery of differential calculus.

Do you have cable TV? Have a cell phone? Put gas in your car? Do you lease anything at all? Smoke? Heat your home in the winter? The full list is much longer.

If you do any of these, and many people do, you’re paying regulatory fees—slicko secret code for taxes—on every one of them.

In many states, the simple act of purchasing something—not including necessities—earns you the honor of paying a state imposed sales tax and, sometimes, a state income tax to boot!

Even if lower incomes exempt you from paying any federal income taxes, you’re STILL paying taxes. Just add up the amount of these hidden taxes… I mean regulatory fees, and you’ll be stunned at the result.

For even the low-income folks, the rate is higher than the advertised 10% bracket. And, in the case of higher incomes, it’s often as high as 55% of our total incomes—sometimes, even higher.

If that “average” American, (the same one the politicians are so fond of referring to) ever wises up, maybe there will be some meaningful tax reform. This will be great.

If they happen to accomplish it by tossing 99% of the bums out of the United States Congress, as well as the several States’ General Assemblies, it’ll be FANTASTIC.

I’m not going to count it, though. If I were any of you readers, I would not hold my hand on my butt waiting for it to happen, either. You’ll look awfully silly with a hand growing out of THERE!

See you all next week. I’ve got to pay my cable TV bill, put gas in my car, and… oh, crap, my cell phone’s ringing.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Put the toilet seat down! Aunt Flo's coming.

By Joseph Walther

I found this letter posted on an Internet forum. It’s supposed to be authentic, but I‘m not sure. About a year ago, a reader sent the same letter to me as an email attachment; though “Mrs. Amanda Hurtz” had signed it, instead of “Wendi.” Regardless, I thought the letter was spot on and humorous. So, I responded with my own comments.

Click here to go to the link containing the entire letter. You will also see some of my comments regarding the topic. I’m telling you about it here because we adults need to be able to discuss the topic in a calm, logical, intellectual way.

As a male, I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like going through monthly menstrual cycles. Yes, I know about “periods,” but clinical compassion is not the same as personal identification.

In other words, imagining what’s going on, is no substitute for a first hand, personal experience relative to how it REALLY feels.

Like other males, I’ve heard horror stories from men who claim to have been victims of women in varying stages of PMS-induced mental and physical anguish. Truthfully, though, the closest that I’ve come to a life-threatening episode, was a stern lecture.

She was one of those militant feminists (although an aesthetic knockout) who loved to lecture men every chance she got about how we piggy-assed men couldn’t handle half of what women have to handle. And, you didn’t even want to mention childbirth around her!

I have no desire to experience a menstrual cycle. I’m sure they must be terrible, but I was born a male. And, since I do NOT recall a “Creator” giving me an opportunity to “request” my gender, I’m not going to apologize for it.

In the interests of clarifying my position to THOSE few militant women who like to blame men for EVERYTHING, including their “periods,” I say tough noogies. Get over it. If you want to blame someone for your “period,” blame “EVE!”

It’s true. I have it on some reliable authority that EVE did this to you women way back in the Garden of Eden. My sources are impeccable; at least THEY seem to think so. They are people who claim to KNOW Jesus on a personal basis. Here’s what they claim HE told them.

One of the angels—I think it was an Archangel by the name of Hank—leaked some secret information to Adam. According to Hank, his boss, God, was going to grant either men or women the ability to pee standing up.

Which gender received this gem of a gift would depend on the outcome of a debate between Adam and Eve. The loser, of course, would have to settle for the consolation prize: the ability to experience multiple orgasms.

As soon as Adam heard about it, he immediately recognized the unlimited fun that all future men could have if only they could pee standing up.

Such ability was, in Adam’s mind, the precursor to all future forms of intense fun and laughter: farting contests, under arm noise contests, belching contests, biggest male gut contests, etc. He conjured up glorious visions of stadiums full of cheering fans.

Yes, he’d have to invent beer and beer cans to hold the beer. Yes, it would be hard work. Yes, he’d be willing to do it, but ONLY if he won the right to pee standing up. Without this, there wouldn’t be any fun.

Anyway, Adam set about to WIN this RIGHT. He was not going to take any prisoners in his fight, either. He would stoop to whichever lows necessary to annihilate Eve in the debate.

He wanted this victory BAD, because he knew it had Nobel Prize written all over it. He could just imagine giving his acceptance speech and seeing his name in newspaper headlines.

When the debate began, God explained the rules and prizes. Adam went first. He took full advantage and ranted for hours on end about how MEN should have the ability to pee standing up.

Adam used every trick of logic there was. Well, OK, logic hadn’t been invented yet. But, if it had been, Adam would have used it in the same methodical way that lemmings go over those cliffs.

Eve was helpless. All she could do was stand there. She was no match for Adam as he raved on and on.

Adam won the debate. He also went on to invent beer and beer in cans. He also, in one of the most magnanimous gestures in human history, invented the toilet seat so that EVE could be more comfortable, having to sit down to pee and all.

Eve, ever so meek and subservient, quietly settled for the second prize: the ability to experience multiple orgasms. Even though multiple orgasms were light years from the thrill of shooting pee streams at beer cans 5-feet away, she never let bitterness overtake her.

While Eve enjoyed her multiple orgasms with Adam whenever he was not busy with pissing practice—there were, as yet, no other men to compete against—she began to notice some discomfort around the same time every month.

Adam began to notice it, too, especially at those times when she became a raving bitch over his leaving the toilet seat up.

So, it seems that the downside to multiple orgasms is a monthly menstrual cycle. Bummers! Of course, peeing standing up also has its downside: women browbeating men for leaving the toilet seat up.

Ladies, we all have our crosses to bear in this life. Yours is a little monthly bleeding. Get over it. Besides, it would only be a matter of mere eons before Wall Street advertisers would finally invent television ads for Tidy Bowl.

Eve could NEVER have imagined it! Millions of women, in TV advertisements, would one day be standing around their toilet bowls in a state of impending orgasmic ecstasy over the fact of their toilet bowls being immaculately clean.

Talk about your multiple orgasms; only a frigid ninny would notice a toilet seat in the up position under such conditions. But, just in case, those same advertisers would cover their butts by inventing CIALIS advertisements.

Such intellect! Outside… on a hillside overlooking a valley. A beautiful, moonlit, star-studded sky. Side-by-side bathtubs. She in hers, he in his. Both naked and just waiting for THAT special moment: the arrival of a police officer wanting to know what in the hell they’re doing.

Well, maybe we ARE as stupid as they seem to think we are. Whatever. I’ll be back next week. In the meantime, I REALLY have to pee. OOH, there’s a beer can! Watch this!

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Women are SOOOOOOO different from men! RIGHT?!

By Joseph Walther

I am NOT lying! I had planned to write about a very serious matter this week involving a trial judge’s prerogative of leniency at sentencing time in criminal trials. However, yesterday, September 15^th, something—of even greater precedence—happened that made me change topics: a fistfight between 15-year-old Brad and 16-year-old Jeremy.

At a high school football game, the two sat directly in front of me, so I heard their conversation as clearly as a hungry, well-trained dog can hear an electric can opener from two blocks away.

Jeremy said some fightin’ words to Brad. Brad said something unflattering about Jeremy and, with no warning at all, punched him in the face. Jeremy returned a punch of his own to Brad’s chest, along with some uncomplimentary comments about Brad’s mother.

It was awful! The two of them began flailing punches and oral accusations with abandon. Male hormones were going berserk and testosterone was oozing all over the place.

From the gist of their respective verbal salvos at each other, we witnesses had ample reason to assume that neither of their respective sets of parents was married at the time they gave birth to these boys. Both boys repeatedly said so.

Each accused the other of a particular fondness for administering oral sex on other males. They were very emphatic about this, too. They leveled multiple accusations of such activity with a vulgar casualness that only intellectual cripples can display.

I risked my 65-year-old butt by inserting myself between the two of them. A couple of other men came to my aid and we managed to drag them out of their row and down the stadium stairs, just to the side of the bleacher section.

Once separated, Brad called Jeremy a fornicating, penis-loving wussy (He didn’t actually say “fornicating,” “penis,” or “wussy,” if you get my drift.). He then proceeded to stomp off into the stadium parking lot with Jeremy following at a distance.

But, as we all suspected, within another 30-seconds or so, the two were at it again. This time, however, one of New Castle County’s finest came out of nowhere to intervene.

Unfortunately, neither boy seemed to have ever heard of “well enough,” not to mention leaving it alone.

As several of us watched from the stands, the officer proceeded to separate the two combatants. He seemed to have them under control when, suddenly, the two boys must have said something unflattering to him. He did NOT seem amused, either.

While I can’t be certain, based on the language they used on us back in the stands, I’ll wager it had something to with an invitation for the officer to perform an oral sex act on them and, perhaps, an additional reference to the marital status of the officer’s parents at the time of his (the officer’s) birth.

Whatever they said, it was mood dampening. The officer immediately lost all semblances of joviality and potential good will relative to these teenagers.

I swear I saw fire shoot from that officer’s eyes—like lightning bolts—into the faces of those boys. He was like the Hulk. Remember him? Only this officer didn’t turn green.

But, like the Hulk, his triceps and back muscles bulged out (along with the veins in his forehead and temples). His shirt didn’t tear into shreds, but I swear I could hear the stitches giving way.

I’m not exaggerating. At least 6-other people swear that they saw the same thing! It was scary as hell, but those boys were just too stupid to be afraid.

In a single, unbelievably agile, sweeping motion, he grabbed both boys behind their backs by the waistbands of their jeans; lifted them off the ground; and dropped them, hard, onto their stomachs.

He had immobilized the two of them when, out of nowhere, another officer arrived to help him.

But, unlike the Hulk, who always ran away at the sound of sirens, he stuck around. Both officers secured the boys in handcuffs and put them into the back seat of their respective patrol cars.

By now, some eyewitnesses had arrived to speak with the police officers. After taking some witness statements, the officers spoke briefly to each other. Upon completion of the conversation, they gave both boys a free ride to County Police Headquarters.

As I said, these boys sat directly in front of me. I heard every word of their conversation. Prepare to be shocked, though. In ten lifetimes, you’ll never guess what planet-shattering event started the fight. You are going to laugh and laugh when I tell you.

I’m going to have to paraphrase here because many people read my stuff. Some of them may be Nuns. So bear with me and use your imaginations relative to the terms I’ve used. And please, you youngsters who are reading this, make sure you explain it to your parents.

Referring to the “other” quarterback, Jeremy said; “Your brother throws like a fornicating girl.” Brad jumped up, turned toward Jeremy, and punched him in the face while saying; “You suck your old man’s…” OK, you get the idea.

The two of them ended up under arrest, charged with third degree assault, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, along with a host of other stuff aimed at encouraging a viable plea bargain for both sides.

Granted, the fight started over a matter of epic macho importance, but just the same, a juvenile criminal record is nothing to sneeze at.

It would be great if the court makes both of these dimwits take a course in anatomy and physiology, along with a court mandated research paper on the various idiosyncrasies of male versus female throwing abilities.

Here’s something they’d find out, assuming they’d NOT have to take a remedial reading course first.

Jack Wilmore and David Costill, two experts on sports physiology wrote a textbook, Training for Sport and Activity: The Physiological Basis of the Conditioning Process. It’s become a sort of trainer’s bible.

I’m not going to go into the details of it here, but paraphrasing, they concluded that males’ previous experience and practice at dominant arm throwing makes it look like males were “born” to throw but females were not.

They proved their point by setting up a significant research study that required male throwers to throw a softball using their non-dominant arm. Under such conditions, both males and females threw with equal capability.

That’s right, males and females of similar ages and physiques threw balls with equal capability when the males used their non-dominant arm to throw. Why? Males didn’t have the advantage of previous experience and practice of throwing with their dominant arm.

It seems that females, by tradition, are not generally encouraged to throw balls and stuff, not being very lady-like conduct and all… However, when trainers teach the females to throw stuff with their dominant arms, along with the associated practice, females can throw with an amazing ability that is equal to that of their male counterparts.

Who would have guessed it? Live and learn, I always say. I’ll bet these two hormone-crazed dudes won’t soon forget it.

Even though I had intended to write about sentence leniency, not all may be lost on these two kids and their stupidity. We may, yet, see a demonstration of judicial leniency when it comes time to punish these two kids, having received serious wounds meted out by the bullet of overabundant hormone-induced impulsiveness.

It’s all going to depend on whether they draw a “boy” judge or a “girl” judge and whether she still throws like a “girl.” We’ll have to wait and see. Paybacks are hell, no matter how you throw. Next week, same time and channel.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Four out of five doctors think the fifth doctor's an idiot!

By Joseph Walther

Here’s a quote. I don’t know who said it, but I think it was Bertrand Russell. Anyway, here it is. “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

Assuming that he said it, you have to understand something about old Bert. He was born in 1822, died in 1970, and—this is the critical thing—he was a British author. The Brits, in general, are long-winded to begin with. Add to this the fact that he was a product of the late 19^th century, and we have long-windedness taken to an unprecedented level.

Here’s what Bert meant. If dudes or dudettes want to believe something, they’re going to believe it and they’ll be in no mood to let facts interfere with it. The opposite is also true. Add in some statistics, most often of mythological creation, and we end up with an entirely new category of quasi-facts, called factoids.

Factoids look, and feel, like facts. But, they’re NOT facts. People who use them always include numbers to add credibility, most often consisting of creative, on-the-spot statistics.

The problem, though, is that factoids contain a significant number of half-truths. A single, half-truth, no matter how you state it, ALWAYS equals one WHOLE lie.

Years ago, someone sent me a statistics joke involving pickles. The premise was that eating pickles could kill you. The statistics were self-evident. Ninety-seven people out of every one-hundred, who died during WWII, had eaten pickles.

I had forgotten about that joke until last Wednesday when I overheard a 9-year-old boy talking about how bad pickles are for you. He had found something about the WWII “statistics” on the Internet, and he was NOT joking.

His equally young friends weren’t too sure, either. His aunt, seemingly as concerned, stated; “It may have been bad pickles.” She told them that she’d look it up on the Internet. I’m not making this up. It’s impossible to do so.

On a more serious note, however, a good friend and neighbor was telling me about his 3^rd grader daughter. A school administrator had congratulated him and his wife on the fact that the child scored at the seventh grade-level on a third grade standardized test.

He was convinced that his little girl could do seventh-grade work… ALREADY! I could see the concerned look on his face. He had that puzzled look on his face, such as, “How am I ever going to be able to afford Harvard tuition?”

That his delightful 8-year-old third-grader could do seventh-grade work was not true, of course. However, he had been convinced that she could by a school administrator who, either didn’t understand the nature of grade-equivalent scores or chose not to explain them to a proud daddy.

The amount of educational mumbo-jumbo going on at the K-12 level of public education increases exponentially with each Ed.D. degree annually awarded to various public school administrators. (Ed.D. stands for Doctor of Education, mostly in “Educational Leadership.”)

I’m not a professional educator. I have no academic credentials in Education. Even if I did have them, I’d never have the guts to admit it.

However, I do have credentials in Science and Engineering. I cut my eyeteeth on Inferential Statistics. And, I’m not the only one, either.

MANY of us skeptics possess more than a casual understanding of terms like Effect size, Differential sample attrition, Sample Precision, Confidence Interval Differentiation, Norm-referenced scores, Normal Curve Equivalent scores, Percentile rank, and the all-time favorite of the educational leadership set: Grade equivalents.

Grade equivalent score is one of the phoniest metrics going when it comes to reporting student performance. Administrators use it to make their own performances look better than they are.

The measurement does nothing more than report test performance in terms of the months since the beginning of a school year. A GE of 5.6, for example, means that a student’s performance is at the 6^th month of the 5^th grade.

This is ALL that it means. AND, it ALWAYS assumes that we’re talking about standardized tests!

My neighbor’s 3^rd grade daughter’s scoring at a 7^th grade-level on a standardized test does NOT mean that she can do 7^th grade work. It means that she did as well as a 7^th grade student having taken the same standardized, 3^rd grade test.

This youngster is a delightful, sunny, intelligent little girl. She’ll do just fine in school as long as her teachers are competent and her parents continue to take an active, positive role in her adolescent life.

Besides, everyone knows that good grades are not the only story to getting into Harvard. In fact, if a prospective student’s daddy or mommy can afford a new medical wing or the aspiring entrant’s daddy was a former CIA director, future Vice President, and future President of the United States, a kid could, easily…

What? He went where? Oh, damn! I’m so sorry about that. Forget what I said about Harvard. It was Yale.

We’ve got to learn the difference between a factoid and a fact. “There were 87% fewer cases of reported blindness among those who claimed to have stopped steadily masturbating,” is probably a factoid.

“The Earth seems to be at the beginning of a warming cycle, climatologically speaking, and the human race may have contributed to its acceleration to some degree, large or small,” is probably a fact.

Oh, and before I forget, Denzel Washington did NOT sign a blank check, hand it to a Veterans Administration official and say, “Build a hospital,” even though I’ve received hundreds of emails absolutely confirming that he did so, and telling me to “pass it on!”

Finally, I must voice my continued skepticism regarding a few other matters of socially professed truths.

Moses talking to God via a burning bush on a mountain that we no longer seem able to locate has always bothered me. Joe Smith and his alleged meeting with God—like that of Moses, alone and no means of independent verification—is also highly suspicious.

The Mohammed/Allah thing, the Noah thing, and Jonah’s experience with that whale do not pass the “smell” test, either. Of course, this is merely my opinion.

In fact, I think buying into these things, all of them, requires the ingestion of massive amounts of Kickapoo Joy Juice. Personally, I tried the stuff and the hangover is not worth it.

Last, I’d like to convey one other observation, just to all of my Roman Catholic friends, though.

Ever since medical science found a way, you guys have absolutely repelled against surrogate motherhood. I’ve witnessed some of you so aghast over the matter, that you were positively speechless… in a state of stunned disbelief, so to speak.

I’ll bet you’re all ecstatic that you didn’t have this rule back when Jesus was born, huh?! How differently things may have turned out. I’ll be back next week. Have a good one. Um, watch out for those pickles, though, you know… just in case.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

I don't suck... er, I mean I'm NOT gay!

By Joseph Walther

OK, Senator Larry Craig, R, Idaho, is not gay. He said so… in front of millions… on national TV. He’s a United States Senator, for God’s sake. As such, he wouldn’t lie about something like this, would he? Well, WOULD he?

The cable talking heads have been having an absolute feeding frenzy over this. The network news channels have been talking about it ad nauseum. Even the local radio talking heads, some of which are clueless about everything, have weighed in.

Show callers seem to take one of two stances. The rightish ones claim that the lefties set him up. The leftish ones claim that he’s a typical right wing moral phony and deserves everything that’s happened to him.

I emailed one radio host who seemed to think Craig wasn’t guilty because there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Here’s what he said. “Interesting that most people seem to think he did it, but he could've beaten the charge because there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did it.”

Well, I’ll concede that it may be interesting to some, but it’s easy to understand once people get beyond the legalese. All it takes to understand it is a bit of reflection on the difference between “actual” and “legal” guilt.

Prosecutors must prove “legal” guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By its very nature, though, the legal process does not emphasize “actual” guilt; not because it’s unimportant, but because our Constitution declares us innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and protects us against self-incrimination.

In other words, a criminal defendant does not have to say a word. The burden of proof falls entirely on the shoulders of the accusers.

But, in a growing number of cases, our courts have had to release people after years of incarceration due to wrongful convictions.

It seems, from these facts, sometimes it matters not what YOU did, but rather what THEY can convince a jury that YOU did, whether YOU did it or not. Of course, it works the other way, too. It’s scary, but it’s a fact of life.

I believe that Larry Craig did what the arresting police officer reported. I believe this for a couple of reasons.

First, the majority of police officers, uniformed and plain clothed, are not out-of-control bullies on a perpetual mission to fill alleged monthly arrest quotas. While some may very well be out of control, most are well-trained professionals dedicated to doing a tough job.

Officers assigned to this kind of duty are particularly well versed in human nature. They know precisely what to look for, not to mention the legal ramifications of righteous busts.

Second, Larry Craig was no stranger to accusations of his being gay. Such accusations go back at least two decades. In terms of direct evidence of his alleged sexual orientation, this means nothing. However, circumstantially, it has the same effect as pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire.

I don’t know if the man is gay. I don’t care if the man is gay. I don’t think that the majority of folks in the country care if he’s gay. While Idaho is a definitive “red” state, I’d also bet that the bulk of its citizens don’t really care, either, until he intentionally lies about it.

Unfortunately, the good Senator did precisely this. I don’t think he considered it a lie because in his mind at least, he doesn’t WANT to be gay. Unfortunately, not wanting to be gay is not the same as NOT being gay.

In this respect, half-truths always equal whole lies and constituents, no matter how forgiving they want to be, will revolt with the fury a rabid pit bull in pursuit of your leg.

Also, as shocking as this may be to some people, if you’re gay, you’re gay, whether you choose to manifest it through sexual activity is immaterial. Unfortunately, however, a strong sex drive tends to trump self-restraint, in both gays and straights.

The question is why. Why would a supposedly intelligent person, with everything to lose and nothing to gain, resort to the risk of virtual political suicide through such stupid, irresponsible displays of public lewdness?

At the very least, I believe that Senator Craig is conflicted in terms of his sexual identity. I think he has been conflicted for years. Sexual identity conflict is a serious psychological issue for many people. Its basis lies in past and present social norms.

As Bill Maher has often joked, “The Republican Party does not recognize homosexuality; only straight people living in sin.” However, not all Republicans think this way, nor are all Democrats devoid of the same thoughts.

I’ve said it before. Here it is again. I do not recall when I decided to be heterosexual. I think it comes naturally to me. I maintain this contention with the fact that something always comes up whenever I think about… shall I say, certain women in certain ways.

On the other hand, the mere passing notion of those same kinds of thoughts, relative to some hairy-assed dude, simply evokes projectile vomiting on my part.

They make me shudder, you know… with those involuntary shivers that shoot up and down the spine at the thought of something particularly disgusting.

Other men, however, cannot recall when THEY decided to be homosexual. In their cases, what I think of as disgusting hairy-assed dudes may well represent, to them, various manifestations of Mr. Fantastic: literal personifications of their personal Marlboro men.

Some people—I’m male, so I’m using that perspective—deal with these issues honestly and let the chips fall where they will. Others hide their feelings and end up with the chips falling inside of men’s room stalls, or behind bushes in public parks and other wooded areas.

Much of the time, people who are open and honest—but not flaunting—about their sexuality, end up as relatively productive members of society, enjoying the respect of most of those around them.

The seriously conflicted, however, many times end up under a reporter’s byline in a newspaper column or the lead story on TV and radio news. They become the brunt of muffled sneers and pity-parties thrown, on their behalf, by those who “thought” they “knew” them.

No matter what happens to Senator Craig because of this, he'll continue to engage in this sort of clandestine sexual behavior until he resolves his own sexuality issues. If he does not come to grips with them soon, he may well end up medicating himself in a liquor store and landing in another headline: a suicide headline.

Now, let me get to the reason for it being such a public "big" deal. Seriously, is it because Senator Craig is a Republican?

Yes, but, not because Republicans are inherently moral hypocrites. Most are not. It’s because of the holier-than-thou perception that many Republican office seekers have endeavored to instill in the American psychic over the past twenty or so years.

The Republican Party of the Barry Goldwater era was the party of small central government. They stayed the hell out of the nation’s bedrooms. Their message was one of fiscal restraint, social justice with a minimum of central government intervention, and self-determination.

They didn’t particularly like abortion and didn’t profess a fondness for boys kissing boys. Although, as I remember many of them, all men, they didn’t seem to profess an awful lot of disgust over girls kissing girls, if you get my drift.

Overall, with the exception of some of those Dixie dudes, they stayed out of this stuff because it wasn’t any of their damn business.

I was eligible to vote that far back. There was no way that the Republicans of that time would have permitted Creationism to trump good health care issues. They didn’t have to differentiate themselves from the loyal opposition by claiming to be the party of “family values,” as though all others were immoral: virtual emissaries of the Devil, himself.

For the Republicans of that era, there was a clear differentiation between what should come from a church pulpit and what should come from a political podium.

The Republican Party of the past twenty or so years has lost sight of this. They’ve done all that they can to dub themselves the party of “moral certainty,” all the while attempting to constitutionally ban gay marriage even as pension fund after pension fund, including social security, circle the drain of fiscal oblivion.

Yes, the lefties are picking on Larry Craig, BIG TIME. They have the audacity to pick on this man… a public servant of unprecedented self-proclamation, who regularly reminded the nation of his personal claim to a sizeable chunk of the moral high ground.

Yes, how dare they pick on Larry Craig, the most reliable ally that the Leviticus Lobby has ever been able to buy. The guy was a fine, upright, “family values” proponent his entire political life.

Hell, he’d still be flaunting himself as the patron saint of moral impeccability had it not been for that pesky cop catching him in the act of trying to sexually score with another man in a public men’s room stall!

Eeewww! One of those shivers just stomped up and down my spine as a picture of him sitting on that commode shot across my mind. Thankfully, another vision took its place, a vision of the lovely, sexy, erotically clad Lovey Kravesit, from the days of my early adulthood. See? I’m NOT gay! Something’s come up. I’ll be back next week.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.