Traditionial Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage

A brilliant playwright recently sent this editorial out regarding Prop 8. I saw it on another blog I read and absolutely loved it. Probably the most well-written opinion about the gay marriage issue. Enjoy.

Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)

About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.

This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.

Over a summer of research, I learned a lot of surprising facts about the history of marriage and weddings, but by far the most shocking discovery of all was that the tradition of marriage-as-we-know-it simply did not exist in those days. Almost everything we have come to associate with marriage and weddings -- the white dress, the holy vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed -- dates back a mere 50 or 100 years at the most. In many cases less.

And the handful of traditions that do go back farther than that are, frankly, horrifying. The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the bride's body as she left the ceremony in order to "loosen her up" for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize.

Savvy brides got in the habit of carrying extra garters in their bodice to throw to the male guests in hopes of escaping the ceremony with some shred of modesty intact!

It turns out that marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at its most civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at its worst. That's why you'll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible, or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly recently, there was nothing religious about it.

You will of course find plenty of biblical bigamy, practiced by even the most godly of heroes-- Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon -- because that's what marriage was in those days. Even in more enlightened New Testament times, the only wedding worth mentioning (the one at Cana) is notable only for the miraculous amount of wine consumed.

In the 21st Century, we've heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004. Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the "sanctity of marriage" before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state. The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent. And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself.

Unfortunately, God is still pretty new to the whole marriage game (or he might have made an honest woman out of the Virgin Mary, am I right? Try the veal!)

The truth is that marriage has always been more a secular tradition rather than a religious one. Up until the early Renaissance, in fact, couples were traditionally married on the church's front doorstep, because wedding ceremonies were considered too vulgar to be performed inside the building: After all, there was implied sex in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on the premises.

But as times changed, ideas and attitudes about marriage also changed. So when people became religious, matrimony became holy. When people became nudists, clothing became optional. And so on throughout history.

And the wonderful thing about the institution of marriage -- the reason it has remained strong and relevant through thousands of years of ever-changing times -- is its unique ability to change with those times.

Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because, seriously, that chicken dance is not in the Bible.)

Thus, in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it pedophilia.

For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the last century or so, we've finally seen the triumph of this new-fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship between two consenting adults.

Followers of the Mormon faith can tell you that the traditions of their forefathers included a devout belief that polygamy was appropriate and sanctified. But modern Mormons generally don't support that vision of happiness for their daughters.

And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to prevent those newfound relationships.

Always marriage has triumphed by becoming a timely celebration of our society, rather than a backlash against it. It's strange, then, to see "tradition" used as a weapon against change, when change is the source of all its greatest traditions.

Just ask the white dress: In 1840, Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert wearing a beautiful white lace dress -- in defiance of tradition -- in order to promote the sale of English lace! The image was so powerful that practically overnight the white wedding gown became de rigueur for the well-heeled bride. And then it became de rigueur for every bride.

By the dawn of the 20th Century, the white dress had also inexplicably come to symbolize chastity. (Even though blue was traditionally the color of virginity --"something borrowed, something blue...")

And the new equation of white with virginity eventually achieved such a rigid orthodoxy that older readers may remember a time when wedding guests who happened to know that the bride was not perfectly pure would have felt a moral obligation to demand that she change into something off-white before walking down the aisle.

Fortunately, as cultural norms eased during the Sexual Revolution, a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy took hold where all brides were required to wear white regardless of their virtue and the less said about it the better.

In recent years, as a generation of divorcees have remarried and a generation of young people have entered wedlock with some degree of "experience", the pretense of a connection between literal virginity and the bridal gown has become entirely obsolete. A colorful journey for a custom which has always seemed iron clad, even as it was evolving over time.

And not all traditions have to do with changing sexual standards. The long-time custom of pelting the newlyweds with birdseed did not exist before the 1970s when animal-lovers realized that songbirds were bloating on dried rice that they found on the ground after the former custom.

Economic times have caused families to rethink the age-old convention of the bride's father paying for the entire ceremony -- a last vestige of the days of dowries when a young man had to be bribed to take a free-loading daughter off her parents' hands -- that well-established custom has gradually given way to a more humane approach to sharing the financial burden.

Even religious traditions of marriage have experienced constant metamorphosis over the years. As more interfaith couples have wed, we have seen the emergence of multi-disciplinary ceremonies where couples have chosen not to follow the out-dated tradition of rejecting one or both of their faiths as a prerequisite of holy matrimony.

One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which would have been unthinkable just a generation before.

But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.

Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding, nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they didn't include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each make of it. And that's the way it always should be.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.

Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?

...The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
...Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
...Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
...Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
...Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
...Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?

No, the truth of the matter is, that we're trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it "was and always has been" during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s - just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.

But there's something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as "the way God intended it."

Running for President

 (Look how patriotic I am!  I look like Uncle Sam after he moved to West Hollywood.)

I have decided to run for President....eventually.

I know what you're going to say. "Wait Kevin, aren't you 10 years too young and a total jackass?"

Yes, that's why I said "eventually."

And fuck you. :-)

Look, if Sarah Palin can be considered a viable candidate, I am the fucking messiah.

Here's a very brief rundown of where I stand on the major issues in the US:

Abortion: Pro-Choice. A woman's body is her own business. However, I am against the abortion of me. Good choice, Mom!

Affirmative Action:I don't believe in quota's, but special consideration should be given to those who come from disadvantaged schools and areas. If you can maintain a 3.5 GPA in honor's courses while enduring friends being shot and the ghetto bird out every night, you deserve to be in the school of your choice.

Capital Punishment: I believe in, quite literally, an eye for an eye, when it comes to crime. Murderer? Prepare to die. Violent Rapist? Prepare to be violently raped. Tax evader or caught in possession of drugs? Prison is stupid. Pay a fine, determined by your crime, go through a rehab program, don't screw up again because the fine keeps increasing every time you do.

Censorship: The laws on this need to be relaxed. Seriously. So what if you're 7-year old son see's a nipple on TV. Good, you know hard I had to search and how many extra channels we needed to have before I found a nipple on TV? Nipples should be more accessible.

Cuba: Are we seriously STILL upset about communism? Come on now. What is the threat? All the Cuban terrorists that move to Miami and become Republicans? Give me a break!

Current Administration (Obama): My only gripe with this administration is the lack of movement on gay rights issues. I understand more pressing needs have arisen, but Obama needs to come out (no pun intended) and clearly state whether he is in support of gay marriage or not. Other than that, they're doing a fantastic job.

Current Congress: This is an absolute clusterfuck. To their credit, the Democrats are trying to pass legislation, while the GOP literally refuses to consider passing anything proposed by the Dems. It's like rival Kindergarten classes, only they run the most powerful nation on earth.

Flag Burning: You have the right to burn whatever flag you want. I personally am going to burn the flag with Barry Bonds' ugly head on it.

Foreign Policy:The US needs to be a less-polarizing figure in the world. Our military shouldn't be stationed everywhere. When it comes to the Arab world, a conciliatory tone, along with an admission that we have been assholes over the past 50 years, will go over well, as will a promise to stay out of their business, politically and militarily.

Gay Rights: Did we learn nothing from the Civil Rights movement?Apparently. I'm amazed this is still an issue. Separation of Church and State, people. Simple as that.

Global Warming: Needs to be taken seriously immediately. Quit paying off scientists to dispute the facts. I refuse to stand on a beach in Phoenix.

Gun Control: Agree with a mass purge of guns within society. Guns should be the most difficult pieces of equipment to get a hold of, unless you're in the military or a police officer. Crackdowns on the black market need to be more frequent and sweeping.

Healthcare: We are the wealthiest nation on earth. If we didn't spend so much money on useless things, pork-barrel legislation and dated Cold War military objectives, we would have more than enough surplus to cover every American citizen. Healthcare should be free to those who want it, and for those who prefer to keep paying for private coverage, they can do that. A healthy competition between private and public sectors is always a good thing.

Illegal Immigration:  I think the requirements to become a citizen should not include a fee. Merely state your intent to become a citizen, go through a background check, and if you pass, you are legally on your way to becoming a legal immigrant.

Marijuana Legalization: Legalize it and tax it.


Minimum Wage: Minimum Wage should be enough to keep people above the poverty line.

Right to Die: Why is anyone going to stop someone from killing themselves when they have a terminal disease? I don't understand stopping others, just so they can suffer.

School Prayer: Nope. Not in public schools unless the children are doing it on their own time, during recess or lunch. If you want prayer time in school, go to a private school.

Social Security:Privatization? Are you fucking kidding me? They want to take away the only safety net many elderly have? Not everyone earns six-figure incomes and has a few million in their account when they retire. FDR started this for a reason.

Stem Cell Research: I'd like to live a long time. Keep researching!

United Nations: If the US wants the UN to be relevant, we need to actually listen to them once in a while and be a functioning member, not just a uni-lateral country who does whatever the fuck they want.

War in Iraq: Pull out! It's time to get out of there. On a side note, we should be out of that region entirely. That means more money into alternative fuel research and less interest in Israel.

Welfare: The system needs to be reformed. Job training should be offered to recipients who are unemployed. In addition, the amount of support given should keep families above the poverty line.


So when I inevitably run for President, vote for me. So what if I have a checkered past and my secret plan is to invade the South and re-start the Civil War, I'm still a better candidate than Palin!

Golden Era of Urban Music

So I'm not going to rant today. I was just thinking about music recently and, as a musician, most people are very surprised to know my favorite type of music.

Some background: I am a musician. I'm first and foremost a singer and am pretty damned good at it as well. I've played the drums for 15 years and can also play the Guitar, Bass Guitar, Timbales, Conga's and Bongo's reasonably well. In addition, I am slowly learning piano on a slightly grander scale as I am versed in the rudimentary fundamentals of it. My musical influences range from The Beatles to Blink-182, Glenn Miller Orchestra to Johnny Cash, Tito Puente to Pancho Sanchez to Earth Wind and Fire and most things in-between. I am diverse (Modern Country does not crack my listenable list) and appreciative with music.

So, it comes as a surprise to most, including myself, that 1990's Gangsta Rap is my favorite type of music.

From Snoop to Dre to Coolio to Tupac to Biggie, 90's hip-hop represented a cultural revolution through lyrics that brought the plight of the inner streets to mainstream America. Personal experiences with drug dealing, murder, family relationships and living on the streets painted a poignant and raw interpretation of how difficult life could be in the land of opportunity.

Set to catchy melodies and beats, these pioneers of hip-hop flowed so succinctly that one can not help but to be drawn into their struggle while reflecting on our own personal fortune to not have been forced into that type of upbringing.

Despite many artist's legal trouble and gang affiliation, the lyrics seemed to hide a deeper meaning of a desire for success. Most rapper's would immediately buy a house for their mother's as soon as they got that first big check, a testament to the strong family unit that many critics derided as being non-existent. Nearly every artist in the 90's either made a song in reverence for their parental figure or alluded to it in various songs. It struck a chord that inner-city people were no different than anyone else. They were not mindless killing machines who preferred to be strung out on crack. They were poetic souls who drew from their own experiences to bring inner city life to the forefront of the public conscience.

The 90's hip-hop scene brought about a different kind of revolution than was seen in the 1960's. It was not a response to an unpopular war or the glorification of drug use. It was a response to the indifference shown to the poor, urban area's of America. Urban America was not going to simply put up with being ignored or looked down upon. Their intelligence, wit, talent and abilities were put on full-display during the 90's and the world took notice.

When I listen to modern Hip-Hop, I long for times past, but the spirit of this tumultuous but, ultimately, beautiful style of music lives on.

Change of Pace: Becoming Less Political and Combative

After this blog being so heavy on political rants over the past 2 years, i've decided to really just turn this into an everything kind of ranting blog.

Now, don't get me wrong: This is not going to turn into a constantly bitching blog, but it will become a blog in which I post about more than simply political matters. However, this is very difficult for me.

As far back as I can remember, I've been a political junkie and have loved nothing more than to discuss, debate and frustrate those who hold diametrically opposite views to my own.

In 1988, I was 6 years old and in 1st grade during the presidential election between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Most kids my age cared little and some had no awareness of an election. I, on the other hand, had been following the campaign trails closely through newspapers and TV outlets, hoping for a Dukakis victory. On election night, I begged my mom to let me stay up late so i could watch the returns on TV with her. Weird right? I even cried when Dukakis conceded defeat.

Anyways, my decision to switch gears will not eliminate blogging about political affairs when the mood strikes, however, it will no longer be the sole motivating factor behind writing these blogs. Hopefully my readership will grow and I can keep up with the blog on a more daily basis.

I feel as though this will represent a shift in my blogger life as more well-rounded and, hopefully, more interesting.

Here's hoping at least....

(Il)legally Blonde

As he picked up his pen to sign an historic bill into law, it is said that President Lyndon Baines Johnson turned to his aide and said, of the Democratic Party, "We've lost the South for a generation".

These words proved prophetic, as the south has never quite gotten over the passing of the Civil Rights bill in 1964. Every presidential election since that time has shown the south overwhelmingly in favor of the conservative candidate.

The bill was intended to curtail racism between blacks and whites, which, slowly, it has mostly succeeded in doing, far more so than had it never been passed or had been delayed. However, a new historic bill has been signed into law, not by a president, but by a governor in the southwest state of Arizona.

Long considered a conservative bastion, the home of Sen. John McCain has also been respected for it's non-conformity to either side of the political aisle, until recently, when Governor Jan Brewer signed a highly controversial Immigration Reform bill into law.

The bill grants police the authority to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and force them to show documents.

I realize that last sentence sounds like something from an Orwellian novel, but sadly, this is now the law of the land in Arizona.

Many opponents of the bill have referred to it as inherently racist. Proponents counter that illegal immigration is against the law, drains the social welfare system and takes jobs away from Americans.

Let's look at these arguments to see if, maybe, the conservatives have a point.

1. "Illegal Immigration is against the law".

This is true. It states it right there in the name, "Illegal Immigration". No way around this. However, you then need to look at why people migrate illegally? Is it because, as many have suggested, they're all criminals and come here looking to criminalize the US? No, and that's a ridiculous argument. A vast majority of illegal immigrants strictly adhere to the law because they don't want to draw attention to themselves and face deportation.

So why so much illegal immigration? It's simple really. Most immigrants come from poor countries looking to better themselves and their families or escape a murderous government regime (far too often). As the United States is not known for murdering dissidents, we tend to be the obvious destination of choice. However, our immigration requirements are many, and the cost is often far too high. Additionally, many foreign governments tend to tack on extra charges to those seeking a green card, including some who will not allow their citizens to leave. As immigration primarily appeals to those who want to better their lives, the costs are often impossible for them.

That the bill itself, as it speaks to immigration reform, is illegal apparently has no bearing for the citizens who so hypocritically defend it. Constitutionally, no state is allowed to pass immigration law, as it is a power reserved for the federal government alone. I'm sure Arizona will soon declare war on Mexico once the bill is overturned.

So why migrate illegally? Why not? Personally, I'd rather take my chances with some maniac racist with a shotgun than a well-organized military hunting me down for disagreeing with the Commandante.

2. "Immigrants drain the social welfare system".

Well lets look at some numbers if this is what you believe, courtesy of the Center for Immigration Studies. According to their data, 24.5% of all immigrants collect welfare of some kind. That means that less than a quarter of them actually receive benefits.

But, according to the conservative argument, they all do. So by that rationale, we can safely assume that Americans actually voted for John McCain to become president, because apparently, more than a quarter of Americans did indeed vote for him. In fact, they overwhelmingly supported him as I believe he garnered around 40% of the vote. Wow! What a resounding statement for President McCain!

Many also fail to point out that, because they are using fake ID numbers, illegal immigrants end up paying into the social security system, but are unable to collect later due to their illegal status.

What an awful drain!

3. "Immigrants take jobs away from hard-working Americans".

Well, immigrants do require jobs, which is usually why they come here in the first place. However, the types of jobs they take have very few, if any, Americans working there.

First off, 5% of the entire workforce is made up of immigrants. Secondly, 30% of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree, while 95% do not possess a college degree. Start worrying, because that internship you had in college that they promised would lead to a job after graduation will soon be filled by a high school dropout illegal immigrant.

Immigrants primarily work in low-paying entry-level service jobs (fast food, restaurant) or difficult low paying manual labor jobs requiring 10-12 hour days in most cases. The primary demographic of Americans who work in these jobs are high school students and mom's looking for part-time work, although usually they are working in different roles than the immigrant workers.

When unemployed, because they are often found ineligible for unemployment or have no knowledge of its existence, the workers become day laborers, begin selling flowers and oranges, or simply accept any job they can get to survive and provide for their families. I can honestly say very few American citizens are willing to do this.

In addition, 1 out of every 10 immigrants, legal and illegal, eventually become business owners, employing american workers, exactly on par with the entrepreneurship exhibited by American citizens.

Watch out all you CEO's! Next week an illegal immigrant may just overtake your position!

So what is the reason for this bill? Is it racism? Not entirely. There is a racist agenda behind the bill, as I can almost guarantee that few European, Russian or Canadian immigrants, legal or illegal, will be stopped and asked to show identification. So race definitely plays a small factor, however the primary reason for this is the age old practice of scapegoating.

Immigrants have often been scapegoats throughout time. Economy failing? Blame the immigrants! Disease outbreak? Gotta be the immigrants! Rise in crime? Probably the immigrants! There was a Solar eclipse? Witchcraft by the immigrants!

The point is, we can keep pointing fingers and deporting people because of the problems the country is having, but it has nothing to do with them.

As is usually the case, those who accuse the loudest often have the guiltiest conscience.

The Problem with America

With the recent passage of healthcare reform, Conservative Americans are up in arms, saying everything from "Obama is turning the US into a communist dictatorship" to the less articulate "I'm going to leave the country if this passes".

This is the type of ignorance that upsets a logical person. Here we have a small portion of the population who truly grasp an understanding of government, the Constitution and the issues of the day, yet the loudest people are those who get 95% of their knowledge from Fox News.

I feel that, as someone who possesses a Political Science degree, it is my duty to educate the uninformed.

I am a liberal and as such, I do not agree with conservative ideology. However, those with a true understanding of government, are not social conservatives (I'll explain this later), but fiscal and economic conservatives.

Let's get started class.

1) Social Conservatism

One ideology that most intelligent liberals refuse to recognize as valid is social conservatism. Throughout history, social conservatives have been those who were Pro-Slavery, Anti-Women's Rights, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Civil Rights, and Anti- Gay Marriage, among others. The idea of social conservatism is essentially rooted in religious (usually christian) thought, which would be absolutely fine in a Theocratic Christian government. The problem with the thought process however, is that the United States is a secular government, which is explicitly stated in the constitution. Therefore, regardless of how hard they try, social conservatives will never win out.

Slavery ended, Women can vote, All skin colors have equal rights, women are allowed to choose whether or not they can have an abortion and, soon enough, homosexuals will be allowed to be officially married. Thanks to the brilliant founding fathers, progressive thought will always win out, eventually.

Social conservatives represent what is considered a powerful political ideology, however, they are not a political ideology at all. Once logic is included in the discussion, a social conservatives argument is rendered null and void, no matter how passionate he or she may be. Sadly, these people make up about half of the country. Thankfully, they matter very little.

2) Economic and Fiscal Conservatives

Now this is what a conservative truly is. Though i do not share their viewpoints, I respect these conservatives and their understanding of political thought. Many of these conservatives do not share the views of social conservatives because they understand the latter have no true grasp on reality, and are, usually, bigots.

Fiscal Conservatives believe in smaller central government, States' rights, a reduction, and gradual elimination, of state welfare, and they are usually pro-business.

Many social conservatives also adopt this platform because the Republican Party has adopted the social conservative platform. However, try not to confuse the two. Fiscal conservatives have a true understanding of government and it's functions, unlike the other group.

3) Communism and Socialism

I hear many uninformed morons constantly calling the president a socialist and a communist, with little-to-no understanding of what these actually are. Many of these idiots immediately think of Russian dictatorships and, some, even think of Nazi Germany.

First off, Nazi Germany was Fascist, which is completely different. Hitler was about as Anti-communist as they come.

Now, Communism and Socialism are not types of government. They are economic systems. Communism is not the direct antithesis to democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism and communism are both economic systems. Neither work very well, but that's a different story.

Communism is the belief that everyone in the country makes the same amount of money and shares everything. Nobody is worse or better off than their neighbor. Everyone is equal. It's a very nice thought, however it doesn't work because human nature will not allow it to work. nobody is going to work hard if they have no monetary motivation to do so. Why go to school for 8 years to become a doctor if you can make just as much money as a janitor? Therein lies the problem. A communist economy can function in a democratic government, just as a capitalist society can function in a dictatorship. They're not mutually exclusive.

Socialist capitalism is popular in Europe. Tax rates are very high, (Around 50%) but your income depends on what type of job you have, which in turn, depends on your education level. The thing is, Education, Healthcare and social services are all 100% paid for by taxes in those countries. They also have a democratic form of government with all the civil liberties that we enjoy here in the US.

Still, uninformed idiots consider this un-american. That may be the problem.

4) Kevin's Solution

So I have talked a lot about what I think is wrong with the country, and why I don't believe in Social Conservatism, but I have offered very few solutions. Well, Here you go:

Healthcare - I believe 100% in Universal Healthcare, however, the current bill is not the answer. Mandatory healthcare is a bad idea. My solution would include government-run free healthcare for those who choose it. If you are happy with your current health insurance that you pay for, keep it! There should be the ability to choose, however, as government healthcare improves, it offers a smarter choice to many consumers.

Education - This is another area in which the government should take care of it's citizens. College should be free to all US citizens. Student loans should be a thing of the past. Look at the literacy rates, test scores and success rates of people in France, Sweden and Finland compared to the US. It's embarrassing to any true American. Do the research yourself if you don't agree.

Business - Green technology, Alternative energy, Maglev Trains and Hybrid car plants are all the wave of the future. My belief is that any domestic company who decides to outsource their jobs to another country, thus taking jobs away from American citizens, should face tax penalties and tariffs so high they end up spending more money than if they kept the jobs in the US. If politicians truly cared for the american worker, this would be a no-brainer.

Gay rights, abortions, prostitution, legalization of marijuana - Since the argument of morality and religion have no bearing on a secular nation, they are null and void with no place in a political discussion. Homosexuals are humans, thus are entitled to marriage rights, abortion is a choice for a woman to decide, prostitution and marijuana should be legalized and regulated by the government to ensure safe usage and to extract taxable income, thus reducing the need for higher income taxes.

I don't want this to turn into an argument for my presidential nomination or anything like that, just an informative argument for those who want to understand exactly what is currently going on in the political landscape.

Valentine's Day Gift Guide: A Break from the Ordinary

Valentine's Gift Guide

In addition to possessing a brilliant political mind along with the ability to find fault with any public official, I happen to be an excellent dispenser of advice.

Be it love, relationships, pets or herpes, I can help remedy your situation with some encouraging words, a cup of hot cocoa and a swift kick in the ass.

I can also give you excellent gift advice.

Valentine's Day is that magical holiday in which women's expectations regarding the romanticism of men are rapidly crushed in a hailstorm of flowers and flavored message chalk.

In the spirit of the holiday, I will massacre a group of 1920's-era Chicago Gangsters...or just write up a gift guide. Either one...

Let's start with the guys:

1. Is your wife or girlfriend (or both) always complaining about how fat she looks? Do large objects instinctively revolve around her? Is her gravitational pull considered a wonder of the scientific community? Then how about a 1-year membership to Curves Gym (Cost: $1,000)? Not only will she drop a couple of metric tons, other men won't be constantly watching her on the Stairmaster (mainly due to the hypnotizing "Jiggle Effect").

2. So let's say your lady friend is a bit older than you. Think Demi Moore, plus 40 years. Better yet, think Dudley Moore. In this situation, your best bet is Breast Firming Cream (Cost: $20-30). It probably won't work, but she'll be happy you're putting forth the effort to make her ex-husband jealous.

3. Gentlemen, we have all faced it. It was once a world-wide epidemic threatening to destroy humanity as we know it. In recent times, it has become eradicated in the more advanced countries, but still it plagues our society. That's right gentlemen, "Too much grass on the playing field". Nations have gone to war over this issue (see Pubiponessian War) and it is high time for full-eradication. Luckily, the most advanced weapon against this debilitating condition is widely available. A Brazilian Bikini Wax (Cost: About $50) will take care the problem immediately. Nothing says I love you like "deforestation".

4. The next item on my list is Wrinkle Cream (Cost: $35). If she needs this, stop picking up women in the damned retirement home!

5. Lastly, for the woman who has it all (including odd smells), try the miracle gift of Femenine Hygiene products (Cost: Varies). Not sure what exactly to buy? Follow this little rhyme: "If something smells iffy, while throwing your Koosh (90's era football), go get your girl, a package of Douche."

Because I am an equal-opportunity blogger, women are just as obligated to buy presents as men are. So women, thank me later.

1. Does your guy get you going, only to disappoint seconds later? Is his nickname "Old faithful" because he erupts every 3 minutes? Is the term "Minute man" his lifelong goal? Well, congratulations, you're dating 99% of the male population. This year, let him know you care with a bottle of Premature Ejaculation cream (Cost: $20). Turn 10 seconds of pleasure into a full half-minute!

2. Maybe your guy isn't one of the many labeled above and can go for hours. The problem is, you fall asleep halfway because you're 99% positive he's just getting creative with a toothpick. This Valentine's Day, your best bet is a box of Small-size Condoms (Cost: $12). The bonus for you? There are about 6,000 in the box, thus saving you money!

3. For the man about town who seemingly eats a shit sandwich for lunch daily, Breath Fresheners (Cost: Less than $5) should do the trick. If you can't tell the difference between kissing his mouth, and kissing his ass, this is a no-brainer.

Happy Valentine's Day everyone!

Time For Limbaugh To Rush Home And Yell At The Cat

Aside from his recent attempt to buy the NFL St. Louis Rams franchise, Rush Limbaugh hasn't been in the news as much as he would like. In a (far from) perfect world, Rush would be the top story on the news every night, talk shows would dedicate entire episodes to his name and prescription drug makers would send him free lifetime supplies.

The world for Mr. Limbaugh however, is not perfect.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly less perfect everyday.

There is no doubt as to his influence. He is the most successful personality in the history of radio and his listeners number around 20 million. The number can be misleading in the sense that at least 30% of those listeners are there because they hate him. Regardless, he gets the ratings and the money, and they get an ulcer.

I am one of the many who fall under the "Severe hatred" category when it comes to Limbaugh. Never would I ask the man to apologize for anything he says, but I'd much rather he just stop talking and/or thinking. I must admit though, the man is very intelligent when it comes to his craft and knows exactly how to bring in ratings...Or at least i thought he did.

Recently, I have noticed the things that he says are becoming less and less articulate. He seems to be reaching further out into right field, almost as if he is begging to cause a controversy or a media firestorm. He wants it, he craves it, and he (desperately) needs it.

During his heyday in the 80's and 90's, Limbaugh would create a controversy using what seemed to be tongue-in-cheek humor. He was still spouting off things too deplorable for any normal human being, yet it was tinged with sarcasm and worded rather eloquently. Nowadays when he speaks, he just spouts off something offensive and the general reaction is "Oh it's just Rush" in a loving or contemptuous manner, depending on your affiliation. He has finally reached the point where he can't really offend anyone anymore because it's just expected. He has passed his prime and has become that crotchety old man who argues with you in a nonsensical fashion while you're trying to run errands. He demands attention, but we have better things to do now.

Rush brings to mind Willie Mays. Not in an athletic sense because i'm sure Limbaugh gets winded while eating. Willie Mays was a great baseball player. He was a spectacular showman and a great hitter in his prime. However, Willie, like many athletes, played too long. By the end of his career, he was getting by on reputation as his hitting and fielding skills deteriorated. He finally had to say goodbye and retired gracefully. Rush Limbaugh might be too blind (or deaf) to realize that it's time to hang it up and be put out to pasture. It's time America ignores Rush Limbaugh and let nature take it's course.

An Inconvenient Douche: The Case Against Glenn Beck

You've seen his face. His pudgy, pasty and often crying face. You've probably heard him speak. He appears nightly on Fox News spewing idiotic vitriol that only the most minuscule of mental midgets could take seriously. He has written books, including what seems to be a self-hating, multiple personality disorder-eschewing gem entitled "Arguing With Idiots: America's Next Epic Battle".


His name is Glenn Beck and he is the newest far-right conservative mouthpiece as well as heir apparent to douche bag extraordinaire, Rush Limbaugh. His viewership numbers in the millions and hundreds of thousands more flock to his live tirades at sold-out venues.


He is also a giant douche.


As the right-wing version of a wack-job consipiracy theorist, Beck blends the "fire and brimstone" theatrics of a Cotton Mather, the jingoistic theocracy promotion of Pat Robertson and tops it all off with an Art Bell-type of outlook on the world. He makes no secret of his disdain for minorities nor his hatred for any religious belief aside from Christianity.


Plain and simple, the man is a joke.


Yet, millions seem to love him. Some even going so far as to put pictures up in their home of the former drug addict and alcoholic. To these small-minded idiots, Beck is some sort of heaven-sent mouthpiece for their own racist, sexist and dangerously nationalistic views. Beck and his ideals represent everything that is wrong with the world.


When a hate-filled, emotionally disturbed conspiracy theorist can get on TV and make false claims while spreading anger and fear, freedom of speech has failed and cult of personality has gone too far.


Let's take a quick look at a small part his track record:


2006 - On his TV show, Beck asked Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), a black Muslim, to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies...And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel."


2009 - Beck, talking about the Henry Louis Gates controversy, said that President Obama has repeatedly shown "a deep-seated hatred for white people {and} the white culture...".


Another despicable incident occurred in July when Beck began devoting episodes of his radio and TV broadcast to criticizing Director of White House Council on Environmental Quality, Van Jones, for prior support of controversially convicted death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal. The subsequent copycat attacks on Jones forced his resignation in September of 2009. Beck took credit for leading the charge, while other conservative lemmings followed suit.


It is a suspicious occurrence when public figures begin attacking others persistently. It shows not only a disdain for humanity, but also a fear of their own dirty laundry being aired.


Nobody ever thinks to ask if this man who so loves America and hates anyone who shows disrespect or questions the system, why he would repeatedly break the law on his own with his rampant drug use and drunk driving.


It is also interesting how this conservative, religious and hateful man had a homosexual affair with a radio colleague back in the 1980's while living in an apartment together.


Yes, Glenn Beck is a douche. A lying, hateful one at that.


It’s time we give him something to truly cry about.

California Meltdown 2009: Armageddon-outta here!

Less than 50 days away from complete bankruptcy, government meltdown and (possibly) another T-1000 attack, California faces a budget crisis the likes of which haven't been seen since World War II. Adding fuel to the proverbial fire is the fact that our legislature, in these dire times, is staying true-to-form, unwilling to compromise on the most miniscule of details("Diet Coke with that sandwich sir?" "Nay!").

Thus far, State Controller John Chiang has stated publicly that a budget is highly unlikely to pass on time, rendering the state unable to approach Wall Street with a viable credit-lending structure, thus limiting them to asking the Haight-Ashbury district for "meds".

Republicans in congress have stated that their demands are simple: Simply cutting any and all programs to help anyone ever. Once that is acheived, the state can pull itself out of debt and compromise on a budget. Then, down the road, we can focus on the shantytowns and post-apocalyptic roaming motorcycle gangs preying on the rest of the population.

Democrats have proposed keeping all of the programs (Including the expensive-but-necessary anti-zombie measures...just in case) and simply raising taxes. The Dems argue that once the average California citizen is paying $650 for a loaf of bread at the local Vons, we can pull ourselves out of debt and return to glory.

Minor relief is coming in the form of the housing market returning to a more normal state. Mind you, "more normal" than utter, suicidal chaos isn't exactly the rock on which to grow the economy (Can things grow on a rock?), but I suppose it's better than people trying to sell houses for a case of Amstel Light with the buyer still negotiating ("How about a 6-pack of Pabst?").

There is a bigger problem here than most citizens realize. When the public officials that we elect to help us in times of crisis are so focused on the politics of politics to pass a budget with a crucial deadline looming and the future financial situation of the state in doubt, the system has clearly failed us. Unfortunately, it's far too late in the history books to change it and, frankly, an Ancient Greek true democracy is not the answer ("I now present Chief Justice Carrot-Top."). The only real power the public has, is one that is utilized not nearly enough; The power to vote.

Imagine if California's citizens decided that they were going to vote every single member of the state legislature, regardless of party affiliation, out of office in the coming election cycles. How enormous of a statement would that be? Larger than the ego's of these "representatives" currently in power.

If California were a private business and the legislature was the finance department, every one of them would be looking for work or delivering pizza's right now. We learn as children to stop the petty squabbling and play nice when we're supposed to. We then re-learn as adults that the petty squabbling is what supposedly makes us unique.

If we're truly going to make a difference, ordinary citizens need to remember that the power lies in the hands of the many, not the few. Oligarchy be damned, California is in trouble and it's time for everyone to get involved.

Also, Sarah Connor, watch out for that T-1000.