Is America Ready For A Gay First Lady/Dude?

As Michele Bachmann moves front and center (actually front and far, far right), it raises so many questions to whether she is qualified to be President and what does she really stand for (and against)?

She seems to be willing to stretch the truth (and outright lie) to be elected as I wrote previously (Read HERE).

She has clearly stated she believes in the literal word of the Bible and that God speaks to her directly. Too bad for all of us, that even she acknowledges that she is not actually a "deep thinker."

“I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist.”  [Michele Bachmann quote]

I sometimes question whether she thinks at all. She has said most of her decisions are not made based on what she thinks but what God told her to do. (What happens if God stops giving Bachmann hints as to what to do?)

Do you want a President that doesn't think for herself?


And now we also have to ask ourselves if we are ready for a gay first lady, I mean first dude? Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus Bachmann, a Christian counselor who's also her strategist, has a clear record of anti-gay rhetoric. Yet, many including Bill Maher and Cher  have said (and if anyone should know), this man sounds gayer than former Sen. Larry Craig (those Republicans like to hide in closets and bathroom stalls - whichever is more convenient to meet those despicable gay people on an intimate basis, of which the GOP speak.)

According to The Daily Beast contributor David Graham Marcus Bachamann has said :

 “He's allegedly participated in gay-to-straight therapy, he's talked about [the] homosexual agenda.”

Marcus also loves to call other Americans, who happen to be gay, Barbarians.

The segment prompted Cher to tweet message to her more than 250,000 followers:

“Just heard Michele Bachmann's OH SO CHRISTIAN husband talk about 'Gays' in the most UNCHRISTIAN way WTF!”

“But Boys please utube this asshole & tell me what u think … Cause My Gay-Dar is GOING OFF!!!”-

“How a Christian can call Any of God's Children … I can't talk! WHO R THESE FKN People? C if u can find his views of what 2 do 2 'Gays'”

“Boys I'm not kidding! I'm listening 2 this >%~€¥^<<&&&& I'm thinking GAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAY Without Style!” she added moments later.-CHER

Marcus, with his lisp and VERY effeminate personality, sounds gayer than Richard Simmons; yet, he calls homosexuals "barbarians" who must be "punished." I bet Marcus is into self-flagellation. Hear for yourself. This lisp is unmistakable. I've never heard a gayer male voice in my life.

I am not making fun of anyone with a lisp nor am I criticizing anyone who exhibits effeminate behavior.  I think Richard Simmons and Liberace being themselves is great.  We should all be free to act however we feel and we should all embrace people exactly as they may be.

To me the question is not whether he is gay or has gay desires but the hate and hypocrisy of the Bachmanns towards gays.

Is it fair to call any American a "barbarian" simply because they may be gay? Aren't you supposed to hate the sin and not the sinner? Isn't calling someone a "barbarian" who needs punishment hating the person as opposed to the act?

And why is it that the Bachmanns’ had only female foster children? Yes the Bachmanns were paid 1.2 million by the government to foster these children (yet Bachmann is strongly opposed to any government payments, I assume except those to her).  Michele Bachmann and her family receive (and have for years) farm subsidies on the farm her family owns.  More government money going in her pockets; yet, she is opposed to big Government? 




So what is the deal with raising some thirty plus foster children, all female? Is it that Marcus might be too tempted by male children?  And this is in no way to say all gay men are pedophiles, only that it is curious why Marcus didn’t foster any male children.

What scares me the most is that both the Bachmanns have exceedingly strong opinions that leave little room for discussion. It is all black/white, right/wrong, for them or against them. It must be wonderful to be so self-confident that you know that you are always right. But Michelle has said she has done things not because she believed in it, but because God told her. She has said that "God told her to marry her husband even though she did not love him." So are her opinions her owns or God's? Do we need her to clarify which decisions she has made and which God has directed her to make? And what if God stops telling her what to do?

And as to Marcus, his hypocrisy seems to put him in the same situation as those purple robe & gown wearing hypocritical priests and Popes.

So Marcus, why are you the first to cast a stone and call your fellow Americans "barbarians" who need "punishment?" Which punishments do you propose? Should we hang those "barbarians" by the cross for their sins?
Marcus, do you propose we start a new holy crusade against these "barbarians?" Rid them from the earth?

Or, should they do like you and "prey" away their gay? But does the "gay" go away or is just waiting to burst out like former Sen. Larry Craig or dressed in drag like Liza Maneli?

So we have to ask ourselves today, is America ready for its First gay dude? What would his secret service name be? Tinker Bell? Dorothy? Fruit Loops? Twinkle Toes? Or just hypocrite?

It is clear who wears the pants suits in that family (I wonder if they share the same dress size?). Why hasn't God spoken to her to clue her in that she married a raging queen.


What other decisions might she make that also make no sense? Maybe God will let her talk to the Founding Fathers so she can get it just right (very very right).



It is ironic that most of the Founding Fathers would be mortified that persons like the Bachmanns might be leading America and calling for decisions to be made based on religious beliefs. Contrary to what the Bachmanns may tell you, the Founding Fathers believed strongly in the separation of church and state and that America should have policies based on freedom and equality and not on religious dogma.

These are barbarians at the gate and they go by the name Bachmann.

They must be stopped.

Is it “honorable” to use assisted suicide to die? - "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Virginia Convention. It was given on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War. Among the delegates to the convention were future US Presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reportedly, those in attendance, upon hearing the speech, shouted, "give me liberty or give me death!"

The quote “Give me Liberty, or give me Death” has become forever woven into the fabric of American culture.  It pronounces that there is valor and honor in fighting for the concept of liberty, the “American Dream”.  Throughout history the notion of “dying in battle” has been portrayed as glorious and heroic.  Death is not to be feared but honored.

Even today we have hundreds of thousands of American troops fighting wars and battles throughout the world, with Americans dying or being maimed each day.  We rightfully view their dedication to us as honorable.

So it makes one wonder why we have such issue as an American public discussing death, and the choices that are being made every day as to who lives and who dies.

Death panels?  Actually, in a way, yes.  Our current system is set up so that medical treatment is available to some but not all and that decisions as to who lives and who dies are being made daily by both the government and corporations.

So what do we agree upon about death?  Most agree that if a person decides not to continue with treatments (will not take pills) which would prolong their life, but not “cure them”, that such person has the right to die with dignity and refuse treatment.

Funny how when we change one simple word, “not”, so as to allow people to die with dignity, with the aid of modern medicine, we create a firestorm of debate as to “dying with dignity” versus “assisted suicide.”  Somehow we decide that valor, honor and heroism is saved only for those who die in battle.

HBO in “How to Die In Oregon”, winner of the Grand Jury Prize (Documentary) 2011 Sundance Film Festival, adds a human face to the question of dying with dignity.


Have you ever watched someone die from a terminal illness? 

Terminal illness is a medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a relatively short period of time.   A patient who has such an illness may be referred to as a terminal patient, terminally ill or simply terminal. Often, a patient is considered to be terminally ill when the life expectancy is estimated to be six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course.

Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects. Others continue aggressive treatment in the hope of an unexpected success. Still others reject conventional medical treatment and pursue unproven treatments such as radical dietary modifications. Patients' choices about different treatments may change over time.

According to Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration: Walking the Ever-Finer Line American Journal Hospice & Palliative Care, pp. 8-13, March/April 1995:

People who feel they are near the end of their life often intentionally refuse food and/or water. Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life: "At least for some persons, starvation does correlate with reported euphoria."

 

So we allow people to starve themselves to death but we object to other more humane ways to end life?  So why do we view it as "heroic" for someone to suffer pain impossible to imagine until they ultimately die as opposed to assisted suicide for a terminal illness with no hope of survival?  Is it just the historical mythology of gladiators fighting to the death?  What is “heroic” or “honorable” about fighting pain and misery so intolerable that no rational person would endure it?

 Those who are opposed to the “right to die with dignity” say that it is “weak”, “that the dying person lacks “dignity”, that ending life (when terminally ill) is somehow different than dying with “courage” and “valor” and excruciating pain .    We Americans like our heroes to suffer?  Right?

Death is an inevitable part of life. 
 

If we give mothers drugs to bring us into “life”, then why are we so opposed to allowing adults with terminal illness the right to use the same to bring us to the “after-life”.  We are all headed there.   None of us are immune from death.  Or is it that various religious ideologies are being imposed upon us?  But that is why we have separation of Church and State so that no single religion should impose its doctrines on all of us.  It should remain a personal choice.

Peter Richardson’s documentary How to  Die in Oregon follows the lives, the decisions and the experiences of people with terminal  illnesses who consider whether to achieve a peaceful death using life-ending  medication under the guidelines of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.

Why would you or should you watch what undoubtedly will be painful to watch?  Because that person suffering could be you, me, your mom or dad, or sister or brother, husband, wife or partner.   We all hate the thought of watching the people we love suffer.  We all want to know the answer to the question of “what is best for my mom (etc.).”
 

And that is the ultimate question, “what is right for the person dying?”  We all want our mom or dad to die with dignity.  Watching a loved one die is never easy.  But what is a “dignified” way to die?  And who gets to decide?

In 1994, Oregon became the first state in the U.S. to legalize physician aid-in-dying.  At the time, only two countries (Switzerland and the Netherlands) permitted the practice, but more than 500 Oregonians have since ended their life using the law. How To Die In Oregon is a powerful, compassionate exploration of Oregon’s historic and controversial Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes physician aid-in-dying for some terminally ill patients. The film tells the stories of people who died under the act, and follows the crusade of one woman who honors her husband by fighting for similar choices in the state of Washington.

Peter D. Richardson, the Director and Producer of this film took fours years to follow the lives of persons struggling with terminal illness as well as their families, friends and Doctors.

Using personal interviews with volunteers, advocates, and terminally ill patients throughout Oregon and Washington, Richardson paints a picture of these struggles but does so in a way that it affirms life as opposed to focusing on death.

Perhaps the most compelling story emerges with Cody Curtis, her family and her oncologist. Through Cody and those around her, director Peter Richardson created an emotional and life-affirming film which will help people everywhere better understand what it means to regain control of one's own end of life care when faced with a terminal illness and to die with dignity.

You can read first hand Cody's own account of her story HERE.

Cody was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in December of 2007, at the age of just fifty-two. Cholangiocarcinoma is a cancer of the bile duct. Your bile duct runs through your liver.

According to Cody in her own words:

"The outcome is clear in my case. If you’re willing to look at what’s likely to happen, it’s fairly awful. People with this kind of cancer die of massive organ failure and it’s not pretty. And I already did that to my family last year, bouncing in and out of the hospital. My husband took six months of family leave from his job as a consultant. Our son was just back from the Peace Corps and was with me in the hospital every day. Our daughter flew home a number of times. "

"The hardest part about the Death with Dignity stuff is deciding when to take the drugs. It’s a totally loaded subject because for people who are religious it’s a mortal sin. I have friends who are religious and I don’t want to offend them. But it’s an important choice to have, instead of the model where we throw so much money at "treating” people who are dying. I’m extremely grateful to my doctors for leveling with me about the course of this disease, so my family and I have a choice about how and when to die."

So it begs the question again?  Who should decide what is best for you when you are terminally ill?  Why should we consider it to be somehow more "heroic" to suffer until we die a death which is inevitable?  And why are we so easy to send our young men and women into battle to die, yet object to some one's decision to have death with dignity? 

Isn't that the ultimate form of Liberty?   Death is not to be feared but honored.

HBO's documentary "How To Die In Oregon" premiered May 26 on HBO.  It may be watched at HBO On Demand (under documentary) or at these times.

Michele Bachmann - You Must Be Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (Or Not?)

If you are a John Grisham fan, you are likely familiar with the quote "you must be stupid, stupid, stupid" from The Runaway Jury.

If you read my site you also know that I have been highly critical of Michele Bachmann's political positions because she seems to just make shit up.

Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) was Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany. He also served as Chancellor for one day, following Hitler's death. He was known for his zealous and energetic oratory and virulent anti-Semitism. He is often credited with saying (although there are no proven allocations of the lines):

 If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. // If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. // If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. // If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth. // If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.

Michele Bachmann must be a fan of Goebbels. Just say something enough times and it must be true.

 But at least one person, a high school student no less, is calling her on her lies. In his Article "Michele Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student" Michael Zimmerman calls out Michele Bachman to meet the high schooler's challenge.

 "What most don't know, though, is that her educational policies are being challenged by an amazing high school student from Baton Rouge, La. You should get to know this student, Zack Kopplin, and his efforts because he's likely to make a difference.

I've written about Zack previously because both his story and his commitment are incredibly impressive. As I first noted, he recently began an effort to repeal an atrocious stealth-creationism law in Louisiana. The law, the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008, encourages attacks on evolution to be taught in Louisiana's public schools under the banner of critical thinking. This is the only state law of its sort in the country and, as Zack so well points out, Louisiana students interested in science are being done a huge disservice by its very existence.

Zack hasn't been content to simply complain about an educationally irresponsible law, however. His organizational skills have been nothing short of phenomenal and he's gathered a collection of supporters second to none. His repeal effort has been endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the world with over 10 million members; the National Association of Biology Teachers, the country's main organization for biological educators; The Clergy Letter Project, an organization of more than 14,000 clergy and scientists recognizing that religion and science need not be in conflict; as well as a host of other scientific groups including the American Institute for Biological Sciences, The American Society for Cell Biology, the Society for the Study of Evolution, The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Additionally, the New Orleans City Council voted unanimously to support the repeal.

Zack's work didn't stop there. He wrote a petition that was adopted as Change.org's featured one of the week where it has amassed more than 65,000 supporters. And, as I reported in April, in his most extraordinary effort, he collected the endorsement of 43 individuals who won a Nobel Prize in science.

Which brings me back to Michele Bachmann. Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."

Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."

Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.

For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?

It would be difficult for someone with a sincere interest in science education not to take Zack Kopplin's challenge seriously. Having said that, I fully expect that Michele Bachmann will completely ignore Zack, the voice of the scientific community, the combined pleas of 43 Nobel scientists and thousands of religious leaders.

Michele Bachmannn you must just be stupid, stupid, stupid. Or perhaps, like Goebbels you just believe if you lie enough then people will accept it as true.
What may even be worse is that you have been outsmarted by Zack, a high school kid.  Education is not dead in American, but Michele Bachmann would like to kill it.  Perhaps Bachmann is more like Goebbels, who according to Otto Ohlendorf:

Goebbels considered humans as objects to be used for political purposes - for the moment.

Does Bachmann really believe all the lies she tells or is she just using "humans as objects to be used for political purposes - for the moment."  Her only objective to be President, truth be damned.

No?  What about these great statements:

• ''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''
• “But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” (Note, many of the founders owned slaves and never fought for their elimination)
• ''Not all cultures are equal.'' (Sounds dangerously like Goebbells)
• “Unelected bureaucracies will decide what we can and can't get in future health insurance policy. That's why they are called death panels."
• ''This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.'' (Perhaps she was in the same coven as that lunatic from Delaware)
• ''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.'' (Didn't she just complain about slavery?  I guess getting paid nothing (or little to nothing) for work doesn't count because you need it to feed your starving children.)
• ''Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.''
• ''I don't know where they're going to get all this money because we're running out of rich people in this country.''
• ''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence.''
• “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. Its all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”
• “I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist.”

Yes Michele we wish you were a deep thinker or at least took time to think before you just make shit up.  And perhaps you should rethink your positions on some issues.  Bachmann has called for phasing out of Social Security and Medicare.  Bachmann says in dealing with Iran, diplomacy "is our option", but that other options, including a nuclear strike, shouldn't be taken off the table.

Is this someone you want as your President? 

Michele Bachmann - You Must Be Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

Paul Ryan's Latest Lies - What Is Next Public Executions?

From Huffington Post:

Besieged by attacks over House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, Republican lawmakers are amplifying their message that it was President Barack Obama's health care law, not theirs, that pushed draconian cuts to the entitlement program.

The only problem: The Wisconsin Republican's plan incorporates the very same cuts to Medicare that were part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The latest Republicans in an increasingly expanding circle of GOP lawmakers to ignore this point were presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty and Ryan, himself. Pawlenty -- during an appearance on "Morning Joe" in which he both defended the Ryan plan and insisted he'd reform Medicare differently -- took umbrage with Obama for doing nothing other than slashing Medicare.

It is like "hear no evil, speak, no evil, and see no evil.  The GOP will say anything,, MOSTLY HOW WE ARE DOOMED BECAUSE OF SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS, that they themselves actually support (AND AS POLL NUMBERS INCREASINGLY SHOW US) and that MOST Americans support.

"Obama-care kills Medicare as we know it," Ryan said on Fox News.

Imagine telling your grandmother she gets this "wonderful vouture for $15,000" (which does not pay for the cost of one nucelar medical scan much less a year in an assisted-livivng facility) so she can get insurance.  Are you willing to watch your family die on the street because they cannot afford medical care?

The April 18 edition of Newsweek trashed Republican Paul Ryan as a "scrooge" who is declaring "war" on poor Americans. The piece by Jonathan Chait ripped the Representative's budget proposal and included this cover headline: "Why GOP Scrooge Paul Ryan Is a Fraud."  (Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/04/15/newsweek-slams-scrooge-paul-ryan-fraud-fighting-war-poor#ixzz1NZaGtBg2)

Of course the GOP "softens" it by saying it will not affect those over 55.  Are you over 55 (or even close to 55)?  What the fuck will happen to you?  If you have ever dealt with an insurance company before you know, you will be royally fucked.  And you will get the letter just like in John Grisham's Novel "Run Away Jury" .... "asking the insurance company to help you just shows you  are "stupid, stupid, stupid!"

This is the face of the neo-cons who could care less about the average American, Paul Ryan.

He thinks you are lazy and not trying  hard enough.  And food stamps and welfare and medicare and Medicaid ... just go stand in food lines like good peasants use to do.  After quoting Ryan as saying the safety net should not become "a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency," Chait derided, "Ryan is saying that the poor should not only be denied cash income but also food and health care.

Show me one bit of humanity in Paul Ryan.   He is a demigod who is always right and says we should all just work harder.  Maybe he thinks slave camps might be a great idea to get the lazy Americans back to work.

"The bizarre thing about attacks on the savings the Affordable Care Act achieved from Medicare was that every Republican that voted for the Republican budget that ended Medicare also voted for the ACA ones as well because Ryan kept them," emailed Eddie Vale, a spokesman for Protect Your Care, a group recently launched to support the president's health care law.


It is the ultimate in "hear no evil, speak no evil, and see no evil."

Unless you are a millionaire, a bankster or big CEO, buy some Vaseline, it is not going to get any better with Paul Ryan and his band of cohorts.

So let's point out the obvious: Paul Ryan is another fiscal fraud. He has much less interest in practically reducing the debt than posturing as a born-again supply-sider and base-pleaser for the Limbaugh right. He is a veneer of fake earnestness over a vandalistic opposition determined to win back power rather than address the country's urgent fiscal crisis.

Chait, who is a senior editor at the liberal new Republic, offered the Republican Ryan's affection for author Ayn Rand as evidence of a "war" on the parasitic poor (Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/04/15/newsweek-slams-scrooge-paul-ryan-fraud-fighting-war-poor#ixzz1NZaoNPcg)

Yes unless you are rich and powerful you are just a parasite to Paul Ryan.

The Uber Rich Are Different Than Most of US - And They Love It

From http://www.zerohedge.com/:

A new study by Deloitte confirms everyone's worst fear (and every millionaire's wettest dream): the wealth amassed by millionaire households is set to increase by more than 100% over the next 9 years. From a total of $92 trillion held by the world's richest in 2011, by 2020 the world's millionaire households will possess $202 trillion, or roughly 4 times current global GDP. Even though much of move up is attributed to the wealth surge in the developing world, the biggest beneficiary is, you guessed it, the United States where the millionaires (those with net wealth of at least $1 million), who currently account for $38.6 trillion of total wealth, will see their assets increased by 225% to $87.1 trillion! And while a comparable study of how much wealth the lower and middle classes are set to lose over the next decade, we are confident that it will be roughly comparable...inversely. So if anyone harbored any illusions that the current status quo was about anything but the rich getting richer, all those can be promptly swiped aside.

So next time you hear anyone (most notably Republicans) spout off about cutting medicare and other social benefit programs tell them to go fuck themselves.

The average American needs to understand that they are being lied to by these "trickle-down" theorist.  The only thing that trickles down is that the shit always goes downhill.  Cutting taxes for the rich does nothing (study after study has shown) to help anyone but the rich.  It does not "create jobs" as they like to say.

And after 30 years now of this "trickle-down" theory, where the average American is poorer, earns less and has fewer opportunities, isn't it time to say enough!

Breaking the backs of the middle-class to benefit the rich has got to stop.  I support free Enterprise, but we all have to pay our fair share to make us a great society. 

NO cuts to social programs without increased taxes on the rich.

Let that be our line in the sand.  If the Republicans and their tea-partiers can draw lines in the sand so can the rest of us.

There would be no Medicare problem if the medicare tax rate wasn't capped at income above $106,800.  None!  The problem would be gone. 

Like I said, it is nice to be rich.  But is such disparity between the rich and the rest of Americans fair or good for our country?

Dick Cheney - Waterboarding - Let The Fun Begin

Dick Cheney wants the US to resume waterboarding.  We all know about waterboardings - it is like the slip and slide you had as a kid.  And Dick Cheney thinks that it is such a great and wonderful idea that the US start waterboarding again.

Let's let Dick go first!  It is the neighborly and patriotic thing to do.  We can all watch how much fun Dick has as he gets waterboarded to see if it is really as fun as we remembered.

Abolish State Sponsored Weddings - Why We Should All Have This Much Fun

If there is any one single issue which truly defined the founding of this Country, it was the notion that there must be a separation between Church and State. The countries from which our founding fathers had come had faced persecution for their religious believes or lack thereof, or had faced State sponsored Churches which sought nothing more than the control of the people.

The notion that any one group's religious believes should have any say with respect to the laws and regulations of the United States is by definition antithetical to its founding.

It is therefore perplexing to me that one of the most contentious issues of our time is the right to "marry" a person of ones choice. Even more perplexing is that when we face the growing movement of the "tea-party" and their ideas that government should be out of our lives in every way possible, that these same people would then say government should have a right to say who you may love and with whom you may share your life. Shouldn't the Tea-Party be for equal rights for all?

A real democracy isn't equal if its constitution only protects some of its people.

In a time when the debate as to same-sex marriage has reached a point where the majority of Americans are in favor of equality for all in Marriage, let's not loose track of what we are talking about.

My argument is not for gay marriage but is instead that we must all have equality for each and every one of us or we are not truly Free.

"The important thing is not the object of love, but the emotion itself."

Gore Vidal

We are talking about two people, adults, committing to each other that they want to spend their lives together. That they want to enjoy all that life has to offer together.

Why are Americans in particular so hung up on gender and what it is and what its roles are supposed to look like?

Who and why does anyone give a fuck who wants to love another no matter what that love looks like?

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

Friedrich Nietzsche

So I believe that marriage as a state sponsored institution should be abolished. If two consenting adults want to share a life together then the State should offer a civil union to those people - whether straight or gay (in order to address issues such as children and property rights). "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should be kept as such. Marriage should have no legal foundation outside of one's own faith.

So the following video which has gone viral shows us clearly that Marriage should be fun. It should be happy. It should be a celebration of the future.
This couple looks like they enjoy life and are going to enjoy life together. Let's Hope!

joya and emre | wedding music video from David Robin on Vimeo.