Homosexual Marriage

Gay marriage. Those two words automatically open up a whole world of debate with a broad range of issues. A lot of stigma is attached to this debate and encompasses a whole range of topics. From the definition of marriage to the preservation of traditional marriage, all the way up to the pursuit of happiness.

Marriage: A close intimate union between a man and a woman. Wait. A close and intimate union. Okay. Continued; joined in matrimony. A close and intimate union joined in matrimony. Matrimony: The ceremony or sacrament of marriage. Union: Having something to with labor practices. All right now I'm being facetious but adding a few words like between a man and a woman or removing them the definition of marriage is relatively harmless. Past civilizations have always defined it as between a man and a woman. Conservatives say that it is between a man and a woman in order to preserve society.

Now conservative definitions of marriage of course always state marriage is between a man and a woman. All the while divorce rates and single parent families are at an all time high. There are no calls for constitutional amendments for the definitions of divorce, or the requirements of marriage. Why don't Conservatives want to define traditional marriage? Because there are many examples of traditional heterosexual marriages that could be viewed to be just as bad as homosexual marriage.

There are many types of marriage and not necessarily good types that have been considered traditional marriage throughout history. Arranged marriages are usually frowned upon by particular groups, but in a lot of cultures this is wholly acceptable practice. If someone is forced to marry another person in the United States should that marriage be considered legally binding? Polygamy is another one of these forms of marriage frowned upon. Multiple wives hmm? I can barely handle the one woman in my life I don't know if I could handle multiple wives.

Homosexuality should be considered a belief, and it should be protected under the first amendment so that there can be no legislation against it. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. There is no sacred covenant of marriage unless there is love, and if there is it is broken everyday by heterosexuals. People marry all the time for reasons other than love, and people "fall out of love" yet stay within these marriages for years. A marriage of convenience is not necessarily a traditional marriage, unless you lived during the middle ages. Then it wasn't a marriage of convenience it was usually political.

The whole point is that traditional marriage has never been truly defined. People used to marry as early as 12 or 13 and traditionally this was a wholly acceptable practice. Conservatism is the return to or upholding of old values. But which ones? You can't cut out pieces in order to make the definition fit, when there was truly no definition at all. Also where is the time cut-off for traditional or "old" values, is it always arbitrary? Heck people at one time were not able to marry inter racially, there are people who say that this is unacceptable now. Homosexual marriage is one progressive belief I ascribe to. A monogamous relationship should be supported by everybody whether heterosexual or homosexual. Monogamy is truly stable and stable is where people flourish.

Finding a political party to hold my interest

Independent party? No. Democrat party? No. Republican? Not anymore. Green Party? Ha! Libertarian Party? Looking into it. Liberal? Probably in a lot of cases. Conservative? Probably in a lot of the other cases. Fed up? Definitely. Labels, controversy, right or wrong, finger pointing, and mudslinging. Politics. Sick of it all, yet fascinated and addicted to the bitter end.

I love politics, as a subject, it's philosophies, policies, and theories I love to discuss. In practice politics is corrupt. Business as usual in Washington is an epidemic, and I mean epidemic like the influenza epidemic in 1918. It's deadly. It seems as soon as a campaign is over a politician's job is to go against every individual voter on the trail, tow the party platform. Then open the federal spigot of money to every business, organization, or group that gave them money or support. Why do we keep electing these men and women who lie to us every day?

First voters need to take a good hard look at who we vote for. We need to stop looking for the perfect and unblemished candidates. People make mistakes in their lives. People make bad decisions every day. A lot of outstanding people spend every day rectifying their mistakes, or have completely turned their lives around. These are the people that we need to trust, not the people who cover up their pasts because those skeletons will destroy their political career. Most people have skeletons in their closet, and if we constantly elect people who appear to not have skeletons then we've found someone who more than likely good at covering things up or good at lying. Doing bad things years ago does not mean that they have a disregard for values currently. Take for instance drugs, have you ever done them? Did you you them years ago. Do you even want to walk that path again? To a lot of voters this means that a person has a total disrespect for the law. When in reality that person has learned from their mistakes and moved on.

We have Hollywood politicians, and by this I mean we have good and bad actors as politicians, with a mix of honest, well intentioned, hardworking people. These mean and women are addicted to power, and the sound of their own voices. Yes there are honest politicians i believe, I just can't tell. But really how many of them have effected real change? Sadly very few.

Second, all the politicians do now is spread tax payer money. In DC speak this is called compromise. Tell me hat the hell $1 million for the Center of widget studies on the indigenous population of New Guinea (I made it up, but I'm pretty sure you find many true outlandish examples tucked away in bills) has anything to do with enacting a federal budget, or tax reform, or infrastructure repair. No answer? I haven't got one either. I wish that I could argue and compromise with my wife over our budget that way. "Well honey in order to curb our spending and fix our debt I want a nex 50" HD 1080p tv, Playstation 3, and $500 a month to go to Barnes and Noble (I could spend more money than that at Barnes and Noble per month trust me, and read every book that I buy.)" "Oh yeah well Dear! I want a $1000 shopping spree for coach bags (which might get her two), and $1000 for Nordstroms every month (I have no idea if she even likes shopping there), and a weekend at a beauty spa every month" If we could compromise like that over our budget that we be great, but guess what? We'd be broke and in debt even further. Bill collectors call, mortgages default, taxes aren't paid and the IRS is threating to collect in money or time if you know what I mean. All that and the four wheel house we're about to live in is being carried away by the repo tow truck and is turning the corner right down the street. This kind of debate is called compromise in Washington.

Last politicians need to be forced to listen to the people. We can no longer let party platforms drive the debate in Washington. We have a set of American values in place, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America. Constantl pointing out that each side is wrong and trying to get politicians to legislate against each other is ruining this country. Getting politicians to argue over party platforms while they do what they want is like a burglar getting us to argue over who took the spare change in the couch while they make off with the safe, checkbook, credit cards, and retirement money. There is a growing political party in this country that I am aware of, it's called the Disinfranchised party. I signed up last year, want to sign up too?

Advice for Republicans

Like my friend Matt, I also used to be a Republican. And honestly, I still am all for the responsible management of the people's tax dollars. I dropped the party because I could no longer abide by the mingling of the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives (aka religious right). That marriage is on the rocks right now, and it looks to be headed for divorce, but back in 1994 everything was still all roses and love songs and breakfast in bed. I was afraid something like this would happen, though. From the Republican standpoint, I thought the affiliation with the religious right was a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State (a fear immediately justified by the RR's turning the Grand Old Party into the Party of God). And for the religious right (what do you know, I used to be one of those, too), I felt they were aligning themselves with people who did not share their values and who were only interested in their votes and (more importantly) their campaign contributions. (Those fears took a little more time to come to fruition, but I think they've safely been proven at this point).

So, with that as background, a little friendly advice to the Republican Party, particularly the knuckleheads in Sacramento. Take up the mantle of fiscal responsibility and play it to the hilt. In Washington, the GOP is scoring points daily on the Democrats by playing this strategy. Point out every little bit of madness that comes out of the Democrats bills. This is, by today's standards, already an old example, but it's a good one: $100k for new grass in front of the Capitol. That's not Economic Stimulus.

The Republican Party in California is shrinking in power and influence, but right now all they do is obstruct. The ones who got elected ran on a platform of fiscal conservation. You don't want to raise taxes? Well, I don't want to pay higher taxes, either. So, where's the wasteful spending? You've had enough time to look through the budgets and find it. Get it out there, in the papers, in the blogs. Stand on a corner and wave a big sign. Get the people behind you. Cut the waste, and you'll start winning back seats. Keep playing to the tax nazis and the super rich and the Democrats will drive you into irrelevancy.

And, as for my old friends in the Christian community, I say: read the Beatitudes again, both in Matthew and in Luke, and then figure out from that what side your on, and who you should be listening to.

Ten great reasons to listen to Michael Savage

I love Michael Savage, despite what you think of the man he is one of the last bastions of honesty in talk radio. He does not tow any party line and excoriates anybody and everybody on both sides of the aisle. He also gives credit where credit is due.

10. Good Music - Older music, but good music.

9. Cooking Tips - He's the radio Rachel Ray.

8. Stories - "It's all about the stories, man."

7. No Boring Callers - If they suck, they're gone!

6. You Become a Citizen of a New Nation - The Savage Nation.

5. You Get to Yell at Your Radio - You may not agree all the time and when you disagree you get MAD!

4. The Only Side He's On is His Own.

3. He Makes His Own Rap Music - It's hilarious to hear Ten Toed Hoes.

2. Teddy - Who Doesn't Love a Man With a Poodle?

1. Nudity - Well Psychological Nudity.

The Welfare State and The State of Welfare

In my last post I discussed the Right's obesession with the ownership society, if everybody owned their own destiny than society would happier for it. All the while the Right constantly puts on display how they are not taking ownership of society. The Left has a similar obsession, the obsession of wealth redistribution. The welfare state has similar lacking effects as those that believe completely in the ownership society.

When wealth is automatically redistributed by force(taxes) and given to people who have no money or very little income, it automatically reinforces those conditions that keep people in poverty or the lower classes. If one is to receive a check every month without working or paying taxes why should one elevate themselves in socitey? Why should they want to own homes? Have investments? Own their own business? They know that then they will be placed in that category that is taxed. They are told by the Left that those people are taking advantage of them in the first place, why should a lower class person aspire to be the evil one? Especially when they get the evil people's money for free! Just for being who they are.

The lower class lacks not funds per se, they lack the resources to obtain those skills that enhance to ability to achieve success. Low wages, low government augmentation, little time to go to school, single mothers, single fathers, both parents working, drugs, gangs, crime, and other negative factors all put pressure on them and their children. All these factors coupled with very little leadership, mentors, teachers, examples of success keep the lower class from stepping up the ladder.

Just as the Right does, the Left assumes that there are others out there to do the work while money is poured into governmental programs. Their solutioin is to create government agencies that support these programs. What is lacking in these agencies is the manpower, resources, or time in order to see that aid is rendered effectively. These agencies are maxed and tasked to the breaking point. The jobs for these agencies are unglamorous, low paying, thankless jobs that are staffed mostly with well meaning people, genuinely wanting to help. There are just not enough people wanting these jobs in the first place.

These agencies are also highly inefficient, beareaucratic nightmares, and time consuming for those who the aid is most needed. Often appointments at these agencies requires a person to take time off from work, sometimes a substantial amount of time one or more days in a week. This also strains the companies in which these people are employed, and affects work performance. On top of that if it comes to a breaking point at work where a person risks losing their job for time off, they risk losing those benefits if they miss appointments, don't fill out or do the required paperwork, or turn the required paperwork in on time. It can take months to have those benefits restored. All because they could no longer afford to take time off from work to keep the required paperwork in order, or had a face to face meeting with a case handler.

Overhauling or reform is the past has done little to alleviate these problems. Reform puts the solution in the hands of those who created the beareaucratic maze and mess in the first place, the politicians. When politicians are enacting legislation they have to compromise with the other side. Often this creates reform that adds (not reforms) to the beareaucratic responsibilities of the agency that was receiving the overhaul in the first place. Compromise is the bane of politics. Compromise is worthless when trying to solve certain problems. There is a reason the when we say something or someone has been compromised that they are vulnerable or susceptable to outside influence. We need to stop letting politicians compromise with each other and come up with a set of solutions as Americans.

What is the solution? The solution is in my last post. Taking the lead and taking ownership of society. Individuals of society who have the ability to start new businesses need to work around individuals who require the most dire help. Their employees must be willing to work for those who have to take off for these appointments. You have to create this is the culture of the company hiring those people who are most willing to work within that environment. I understand that most people who start a business usually in business to make money. Plus to have an employee or employees who have to take off work strains a business. If you do feel that people need help and given a chance. Then isn't your responsibility to create an organization with this kind of culture? Why are you letting politicians force the responsibility on people who have put their heart and soul into a business? The Left loves to watch the rich get punished for taking so much from society and not giving back. Yet they also fail to the lead as do the Right to cure the ails. Take the initiative and create an organization centered around your values instead of letting the government force the issue on to those that are already employers.

Like the Right it all comes down to a matter of vision for the Left. The division in America over Left and Right, the line drawn in the sand by the media and the politicians is what keeps those people in power. The Left is content to keep the media and those politicians in power while not acting for themselves. Yes the power is in the politicians hands, we react to their policies. Politicians are our representatives, they should be reacting to our whims. The governement does need to regulate industries and legislate protection for those who cannot do it themselves. The government should not be setting the agenda. We need to move the powere out of Washington and give it back to the states and local governments. The way to do this is for Americans to care of their own, and not be content to let the welfare state do our jobs for us. Once we do this the politicians will have to listen to us because we will no longer need them, they will need us because we can now take care of ourselves.

The Ownership Society vs. The Ownership of Society

Former President George W. Bush coined the term "Ownership Society" referring to individuals being able to own their own homes, health care plans, 401(k)'s, and retirement plans. Conservatives have long followed a policy of self reliance when referring to ownership. What Conservatives and Republicans have failed at is taking a lead in taking ownership of society.

For too long the Right has bickered and ranted over the Left's assualt on America's values, institutions, morals, and policies. Yet when it comes to actuallytaking an active part in the civil process they have been content to catapult self serving politicians to the forefront to represent their values. Yet time and again these politicians fail to take a lead and represent those that got them elected in the first place. These representatives cater to lobbyists, corporations, and friends after the election. Their representatives consistently failing them, yet get re-elected.

The Right seem to forget everyday that most of them have been born into a system that has already been set up for them to succeed. From parents, churches, schools, neighborhoods, friends, and other organizations. While many minorities, poor, and destitute do not have the same opportunities. Yes there have been individuals who have elevated themselves to a higher station in life. Many remain left behind in the continued cycles of poverty, hopelessness, and a broken system.

If you are a successful person, or of the comfortable middle class take a moment to reflect back on all the teachers, mentors, coaches, church leaders, teammates, friends, and family that have helped contribute to get you to where you are today. Success is a team sport, while the individual contributes the drive and will to succeed. Now take a good hard look at those who do not have those same people to elevate them. They live in a perpetual system that constantly helps contribute to failure. I'm not going to say it causes the failure, but when there are few examples of how to get out of that cycle, where does one turn?

I am not trying to circumnavigate people setting personal, professional, and spiritual goals. Nor am I trying to negate personal responsibility for one's own actions. It IS up to the individual to change one's circumstances. The point is though those in the lower classes have fewer examples and resources to change one's circumstances. When someone is causing harm to themselves and/or others in your immediate circle with addictions or other harmful behavior usually an intervention is staged, maybe even by having that person arrested.

That is what is needed in this country, an intervention. An intervention politically, morally, and economicaly. The Right are the first to bicker when the Left enacts policy that take their money and wealth in the form of taxes and create welfare programs. The Right screams "throwing money at the problem will not fix the underlying cause." The what does the Right do? They turn around and write a check to a charity, raise money for a foundation, tithe to a church, or give money to a relief organization. Content that there are others out there to do the hard work involed in using that money for a worthwhile purpose. All the while asserting that statistically Conservatives give more money than liberals. Where is the action or personal responsibility on their part to see that money go where its suppose to go?

Where is the proactive conservative solution? The answer is buried under a mixture of underlying causes. Is it fear? Racism? Apathy? I do not know. People are afraid to venture into places where help is needed the most. We let the media keep us in a perpetual vertigo of news about crime perpetrated by the lack of resources in these poverty stricken areas. We are afraid of being mugged walking down the street by those who have less than us. Afraid of the thug wielding a gun or a knife to steal our purse or wallet. Yet we constantly open our wallets to white collar brokers on Wall Street to invest thousands or millions of our dollars without doing an ounce of due dilligence in where are money is being invested. And then are surprised that those people end up in the news about how they lost or stole millions and billions of dollars. What?!

When you own something say for instance a house, and you want to fix it up, remodel, and/or landscape and have the ability to do so. You go out and hire someone, or go and buy the tools yourself. If you have a vision or plan for how you want that house or yard to look you work closely with that person you hired or you do the work yourself. Regardless you have to play an active (keyword) role in that process in order to see your vision through.

If you want to get the property to conform to your vision in your head you must direct the work. Too many individuals hire an expert, pay them the requisite fees, then generalize how they want their property to look. Then they go off to their life for the day and leave these individuals to their own devices. All the while without direction those experts are back home making your property conform to their vision of what you want. If you have not communicated your vision to the expert, and the results are not quite what you expected. You have to live the results. You may be happy with part or most of the work, but I'm pretty sure that there will be elements that you probably would balk at. You go back and have the expert change what you don't like all the while having to pay that expert more. This is the equivalent of throwing money at a problem without fixing the underlying cause. The reality is you didn't take an active role in the process.

This is obviously an analogy for what is happening in America today. Americans have grown complacent, lazy, and too trusting in their confidence that there are other crusaders out there to do the hard work of helping socitey for us. While they are letting the results of someone else vision or plan for county come to fruition. It's time for the right to take ownership of society in order to see their vision realized. The Right if it is to be a force in politics in the years to come must put in the work, set the example, and lead from the front and not just in Washington, but in their own communities and maybe communities that are not their own.