It's 9 O'Clock. Do you know where your daughter is Mr. and Mrs. Palin?

Now, I know everyone is saying: lay off poor Bristol Palin (editorial note: WTF did the Palins give their kid a name which means "breasts" in British slang?) and her parents, but these are people who purport to believe in family values. Despite Sarah's claim that she is against corruption, she did fire an Alaskan State Trooper because he was having custody problems with Ms. Palin's sister.

Now, why couldn't they have used the troopers to suss out the boy their daughter is dating? I mean, I don't run about saying "family values" like its a mantra, but I sure as hell would like to know about who is dating my daughter. I mean if the kid calls himself "a fucking redneck" who doesn't want children on his myspace, I sure as hell would like to know.

We can tell he is pretty irresponsible without him getting my daughter preggers.

Also, doesn't "family values" mean that you talk with your daughter about sex and the possibility of getting pregnant? Or are you hoping that your daughter will be abstainent?

OK, The Palins don't believe in abortion and poor little Bristol will now have a taste of responsibility, which isn't fair as she wasn't responsible in the first place. It's fine that the Palins don't believe in abortion for themselves, as I said in a previous post, they can have 100 children through rape, incest, irresponsibility, etcetera.

On the other hand, Choice means that one can make up their own mind whether or not to have an abortion. I would want my child to have the option of having an abortion. I can also afford to send my child somewhere it would be legal to have an abortion, but that is not an option for everyone.

If Ms. Palin believes that government should keep out of people's business, then she should believe that government has no right to dictate a person's personal choice, especially where having children is concerned.

On the other hand, Ms. Palin also believes in Censorship and caused the Wasilla Librarian to resign.

Now, I am pretty certain that the Palins subscribe to the Insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is the belief that armed resistance is acceptable against tyranny. I believe that the imposition of others' religious opinions and the violation of First Amendment rights falls square under the defintion of tyranny.

Additionally, I am not sure that Ms. Palin totally supports the US Constitution given her voicing support for the Alaskan Independence Party and dubious connections to that party. She may not have been a registered AKIP member, but she has made enough comments to make me wonder about her loyalty to the United, er Failed States of America.

I mean, I should run for president if this woman is running for vice-president and I make no bones that the US government is illegitimate as it was based upon a rebellion that was not supported by all the citizens. Additionally, as is the case with these fake elections, the political system has failed.

I owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain.

So, Sarah, come out of the closet and show your true colours, which are Navy and Gold, not red, white and blue.

You have nothing in common with those citizens of the "lower 48".

I love Sarah Palin!

How can you not love someone who belonged to a political party that is dedicated to the destruction of the United States? Sarah was a member of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s, but I guess she decided to go more mainstream with the new Republican Party, which is working on making the Failed States of America a reality.

Not to mention she is the embodiment of the Bimbos for McCain caucus.

I also love her belief in family values and the advocacy of abstinance-based sex education. I know that oopses can happen in any family, but Sarah, you need to talk with your daughter about sex if you believe in abstinance-based sex education.

I mean isn't parental responsibility the real basis for abstinance-based sex education?

Another thing is that family values means you spend time with your family, not run around being mayor, governor, or vice president. You have a special needs child and a daughter with a bun in the oven, which shows you aren't being very good in the family values department.

Add in that it seems you cut funding for programs that help teenaged mothers. Now, Sarah dear, if you believe that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant, you are being a real hypocrite here. What are you doing running for political office? I guess it comes from the confusion between women's two roles in the far right wing paradigm, which doesn't account for women being anything of substance.

No, this isn't left wing hypocracy, but right wing hypocracy as someone attempts to force her beliefs upon other women. Sarah can remain confused whether she is a virgin or a whore for all I care, but other women would like to have a choice, especially when it comes to their reproductive rights. Abstinance-based sex education does not work, even in families which claim to have "family values", such as the Palins. And you can't go around cutting benefits for teen moms if you're going to advocate policies that bring more unwanted children into this world.

Do you realise how much grief poor, uneducated teenage mothers can bring to society, Sarah?

You can have 100 children, but that is your choice: do NOT force your belief about reproductive freedom on others.

As Cecile Richards said "expecting women to vote for Sarah Palin is like expecting chickens to vote for Colonel Sanders". The working class males who supported Hillary Clinton may support Sarah Palin since she is a piece of ass, but that is really hoping that the citizens of the United States are thicker than pig shit.

I guess that the republican party is really hopeful that racism will scare off voters from Obama to John McCain.

That is if Sarah Palin survives scrutiny. She may be the governor of the Largest US State (not for long if she had her way), but size doesn't matter, Sarah. It's population, not geographic size. The Alaska National Guard has fewer soldiers than a large lower 48 city has police officers.

So, the American people should vote for a bimbo from a huge ass state with more moose than people.

As for you, Sarah, you can do whatever you will with your life, but don't force your values upon others: especially if it will cost society.

Give me a break!

Love and Marriage

The California Supreme Court is dealing with the issue of gay marriage, which is something I've wanted to weigh in on since I did my first tax return after getting married.

Marriage is not really a sacrament. It's about property and money. Always has been. And gay marriage is about making sure that people who are in a committed relationship are treated like family members.

I've always seen marriage as being something which is special, but lots of people treat it pretty lightly. We are not talking gays here. How many people get divorced? Even more salient is how many people who oppose gay marriage have been divorced?

And if we are talking about procreation, maybe I shouldn't have gotten married. My wife was post-menopausal when we were spliced. Jewish tradition says that a man can get a divorce if his wife doesn't provide him with children (see the film Kaddosh). My wife and I don't even spend that much time together. Not that I am happy about the latter (time together), but the not having kids isn't a problem to me. I mean there are far too many children on this planet, but that is a whole 'nother post.

On the other hand, by actually being married, rather than just living together, we get all sorts of financial benefits: tax breaks, health insurance breaks, and so forth. When I lived with a woman, we were not treated equally, even though we were in a common law marriage in a jurisdiction that recognises that type of union. Her employer would not recognise that we were a "common law" couple either, which meant none of the goodies you get by being "married".

So, why force people into bad relationships if marriage is a sacrament? Also, shouldn't we be seeing responsibility from people (in particular men) for the children they bring into the world. One question that has always bothered me, is why men can treat their children's mothers so badly, especially financially. Or even why men are willing to treat the children they bring into the world badly.

As one person said, "if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"

On the other hand, we say marriage is a sacrament, yet we are more than willing to allow this union which "god hath ordained and no man can put asunder" to be dissolved fairly easily. Probably because it's men who want to play the field. Which leads me to muse on how many single mothers are there in this country? The divorced women with a child, or more. Shouldn't motherhood be valued?

I find all this talk of "family values" to be really hypocritical when the person who is spouting it has had affairs, or is divorced.

But, as I said, the real issue isn't what the institution is called, it's the fact that the institution is treated specially. People in loving and committed relationships should be treated the same as those in marriages of convenience, which is all a loveless marriage really is.

The fact is that gays just want the financial and social benefits of marriage. Like those in common law marriages, they don't receive the same benefits in a "domestic partnership".

That's really all this is about is equality. On the other hand, I don't think this country can handle true equality, especially for gays.