Let's suppose that the watermelons get their way and they get put in charge of telling all of us what to eat (bird seed), what to drive (nothing), where to live (stacked on top of each other), how often we can shower, how many children we may have, et cetera. I don't really believe it is politically feasible to force Americans to give up freedom based upon the whims of the watermelons, but we'll entertain this hypothetical anyway.

We would be doing all of this to allegedly save the world? There is a part of me that says, I'll be dead anyway, and I don't give a damn regardless of what alleged naughty thing humans do, or alleged calamity may befall us. There is another part of me, the same part of me that makes me afraid of God and Jesus, that wants to hedge my bets and say, you know, we should live like serfs for the benefit of our children. Even those of us who have no kids and no vested interest in anything that happens after we die.

Then there is yet another part of me that thinks a world where people are controlled like this isn't worth living in, and isn't worth saving. It's funny how human solutions so often involve one person having control over another person, often at the barrel of a gun. It's easier to do that than to suggest constructive alternatives. Usually makes you richer as well.

I actually read a NYT article yesterday attempting to defend the hypocrisy of people like Bloomberg, and the Goracle, saying we shouldn't pass judgment until we are in a position to afford to ride a Gulfstream. I've said it before somewhere, but if you believe in your heart the world is going to end, you would just as soon put a gun in your mouth than get on that Gulfstream, or get into that Limo, or buy that mansion. At least if you believed in what you were saying. It doesn't flatter the elites of the world in Copenhagen blowing off all this carbon. As I always say...."You first."

One of my Facebook friends posted this link up today, which I had previously seen on Drudge or one of the other million places I check daily, but anyway I've got an itch to talk about this - it's actually a defense of the tabloid media.



I have very little sympathy for people who stray from their relationship, as many of you well know. If you're a rich and powerful person, the pull must be so strong. You have girls sent to your room without your knowledge, even when they're not throwing themselves at you wherever you go, and you're always away from home. I would like to think I would be above it if I were in their shoes.

What really bothers me is the media tends to absolve themselves completely in these situations. What, your life is fucked? We had nothing to do with it...but by the way, buy the next issue to get details on ALL ELEVEN blow up doll bimbos you (allegely) slept with. What's their cup size? What kind of lingerie do they like? What clubs do they check out? Page 11, baby.

I don't think that making a dollar off of someone else's demise is a moral thing to do. I don't think this is a good trend for our culture.

It goes much further than this as well. Because I read Daily Mail online every day, the fact that Lily Cole is in the Pirelli Calendar half naked was old news to me. Sure enough, on my HuffPo App today, there is Lily Cole's lovely photo, tarting up my iPhone. You click of course, but if you bother to read the article you learn she is at Cambridge going to school, and that she doesn't model very much these days. By the way, she also seems to be much more well adjusted than most models who get an interview. The media sells rags, and gets clicks based upon what her naked ass body looks like. I wonder what her cut is? Even more importantly - seriously now - do we want to continue to tell little girls THIS is what your value is?

What has this celebrity obsessed, tabloid style media done for us? Other than sell advertising, absolutely nothing. Whatever I read on HuffPo is on the LEFT side of the page, not the RIGHT, and I wish I had the choice to filter out the tabloid garbage. Maybe I do and just haven't looked into it. I know, I know, you're saying just stop reading HuffPo and contributing. But I like my App and I like current events.

I'm here drinking my Krampus, the thoughts are flowing, like how is it possible in this context the government has a right to say "this kind of relationship is legit and this kind is not" for us?

It doesn't sting me like it does you, but I do sympathize. I'm really sorry. I believe in marriage equality. Nothing in life we ever really want seems to be gained easily. I know for sure one day you'll have satisfaction. I have a lot of faith in our generation to fix this and a number of other wrongs the baby boomers have created or sustained. Please keep this in mind and keep the effort up! You have a friend in this staight whitey righty.

The other day I saw a photo being passed around from the People of Walmart site, of an obese woman with her gunt drooping down below her way too short skirt. Of course, being an admitted asshole, I laughed until my throat hurt. Hello, who told you it looked good?!

But I am having a moment of weakness. Help me. I enjoy laughing at these people, and also at various activists, people at protests, and 60's throwbacks. I am thinking maybe it isn't right to laugh at them? Shouldn't we accept people as they are?

The site has a Love/Hate section, with the Love section consisting of some Love, and some Hate for the Hate section. It is plainly obvious who these people are, the same folks who look down on 75% of America. I get it. The Hate section consists largely of folks with no stomach for comedy. Too soft to have a laugh when it's okay. Which is preferable?

Help.

Not that I believe in marriage as an institution, but a couple of friends have been married this year and it's made me think of what kind of ordeal I would be willing to go through. It is absolutely ridiculous that it's even crossing my mind, but a hypothetical is harmless, so let's entertain it.

I know for sure I wouldn't want a full-blown, all out wedding and reception deal like most people get. It seems like the most stressful thing in the world to plan out, plus as the groom you're relegated to accessory status. At most weddings, the groom might as well be a cardboard cutout wearing a tux and a smile.

Think about it for a moment - why do people make these decisions? Because it's almost a societal obligation. Because it's tradition. Because it is what we are supposed to do. Wear a tux, go to a church, say your vows, throw a party you cannot afford after the ceremony, and live the same bullshit cookie cutter existence as everyone else thereafter, rarely leaving the house again and sharing dull stories about trips to Lowe's. Sign me up!!

How many times have you heard a wedding referred to as having qualities that represent something about the couple? Make it personal, they say. I've been to a lot of weddings, and following this thought to its conclusion every one of them must have been the same fucking couple. Very little changes from one wedding to another, only the quality of the booze and the number of girls.

Another friend got married recently. She eloped. Got on a plane, went on a Hawaii vacation, and got married with her toes in the sand. Very few if any guests. This is more in line with what I would do. Have a few close friends there only, and have a private ceremony on the beach. Regardless of whether or not it's original, it's better than the big, stuffy, nerve wracking big deal of a wedding, no?