Part 7 -- Gay Marriage Series

• Gay marriage isn't natural and shouldn't be allowed because gay couples can't produce offspring from their unions.

Female senior citizens in opposite-gendered relationships can't produce offspring, either. But we allow them to remain married and even to enter into new opposite-gendered marriages, after they are no longer able to conceive and bear children. Lots of people, for a wide variety of reasons, are unable to produce offspring, choose not to produce offspring or choose to cease producing offspring. Currently, all of these people are allowed to remain in or enter into new opposite-gendered marriages that are recognized as legal unions, by the state.

According to this reasoning against same-gendered marriages, any existing opposite-gendered marriage should be rendered null & void and entrance into a new marriage denied if either spouse or would-be spouse is found to be unable to produce offspring or is unwilling to maintain an active sexual relationship for the purpose of producing offspring.

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

Part 6 -- Gay Marriage Series

• If it's "anything goes!" so long as you aren't already closely related, legal recognition of gay marriage will lead to all sorts of terrible things... bestiality marriage, polygamy, pedophilic marriage, exploitation by straights for monetary or other gains, etc.!

Rest assured, all of the age, species and other restrictions that currently apply to opposite-gendered marriages, would also apply to same-gendered marriages and all of the ways people might exploit same-gendered marriage are already being exploited by people in opposite-gendered marriages.

All of the things that those who oppose same-gendered marriages are afraid same-gendered marriages might lead to can already be arrived at, by exactly the same logic, through the existing recognition of opposite-gendered marriages. Recognizing same-gendered marriages neither increases nor decreases the likelihood that those feared scenarios will come to pass.

The reasons for recognizing same-gendered marriages are the same as the reasons for continuing to recognize opposite-gendered marriages. However, some of the reasons given for banning same-gendered marriages would, if officially cited as reasons behind the ban, inadvertently set precedent that could later be used to ban marriages of some opposite-gendered couples (most notably senior citizens and couples who are unable to procreate, naturally,) to cease legal recognition of clergy-joined unions or even to do away with legal recognition of ALL marriages.

NOTE: There is already a small but growing number of activists on the anti-gay-marriage side of the issue who are on that side of the issue because they are anti-marriage, period. These people are, indeed, planning to use the precedent set by gay-marriage bans as a means to end legal recognition of any marriage. If you are among those who are worried about how legalizing same-gendered marriage might affect your opposite-gendered marriage, you should be aware of this movement and also worry about how banning gay marriage might affect your hetero marriage.

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

Part 5 -- Gay Marriage Series

• Same-gendered Marriage would bestow "Special" Rights/Privileges On Gays.

Regardless of any of the reasons a couple might choose to marry, establishing close familial ties where none exist, otherwise, is the sole purpose for the legal existence and recognition of marriage in today's American society.

Note that you are not forbidden, by law, from marrying ANY relative, only from marrying those relatives who are already very closely related to you -- first cousins, your siblings, the siblings of your parents & grandparents and those relatives who are in direct lineage to you (children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, etc...) If you are unmarried and you die, today, these relatives, alone, are closely related enough to you to be counted among your surviving kin and heirs.

These people already enjoy the most important of the so-called "special privileges" that you bestow on and receive from a spouse of opposite gender, through marriage: the rights of next-kinship.

Let's say you're a man who's been in a tragic car accident, you're lying in a coma and, as it happens, you've been in a committed 20 year incestuous relationship with Mom or Sis. She's already very closely related and thus, already one of your next of kin. As a close relative, she can visit you in the hospital, speak with your doctor about your condition, petition the court to become your legal guardian, make decisions regarding your care, see to your final arrangements, attend your funeral and inherit your estate, as per your wishes. That you shared a home, as adults, in the years preceding your tragic accident, only strengthens her position as your closest surviving heir, should another close relative seek to usurp her. You didn't have to marry her to give her those protections.

If your incestuous relationship has been with a relative who's not as closely related as your mom or sister, but is still too closely related to marry, legally, you can protect these close relatives from closer relatives with a living will and a last will and testament. Any will, living or final, can be contested and overturned, but when you've named close relatives in these documents, you make it MUCH harder for other relatives, even those who are more closely related to you, to overturn than if you'd named unrelated or distantly related persons.

Now, let's say it wasn't Mom or Sis you were involved with, but a boyfriend of 20 years, with whom you've built and shared a life. Let's say, too, that Mom and Sis are homophobic gay-haters who disowned you the day you came out to them, haven't spoken to you since that day and have never even met your partner. For all intents and purposes, you've been dead to Mom and Sis for a couple of decades or more, already -- all that's left is to bury your body.

Even if you and your partner have living wills, legal last wills and testaments with every t carefully crossed and every i carefully dotted AND you have taken the extra precaution of forming a corporation or limited partnership to further protect one another's interests, your partner is still not related to you. That you shared a home, as a adults, in the years prior to your tragic accident makes you nothing more than roommates.

Your doctor cannot discuss your medical condition with him. Your Mom and Sis can not only step in and successfully bar him from your bedside in your final moments of life, they can petition the courts to become your legal guardians, gaining control of your medical care, access to your money (even if every penny of it is held jointly with your partner and your partner is the only one of the two of you who had an income during that 20 years!) and take over your share of control in your corporation or limited partnership.

They can prevent your partner from having any input, at all, on your final arrangements and bar him from attending your funeral to say his final good-byes.

Because you've named a person unrelated to you, Mom and Sis can easily contest and over-turn the terms of both your living will and your last will and testament. As your closest living heirs, they can force your partner to sell the home you've shared, to give them "their" half of the proceeds of its sale (again, this is true even if he's the only one of the two of you who had an income during your years together, and he, alone, paid for the home you shared and held jointly as a couple!)

Legally, they are your next of kin and your closest living heirs. The man you've built and shared a life with for the last 20 years is, legally, nobody to you.

Not only could Mom and Sis easily take half of everything you and your partner held jointly in addition to everything you held separately from your partner, if you did form that corporation or limited partnership, your partner could suddenly find himself incorporated or partnered, against his will and yours, with two people who inherited your interest in that "business" and who've never had any use for him or for you... and they could use that to wreak havoc on what he has left of the life you once shared.

This hypothetical example isn't a "COULD happen" scenario -- this is a "DOES happen" scenario.

Now, let's switch gears one last time and say that, prior to your tragic accident, the laws had changed and you had legally married the man you'd shared your life with for 20 years. Your husband would be your legal next of kin, just as a wife would have been. As such, your doctor can discuss your condition with him. He cannot be barred from your bedside and robbed of those last precious moments with you. He can petition the courts to be named your legal guardian. Your living will, if you have one and your last will and testament can still be contested and overturned, as any will can be, but because you've named a spouse, particularly a spouse with whom you've had a long term committed relationship, it's a LOT harder for another relative to overturn. Your husband can see to the final arrangements you had discussed with him in those somber, private moments when you discussed things neither of you wanted to think about. He can say his final good-byes at your funeral. You can pass in peace, knowing you've protected your spouse.

Protecting the ones we share and build our lives with isn't a "special privilege," it's a basic human right.

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

Part 4 -- Gay Marriage Series

• Gay marriages would set legal precedent that would open the door to incestuous marriage

My knee-jerk reaction to this argument is always:
So what? If marrying your mom or your sis is what floats your boat, it's no skin off my nose who you marry and I'd rather you marry YOUR mom or sister than marry MY mom or sister and later put her through the horror, pain and embarrassment of discovering what you've been doing behind her back throughout your marriage.

My second knee-jerk reaction is to point out that so-called "hetero marriage" might lead to legal recognition of marriages between opposite gendered kin and should be banned before it does.

But, my knee jerk reactions to this ignorant argument aside, the fact remains that legal recognition of same-gendered marriages won't lead to legal recognition of marriage between very close family members for the same reason legal recognition of opposite-gendered marriage hasn't led to legal recognition of marriages between very close family members of opposite gender:

It isn't necessary to marry a close relative to establish a legally recognized familial tie to that person.

(More on this topic in my next installment.)

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

Part 3 -- Gay Marriage Series

• Legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to gay "civil unions," would violate the separation of Church and State by forcing churches to marry gay couples in violation of the tenets of their faith.

This is BS! Furthermore, those who seeded this propaganda into the general populace KNOW it is BS!! They're counting on your ignorance to ensure that their bigotry will continue to be legitimized through our marriage laws.

Churches are currently free and regularly exercise their rights to refuse to marry any opposite-gendered couple, without being under any obligation to provide ANY reason for their refusal, much less one that speaks directly to the tenets of that church's faith.

Not every religious group believes and/or teaches that same-gendered relationships are sinful or an abomination.

With legal recognition of same-gendered marriages, churches would remain just as free to refuse to marry any same-gendered couple with or without citing religious or any other reasons for their refusal.

By contrast, recognizing only same-gendered civil unions (as opposed to both civil unions and unions of holy matrimony) would mean that clergy, regardless of the tenets of their faith, would remain FORBIDDEN from legally joining same gendered couples, according to the tenets of their faith, as that power would be reserved to State.

If allowing clergy the power to join, if they so choose, same-gendered couples, in both the eyes of God and the eyes of the law, violates separation of church and state, it follows that allowing clergy to join, if they so choose, opposite gendered couples, in both the eyes of the God and the eyes of the law, also violates separation of church and state.

In areas like mine, where options are already severely limited for opposite gendered couples, this would further limit a same-gendered couple wishing to marry to having a ceremony performed by a judge, in open court, between cases, if time allows.

Thus, same-gendered couples, in areas like mine, who could otherwise have found clergy willing to officiate their ceremonies, would be excluded from the simple rights of choosing to have a private ceremony for just family and friends, setting a specific date and time, choosing a venue for the ceremony, having music, decorations, a photographer, etc. Further, regardless of where they live or how many options they have for civil ceremonies, same-gendered couples of faith who wish to be joined in the eyes of their deity, under the tenets of their faith, would be forced to have a separate religious ceremony to do so.

Holding same-gendered marriages to the strictest interpretation of separation of church and state opens a door, through the setting of precedent, for opposite gendered marriages to be held to the same strict standards. In other words, it could be used to argue, successfully, that no clergy-performed ceremony should be recognized by the state and that only with a separate civil ceremony, should ANY marriage obtain legal recognition.

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

Part 2 -- Gay Marriage Series

<.li>Marriage is a religious institution and STATE should never have gotten into the business of marriage.

Marriage is NOT an institution of religious origins. Marriage began as a secular institution and secular marriage predates holy matrimony's addition to religious doctrine by a period of centuries.

The purpose of "marriage" (in both its secular origin and its adaptation into religious doctrine) was not to form an equal partnership or create a familial and/or loving bond between any two people or to sanction physical relations in the eyes of the state or a prudish deity, but to provide a man with a deed to his wife, children and other marital assets (slaves, livestock, tools, home, etc.) and to provide men with legal recourse should those assets be stolen from them.

Church later "got into the business of marriage" for the same reasons State had created it.

You have to remember that Church either WAS State or held governing authority higher than that of State in various societies at different points in history and antiquity. Church was thus motivated to add marriage to its doctrine not in conjunction with its role as a spiritual institution, but in conjunction with its role as a political/governing institution.

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

Part 1 -- Gay Marriage Series

• "Marriage" is a religious word.

The word "Marriage" is NOT a religious word -- it is a generic word that applies equally to secular unions and religious unions. "Holy Matrimony" is the specifically religious term for marriage. "Civil Union" is the specifically secular term for marriage.

Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents

...And the dog you rode in on, Santorum!

(How did I manage to miss THIS story?!)

Santorum actually stood in front of a room full of people, spoke at length about the courage and dedication of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line in service of our great nation, then proved he has absolutely no understanding of what they go through when he asked the people in that room to do the same as our troops by slapping one of his campaign stickers on their vehicles!! He then asked them if it was too much to ask them to serve their country by putting his sticker on their cars.

Read the full story, on santorumexposed.com

I don't know about you, but my jaw is on the floor! The level of audacity, ignorance and complete lack of respect for our troops or anything they go through that Rick Santorum demonstrated in just that one call to inaction is beyond staggering!

Mr. Santorum, I dedicate this posting of my famed "Applied A Bunch Of Stickers..." parody lyrics to you. You earned it, buddy. (That's not a good thing.) Enjoy!


Applied A Bunch Of Stickers To My S.U.V.
by Melhi (Written 7-9-'05)
To the tune of Tie A Yellow Ribbon by Tony Orlando & Dawn

I do my part, I pay my dime.
Now I help to gnaw a big bite out of crime
It's due to me the P.O.W.s will soon be free!
It doesn't take much work to do -- simple as could be!

It's.. done.. ea..sil..y,

Applied a bunch of stickers to my S.U.V.
This one over here,
Stamps out H.I.V.
(H.I.V.)

This slogan, here, is fixin' our e-con-o-my,
Supportin' the troops
And veteran groups,
Ending poverty!
It's all by stickin' helpful stickers on my S.U.V!

Cure cancer, end lung disease
Win the war on terror single hand-ed-ly
Your little kid is missing? He'll be found because of me!
A simple plastic sticker's all we need to keep us free!
Achieve a lasting peace!

A pile of legislation will be his-to-ry
We'll get four more years
Cheaper gas-o-line
(Gas-o-line!)
Kids say no to drugs and it's because of me,
I've straightened the fags,
Protected my flag,
Patriotically!
And I'll convert the whole wide world to Chris-ti-an-it-y!

Will the home team's fans be cheering?
In the bag, it's guaranteed!
I've stuck their mascot's sticker on my S.U.V.!

I'll bring 'em home, mmm hmm.

(Buy a sticker for your S.U.V.
Buy a sticker for your S.U.V.
Buy a sticker for your S.U.V.

Buy a sticker for your S.U.V.
Buy a sticker for your S.U.V.
Buy a sticker for your S.U.V.)

A brief personal indulgence

Every once in awhile, some silly little something happens that makes our day. My day was made, today, by just such a silly thing.

My two favorite books are The Universal History of Numbers by Georges Ifrah and Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Today, as I was going through the stats for my Monkees site, I was surprised to find two referrals from Neil Gaiman's Journal. Sometimes, I visit some of the more surprising referral pages listed, only to discover it's some kind of mistake... that there is no link to my site. But, sure enough, about half way down the page of his June 27, 2004 entries there's evidence that for the briefest moment, Neil Gaiman, co-author of one of my two all-time favorite books, was aware of the existence of something of MINE! WOW!

Sometimes, the feeling of "I'm just one insignificant person" can really drag us down and make us question whether we can make a difference. While this whole Gaiman linking to my Monkees site thing is completely unrelated to political activism, (mine or anyone else's) discovering that link was a good reminder that one person can, indeed, stand out in a crowd of millions, even if only for the briefest of moments. Thanks for the boost, Neil. That's two I owe ya!


While I'm indulging in a rare moment of personal discourse, I'd like to share one other, even sillier, thing with you.

I don't know what I was dreaming, to have any idea as to the context, but as I woke, a few days ago, I spoke something in my final moment of dreaming, that has stayed with me, since.

"The baby boomer generation was going to be the one to cure cancer, but the guy who was going to do it got drafted and was killed in 'Nam."

My tone was as though I was regurgitating well-established facts I had long since bored of repeating ..."Two plus two equals four. Blue and yellow make green. The cure for cancer died in a rice paddie. Water freezes at 32 degrees." Very odd.

Of course, there's no deeper meaning or truth to the statement. It's just something conjured in a sleeping mind. The sobering truth of our waking reality is that we'll never know what our fallen soldiers might have gone on to accomplish.

I Wonder If It Made His Wife Cry...

Speaking yesterday at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas, Ann Coulter said, "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee." She added, "That's just a joke, for you in the media." (Full story)


A joke, eh? (ouch!) Perhaps it was the lack of it being funny that threw us off.

You Know What Really Bugs Me?

Domestic Spying.

The Bush administration has been putting the expected spin on their illegal wiretapping, now it's O.K. for them to have ignored the law because it was (surprise, surprise!) "terrorist" surveillance.

What we don't know: How many innocent, law abiding, patriotic Americans have been subject to this surveillance and thus included in that ("terrorist") description.

Can You Dig It?

The tunnel from Mexico...

On the news reports I've seen, so far, everyone has seemed to be genuinely surprised at the discovery, not of the tunnel, itself, but of the discovery that these tunnels exist, at all. Surely, I must be misreading these reactions.

Even I could have told them tunnels between Mexico & the U.S. existed. I didn't have any knowledge of the actual tunnels and it's not like I've been going around yanking on the shirtsleeves of strangers trying to spread the word that "they're out there."

It's one of those "given" things that, if you think about it for even a split second, you just know. I assumed tunnels under the border were one of those things all of us knew had to exist. Frankly, I'd have been shocked to my socks if we'd learned that they DIDN'T exist.

Sidenote: It does confuse me that illegal immigrants are coming over and under the border in search of our jobs. Doesn't Mexico offer direct flights to Indonesia and China?

Let's Stage An Election (Parody)

To kick off this most joyous new election year, I thought I'd entertain you with a little parody ditty I wrote back in early Oct. 2004. Enjoy!

"Let's Stage An Election"
by Melhi
To the tune of "Walk Like An Egyptian" by The Bangles


Watch the old man sing on the tube
He'll do the fad dance for their vote
With the youthful clique (Oh way, oh!)
He's younger now, quite the daddio!

If the younger man's sense of style
Is not so manly, make him flex
Girl's love his smile? (Polls say so!)
Then flash his teeth on the TV set!

Give 'em hype, get it spinnin' tight, hey!
Way oh, hey yo! Oh way, oh way, oh!
Let's stage an election!

The bald net execs, script the race
They push the polls, for the ratings score
Exciting news! (Oh way, oh!)
It pops! It zings! See the numbers soar!

All the viewers so into looks
That's how they judge who's the better man
If he's wrinkl-ing (No way, oh!)
They schedule him for inject-i-ons

Do the lids, nip and tuck his face, hey!
Way oh, hey yo! Oh way, oh way, oh!
Let's stage an election!

Make the scene on the screen, stay on track
Flex their arms, then they talk some smack
Must rock the vote (Oh way, oh!)
So strike a pose with the quarterback

Autographs to sign, photo ops
And hanging out in the union shops
Now sing and dance (Oh way, oh!)
Go with the platoon on their walk

All the "ragazines" follow them
The party boys pay to fly them in
On the radio (Oh way, oh!)
They know their lines, keep repeating them

"Mindless schlock! Someone make it stop, hey!"
Hey, no way, yo. No way, Jose` oh!
Let's stage an election...
Let's stage an election...

Happy New Year!

It's an election year (my favorite kind of year) and you know what that means. Yep, the time for finger pointing and blame-placing is officially here! Time to let those who earned it own it!

Of, by and for the people, baby! (Man, I love this country!)

It goes without saying that there's a lot at stake at the national level. But, it's vitally important that we pay equally close attention to our respective state & local issues and races. The buck may stop at the White House, but it starts its long arduous journey at home.

By the end of this new year, let's make sure we've sent the message loud and clear that this is our country, they work for us and we, the people, haven't been rendered null and void, just yet!

Happy New Year, everyone!

He Knows If You've Been Sleeping...

He Knows If You've Been Sleeping...

Concerned that our Commando in Chief's penchant for peeping and eavesdropping may have put him in violation of the law, putting his Presidency at risk?

Don't be!

He's assured us that he's innocent and we all know that guilty criminals NEVER make false claims to innocence!

If you're an evil America-hating terrorist-abetting traitor for whom our beloved President's word, alone, isn't good enough, don't get your panties in a knot, just yet! (Don't worry, there'll be plenty of time for that, after you settle in at Gitmo!) Unless you're Satan, Himself, you'll be relieved to learn that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has backed the President's claims of innocence with definitive proof, in legal precedence, that George W. Christ is still a man without sin!

You see, in 2004, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a plurality opinion, on the law in question, (the "Authorization to Use Military Force" passed by Congress and signed into law by Lord W. Bush a week after the 9/11 attacks) clarifying that while the word "detention" does not appear in the law, the authorization of military force implies authorization to detain enemy soldiers, without regard to citizenship, who might be captured on the battlefield. So, by not saying he can't spy on Americans at whim, this law clearly gives Bush and his adminionstration permission to ignore the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA.)

If you're not familiar with the FISA, it was signed into law as something of a bone-throw to Americans who, for some reason, were outraged over Nixon's domestic spying on Peace and Civil Rights activists (whose anti-American activities, it should be noted, resulted in major changes to the course of this nation, many of which remain, to this day, despite the ongoing effort to restore this nation to her former glory.) This act basically just laid down a bunch of bothersome red tape by establishing procedures whereby the governement would have to jump through hoops -- investigating, submitting applications and showing just cause -- to obtain permission from a secret 11 member court for covert surveillance and searches of citizens and foreigners suspected of espionage or terrorism.

Note: It is currently unclear why the Bush adminionstration wasted precious time submitting nearly 1800 applications to this secret court, in 2004, when this law had already cleared the way for them to proceed unchecked. Someone -- probably a liberal infiltrator in the party, or a minor(ity) neo-con player who hasn't much of a future ahead of him, anyway -- may have some explaining to do and time to serve on that point, later... when the time for finger-pointing and blame-placing comes.

To prevent a lot of unnecessary whining and complaining about violations of our so-called "rights," each of us should bear in mind all of the other things The Authorization To Use Military Force does not specifically preclude the government from doing to us in its effort to stamp out terrorism. If you love your country, you will trust them implicity and without even the slightest hint of question. Failure to do so only blows your cover and reveals you as the terrorist operative in Lucifer's employ, that you so obviously are.

For example, if you should find yourself being dragged from your home into the street, stripped naked, bound and doused in gasoline as someone in a U.S. military uniform, holding a box of farmer matches, orders a U.S. military chaplain to ask God to spare you from the flames if you are not a terrorist -- The Authorization To Use Military Force does NOT specifically mention the torching of random citizens. They're well within the law and merely doing what's necessary to protect you and your fellow countrymen from terrorist threats.

...And, as the match is being struck, instead of begging for mercy and struggling to break free, you should remain calm, secure in the knowledge that you have nothing to fear if you are innocent!

Tap Dancing

By now, you've surely heard the latest "talking point." Cheney has said it, Bush has repeated it and, while I've successfully avoided their echo chamber, today, I'm sure Murdoch has taught it to all of his mimicking minions, by now. The wording varies slightly, from parrot to parrot but the gist of this latest talking point is: "We could have prevented the terrorist attacks of 9/11, if we'd had the wire tapping provisions of the Patriot Act."

Huh? You and I know that for their latest talking point to be true and their assessment correct, they would have had to know the following, in advance of the attacks:

• That the attacks were being planned


• The identity of at least one specific operative involved in the planning of the attacks.


• Approximate, if not specific, locations for each of these known operatives

Clearly, this knowledge, alone, would not have prevented the attacks. In that, they are truthful and correct. Further investigation and surveillance would, indeed, have been required to get the more specific information necessary to foil the terrorists' plot, in time.

But, without this foreknowledge, the extra latitude given them in the Patriot Act wouldn't have done them a whole lot of good because they wouldn't have known which phones to tap or which phone calls merited close attention of the thousands upon thousands of U.S. phones that make & receive foreign calls, each and every day.

It's a no-brainer that we don't have the manpower to dedicate one person's ears to each individual call coming into or going out of the U.S. Surely, they don't expect us to believe that the terrorists would have waited around while we played "terrorist in the landline & cellular haystack" listening to random calls, hoping to happen upon the ONE call out of countless thousands that might alert us to the planning of a possible attack!

So, let's assume that this latest talking point isn't just smoke being blown up our collective noses and that they did have those bits of information that would have made wire tapping a valuable tool in stopping those attacks. That knowledge would have given them enough "just cause" to open up the broader investigative latitude necessary for them to prevent the attacks, using the pre-Patriot Act methods that were already available to them at the time and which, by the way, included provisions for wire-tapping and various other forms of surveillance.

So, as you hear this talking point repeated, over and over and over again, in the next few days, ask yourself the question the press should be asking them:

If they knew enough for wire tapping to have prevented the attacks, why on Earth didn't they employ any (and every!) of the methods they had available to them, at the time, to prevent them?

Grandma Makes Her Living As A Stripper (Parody)

This posting is dedicated to my Aunt Rosetta, who always appreciated a good bawdy laugh, never stayed on her own side of the generation gap, always dressed to the nines and performed with a burlesque troupe (including a faux-striptease routine)in her 70's and 80s. Sadly, Aunt Rosetta passed away, just a few days ago, at the tender age of 94. She had been too ill to share this with, since I wrote it, last year, but she would have gotten a huge kick out of it. I hope you enjoy it as much as she would have. Please Note: This one's for grown-ups, only.

Grandma Makes Her Living As a Stripper
By Melhi
(to the tune of Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer)


(CHORUS)
Grandma makes her living as a stripper,
She's a featured act, a "specialty"
Grandma still gets paid to show her ta-tas,
(At least her knockers hide her knobby knees!)

She's been strippin' now for eons
And she puts on quite a show
A geriatric fascination
When she toddles on the stage and hangs 'em low

When you see her, heed this warning
Find a seat that's toward the back,
She's been known to knock some eyes out
It's incredible when Grandma swings her rack.

(CHORUS)

No one works a crowd like Grandma,
You should hear the patrons yell
Sure they're yellin' "Put your clothes on!"
But they're cheerin' when she does...and tipping well!

That's not all there is to Grandma,
You should see her from the back
She can get her cheeks a-twirlin'
Cuz they hang down to her heels like gunny sacks!
(Gunny sacks!)

(repeat CHORUS)

When she's dancing on your table
You can book a private gig, (Ahhhh!)
You can grab yourself a handful
Just be careful not to snap her like a twig

She's done lots of special favors,
And according to her "friends"
My old Granny's pretty spry yet...
For a gal who dated Abe and wears Depends!

(repeat CHORUS)

(Swing 'em Grandma!!)

(repeat CHORUS)

Another Secular Salvo In The War On Christmas

I love Christmas. You may doubt that before the end of this blog entry, but I really do! It's my second favorite holiday of the year. (If you're curious, Hallowe'en is my very favorite.)

My Christmas is just that... MY Christmas. It doesn't necessarily share much more than a name and date with your Christmas. The nativity story is just another holiday story to me, like "The Littlest Fir Tree" or "Twas The Night Before Christmas." Shepherds, mangers, wise men, etc.? Just another holiday decoration theme. Family, friends, good memories and good times... these are the reasons for my season. These are the things I celebrate.

I didn't pull my Christmas out of thin air and I don't celebrate my Christmas in my way as any sort of affront to or assault on anyone else's Christmas. My Christmas isn't affected by and has no effect on anyone else's Christmas.

My Christmas is a wholly secular tradition, passed down through multiple generations of my family. It evolves, over time, as each generation adds or changes a little something and my Christmas, as it exists today, comes complete with all the secular trimmings and trappings in all their gaudy secular splendor: Santa, elves, peppermints, holly, mistletoe, tinsel, twinkle lights, lawn decorations, fir trees with tacky crap dangling from every branch, lots of presents, over-spending, family gatherings, feasting, cheesy songs, more feasting, ugly holiday garb, egg nog, claymation specials on T.V., etc... I didn't create any of these trimmings or trappings and they're hardly new on the Christmas scene. As with previous generations of my family, I work with what's readily and abundantly available.

As I've gone about preparing for and participating in my holiday, each year, it really hasn't entered my mind, much less bothered me, that Christmas isn't the same holiday for everyone that it is for me or that others might ascribe beliefs to it that I do not necessarily share or attach to this particular day.

Apparantly, though, among the Christmas celebrants whose holiday differs greatly from mine, there are some who are deeply disturbed by the very existence of my Christmas. These are people who would like to force me to celebrate their holiday in their way or just revoke my right to celebrate Christmas, at all. They've twisted their hatred of me, my differing beliefs, my Christmas and my secular holiday traditons into a spooky campfire tale of evil Christmas-snatching liberals preying on all that is sacred to the righteous!

Lately, they've plastered their fantastic story all over the news. According to the reports, by celebrating my secular holiday in my secular way, I am joining with others of my ilk to obliterate their Christmas and replace it with a secular celebration of debauchery! Even my wishing someone "Happy Holly Daze," (which is MY traditional greeting) is a scud-missle strike at the very heart of all that is Christmas.

These accusations have come as a complete shock to me. When I put a plastic Santa on my lawn, I'm not trying to force my neighbors to take the plastic manger scene off of their lawn. When I wish someone a "Happy Holly Daze," there is no sinister intent behind my greeting. I'm not trying to strip their sacred holiday of the name assigned to it when their forebears stole it, stamped their messiah all over it and began pimping it out to the unconverted masses like a cheap tinsel-strewn whore luring lascivious heathens to her Christian houses of worship. I'm just being nice and spreading my holiday cheer... or, more accurately, the cheer of MY holiday.

If you're among those who are offended by my fond wishes for your seasonal joy, by all means, feel free to teach me a lesson by having a miserable holiday season, instead! It's no skin off my back how you choose to react to my pleasantries. I don't know what "counts" in your Christmas, but in MY Christmas, it's the thought that counts -- and the thought behind my greeting is one of good will.

Most curiously, a select few of the people who've been spinning these fantastic tales of a fierce war waged on the helpless holy majority by the all-powerful unholy few have further expressed a belief that, to be saved from ourselves, our society needs to return to the fine, old, sacred traditions of Christmas. After giving it a great deal of serious thought, I have to admit that I'm inclined to agree with them. A forced society-wide return to the old ways, especially if brought about by the most outspoken of the righteous, would, indeed, put an end to all of these irrational, biggotted concerns about the imaginary effects of my secular Christmas on anyone else's sacred Christmas. But then, I'm bearing in mind what those fine, old, sacred traditions actually were!

Soooo.... instead of my usual seaonal greeting, I'll help end this imaginary war and get the traditional Christmas ball rolling by extending all of you a most heartfelt and joyous: Io! Saturnalia! (Cast off your toga!)

Twelve Terms of Office (parody)

As I was reading about yet another powerful politician going down in flames (Republican Mayor West of Spokane, this time,) I was inspired to write a new parody from the P.O.V. of a fictional politician, plagued by scandal. Enjoy!


Twelve Terms of Office
(To the tune of Twelve Days of Christmas)
by Melhi


It's my first term in office, the press is dogging me
Had a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my second term in office, they're crucifying me
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my third term in office, they've got the goods on me
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my fourth term in office, they're still lambasting me
4 D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my fifth term in office, why won't they let me be?
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my sixth term in office, they're out to ruin me
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my seventh term in office, the press is killing me
Seven grams of "candy"
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my eighth term in office, they're out to butcher me
Ate baby seal meat
Seven grams of "candy"
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my ninth term in office and still they're plaguing me
Nine no bid contracts
Ate baby seal meat
Seven grams of "candy"
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my tenth term in office and they're destroying me,
Ten month vacation
Nine no-bid contracts
Ate baby seal meat
Seven grams of "candy"
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

It's my eleventh term in office, they won't let up on me
Election tally rigging
Ten month vacations
Nine no-bid contracts
Ate baby seal meat
Seven grams of "candy"
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

They're singing my praises in loving memory...
Twelve terms of office
Election tally rigging
Ten month vacations
Nine no-bid contracts
Ate baby seal meat
Seven grams of "candy"
Sex tape is streaming
Five bas-tard kids!
Four D.U.I.s
Three spent shells
Two sets of books
And a fling with my secre-tar-y

Political Peas In a Pod?

I'm sure you've heard it said that Democrats and Republicans are the same. Perhaps you are among those who believe it. More and more people are saying it, every day. In fact, it's becoming quite the catch-phrase of the main stream. But is it true? Let's compare and contrast a little, shall we?


Budget:
Democrat: Tax and Spend
Republican: Spend and Spend and Spend... and Tax

Patriotism:
Democrat: Love it or do something to improve it.
Republican: Love it or leave it.

Taxes:
Democrat: "Take from the rich to give to the poor." Wealthy pay a higher percentage of net taxable income than the working class, but placing the tax burden on the wealthy is fair because the wealthy still pay a much lower percentage of their disposable (gross income less their cost of living expenses) income.

Republican: "Take from the working class to give to the rich." The working (or middle) class pays a much higher percentage of both gross income and disposable income than the wealthy, but it's fair because the middle class pays the same percentage of net taxable income.

Heath Care:
Democrats: Access to health care is a basic human right.
Republicans: Access to health care is an earned privelege.

Welfare:
Democrats: When the basic survival needs (clothes, food, shelter, health care) of our poorest citizens are provided for, it benefits all of society and shows the world that we are a wealthy and powerful nation. Welfare can be a hand up for people who have fallen on hard times and just need a boost. It should be retooled or overhauled so that it is less easily abused and does not trap multiple generations of families in poverty and reliance on the state for sustenance.

Republicans: When the basic survival needs (clothes, food, shelter, health care) of our poorest citizens are provided for, it creates a drain on all of society and shows the world that we are a weak nation. Welfare is just a hand out for people who are too lazy to support themselves. It should be eliminated.

Labor:
Democrats: Labor unions ensure that the working class is compensated for the time, knowledge and skills they market to employers. A good labor force contributes, substantially, to the financial success of a business. The captain steers the ship with the aid of an able crew.

Republicans: Labor unions are communist organizations whose goal is the even redistribution, among the workers, of the profits earned by businesses through the marketing of goods and services to consumers. Profits are the result of good management, the workforce, by itself, has little or no effect on the financial success of a business. The captain steers the ship and leads the crew, without him there would be no ship.


For Our Own Good:
Democrat: To reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates, sex ed should include information about abstinence in addition to information about birth control and STD prevention.

Republican: To reduce teen pregancy and STD rates, sex ed should include information about abstinence, alone, because it is the only guaranteed method of birth control and STD prevention.

Democrat: Protect us from big business by regulating business ethics.

Republican: Protect us from ourselves by regulating our morals.

Separation of Church & State:
Democrats: Separation of church and state refers to all faiths, because there is no such thing as a generic, one size fits all faith.

Republicans: Separation of church and state refers to all but non-denominational protestantism, which suffices as an acceptable generic, one size fits all faith because the over-all Christian body of faith is the majority faith in the US.


Fictional examples:
A Democrat who wants a forest to exist for his/her great-grandchildren to enjoy will work to protect it, legally, as a national treasure, to ensure that it exists for our families to enjoy for many generations to come.

A Republican who wants a forest to exist for his/her great-grandchildren to enjoy will purchase the land and put it in a centuries long trust to ensure that it will exist for his/her family to enjoy for many generations to come.


A Democrat catches a twenty dollar bill he sees falling from a hole in the pocket of a shabbily dressed man and immediately returns it to the man, firmly believing that a man so shabbily attired cannot afford to lose such a large amount of money.

A Republican catches a twenty dollar bill he sees falling from a hole in the pocket of a shabbily dressed man and pockets it, himself, firmly believing that if the man had any appreciation for such a large amount of money, he could afford less shabby attire and would e more careful than to carry his money around in a pocket with a hole in it.


Now that I read back through the comparisons, I can see why some people think that Democrats and Republicans are the same. Both spend our money. Both want us to love our country. Both regulate on our behalf. Both tax us and believe their tax plans to be fair. Neither is pushing for our public schools to teach little Baptist children to worship Vishnu. Both want all of us who deserve it to have access to decent health care. Both want to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs through education. Both think our nation is judged by how we treat our poorest citizens. Both want to see the people who are responsible for the success of a business compensated, fairly, for their efforts. The fictional forest would be preserved for future generations either way and neither the Democrat nor the Republican would let that imaginary twenty dollar bill blow away with the breeze.

But... alike? I might just as easily say that all the snowflakes resting on my lawn this fine December afternoon are alike: they're all white, they're all made of frozen water, they all have six points, they're all fragile and they all fell from above. Only upon closer examination is it revealed to me that each individual snowflake is unique. The differences are in the details.