Just to confirm what I wrote recently about the continued parental rights of the Heene family in Colorado (”Balloon Boy Family”) — now comes news that a rap video has been uncovered where the boys in this family rap about the “pussification” of America.

SheWired.com – ‘Balloon Boy’ and Brothers Perform Offensive, Anti-Gay Rap.

Pretty interesting stuff going on over at NOH8Campaign.com. The pictures tell an amazing story and give hope to those who desperately need their full rights.

Get out the message!

I often find it humorous, if not a little disturbing, watching the reaction of others when it comes to news reports covering certain events. Last week we were all inundated with news coverage around the little boy who rode a helium balloon across the skies of the Denver area. Only to be told later that it was a hoax.

Fine Example of Parenting

And I wonder why it is that no one is speaking out to place this couples children in protective custody. Why is it acceptable for this couple to maintain their parental rights when they have clearly endangered the psyche of their children? Yet it is acceptable to reduce the rights of so many based solely on their sexual orientation.

If a gay couple had carried out a hoax like this couple in Colorado did with an adopted child, the news media and right-wing bigots would have spent the entire weekend talking about the very reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry or adopt children. I know plenty of gay people who would make wonderful parents. Not because they are gay, but because they are have a tremendous amount of unadulterated love to give each other and their families. But because they do not love who or what the Bible tells them to, they are banished to the sidelines and repressed by the masses in state after state.

I contend that there is a bigger issue at play today in America. The issue is one of racial, sexual and religious superiority, that is unlike anything we have ever seen in this country and possibly the world.

Another recent event is an interracial couple in Louisiana that wanted to get married. The Justice of the Peace refused to marry the couple because he has concerns about their offspring, and the fact that he does not believe interracial marriages work. This is 2009, some 45 years after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill. So one lone JP in Louisiana determines what is and is not acceptable based on some guided notion that he is far more wise than any law?

Louisiana Couple

The truth of the matter is that the JP in Louisiana is simply following some prescribed notion that he has received divine direction to honor nature’s wishes. I suspect that if we peer inside many of our political institutions, or churches, or schools, or places of employment — we will find many more people that subscribe to the same notion.

And that is the duplicitous nature of our society. We allow people to thumb their noses as people who are different from what they have been programmed to believe is right, while excusing those who clearly don’t know right from wrong, and never understanding that there is a difference.

I think my colors are bleeding a bit. For my entire adult lifetime I have been a pretty liberal soul. Wanting the government to “do” certain things to make MY life easier, and wanting it to stay out social issues like gay marriage. But lately my views have shifted somewhat, to the point that I want government to get our of my life entirely and to let free markets and society decide what is best for me — and everyone else.

Healthcare is one of those topic where I sit back from the television with a disgusted look on my face and just think of how screwed up our sociopolitical systems are today. The first finger of blame goes to the President for having brought this topic to the table in the first place. I understand that he is looking at the legislative calendar and that he believes he needs to tackle the hard issue now to avoid severe repercussions in the 2010 midterms. But. Now? Really?

The second finger of blame points to the crazy mixed up leadership in Congress. You are never going to make anyone happy with this legislation as it stands, and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are the wrong people to lead this debate. (Sidebar: The current leadership is capable of leading this party into a deep dark hole, and that is about it.) Who are the people Obama is trying to help here? The poor? The displaced? The disenfranchised? Of course, and quite frankly that is not a great constituency that is going to remember the good things come 2010 or 2012.

What is needed right now is an open and honest debate about not only healthcare, but a complete redesign of tax code and entitlements.

I have a job. A pretty good job. One that helps me obtain health insurance through monthly payroll deductions. But I am afraid that government involvement in either providing, subsidizing, or otherwise participating in health insurance is going to serve as an impetus for my employer to stop providing health insurance altogether. Why shouldn’t they? The cost of healthcare is astronomical, and anyone who believes that the government entering into the fray to either compete or join with private insurance providers is going to somehow magically contain costs are just nuts. (Not just Manson nuts — Sarah Palin nuts!) I think many businesses will see this as their  opportunity to turn to their employees and say ‘We’re cutting costs by eliminating health insurance. But we have this nice brochure from U.S. Government that tells you where to get on its insurance plan. Good luck!’ How does the government keep this from happening? Well, through more legislation, oversight and regulation!

It’s time to stop the madness!

Let’s establish a flat income tax rate that creates a flat field of revenues. Eliminate tax credits that benefit those with children and those that are married. Tax entitlement payments as income. Make everything flat for every living and breathing person in this country. Need health insurance? Great! Step right this way and pickup your new universal membership card. Have health insurance through a private provider or employer? Great news! Step to the left and pickup your refund check. You just saved the U.S. Government tons of money and here is your reward. Still smoking after all these years? Tisk. Tisk. That’s going to cost you. Gave up smoking, and joined a gym? Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner — please pickup your refund prize on the way out.

Pretty simple (and yes, probably overly simple) really. Let’s tax everyone equally no matter how much they make or take, and reward those who take fiscal responsibility for their own welfare instead of those who depend on the government to fix everything.

So I was not a big fan of the U.S. bailout of the financial institutions to begin with. My objection is squarely based on two basic questions:

1) Is it cheaper in the long-run to allow major institutions to fail than it is to continually bail them out?

2) Where does it end?

I’ll leave number one up to those with far more experience than I have in understanding global financial markets and all the ancillary industries that go along with them. But question number two will become increasingly important and germane to our national conversation as time goes on. Already we have seen two rounds of bailout funding for the automotive industry, now we have the government pledging $5 billion to the auto parts industry, Larry Flint wants bailout funding for the porn industry, homebuilders want help, and list goes on and on and on.

Now comes news of the uproar created by AIG’s payment of bonuses to 70+ employees. Are we, the taxpayers, pissed? You bet. Are we, the taxpayers, calling our leaders in Congress to do something? You bet. But that does not mean Congress should act. Not now at least. We pay our leaders to lead. The minute we passed the first bailout package in October we sealed the fate of news programs like 60 minutes for the next 20 years — giving them tons of material to report related to misappropriation of bailout funds, corporate scandals, and government waste. It is the nature of the beast. Our leaders failed to give much thought to the bailout plan, which should have contained elements of control in the package, ahead of time. Mismanagement was bound to happen. But creating a 90% tax bracket for bonuses paid is absolutely ridiculous. The recent talks of tax brackets for those working for bailed out institutions is not conducive to fixing our problems.

Government never works well when it hastily crafts legislation for a specific and urgent cause. This feels a lot like the post 9/11 legislation that allowed our phones and emails to be tapped without cause, or the rush to judgement to go to war in Iraq, or the attempts to write laws to help a coma victim live or die in Florida. It’s not right and Congress should stop threatening legislation and do what it does best — make a public spectacle of AIG and allow the free market to punish the company as it will.

Which leads me back to question one. Aren’t our free markets capable of supporting those institutions that are vitally important to our economy? Is failure of portions of our Economic system not a natural process that we should allow to happen instead of interfering?

For all the talk about tax rebates and the great Bush tax cuts, the middle class is facing increased pressure from a constant barrage of increased fuel and food prices. Last Saturday the Wall Street Journal had a nice piece on how the effective income of middle Americans has declined over the years.

Every administration and congress in the last 40-50 years should be ashamed of themselves, regardless of party affiliation and politics of the day. The voters of this country entrusted their future and the future of their children to people who were supposed to protect and serve them. Instead, elected officials, in general, have served their own greed and shafted those that elected them.