Divine Nonsense, the

You know, I'm pretty sure if my father could have been responsible for scripting November 4th, 2008, he would have not only had John McCain winning the Presidency - but also had every last person in the State of California vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.

Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.

Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.

It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.

The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.

I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.

The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.

Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?

I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?

This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.

'Decline of Country Music'

'Decline of Country Music'

More than perhaps any other genre of music, country/western is a genre where the traditions may be valued more than the various albums, artists or songs. The basic idea of country is taking 'traditional' folk music and shaping it to the unique voices that are typically found in country music.

Without diving too deeply into the histories of country music, it is safe to say that the general expectations when tuning in to an artist billed as a country musician is more along the lines of Randy Travis or George Strait. Not just a distinct type of voice, but also a distinct type of music - very heavy on natural stringed instruments and usually very metronomic drumming. The lyrics usually deal with love of some sort - whether romantic love (or the loss of that love), love of country and even love of history or memories.

There are a few embellishments here and there, most often illustrating influence from other genres of music that have either a basis or strong tradition in the southern United States. Typically the additions are simple, electric guitar or more rock-styled drumming, but the standard is set, and has been reinforced over quite some time.

Perhaps the greatest two examples of a 'traditional' country musician are Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton - both achieved tremendous amounts of crossover success relying on their own country roots, and blending that with whatever interested them at the time.

Incidentally, those two also occupy two very different positions in the realm of music. Especially towards the end of his career (during the American Recording era), Johnny Cash was very well known for being able to take a song written in nearly any style by any person, and make it sound good as a country song.

Meanwhile, Dolly Parton has written songs that have been recorded by a very diverse group of people representing many different styles of music - and have been very big hits in drastically different settings than her original.

But it is due to such particularly bright and shining examples that many people express not only displeasure with many contemporary country musicians - but allege that country music has been so far tarnished by pop and rock influence as to never be reclaimed. But, like many allegations founded in the court of public opinion - a crucial point is never mentioned:

Country music isn't going through a pop phase, nor is country music 'selling out' - country music is simply more popular right now. As with any style or genre of music, over time there will be a point where the fan base will not only grow - but those fans who have stuck by it will have matured to the point of being able to buy the albums and attend the shows by way of their own money. So while traditional fans will always be listening, it is that younger market who really pushes styles of music into the forefront - and that is really all we are seeing here, younger fans buying music from younger musicians.

Plus, it isn't as though country music has never seen cross-pollination before. And it is the exposure gained from those more popular artists, regardless of the traditional values they may bring or detract from, that drives any style of music.

Take 'emo' music, for example - which is nothing more than punk musicians recording ballad-style songs. And if many of them are more in mourning than in celebration, well then so what? Does it make Band A any worse by being counted in the same genre as Band B, who just so happens to wear eye makeup? Hardly.

So while Taylor Swift is definitely oriented toward the teen market, and her style definitely reflects that of current pop standards than traditional country values - the same could be said of Garth Brooks, Shania Twain, Toby Keith and Faith Hill - but that didn't mean that Alan Jackson, Jo Dee Messina, Tim McGraw or Martina McBride were any worse because of it. And in reality, it didn't mean that any of the music was 'bad' - it just wasn't something people expected from country music.

And today? There's still 'country' country music - just ask Blake Shelton, Josh Turner or the Dixie Chicks. But remember, expressing anger towards your favorite genre's growing more popular will only result in less exposure, and fewer musicians caring about being 'country' at all.

And besides that - singling out an artist as insufficient, while citing only one reason why has a poor history of working out.