Is anything better for me than the Parham?

Dr Spudnik, I'd rather have lost tempi and misplaced pieces, and then win in 20 moves, then sit there for 70 moves and draw.

It's one thing to not understand, it's another thing to wilfully refuse to acknowledge that there's more to chess than what you see.  One is acceptable and typical, the other is absolutely ridiculous.  It's not the opening choice itself that people take such strong objection to, it's the attitude in general.  I wouldn't mind if your rationalization was that you don't care about being worse out of the opening as you're more comfortable in the resulting positions and most of your games are decided by direct tactical blunders. However, you go on to say that attempting to play strong and fundamentally sound chess leads to nothing but boring draws.  It's a bit like people who shoot a basketball with two hands - No, you're not inventing a better way to shoot, but it's fine to shoot that way at a recreational level.  But it's something else entirely to tell everyone else that they just don't know what they're talking about.

And yet unfortunately all too typical as well.  It's one more reason I suppose that we have to be grateful that there is plenty of youth to be wasted on the young. 

Allow me to take this opportunity to swear at you now. 

Ok look at it like this.

besides the best that white can obtain from 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 is an equal position. (kramnik stated as much) the value at best is in a rapid game and the surprise it might gain...

The bigger problem IMO is that it fails to build a base for future growth. The human brain builds memory based on pattern recognition. It builds connections from general to specific. Is you play more systems you start to see relationships between pawn struture and piece play. As you gain in experience , calculation and tactical skill your ability to be more flexible in your approach expands. The problem with 2. Qh5 is that it dumps this all on its head so your experience is very limited and your brain gets stuck when players start to wrap their heads around the very basic tactical threats that can be created with this early development. They learn to adapt and adopt a system to gain equal play. For a time the players might lose because the strutures are unusual and abnormal but then things will begin to shift as they adapt. The player continuing to play Qh5 will find his path to an advantage narrowing and finally failing. What do you do when mentally your going for broke from  move 2 and your later game doesnt reach your desired goal? 

Your goals make no sense,... you want to be aggressive but not gambit a pawn. You are willing to take positional and developmental risks but not material ones? This approach itself goes counter to the whole idea you have been clinging to with 2. Qh5.

In my experience as a coach I havce found most players THINK that their opponent is booked up in a particular opening when in fact the are not. THey are often just as clueless as you are (with equal ratings) One of my best students didnt know anything about the nimzo indian at 1800 uscf, she knew a bit about the acceerated dragon, the benko, guccio piano, taimanov sicilian, kings indian, queens gambit, benoni, etc.... a very very broad knowledge base but very little that was specific. people would get upset at her becuase they would whip out 15-20 moves of theory and she would still win her games because she knew a large variety of plans and her endgames were good enough for her level. 

I agree with this completely.  It's funny how so many people desperately try to avoid book because they think that their opponent isn't just like them, and in the process end up playing dubiously and neglecting their development to take away the "advantage" that their opponent has in preparation. 

Getting back to the main point, rather than trolling on the Parham, do you have any better recommendations? As stated in the OP, I'd like something fairily aggressive w/o a gambit, the only good suggestion I've gotten so far is the veresov, which I'm currently looking into. Any others?

But I thought trolling on the Parham was the main point.

No see, for those who actually READ, the point is that since you all think the Parham is sooooo bad, why don't you give me something better? Since all of you just keep trolling the Parham, I'm beginning to think you really don't have anything better to offer...

Almost anything as white against most Sicilians, especially variations like the Keres Attack or the English Attack against the Najdorf.  With that being said, the main problem with wanting aggressive positions is that the majority of them are heavily theory-driven as the moves are critical, forcing players to memorize huge amounts of theory or get wiped off the board (this is especially the case in openings like the Yugoslav Dragon or the Poisoned Pawn Najdorf).  I don't understand why you don't just choose something simple and solid and allow your aggressive play to be based off of the middlegame instead of trying to get too much mileage for your level out of the opening phase.  You'd be surprised at some of the intiatives that can be reached out of "quiet" and somewhat unambitious openings like the Giuoco Piano or the Four Knights' Game - the players determine the direction of the game, not the opening (unless you're going way out into theoretical waters).

Now you're getting it!  I knew if you just kept up with it, the truth would dawn on you at last...

So what youre saying is that the Parham is unstoppable?

sar·casm/ˈsärˌkazəm/