It seems that Washington, as in the state, is getting around to legalizing gay marriage. They have not done it yet, but they’re getting closer by having passed a bill that gives same-sex domestic partners all of the rights of a married couple. Go read about it here. Then take a look at the date on that piece. April 15, 2009. How come I am only hearing about this now? Read the rest of this entry »

An article was recently brought to my attention. It seems that somewhere in New Jersey, a kid has been suspended for five days from school for organizing and running a beauty contest. Called May Madness, he and his friends pick the 16 hottest girls in the school, and then vote on them in a head-to-head tournament, not unlike the way the NCAA runs its March Madness basketball tournament. And for this, he’s been kicked out of school for a week. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been putting a lot of thought into this lately. I mean, I like to rant and rave and point the finger as much as anyone, but sometimes, you have to just hunker down and try to see if there’s a solution. Strip away all the nonsense and address the question: what is the fundamental point of friction here?

A conservative is not merely “pro-torture.” And a liberal is not merely “pro-gay marriage.” Rather, a political philosophy (for want of a better term) leads a person to one side of the fence or the other. If I can find out what those philosophies are, I might be able to better dismantle the arguments of my opponents. Read the rest of this entry »

Question: is water boarding torture?

I do not like to get caught up in sensationalism. I’ll read about it, but I try not be the subject of pandering—for example, I’ve seen maybe 60 seconds, when added all together, of 9/11 footage. Whenever it’s on the screen, I turn away. I don’t see the point of gawking.

Same with this water boarding. There’s been plenty of clips on the internet of people getting the treatment, and I have avoided them if possible. But the other day I watched one, since curiosity had gotten the best of me. Go watch it for yourself (link goes to Huffington. I still haven’t made up my mind about that website). Read the rest of this entry »

In a press conference on Wednesday, our President and Commander in Chief said, “I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees… And Churchill said, ‘We don’t torture,’ when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.”

Seems straight forward. He’s comparing our situations with theirs. Their situation was worse, and their leader still didn’t advocate torture.

And of course, the conservative are jumping all over the statement. “The president needs to learn some history. The British used enhanced techniques on captives during WWII!” One blogger wrote: “The premise here is that the Brits didn’t resort to harsh interrogation techniques in WWII… But if the premise relied upon fails — as it seems to here…”

No, that’s not the premise– so it doesn’t “fail”. The premise is that the president was struck by an article that he read, and that Churchill said “we don’t torture.” The phrase “enhanced techniques” is not in there.

Remember, conservatives, you’re the ones who were insisting that what the US was doing to those prisoners was not ‘torture.’ You insisted it was ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Or something. Hannity is for ‘enhanced interrogation.’ O’Reilly is for ‘enhanced interrogation.’ And the reason they’re for it is so they can be against torture.

So don’t compare what Churchill, and now Obama, are saying about torture, to what the British actually did to German PoWs in WWII. You guys are the ones who insisted there is a distinction. If anything, you’re the ones making Obama look more like Churchill with these statements.

And, please, let’s not start a discussion about our President’s needing a history lesson; let’s not start talking about education, intelligence, and being articulate. Let’s not starting quoting Bush. That joke is played out..

I’m what you call an expert political analyst, not from the standpoint of knowing what I talk about, but from the stand point of NOT knowing what I talk about. Chances are, you do not have a degree in political science, or a back ground in politics. Neither do I, so we’re on the same wavelength. I’ll go read up on Pennsylvania Phil*, then tell you what I think about it, and I’ll do it in language you and I speak.

I’ve used the analogy before- when experts write how-to books, they are writing them for people who have the potential to be experts. And really, the one way to be really great at something is to do it a lot. No how-to book can take the place of practice, and once you’ve logged a thousand hours practicing, no how-to book is going to tell you anything new.

So on to Mr. Specter. He’s leaving the GoP to become a full-fledged democrat. Hooray? (Sure—if only because it makes the pundits mad.) Rush Limbaugh is glad Arlen’s leaving, since now the republican will be even more conservative than before. Specter was too liberal, you see. Hannity had the same thing to say, speaking with Newt Gingrich. With Specter going, the GoP has even better chance of showing themselves off as the party diametrically opposed to Obama.

So much for bipartisanship. Both Limbaugh and Hannity point out that Specter has been losing ground back at home, and he switched sides so he wouldn’t have to fight for the republican nomination. This is all about getting elected they say. Then what do you call it when you declare the party must define itself as the anti-Obama party? Newt compared it to what Reagan did going up against Carter. If that’s not about getting votes, I don’t know what it is.

It’s certainly not about getting anything actually done.

That’s my take on it, anyway. There’s a bunch of nonsense about some bill that involving union voting, and how Arlen’s going to have to flip-flop now that he’s flip-flopped. (Remember: real conservatives hate worker’s rights).

I’m going to go see what Coulter has to say. Then I’m going to watch the Daily show and the Colbert report and get, you know, real analysis.

*This is supposed to be a joke about Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog, and seeing one’s shadow, and winter, and all manner of metaphor that I pretty much lost track of before I even started.

Miss California claims it’s her religious beliefs that inform her opinion on gay marriage. And her religion claims that’s it’s a study done by a discredited scientist that justifies their bigotry. I’d like to know when people are going to start thinking and speaking for themselves.

Via Reddit, I’ve just finished reading an article about how Miss California’s church is saying, among other things, that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. The writer of the article points out that this link is established via poorly researched and purposefully misused science. Go read the article for the details. Suffice it to say, the Prejean-Perez scandal has now become the story of a cop-out behind a cop out behind a cop out. Read the rest of this entry »

I guess a few nights ago Charles Grodin was arguing with Sean Hannity on Hannity’s show about torture. No, wait, not torture, “enhanced interrogation.”: I’m not sure I see the point of this type of discussion—when a Hollywood liberal (I use the term pejoratively) and a right-wing bully get together, no one’s changing their mind about anything. Anyway, Grodin asked Hannity if he’d be willing to be waterboarded. Bad move. I know how was trying to get Hannity to admit that he would not, and that this proves waterboarding is torture. Hannity, of course, said he’d be willing, that he would do it for charity. For the troops families. He’s a sicko. Read the rest of this entry »

Yes, it has been a long time since I’ve written anything here. I’m afraid I’m just lately unenthused by the usual shenanigans. Or enthused enough to realize I don’t feel like writing about. Too often, things sail below even that radar.

Thought I’d find the energy to show you this though. Read it for yourself, but in a nuthsell: a congressman didn’t like a proposed bill, so he added language to it that said it would not be used to prohibit surveillance on terrorists. That language means the thing has to be re-reviewed, and so the bill as yanked from being voted on while they decided what to do with it.

And, of course, those opposed to the bill’s supporter’s are saying they yanked the bill because they support the terrorists. This is a rape of procedure, in my opinion. This is the sort of thing that toppled the Roman empire. This is such an abuse, I really do want to win the lottery, so I can put ads in that congressman’s constituents’ newspapers telling them what he did.

This is when one starts hoping there is such a thing as karma, and that the crazed weasel truck crashes near his home.

Disgusting.

Election Central | Talking Points Memo | GOP Maneuver Succeeds: House Dem Leaders Postpone FISA Vote Until Next Week

Actually, I tune in if I am near an am radio between 9 and noon, weekdays. I’ve talked about why: the man’s buffonery entertains me. And though he always spouts the same rhetoric and nonsense, none of it seems to stick. What does stick? Well, one thing is his constantly mentioning that he is a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Yes, you read that right. He has been nominated by the Landmark Legal Foundation. Are they a conservative group? Does Rush sit on their advisory board? Why yes, yes of course! This is the group that issue complaints to the IRS about the NEA, claiming that they should not be considered a non-profit, since they have political ties.

But let’s not argue about that. Let’s just point who else has been nominated– and who has won, recent Peace Prizes: Jimmy Carter, Yassar Arafat, Al Gore… these are people that Rush really identifies with, aren’t they?

No.