The Miss California Brouhaha(HA!)

So Miss California does not support gay marriage. And suddenly that's a politically incorrect position. Actually it's the exact same as that of our President, and a (decreasing) majority of the people in the United States. So her position is politically correct. Perhaps, in the gay-friendly beauty queen world that's not the case, as Perez Hilton pointed out. But nationally, she's in the majority.

What's more fascinating is her defense of the issue. On the Today show, she stated her stance is "biblically correct". Forgive me my pious friends, but is it biblically correct to be parading around on stage in a bikini? To eat shellfish? To get a divorce? To do a myriad of things that is legal under civil law but, but maybe not (depends on your interpretation) under religious law? There is no standard interpretation of religion, religious folks selectively believe certain passages and conveniantly ignore others. Some sins are greater than others. Divorce is mentioned much more than homosexuality, although the popular belief is that homosexuality is worse than divorce. Either way, even with a standardization of a belief system, whether something is biblically, torah-ly, kornaically or whatever-ly correct is completely irrelevant in a republic. Move to Iran or the independent Catholic country known as the Vatican state, then you have a case. But not here. Not that people are not allowed to have views like Miss California. But if we have took everything in the Bible and applied it to law, then we might start looking even worse than Iran. If Iran took everything in the Koran and applied it literally, Iran might look even worse than that. There's a reason we bristle when we hear that Muslim countries apply Sharia-law, and Christian version of such law is just as bad in principle. There's a civil litmus test for our policy, but not a religious one. Even the most religious among us can acknowledge that simple fact. 

On Torture (Or Enhanced Interrogation for the Deluded)

I cannot believe that people are still defending torture. I'm no lefty but isn't it self-evident that the United States, a civilized nation, should follow the rule of law and not torture. But don't look to me for my opinion on this issue. Consider that George Washington recoiled at the idea. Abraham Lincoln fired an advisor for suggesting it. This is America! Of course we don't torture. And this effort propagandistic right wing effort to redefine torture is such crap. Here's a good rule of thumb. If the brutal evil despots in Cambodia did it, then it's not something we want to emulate. We even prosecuted the Japanese after World War II for waterboarding our soldiers. And now we find out we were doing the exact same in the past few years. I'm sorry for my lack of subtlety or finesse, but this is such bullshit.

But even if you don't buy the silly little notion that the United States, beacon of freedom and auspice of the rule of law, should not torture, consider this: the military does not torture. That's right. The military does not torture. The Navy Seals, the Marines, the fighter pilots, none, NONE of them torture. These are folks who are on the frontlines in the war against terrorists, extremists and other wackos. By Dick Cheney's logic, the military that is going mano a mano with these most dangerous factions should definitely be given the license to torture. But they don't. Because they know better. They know someone whose head is being dunked in water will say almost anything to get out of it. It is unreliable. They know it hurts the US's image as a principled nation. That as we fight rogue elements, it would be hypocritical for us to display rogue tendencies ourself. They know it debases their mission as representatives of the US. And God bless them for it. Now if only the CIA had shown an inkling for our military's courage to defend not just our security but our principles as a nation.