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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 30, 2009
On the Big 3
Former GM CEO Rick Wagoner claimed that no one would buy a car from a bankrupt company. Actually few people will buy a car from a bailed out company. Some comments from recent car customers:
"They should be bailing us out," says Dan, shopping at Galpin Ford this weekend in Los Angeles. "Give us the money so that we will go out and buy these things."
"I think Ford is one of the places that hasn't asked for any bailout money, and I commend them for that."
Congrats to Ford on avoiding Bailout Nation. Proud owner of a Ford Explorer!
Ray of Hope for Individual Liberty
Senator Jim Webb from Virginia is proposing a commission to study our ridiculous prison sytem. His premise:
Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have 5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice. . . .
The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%. The blue disks represent the numbers in 1980; the red disks represent the numbers in 2007 and a significant percentage of those incarcerated are for possession or nonviolent offenses stemming from drug addiction and those sorts of related behavioral issues. . . .
In many cases these issues involve people’s ability to have proper counsel and other issues, but there are stunning statistics with respect to drugs that we all must come to terms with. African-Americans are about 12% of our population; contrary to a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use rate in terms of frequent drug use rate is about the same as all other elements of our society, about 14%. But they end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison by the numbers that have been provided by us. . . .
Another piece of this issue that I hope we will address with this National Criminal Justice Commission is what happens inside our prisons. . . . We also have a situation in this country with respect to prison violence and sexual victimization that is off the charts and we must get our arms around this problem. We also have many people in our prisons who are among what are called the criminally ill, many suffering from hepatitis and HIV who are not getting the sorts of treatment they deserve.
Importantly, what are we going to do about drug policy - the whole area of drug policy in this country?
And how does that affect sentencing procedures and other alternatives that we might look at?
Great. Someone in DC has balls. Now let's hope he comes to the conclusion that prohibition of drugs, like prohibition of alcohol is not just a colossal failure but a racist and unconstitutional policy. It's sad that he has to spend taxpayer money to study something for which there is already abundant evidence and more importantly, something that is plainfully obvious. Like Secretary Clinton said, we have an insatiable demand for drugs. Insatiable. Meaning it can't be stopped by a phony "war". And I give Senator Webb credit. At the very least, he's not Chuck Grassley hyperveltinating over the Obama administration's policy to disallow raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have 5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice. . . .
The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%. The blue disks represent the numbers in 1980; the red disks represent the numbers in 2007 and a significant percentage of those incarcerated are for possession or nonviolent offenses stemming from drug addiction and those sorts of related behavioral issues. . . .
In many cases these issues involve people’s ability to have proper counsel and other issues, but there are stunning statistics with respect to drugs that we all must come to terms with. African-Americans are about 12% of our population; contrary to a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use rate in terms of frequent drug use rate is about the same as all other elements of our society, about 14%. But they end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison by the numbers that have been provided by us. . . .
Another piece of this issue that I hope we will address with this National Criminal Justice Commission is what happens inside our prisons. . . . We also have a situation in this country with respect to prison violence and sexual victimization that is off the charts and we must get our arms around this problem. We also have many people in our prisons who are among what are called the criminally ill, many suffering from hepatitis and HIV who are not getting the sorts of treatment they deserve.
Importantly, what are we going to do about drug policy - the whole area of drug policy in this country?
And how does that affect sentencing procedures and other alternatives that we might look at?
Great. Someone in DC has balls. Now let's hope he comes to the conclusion that prohibition of drugs, like prohibition of alcohol is not just a colossal failure but a racist and unconstitutional policy. It's sad that he has to spend taxpayer money to study something for which there is already abundant evidence and more importantly, something that is plainfully obvious. Like Secretary Clinton said, we have an insatiable demand for drugs. Insatiable. Meaning it can't be stopped by a phony "war". And I give Senator Webb credit. At the very least, he's not Chuck Grassley hyperveltinating over the Obama administration's policy to disallow raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
40 Years of REASON in our Irrational Times
For a refreshing perspective on freedom in America, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD_DSh6Pb4A
I recommend all the videos on ReasonTV. They're excellent.
My First Post
I have resisted the "series of tubes". I tried Facebook. Quit that after a month. Myspace. Gone. Twitter. Nope. Livejournal. Ha! But I feel blessed that I live in a society where I can express my opinion on virtually any venue I please. That is why I'm here.
I'm in my 20s. I have had several opportunities to vote in elections, but I never have. I'm tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Tired of ideologically inconsistent politicos, in the news, on the radio, in Congress. While I'm not a demagogue who thinks Congress is evil and all politicians suck, it is clear by our two-party system that politics is corrupting. At the very least, politicians are powerfully misguided. My personal political philosophy. It's very original. It's called FREEDOM. I subscribe to the idea that government should stay out of our wallets, our bedrooms and our bodies because frankly that's how a free society operates. I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING. There is no politican in Washington DC today who advocates for real individual liberty. Not one who supports lower taxes, small government, a woman's right to chooose, gay marriage, legalizing drugs or any other thing that by definition are emblematic of a free country. I guess I'm a Libertarian. But I guess that's as appealling as being called a Scientologist.
I spend a lot of time reading articles and blogs and while the mainstream media and politicans disappoint, I take great comfort in the misanthropic writers who make me feel less alone: Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, John Stossel, Salman Rushdie, Dave Barry.
I'm in my 20s. I have had several opportunities to vote in elections, but I never have. I'm tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Tired of ideologically inconsistent politicos, in the news, on the radio, in Congress. While I'm not a demagogue who thinks Congress is evil and all politicians suck, it is clear by our two-party system that politics is corrupting. At the very least, politicians are powerfully misguided. My personal political philosophy. It's very original. It's called FREEDOM. I subscribe to the idea that government should stay out of our wallets, our bedrooms and our bodies because frankly that's how a free society operates. I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING. There is no politican in Washington DC today who advocates for real individual liberty. Not one who supports lower taxes, small government, a woman's right to chooose, gay marriage, legalizing drugs or any other thing that by definition are emblematic of a free country. I guess I'm a Libertarian. But I guess that's as appealling as being called a Scientologist.
I spend a lot of time reading articles and blogs and while the mainstream media and politicans disappoint, I take great comfort in the misanthropic writers who make me feel less alone: Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, John Stossel, Salman Rushdie, Dave Barry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
