PETA Endorses Killing Animals

According to Newsweek online, since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. First, I'm not sure that counts as "rescue" and secondly, PETA says that this is A-OK.

Pause for spit take...

So to recap, if YOU kill an animal and eat it, you're a bad, bad person.

But when PETA kills an animal it "rescued" its OK. What else can you do with a homeless animal right? Gotta kill them, duh. I understand, facilities and food aren't free, and PETA's annual budget is a meager $30,000,000. Besides, surely it's impossible to find a home for those 17,000 animals among PETA's 1.8 million members?

Besides, its so hard to run a no-kill shelter. Says Daphna Nachminovitch,

No one hates it more than we do, but we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research.

"Painless" by the way is hotly debatable. Human prisoners and executed using largely the same method, and there is a lot of evidence that its not so "painless." But anyway, I really feel for her and her hatred of killing 17,000 animals. But I understand, there's just no solution to be found with $30million and 1.8 million members. None. We know its true because she said she hated it.

Plus, we're all looking at the this the wrong way. The real problem isn't PETA killing defenseless animals, its that there are defenseless animals in the first place. Employing the "look over there" defense, Nachminovitch says,

Focusing on the animals that come into shelters is like emptying a river with a teaspoon. By investing in spay and neuter programs, which are where a lot of our resources go, we can stop unwanted births and prevent four times as much suffering.

Exactly, its all about dollar and cents. It doesn't make sense for an organization specializing in protecting animal rights to spend money to keep animals alive. Not when its so much more cost effective to just make sure they don't exist in the first place. All these living animals are the problem. PETA wants to focus on the non-living animals, and what better way to do this than to make sure that the animals it rescues become non-living. Its all very rational when you think about it.

I did find this From PETA's page on Animal Exploitation,

Every animal deserves a chance to thrive in a responsible and permanent home.

Or PETA kills them.

PETA's stance on euthanasing animals is one of the most hypocritical issues I've come across in a long time. It's just beyond reprehensible.

In defense of Hillary!

I'm going to buck the crowd. Get ready for this...I support Hillary Clinton in her fight for the Democratic Nomination, not with my vote, but in spirit. And no, its not because it hurts the Dems. I support her because I think she's right.

This is the biggest prize in the whole world. Period. And it matters who wins. You shouldn't quit on it. I mean, isn't that what we want, "not quitters" as President. I mean as a nation we get mad when teams don't go for the Hail Mary before the half of a close game, and we all want her to just quit.

Not only that, but the rules of the game give her hope. If Obama continues to fade, and she continues to build, the rules of the Democratic Party give Superdelegates the ability to alter prior outcomes. Yes, it lacks elegance, but its like Hack-a-Shaq. If it puts you in position to win, do it. If Shaq can't hit his freethrows, that's his problem. If Obama can't put away Hillary, that's his problem. The reality is that Hillary's not the problem, Obama is. He's the one fading, he's the one ducking debates, he's the one allowing this to happen, NOT Hillary. She's just doing what she's supposed to do, try to win. All this stuff that's come up would and will come up in the general election. His "pretty words-no substance" and "don't make a mistake" approach is costing him. Yes, I'm going to another sports analogy, but he's put in the prevent defense, and everyone knows the only the prevent does is prevent you from sealing the deal. If Obama cannot put Hillary away, and this causes the Superdelegates to wonder about him in the General Election, the rules clearly give them the option to give the nod to Hillary. And Hillary's right to try to create that scenario.

Will it destroy the Democratic Party? Who knows. Would it hurt in any worse than losing again (which is a real possibility of an Obama nomination-the guys fading badly and lots of unhelpful things about his past keep coming up)? Again, who knows? I do believe that fear of the unknown should never rule the known. Besides, she has a strong point in thinking that she would have won FL and MI. Those are two states filled with her voters, and two states the Dems must have.

Hillary's found a path to victory, slim yes, but its a fair path well within the rules. She's not my candidate, but I fully endorse what she's doing.

I AM THE LAW!

That's Judge Dredd for you non-comic book geeks.

Quick blurb from CNN about a "Citizens Citation" against a Portland Police Officer over, get this, a parking violation. First of all, I had no idea that you could even do this. I've heard of "Citizens Arrest" but "Citizens Meter Maid" is a new one. You have to be one serious Parking Afficiando to take the time to go down to the courthouse and file whatever you need to file against a cop. I think someone has a GI JOE collection. But all jokes aside, good for Eric Bryant. He has a right to file the citation and he did it. Probably best if more folks did the same.

But on to 5-oh's take. Assistant Police Chief Bryan Martinek says he tells his officers that it's OK to break the law, and since he says its OK the officer did "nothing wrong." My favorite part comes late in the interview when Officer Martinek says that it would be wrong for officers to wait for a "legal" parking space and then uses the mocking finger signal for "" and goofy shrug when he says "legal." So he acknowledges that the officer in question broke the law. I guess according to officer Martinek the police are there to enforce the law on others, but are above it themselves. I'm not sure that's the best message. I don't want to tell the Portland Police Chief how to run his department, but if it were me, I would make sure Assistant Chief Martinek never came near a camera again.

For the record, I agree that police officers should stay near their cars. But according to Mr Bryant, Portland's law says that the police can only park in loading zones under certain clearly defined situations, and take-out isn't one of them. The police are here to enforce the law, not ignore it.

Pandering

Bush knows that the science isn't with the global warming Chicken Littles. Climatology is an extremely young science and the adults of the scientific community have just started checking up on these kids. What they've found is a room littered with unsupportable theories and broken methodologies so full of holes study after study has to be thrown out. With the huge number of variables that go into any predictive climate algorithm it is silly that anyone would believe that human carbon emissions is the main driver of change. Why weren't these people stamping out butterflies when chaos theory argued our colorful little pals can be the cause of hurricanes? That would have made as much sense as pinning all climate variation (in the positive direction anyway) on fossil fuels. Buy anyway, back to pandering...

Bush seems to know this and he was right to ignore the silly Kyoto agreement which has proven to be even a bigger farce than the critics predicted it would be. So why this pretend, "we need to do something about global warming so how about..." speech? Pandering. Give the people what they want even if what they want is foolish. Its a shame when the mob must be appeased even though the mob is wrong. Of course that's the definition of populist. But if Bush ain't anything its a populist so why waste all our time? He probably is just trying to define a compromise position since the conversation has been dominated by the hysterical since its inception. But I still say that's wrong. If your friend is wrong about something, what good is achieved by becoming a little wrong yourself just so you can meet him halfway?

Please Pay Attention

What part of the Ranting Kooks Won't Help Your Political Campaign lesson did Hillary miss? Will someone please have Jeremiah Wright call her and walk her through it again?

Greenspan Sleeps Well

So I came across an article about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's thought's on the Fed's complicity in the current economic slowdown/recession (you pick).

Lots of blah, blah, blah on an issue that no one can ever really know the answer, but I did have to take a moment to appreciate these quotes.

I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve policies that we initiated back then because I think they were very professionally done

And...

Clearly, certain of our anticipations of what would happen as a consequence of those policies were off but there's no way of avoiding that.

Ok, lets play with the first one.

See, he doesn't have regrets that his policies were wrong, and may have destroyed trillions of dollars in value, and killed off whole companies, wrecked the economy and destroyed households, because these policies were "professionally" done. It's kind of like a mob hitman saying he has no regrets for killing innocent people because he did so in a "professional" manner. This is going to be my new mantra when I make a mistake. "Yeah, sure I made a terrible error, but I was a pro about it." I absolutely love that one.

And lest you think that living in the Beltway distances you from the people, go back and read the second quote. Why the empathy just oozes out of it. "Hey, we made made some bad assumptions, what can you do, right? It happens. Why is everyone so bent out of shape? You can't avoid making mistakes, that's why pencils have erasers."

Every decade has its legacy. The oughts' legacy will be the catastrophic implementation being shrugged off with a "hey, it happens, what can you do" attitude and a total disregard for consequence by both the perpetrator and the stakeholders.

Georgia Weighing On My Mind

So Georgia's Senate, a famously "Red" state passed a law mandating that elementary schools weigh their students twice a year, or, as I like to call it, the "Ensuring the Prosperity of Therapists Bill." I also like the "Georgia Wants to Make Sure its Girls Have No Excuse for Not Being Screwed Up Bill-AKA The Body Image Destruction Bill."

So anyway, Georgia wants to join Arkansas (another Red state) and "several" other states in this massive invasion of the privacy our our children. And what do they want to do with this info? According to the sponsor and chief Socialist, Joseph Carter (R-Tifton), the goal is to make the overall data public so it can be distributed "much like test scores, with schools reporting their data so parents could check out how they measure up to other area schools." Wait, I need to reread that, does it say, "R" Tifton? Why yes, yes it does. So a Republican in one of the nation's strongest Republican states, wants the government to weigh your child.

Can we finally just all agree that there is no discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans? Please, just so I can stop getting all worked up when I hear about how the Republican's stand for small government and fight against government intrusion into our lives. They don't. Both parties loooooooove to intrude on your life, they just argue about the reasons. When you cast your vote on election day, here's what you're really doing. You're heading to the booth to support the party that massively intrudes on your life in a way either you approve of, or are least bothered by. Nobody really wants to be left alone. Americans want the government to use its power to promote in all what the collective individuals of each party want.

So Republican State Senator Carter is upset about childhood obesity. What does he do? Does he give to a charity to promote healthier lifestyles? Nope. Does he start his own movement to change the pattern? Nope. Letters to the editor? Nope. What does a representative of the small government party in a solidly small government state do? He passes a bill. He strips elementary school children of their basic right to privacy. And why? Because he's concerned about childhood obesity. He feels its his duty to be concerned with the weight of your children, not the parents. So in a state that never scores well in education rankings is now going to spend time and recourses weighing students to judge their BMI (a flawed measurement, but who cares about that?), to tell parents how their schools are doing in regards to something the school cannot control (what kids eat and how they exercise), and that parents have no way to change anyway (due to the public school monopoly).

In the end, this Bill is not only a political joke, its also creepy.

If the Germans Loved Their Children Too

When you value something, you take care of and protect it. When you don't, well, you don't. A German mother kills eight of her children. The German people must be outraged and the judicial system barely able to contain its punative urges, right? It must be so because we universally value children. Well, apparently the universe isn't as big as we suspected. All Germany can muster in the way of punishment for this two-legged force of evil is 15 years in prison. Less than two years for each murdered child. My first thought was that this must be a story about the failure of the German justice system. Not so, the journalist doesn't even allude to this being a controversial ruling. Which is not to say that many Germans weren't outraged, but how many? Not even enough to register on the cultural radar? Or just the radar of one monstrosly calloused reporter? I don't know the answer, but what I read made me sick. I hope decent people still outnumber the other sort in Germany, but if what this story implies is correct...I have to stop and wonder.

Economic Truism of the Day

Here is a truth that many have never read in their local paper: the gulf between the "rich" and the "poor" is a good thing. A very good thing.

Picture a world in which dropping out of high school and sitting around on your front porch with your posse yields the same economic rewards as spending 16 years studying or even more building a business. What do you think would become of a nation if choosing jobs that offered very little value to society were just as financially rewarding as those that added lots o' value? It would slowly become North Korea - The Land of Poverty and Squalor. Sure it might take a while and if enough ambitious souls still chose higher value jobs it might never hit bottom...but the point remains. The reason why you get paid what you get paid is because that is how much your job is worth. Pretty simple huh? So if you think you deserve more money; that's cool. Go earn it. All you have to do is work hard and get good at something that has value. And what would that be? Just look up the job descriptions of the "rich" and do that.

Don't Shoot the Messenger

It's OK, lady, you can open your eyes...that wasn't sniper fire!

It is always sad to watch the death throws of a living creature...even a Clinton. In case you limit your information gathering to the "mainstream media" you need to know something...Hillary is done. She can't win the nomination legitimately. There is a very small chance that the nomination could be stolen from Obama, but I'd encourage you not to take that bet. And the most recent Clinton defeat at the hand of their arch nemesis The Truth (battle joined here by the next generation) just proves it. You are looking at a sad, desperate woman. The Bosnia sniper lie that Ma and Pa Clinton even forced little Chelsea to tell shows how far gone they are. Granted, it is common practice for a Clinton to tell a verifiable lie that goes unchallenged, but even their pals appear to have had enough this time.

My question to the blogosphere (and UBlo's mom) is this: what of the Bill Clinton legacy? His VP was rejected by the nation in a gimme election and his wife is being rejected by his very own party. I'll tell you the legacy...he's that guy from high school you had all those great laughs with but for some reason you can't even recollect what he looked like 5 years later. There was no substance to him. He's a Hollywood set...all press board and sandbags and no concrete.

Leftist Biased Pentagon Report on Iraq/Al Qiada Released

A Pentagon report finds, and I'll paraphrase here, none, zero, zip, nada, el nolo, links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.

So the question is, when the Admin was touting all this "evidence" about a link, what were they looking at? What were they seeing? What were they touting?

Assuming no duplicitiousnessity, I just don't see how this report can do anything other than show that this is the most inept administration...potentially ever. At least with some of the past harmful Presidents they were at least corrupt. So they were at least competent in their goals, dishonest, but competent. If you believe that this administration is honest, then you have to go with "honest, but unimaginably, stupendously harmfully, epically incompetently, historically...bad."

As always, I don't point this out with any glee. This is the President of my country. I expect some basic level of competency. I would have fired this guy as my mani/pedi guy years ago, and he's the leader of my country.

If only a book had warned us about this type of stuff. Maybe one about animals. Maybe living on a farm.

In the "you can't make this stuff up" category of the George Bush Presidency, I submit the following.

Talking via videoconference to a group of military and civilian personnel, our own Berkshire Boar says,

I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Holy Schmoley! Looks like Squealer is working for Bush, I mean, Napoleon himself could not have shown more gusto.

Isn't this the same President Bush who famously went AWOL during the Vietnam War? The same one who has no record of ever even showing up for duty? I guess maybe protecting Texas isn't that "romantic." How, seriously, HOW can Bush stand there and say that? I honestly think he's been playing with his action figure too much. To his comment, "If I were slightly younger and not employed here..." I would add, "and living in a fantasy world where I didn't avoid Vietnam, go AWOL from the National Guard and party hard while other suckers were fighting and dying, a little place I like to call, 'Where what my spin team tells me about myself is real,' I think it would be a fantastic experience..."

How can he stand there in front of actual soldiers, knowing his own history, and say "Man, I wish I was a young man again, I'd be right there with you." This is like Bill Clinton talking to a group of monks and saying, "Hey, if I was a young man again, wow, I'd totally join you guys. Celibacy gives you so much clarity, so much time. A life of honorable, humble, dignity is just so pure. I'm envious. How exciting, I wish I could join you. But I can't soooooo, thanks for that."

McCain hates torture, stymied by what to do about it

GOP Presidential hopeful(ly not) John McCain tells 60 Minutes,

We prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II, and one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they waterboarded Americans.

And now America does it. Does, anyone have any ideas on why, and how to stop it? Lets see the follow up.

Asked "how did we lose our way," McCain answered,

I don't know the answer to that.

OH, OH, I know, I know, call on me, call on me, OH, OH! Thank you. Ahem. I think the answer to "how did we lose our way" is when politically ambitious anti-torture Senators sell their souls and vote against a bill that would bring the CIA into compliance with the Army Field Manual banning torture. Then to complete the sell-out urge the President to veto said bill. Which he did. Meaning America still reserves the ability to torture.

So there you go Mr McCain. Feel free to cut this post out and keep it in your pocket next time you're asked the question.

Feeling Randy

So I'm reading this link from CNN.SI about top football free agents (good news/bad news for this Rams fan, no Rams on the list. Soooo, half-full says at least we won't be losing any top players, half-empty says maybe that's because we don't have any top players).

Number two is Patriots WR Randy Moss. Blurb starts with,

Moss comes off his best season in half a decade and took a liking to the New England environment.

Which gets me thinking, Moss set the NFL record for TD's by a receiver last year. So, what did he do 5 years ago that was better than that? To my way of thinking Moss is coming off his best season ever!

I know, I know quibbling over sports writing is like quibbling over plot in a Jean Claude Van Damme movie, but still.

What's Up Doc?

MSNBC.com has an article about who pays when the Hospital makes a mistake. If you said, "We do!" you win (or, I guess, lose). Increasingly, however, more and more hospitals are taking the "my bad" approach and taking the loss. 40 states, however, still pull the Hussein and charge you for the bullet, and here's my favorite quote. Its from Debbie Rogers vice president of quality and emergency services for the California Hospital Association

But if a surgeon operates on a person’s third cervical vertebrae instead of the fourth, and the hospital staff prepared the correct site, who should pay? Is that the hospital’s fault?”

You know, I'm not sure. But I am sure its not the patients fault. Lets review the players under here scenario. Hospital staff prepped the right site? Check? Patient out like a light? Check? Doctor operated on right site? Ooops. Now, using a simple diagram it looks to me like maybe the hospital could take the bill up with the doctor. I wonder how much more careful the doc would be if she (ha, didn't see that coming did you? No sexist am I.) had to pay the bill? If the people in charge of this dilemma (Hospital's and doctors) only see the patients wallet as the solution then I'm not convinced that we, the patients, are going to get the best solution.

Hydrablog Saves Counting, oops BLACK Crowes New Album

Once again Hydrablog has shifted the course of this great nation. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) and roustabout fans know that we were at the front of the great Counting Crowes/Maxim Magazine controversy.

Well folks, its over. Maxim caved under the pressure of the H-Blog Blogettes and issued an apology. Here it is with the appropriate acknowledgment to the H-blog.

Maxim editorial director James Kaminsky responded Tuesday with this statement: "It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to those albums that have been heard in their entirety. Unfortunately, that policy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apologize to our readers."

What, didn't see it? Here, I'll highlight it in bold for you.

Maxim editorial director James Kaminsky responded Tuesday with this statement: "It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to tHose albums that have Been heard in their entirety. UnfortunateLy, that pOlicy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apoloGize to our readers."

See! Right there in an AP Article. We cover it, and BAM, it gets fixed. Mr Kaminsky clearly couldn't handle the might pressure of the H-Blog. That's what H-Blog readers expect, and that's what the H-Blog delivers.

And to Mr. "What have you ever done" from the comments section, wellllll, my blog gets AP mention. That's international baby! So I say good sir, "What have you ever done?"

Signing the Constitution away

AZ Senator and Presidential hopeful John McCain said the following on Presidential Signing Statements,

Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it.

Wow. Excellent. Music to my cynical ear (the other ear is quite the optomist-its a good thing they can't reach each other. Ooh boy do they not get along). Respect for the Constitution and Separation of Power. Glad someone was paying attention in Civics Class (of course, he's the only candidate that was around for the actual signing of the Constitution. Wham-POW)(In fact, I think Counting Crowes played their last hit single that day, "Shaketh Thoust Shilling Maker"-Uh Oh, double Wham-POW).

Anyway, what's great about this comment is that it directly affects something a President may or may not do. So its a "legit" topic. Mr McCain declared that he would not use them. If you're against signing statements, then this is a real, direct reason to vote for Mr McCain. If you're for them, then this is a real, direct reason not to. I love it when Presidential politics addresses something a President can actually do/not do.

So let's see what the Democratic hopefuls say.

Mr Obama?The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives." (italics mine). First, I doubt that its appropriate. Second, I'm confused (but I'm also "no one" so it shouldn't really shock you). As I read it, Mr Obama thinks signing statements are wrong when President Bush uses them, but ok if he does. "Implausible or dubious constitutional objections..." Who decides? Mr Obama? Sounds to me like "this power is bad when you use it but good when I do." No thank you, I've had my fill of that for eight years. I'm pulling a "mom." I'm taking signing statements away from all of you. You'll put your eye out. Anyway, more "I'm not taking a stand" words from Mr Obama. Alert the media!

How about you Mrs Clinton?

I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.

OK, so Mrs Clinton is a supporter of "The Executive Branch Determines Constitutionality" theory of Separation of Power from the rare "Two Branches of power" school of Constitutional Scholarship. So here too, Mrs Clinton is a fan of Signing Statements. And here too, Mrs Clinton loses rungs on my Presidential Vote Ladder.

Again, here's my understanding of the idea behind Separation of Power. Congress makes the law, the Executive Branch executes the law, and the Legislative Branch establishes Constitutionality of the law. If a provision comes to the desk that the White House deems Unconstitutional, the President, having sworn to uphold said constitution, is duty bound to veto that sucker. If Congress exercises it's right to override, then the President can take the issue before the Supreme Court for judgment. Unconstitutional? Its struck down. Constitutional? The Executive Branch is duty bound to enforce said law. Its all very clear and simple. There is simply no need for Signing Statements and supporting them is just plain wrong. It's a blantent attempt to solidify power and inherently against our Country's best interest.

McCain is right on this one. Exactly right in my book. Too bad I don't trust the guy. If the "conservatives" pushed him on this, I fully expect a flip/flop. See this post as to why.

The problem is that the Democrats are in the wrong camp. Much as one expects, after years of complaining, when the chance arises to actually do something about the wrongs they wail against, they hedge and falter.

My life in the "the only ones taking stands are taking the wrong ones" world of modern politics continues to devolve.

Just for the Record

Apparently the Black Crowes got the feathers ruffled over a bad review in Maxim magazine. Crowes say the reviewer couldn't have listened to the record (album? CD? What are the kids calling them these days?) because they didn't prerealese it (which, by the way, is never, ever, ever, never a good sign-is it bad? Can they not afford to send out some CDs, can't send out some mp3's, I mean, what is up with that strategy anyway?). Says band waterboy, Pete Angelus about the "You couldn't possibly give a bad review to the CD we didn't think enough of to pre-release" review,

It speaks directly to the lack of the publication's credibility. In my opinion, it's a disgrace to the arts, journalism, critics, the publication itself and the public.

OK, just...wow. We're talking THE Maxim magazine right? Look at the current home page. Credibility? Journalism? Where, and why would you expect that from a soft-core porn magazine? I'm starting to think that Mr Angelus criticized Maxim without reading it. Definitely feeling a whole "pot/kettle vibe" here.

Mr Angelus then goes on to further call out journalism's apex predator,

What's next? Maxim's concert reviews of shows they never attended, book reviews of books never read and film reviews of films never seen?

I'm going to go with...yes?

The way I see it, the Black Crowes' hay day was something like 17 years ago. First, they should be happy anyone's reviewing anything they're doing, period. Second, since I'm guessing Maxim's average reader was approximately 3 at the time, they shouldn't be too worried that the bad review is going to kill their record (Album? CD?) sales. Just not their target demographic. Honestly, the only angle that makes sense here is that Mr Angelus has figured out that no one's buying this album and that no one cares. So he's decided to try to stir up some controversy to get people talking, and hopefully caring again. And hey it worked, now both of our readers know that the Black Crowes have an album dropping. Bet they didn't know that before right?

McCain to Torture, "I hate you, but I need you."

AZ Senator, Presidential hopeful and former torture victim John McCain has come out repeatedly against the US' involvement in torture. This, more than any other issue has helped me not only get comfortable with him, but put him on the path to winning my vote. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) know that I abhor this practice, its a stain on our great nations honor, period.

In an election with lots of noise, pro-torture/anti-torture is one issue where there is no doubt that the President can act, and I think elections are about what a President can actually do. Call me silly.

So when the Senate took up a bill that would require that the CIA conform to the rules in the Army's field manual for interrogations, I thought, this is one good moment.

However, I was completely shocked (but fortunately not that kind of shocked) when Sen McCain voted against this bill. So it was right then that John McCain lost me for good. Why, you ask, did he vote against this bill? According to his rep, who said

that his vote does not mean the senator endorses any of these tactics. Instead, the aide said, there are noncoercive interrogation techniques not used by the Army that could be useful to the CIA. The aide declined to provide an example, but said it made sense for the CIA to use tactics that are not widely known through the field manual, which is a public document.

The great thing about not having much honor is that its really easy to hide it behind feeble words.

The good news is that its a Presidential Election so I can just read the article to see where his opponents stand.

Says Sen Obama,

I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It's time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding.

Ooooh, that's strong. I like that. Especially the whole "no Administration should allow the use of torture" part. So now I can mark down that President Obama would act against torture. Excellent. Hmmm, but he's not President Obama yet. I wonder what Senator Obama would do. Uh oh, it looks like Senator Obama is trying to becoming President Obama and neglected to vote. To recap, President Obama would not allow torture and is sick of "political parsing and legal loopholes" but Senator Obama, in a position to close a gaping version of said loophole, couldn't be bothered to vote. I think I like President Obama much better than Senator Obama.

What about Sen Clinton?

As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period.

Again, last I checked, the Senate plays a fairly large role in determining "American policy." Unless you have better things to do I guess, because she too, neglected to vote.

Look, I get that these two are running for President. I also get that they don't care nearly as much as I do about this particular issue. But Sen McCain dragged his butt to DC to sell his soul (again) to vote against a bill banning torture by the CIA, why couldn't these two do the same to show how they felt about this issue? Why? Well its becoming more and more obvious. The GOP is willing to take a stand, even if its terrible. The Democrats aren't willing to do anything that may "rock the boat" no matter how terrible the rocking.

So my choice is between a party that is willing to take stands on issues I completely disagree with them about, or a party that is filled with people who say the right things but are afraid to take any kind of stand. Awesome.

Honestly, I've held my nose every time I've ever voted in a Presidential election. Every time. This may be the year that I just go to the park and enjoy some fresh air.

PS. This great OPED about torture by Morris Davis former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo (and obvious hippy America hater) was just submitted by a long time reader. Mr Davis is clearly more eloquent than I, as evidenced by the great line,

Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues.

Yup. Please read the article.

Baseball Fever

While traveling last week I watched some of the Roger Clemens Congressional testimony. Oh my was it bad. Not anything about the "issue," rather what was said.

For the record, no fan of Roger am I. Anyone who would sell their wife out, well I say you're not the Greatest American Hero.

But apparently, I'm alone in my lack of Roger worship. Lets look at Congress' words to the man accused of cheating at his sport, tampering with a witness and lying to Congress.

From Rep. William Lacy Clay,

A colleague of mine, Mr. Capuano of Massachusetts, wants to know what uniform you're going to wear to the Hall of Fame.

Yes, I see how that addresses the issues at hand. Excellent and biting questioning Mr. Clay.

Says Rep Virginia Foxx,

You appear to me about the same size in all those photos," offered Foxx, addressing Clemens without mentioning the source of the material. "It doesn't appear [your] size changed much.

Well, that's enough for me. A couple of pictures provided by Mr Clemens show him favorably, and the scientific eye of the Honorable Foxx says "alls good." May as well wrap up.

If only there was some silver lining in all of this for Mr Clemens. Oh, good here's one. From Rep Elanor Norton from DC,

All I can say, Mr. Clemens, is I'm sure you're going to heaven.

Well at least he'll have that.

There's a long speech here about maybe that part of the problem with our country today is that people who can throw a ball real hard reduce the leaders of said country to giddy school girls.

But my favorite is reserved for the Chair, Rep Henry Waxman.

I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing.

You and me both brother, you and me both. But I wonder why we had this hearing? Why would Mr Waxman feel compelled to utilize the awesome power of a congressional hearing, spend loads of taxpayer money, and waste his, presumably, valuable time when we're at war, facing a recession, in the midst of a homeowner meltdown, etc. Why, why get involved in a game? Who has the ability to command such an act? Did this come at the behest of the President? From the Speaker of the House? Who? Mr Waxman says it came from an even more powerful figure,

The only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.

So the guy who can throw a ball real hard insisted that the leaders of our nation drop what they're doing right now and listen to him. And they did. Really? Can I do this if I feel wronged? Can I summon a congressional hearing? Can all those homeowners call a hearing? I have real problems with the "Protect America Act" can I demand a hearing? I didn't know we could do that. But I get the feeling "we" can't.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go into a dark room and cry.