Living Up To A Promise: Some Thoughts On The Election

I wasn't going to write anything on the results of this election, as I suspect that just about everyone with access to a computer, a pen, a piece of paper, or even a scrap of tree bark and a sliver of charcoal will have something to say. There will be blogging, text messages, and Youtube comments to add to the newspaper articles and television newscasts. However, as I was watching Barack Obama give his victory speech, I felt compelled to write down my own thoughts on this historic day.

I honestly hadn't thought a whole lot about the racial factor of this election. I had seen Barack Obama as a qualified, thoughtful, well-balanced, intelligent candidate who wanted to lead the United States as best he could, and several weeks ago he earned my vote. But, as I watched the video from Grant Park in Chicago, something struck me. As the camera panned over the crowd, I saw that the vast majority of African-Americans had tears in their eyes (and yes, some attendees of other races as well). That was when the gravity of this election hit me. We are not just electing another well-qualified President. For many people, particularly African-Americans, it means far more than that.

We live in the United States of America, a country where the Constitution says that everyone is guarenteed equal protection of the laws, and everyone has a right to liberty. We wrote a Declaration of Independence that says that everyone is created equal, and each and every one of us has a right to be free.

Yet, for much of our history, and in many ways to this day, we have failed to live up to these creeds. We write that each person is equal under the law, and then execute three times more minority citizens than white citizens. We write that all men are created equal, and then pass laws guarenteeing that they are not. We write that everyone has a right to be free, and then we keep others in chains. Yes, We the People have often fallen short of our obligation to live up to our promises to one another, but if this election can teach us anything, it is that it doesn't have to be this way.

We the People have the ability to get up each day and face the world with the promise to mold it into what we desire it to be. We can envision an America in which the laws protect everyone; in which full equality is realized, and then we can make it happen.

As I watched those pictures of African-Americans weeping as the election returns became certain, I realized something. For perhaps the first time in their lives, there are parents who can look at their children - look them right in the eye - and say honestly, that if you work hard, if you persevere, if you believe in yourself and your fellow people, you can become whatever you want to be in the United States of America.

For most of our history, we have promised that each person is created equal; that each person is born with liberty; that each person deserves to be free from violence and discrimination. And, for most of our history, we have failed to fully realize these promises. Today, and each day in the future, it is up to us to make sure that these promises are fulfilled, that they are not idle phrases penned hundreds of years ago, but living committments that we carry forward with each passing generation.

President Obama has my good will. I sincerely hope that he will be a great 44th President of the United States of America.

John McCain: Too Young, Too Old, or Just Right?

This Presidential election is perhaps one of the most unique and exciting in history. Never before have the media had so many superficial and shallow stereotypes on which to report for hours, days, and indeed weeks on end. Usually, Americans know exactly what to expect, rich white guy, nice head of hair, penchant for fine cheeses, you get the idea. This year, however, people will be able to look at the debate stage and say things like "hey, it's a black guy," or, "look, a woman with a haircut that looks like it belongs on one of those guys in Full House," and, of course "Oh my God! Is that a walking corpse!"

It is no secret that John McCain is old, decrepit, riddled with physical maladies, and aside from that, healthy as an ox. However, John McCain is most certainly not too old to run for President, in fact, he is far from even being the oldest person in the Senate. He is only the 24th oldest Senator, with the youngest being the spry John Sununu of New Hampshire, at the tender age of 38. For a little comparison, I've decided to run down a few of the oldest members of Congress in order to make my case.

Ralph Hall - Representative-TX (R)

Representative Hall is the oldest member of the House at the age of 85. He was a Democrat from his election in 1981 to 2004, but then switched parties. He is also perhaps the only person who actually joined the Republican Party since then. Although it is still only a rumor, claims have been circulating for years that Mr. Hall is, in fact, immortal, and is attempting to prove it with this change of party, along with his survival after his ties with infamous lobbyist Jack Abramhoff surfaced in 2006. After all his years of service, Hall finally earned a coveted spot as the ranking member on the
House Science Committee, an accomplishment that includes his participation in the piece of legislation known as the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, whatever the hell that means. He is 14 years older than John McCain, but claims to be at least 10 years younger looking in the neck.



Frank Lautenberg - Senator-NJ (D)

At 84 years of age, Lautenberg is 13 years John McCain's senior, and acts like it. In the year of our Lord, 2006 Lautenberg displayed the type of logic that would make nursing home bound old men proud when he said of the Dubai Ports deal, "We wouldn't transfer the title to the Devil; we're not going to transfer it to Dubai." When pressed on this, he defended himself by remarking that the UAE had not supported U.S. policies toward Iran and Israel. Policies which, as I'm sure most are well aware, Satan was highly critical of. Lautenberg is currently running for reelection in New Jersey, and if he succeeds, he would be 91 by the time his next term expires. When asked if he was too old to run again, Lautenberg quipped "Just ask my wife..." I'm not sure how that sentence finishes, but, at least on the part of the interviewer, I assume it is with vomiting.



Robert Byrd - Senator-WV (D)

No list of shockingly old public servants would be complete without the Archbishop of Agedness, Robert Byrd. He is 90 years old, and born in 1917. No, that isn't a typo, Byrd was born during World War I. About the only title he didn't have a chance to hold was Holy Roman Emperor, but most have agreed he more than made up for that when he became the "Exalted Cyclops" of his local Klan unit, a position that lies just above the "Elevated Chupacabra" in the Klan's mythological creature hierarchy of leadership. Luckily, Byrd has told us that his Klan didn't engage in or preach violence. Instead, it is assumed they spent most of their time doing charity work at local orphanages. His love for non-violent racism may have led to the statement he made in 1945, saying that he would never fight in battle "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." However, to be fair, his ideas on race seem to have changed some by 2001, when he said "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much." I suppose no one thought it right to tell Mr. Byrd that one way to quit talking about it so much is to refrain from using racial slurs that happen to be quite offensive to large portions of the population.


So, as I think you can clearly see, John McCain is practically too young to run for President. Old people tend to show signs of racism, jingoism, and fatigue. McCain, however, exhibits none of those traits. That is, unless you count the time he said that he "hated the gooks" and would hate them as long as he lives. Or perhaps the time he insisted upon occupying Iraq with U.S. military forces for decades to come, or that time he changed the Beach Boys lyrics to "bomb Iran." Hey, at least he hasn't fallen asleep during one of the debates yet!

Never mind. Don't ask questions, just vote for John McCain. And get off my porch!!

Halftime Show Wardrobe Malfunction?

Despite my anguish over the New England Patriots losing the Super Bowl last night, I did notice that there was some interesting imagery during the halftime show. Call it a "wardrobe malfunction."


Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers put on a good show, but I think Fox may be a little more careful about allowing bands to use outlines of their "instruments" during future performances.

Huckabee Wants To Up-End, Er, Amend The Constitution

Mike Huckabee has been the darling of many conservatives, particularly those who consider themselves evangelicals. With his eloquence and ability to seemingly escape any tough question looking even better than before, it seemed Huckabee could do no wrong. However, even he may have crossed the line with the comment he made a couple of days ago.



That's right, he wants to amend the Constitution to fit "God's Law". Let's put aside for a moment that people in the United States happen to have a few different views of what God's Law is, or the fact that the Constitution was never meant to conform to "God's Law". Where does that leave us? It leaves a candidate whose blatant desire to inject his views on religion into the life of every American would make James Madison cringe.

But maybe Mike Huckabee is right. I've always thought the Bible was right on in its condemnation of animal sodomy. On the other hand, this is an area where the Constitution has always been a bit soft. Or how about that whole freedom of religion thing? That was for a bunch of pansies back in the 1790's who didn't know what was truly God's Law. Luckily, we can elect Mike Huckabee, who knows exactly what it entails. There is no reason to allow people to attend Mosques, or Synagogues, or worship how they choose, for goodness sakes, it's right in the Bible! How did we miss it for so long?

The only real question to ask is: why is this candidate still in the race? Even if he were to somehow gain the Republican nomination, this will be played as an attack ad so often that even God will be against him by the end of the race. Although I had never gone this far before, I will say it now: Mike Huckabee will never be President. Not after that comment. Nor, I dare say, should he.

In one fell swoop, Mike Huckabee took the Constitution; the Supreme Law of the Land; the one document that guarantees every American the right to life, liberty, and property, and turned it into "some contemporary view of how we treat each other". In that thirty second sound bite, Mike Huckabee mocked and spit on everything that our nation stands for. Not only would Mike Huckabee change the Rule of Law, but he would change it in such a way that would force everyone to conform to his view of God's Law. Viva Le Fascismo!

Finally, We Can Ignore Iowa For Another Four Years

Well, the Iowa caucuses are finally over, and that can only mean one thing...we can all stop caring about Iowa. In fact, our fascination with Iowa has more to do with their refusal to join the majority of the nation in voting like normal people than anything else. Instead, they choose to gather in a small middle school cafeteria, as our forefathers did. The throngs then gather themselves together based on candidate preference, if they are Democrats, or choose their candidate on paper, if they are Republican. Basically, the Iowa caucuses are a bunch of white people gathered together in a strange smelling room where the chairs are bolted to the tables, or as it is known elsewhere, bingo night.

It is unreasonable to expect much more from Iowa, however, considering they gave us Herbert Hoover, who destroyed American's faith in humanity by bringing us the Depression, and Ashton Kutcher, who ruined American's faith in humanity by bringing us Punk'd. Luckily, now that the candidates are moving east, Iowa's enormous failings as a state will be again be swept under the rug. On another note, the state will finally be able to remove that stop sign they put in to control all the traffic.

Perhaps the best thing for the U.S. to do is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iowa. In fact, I think it could be the new President's first action. To help him out, I have drawn up a little map for him. That ought to bring those pesky Iowans back in line. Just think about all the good we could do in that area. The United States could help to rebuild their infrastructure, and bring their economy into the 21st century. We could even teach them to vote, like Americans, and bring democracy to that part of the world. We would be greeted as liberators.

We'd probably also have to give Iowa a professional athletic team to represent them, if we really wanted to grant the area full statehood. Perhaps they could field an NFL expansion team. The nickname, of course, would have to be one that Iowans can relate to, based on something they are familiar with. Perhaps a popular corn growing state game...ah, I've got it.

Ron Paul Or David Horowitz, Who Is Fascist-ier?

On the Glenn Beck program, David Horowitz had some choice words for Ron Paul and his supporters. As someone who considers themselves a Libertarian, I found it particularly ridiculous and factually incorrect. I decided to do a side-by-side comparison to find out which is truly more fascist, Ron Paul, David Horowitz, or a can of peas.



Now for the comparison.



As you can clearly see from this unbiased comparison, Ron Paul is significantly less of a fascist that David Horowitz, and slightly less fascist than a can of peas. So have no fear, you don't have to worry about Ron Paul sleeping with Islamo-Fascists in the White House.

Michelle Malkin Is A Fascist

Oh, like you didn't already know.

It seems to me that the people who often speak so loudly for the First Amendment every time someone comes after them for criticizing gays/religion/Democrats are also the ones who work so hard to censor criticism of themselves. I was reading Michelle Malkin's website today, because I hadn't been thoroughly pissed off yet today, and I found in the comments that the vast majority of her registered readers seemed to agree with her. I knew that even the small subset of people who actually take the time to register on michellemalkin.com couldn't be that stupid, so I thought I'd do some digging.

I searched through the site to find out how I could register, and upon reading the terms of use, found out that she was no longer allowing any more new people to post comments. I also found her policy on "letting comments stand" (Oh please Michelle, let my comment stand! Have mercy on my humble opinion, even though it is not worthy of the pixels it uses to be near your heavenly ideas.).

It turns out, although Michelle Malkin may let your comment stay if she "disagrees with you" (how generous of her) she reserves the right to delete posts that are "off-topic, libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane (take a breath), pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws (isn't it a stretch to call what Michelle Malkin writes intellectual?). Michelle Malkin is a fascist who may or may not be a man, and often mutilates chickens for sexual pleasure. How is that for false and misleading?

To really crystallize the picture of the type of people Michelle Malkin does allow on her site, I will repost here a few snippets from comments left on her last post: The CIA destroyed interrogation videos, what the Dems knew and when.

The first one was posted after someone justified harsh interrogation methods by saying "Sitting around a campfire in our pajamas singing songs and holding hands won’t get it done." The response:

The campfire would work if the guest of honor was tied to a stake in the middle of it.

Suggesting that we burn captives at the stake? Interesting tactic, albeit perhaps a little abusive and threatening.

I note that the CIA destroyed the tapes exactly because they knew that if a liberal saw the tapes and they showed anything other than the CIA officer bowing down in supplication before the muslim, then it would be considered torture and the CIA interrogator would have his life destroyed by as many false charges and prosecutions as it took.

It seems to me that it would be easier to make false charges WITHOUT a tape. If we had one, perhaps we could actually see what happened, but then again I may just be a visual learner. This comment would actually be ok if it said "I note the CIA destroyed the tapes to cover their ass." So he at least had the first seven words correct, then he veered a bit too far to the right.

And finally, not a particularly vicious comment, but one that I think demonstrates the foolishness of the people who rabidly defend torture.

That said, I am agnostic on destroying evidence.

Is the Central Intelligence Agency's destruction of evidence of a possible crime a bad thing? *scratches head* Gee, I guess I don't know.

Feel free to comment on this post, and rest easily knowing I won't delete your opinion, unless of course it is false, slightly different than mine, defamatory, unsightly, too long, liberal, abusive, and let's not forget pornographic.

The Real Answer To Social Security

Alan Greenspan said in 2005 that in order to keep Social Security afloat in the future, the U.S. would either have to significantly raise taxes or cut benefits. However, since none of these options seem to appeal to the American people, I would like to consider what I think to be the obvious solution: fewer old people.

It is no doubt that there are more elderly people now than ever, and unfortunately, it is there oldness that is ruining Social Security. By selfishly remaining alive, these people are dragging the country towards economic trouble. But, you might ask, "what exactly can I do to help solve this problem?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

Most of us live near at least one or two old people that we consider friendly, forgetful, or easy to steal from. These people are generally unassuming, and have a chair that allows them to only face one direction for 90% of their waking life, so here's what you need to do. When the elderly target, er, citizen is not paying attention, simply apply a thin coat of butter to the top step of their highest staircase (in order to do this, you may have to remove the non-slip liner they purchased with that slow-cooker from the home shopping channel). Once you are finished, you merely need to wait...doesn't it feel great to serve your nation? Oh, and don't worry about the butter being left over as evidence, the 19 cats your old person undoubtedly has should make quick work of it.

However, while the previous method is highly effective, some of you may prefer a slightly less direct method. For you, I recommend creating a trail of things that will catch the attention of an elderly person, while not alerting the rest of the population. For this I recommend a variety of mailing materials from Publisher's Clearing House. Once the target of your operation has been led far enough away from their home, simply end the path, and, contrary to popular belief, over 90% are unable to find their way home.

I hope you find these simple techniques for lowering the Social Security obligations of the U.S. government helpful. Should you decided to implement these tactics, you are surely a true patriot. After all, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. If you have any more questions, feel free to e-mail me at thehonorableflamingo@leavenworthprison.gov.

Anatomy Of A Ron Paul Smear

Of course, the bloggers out there tend to denigrate their least favorite candidates in very clear terms, and that is great, but surely this doesn't happen in the main-stream media, does it? Think again. Although they certainly can not be honest about it, the media has been slowly but surely marginalizing the support for Ron Paul, and I'd like to show you how to do it yourselves, if you so choose.

1.) Brand supporters with a nick-name.
Paulians or Paulites are two of the most popular. These names just scream that we are dealing with a tiny group of people. Surely, if his support were wide-spread, the media wouldn't have to give everyone who favors him a pet name? My personal favorite of these, however, is neither of the two above, but rather Paulistinians. That's great...associate Ron Paul supporters with a group most Americans have negative views of, how fair and balanced.

2.) Associate them with people identified as evil or crazy.
Whether it be racist "white power" people, or 9/11 truthers, the tactic is just the same. Throw in some vague terms, followed by the name of some racist and/or crazy person who no one has ever heard of and explain how Ron Paul accepted money from him/her. Be sure to make it sound as though Paul took the money directly from him whilst giving him a Swedish massage. This is a good tactic, because we all know that if he doesn't spend his time and money refuting these endorsements, then he must agree with them.

3.) Relegate their campaign to "internet people".
For some reason, and I'm not sure why, internet support seems to be used only in a derogatory manner. "Well, they are only internet supporters". What the hell does the mean? Are likely Republican primary voters unaware of the internet? The internet permeates the lives of nearly everyone everyday...how can support coming from it be bad? How can any support be bad?

In an effort to demonstrate these techniques, I have penned a small sample paragraph that I think will illustrate the phenomenon quite clearly.

Ron Paul supporters, or Rontards, flocked to a rally he held in Iowa last week. Among them was a random guy, who is the spokesperson for the group "Americans for the Destruction and Mutilation of Cute, Cuddly Kittens", or ADMCCK. He said, "ADMCCK really feels as though we can get on board with Ron Paul. With a national membership of more than 57, it is important that we elect a candidate who we think possibly would allow us to continue our feline extermination programs in peace." Random guy also mentioned that he had donated almost $12 to the Ron Paul campaign over the course of the past month. Money Ron Paul has not yet returned.

CNN Debate - Gays In The Military

I watched the Youtube Republican debate Wednesday, and there was one answer in particular that I found rather objectionable. So I've decided to make a video of it, with commentary interspersed. The quality probably isn't that good, but it's mostly because I don't care and I didn't want to spend hours making something decent. Enjoy.

Sexism In The Main-Stream Media

A while back, there was a large uproar over the possibility that Rosie O'Donnell might be offered her own show on MSNBC. Mostly it was conservative commentators who objected to her extreme political views, and because they firmly believe that the only idiocy fit for the airwaves is theirs.

For a while, the majority seemed to believe that she would get her program, but I knew from the beginning that this would not be the case. It isn't that there is not room for polarizing viewpoints in network news, but that there is no room for ugly women with polarizing viewpoints in network news.

To demonstrate my point, I have conducted a poorly researched and most likely completely biased investigation into the hiring of only attractive women as anchors or commentators. First, take a look at this selection of photos of anchors and reporters from the three major news networks.
Ok, so Michelle Malkin may actually be a man, but the rest are definitely legitimate. Now let's take a moment to compare those women to this picture of Rosie O'Donnell.

I think it is easy to see why she wouldn't quite "fit" in the group above (pun intended of course).

We might expect that this phenomenon of hiring only the photogenic to do the news is not a gender biased system, so I decided to do a little digging. Needless to say, I was horrified at what I found.
Sexism is truly alive and well in our cable networks.

Jesus For Giuliani!

That's right, Pat Robertson, the well known Christian leader has come out in full support of Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Fitting too, as the announcement came only a few days after Satan, known to some as the "Prince of Darkness" or "Bill Clinton" announced he would fully support the Democratic nominee. Last weekend Osama bin Laden also made a similar statement, although he did so through a press release.

Robertson's endorsement is one that is coveted among Republicans, and this dealt a blow to Mitt Romney, who had been trying to court conservative Christians during his campaign. After all, who wouldn't want the be backed by a guy who has the power to pray a hurricane away from his business headquarters. Never mind the eight people that hurricane killed when it hit the coast above Virginia Beach, they were probably all homosexuals. That's the kind of uniting force Republicans need, and there is no more morally upstanding person to get it from than a guy who has said that homosexuality could cause massive natural disasters and "possibly a meteor."

Although Robertson and Giuliani don't always see eye-to-eye on social issues, many saw this as an important endorsement for national security reasons. In fact, Robertson himself said that the issue differences "pale in comparison" to the importance of the global war on terror. That's a good point, because as we all know, there is no more staunch advocate of perpetual war than Jesus Christ. It's a good thing Robertson finally told people of faith who they could vote for, they were getting anxious.

Now, if you don't mind, I had better wrap this up before Mr. Robertson prays an earthquake into my home.

Three Reasons Hilary Clinton Will Be President

Just to let everyone know, I don't plan on voting for Hilary Clinton next year, but based on careful analysis of key issues, I've concluded that she has the best chance of being President. Here I will run down the three most important issues, and then outline why she is in the best position to come out on top.

Hair
There is no doubt about it, Presidential hair is one of the key factors in earning election in the United States, and Hilary has it. Her 'doo' has just the right amount of bounce and liveliness, without at the same time looking pompous. Historically, hair has been a huge factor in the election of U.S. Presidents. For instance, take a look at this photo of Martin van Buren. Many political analysts claim that Van Buren only lasted one term because of the recession and resulting poor economy, but I think we know differently. We need only look at the top of his head. But, it is important to note that John Edwards and Mitt Romney also have Presidential hair, so we must continue.

Look
There has been much debate over whether or not the United States is ready for a woman President. Some people have been divided over this issue, but I think there is one thing we can all agree on: America isn't ready for an attractive woman President. Here Hilary fits the bill perfectly. We need a President who will be effective in reforming the health care system, while at the same time not raising red flags from your wife or girlfriend over your sudden interest in the State of the Union address. I think it's safe to say that Hilary Clinton will do neither. However, on this list we could also include Rudy Giuliani or Chris Dodd, and they have four wives between the two of them to prove it.

She's No Pushover
There has been speculation recently about whether or not Hilary Clinton is too weak to be President. Specifically, after she fumbled the immigration question in the debate and called it unfair, many have asked "if she can't handle Tim Russert, how can she handle Ahmadinejad." I don't think these people are looking at all the facts. Hilary Clinton refused oral sex to the most powerful man in the country. This certainly proves she is no pushover, because we know Bill was asking. So, how will she handle Ahmadinejad? Personally, I don't know, but I'm sure it won't be with fellatio.

So there, if you aren't now convinced that Hilary Clinton will be the next President, than I'm not sure what else I can do. I think I've provided an airtight case and laid out pretty much all her most impressive credentials. Now, I have to go send this to the Fox News Channel. Maybe they'll offer me a job. Hell, I can't be any less qualified than Brit Hume.

Bill O'Reilly Answers My Mail...And Takes It Out Of Context

Bill O'Reilly answered my letter on his November 7th show. I thought I should put it up here, unfortunately, I only have audio. By the way, he got my name wrong too.



I wrote my letter in response to a segment he did on the previous night's show about the torturing of captives. In that context, I thought it was pretty clear that by "enemies" I meant those that we had captured, but I guess I was wrong. The bombings of Japan and Nazi Germany during WWII were just acts of war, however, the torturing of helpless captives is never justified.

I should also clarify that nowhere in my letter did I mention "dead Americans". The "Americans" portion of that was a complete fabrication. What I wrote was "Your 'families dead in the streets' argument is merely fear-mongering." This was in response to an argument Bill had with Liz Wiehl. He said something to the effect of "So your family is lying dead in the streets and you won't allow us to use harsh interrogation methods." The primary objection of my letter was this message of "allow torture or your family will be slaughtered." That is fear-mongering.

Since I have really no authority to speak on this subject, and it is just my word against Bill's when I say torture is immoral and it doesn't work, I've decided to bring in an expert. Retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington worked as an interrogator in Vietnam, Panama, and during the Gulf War with Iraq. He was also asked to help train Iraq-bound interrogators in the art of non-coercive interrogation. I will use his words to support my argument now.

"In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality."

Can you imagine a 19 or 20 year old Al-Qaeda fighter, captured on the battlefield, sitting in the interrogation room? A person that has been indoctrinated with the idea that Americans are pure evil, and will brutalize him mercilessly. If we merely strap him to a board and pretend to drown him, it does nothing but reinforce these beliefs. He can say to himself, "they are exactly as I thought they were." However, treating a captive with respect, probably more than he ever received from terrorist leaders, will go farther to show him Americans are not bad than electricity applied to the genitals ever could.

"But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career."

Funny, a 30 year career that has never encountered this situation, and yet every question about torture given to Presidential candidates seems to focus on it.

Finally, he ends with a story from the Gulf War, about an Iraqi general who was interrogated not with hostility, but with respect and skill.

"An Iraqi general, captured and humiliated during Operation Desert Storm, is initially frightened and defiant but eventually cooperates, knowing that Saddam Hussein's penalty for treason was certain death. Before repatriation, the general hands his captor his prayer beads and a scrap of paper bearing an address, saying with emotion, 'Our Islamic custom requires that we show gratitude to those who bestow kindness and mercy. These beads comforted me through your Air Force's fierce bombings for 39 days, but they are all I have. When Saddam is gone, please come to my home. You will be an honored guest and we will slaughter a lamb to welcome you.'"

You can read the full article from the Colonel here.

I guess not everyone agrees with you Mr. O'Reilly.

When we use the fear of terrorism to justify torture, we become a little bit like the terrorists that we are trying to defeat. We do their job for them, and in fact do far more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose out freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Dog's Bark Worse Than His Bite?

The A&E Show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" has been put on hold in the aftermath of a racist tirade by the show's star, Duane "Dog" Chapman. The incident began with a recorder telephone conversation in which Chapman referred to his son's girlfriend as a f------ n-----. He said that he refused to risk his entire career on her hearing him use the word n------ and turning it over to "The Enquirer." The Enquirer released the tape earlier this week. This sort of irony is really only fitting for a guy who's "hit" show is on a network that is only watched by old men who can't get out of their chair to change the channel.

But, is it real any surprise that the guy with the leather vest with no shirt underneath and the largest mullet in history harbors some racial bias? He even has to employ armbands just to cover the swastika tattoos on his arms (ok, so I don't know they are swastikas, but until I prove otherwise, I'm going to say they are). His entire persona oozes paranoid white guy with superiority complex, and we are supposed to be surprised when he is actually like that?

However, if the show is ever put back on the air, this may actually help Dog's ratings. After all, who more than white supremacists would like to see a muscular half naked-man running around and capturing muscular, half-naked men of occasional mixed race. If that isn't a KKK TV night/orgy, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, the real fall-out in this case could be between father and son. The prevailing idea is that Dog's son is the one who released the tape in the first place, and probably cost his father a career, along with several of his friends of color (just kidding, I'm pretty sure Dog doesn't have any friends of color). If his son did hand out the tape, however, it sort of ruins that old adage, "the family who tracks down criminals and then takes part in highly suggestive heart-to-heart talks with them together, stays together."

"Reformed" Gays For Obama!

Senator Barack Obama has come under fire recently for allowing the "reformed" gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to perform in one of his campaign's sponsored concerts. Many groups have accused him of pandering to the anti-gay southern church-goers, and quite frankly, they won't get off his ass about it.

McClurkin says that he was delivered from homosexuality by the grace of God, and that he realized his life-style was "not God's intention." He has also stated that he became gay due to being sexually assaulted by male family members in his youth. This also seems to explain why women can't seem to keep their hands off serial rapists.

There is no doubt McClurkin exemplifies the "change" aspect of Obama's campaign, and maybe just in time. The homophobic vote is one that is often ignored by candidates, and it is estimated that these so-called "homophobes" make up a significant part of the population. In fact, many seem to be concentrated in Christian churches, which is the area Obama is targeting. It is also important to note that these people hold very strongly to their beliefs, saying that "homophobia is not a choice" and that instead, it is something placed in them, almost as if by a higher power.

But perhaps McClurkin's message can help bring Obama's campaign to the forefront. If history tells us anything about politics then there is nothing like preying on irrational fear and ignorance to help raise a few dollars. Obama is promoting an idea that might be most appealing to many groups: a society in which there is no need for civil unions.

Things I Just Don't Understand

There are probably a lot of things I don't understand, many more than I could write about here, but I'm just going to focus on two of them.

First of all, Bill O'Reilly. Now I enjoy his show, and I watch it as much as I can. I don't agree with everything he believes or says, and I think I speak for most of his viewers when I say that half the fun of watching The O'Reilly Factor is calling Bill an idiot and hurling insults and rebuttals at the screen from the safety of a couch.

O'Reilly tends to do stories that amount to little more than journalistic pornography. In fact, one of his main stories today, a piece on Girls Gone Wild, featured actual pornography! Naturally, this discussion contained provocative video of young girls, and followed a story in which O'Reilly deplored the way our culture exploits provocative young girls.

Finally, and probably more importantly, I still can not nail down Rudy Giuliani. I would like to stop short of calling him disingenuous, because I think he may actually believe his own nonsense. My biggest qualm is that he speaks about 9/11 as though it is his big accomplishment! This seems akin to lauding yourself for the plague just because you happened to be King. In my opinion, September 11th is an important issue, but it should be a talking point for no candidate.

Unfortunately, it seems he has dragged his wife into it now. She seems like a nice enough person, although it was difficult to tell because in their interview with Sean Hannity I think she was told not to answer questions with any detail whatsoever. Her favorite line was probably "You know Sean, I'm really not a very political person." I thought this was pretty honest, but then counted at least four (it may have been five) references to 9/11 during the relatively short time she actually answered questions.

I just can't get behind this guy...it seems to me that he would say whatever he thought would boost his name further up the polls.

I was going to post pictures of these two, but for some reason blogger won't let me. Hopefully they fix it soon, because just having to read my writing can get pretty boring.

CNBC Republican Debate

Well, another Republican debate is over, and the public is in a tizzy over the results. This debate was held in Dearborn, Michigan and featured Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, those six other guys like them, and Ron Paul, who is kind of like the guy who always gets picked last on the playground. Although I don't have specific statistics, I'm pretty sure the ratings put the debate somewhere between midget thumb wrestling and the convertible bed infomercial. Anyway, let's get right to the analysis.

First, I would like to expose my bias on the subject. I, as well as many who have seen the debates and heard him speak, favor Ron Paul for the Presidency. Thus I will most likely unfairly mock or berate the other candidates in this and future writings. Actually, I take that back, I will still mock or berate them, but I plan to do it fairly.

This particular debate was focused on the economy, and since I have a feeling that most Americans can't tell you much about the Alternative Minimum Tax, or how the federal reserve regulates the market and sometimes causes inflation, I will leave those subjects alone. For me, there was really one question that hurt the two major candidates, Giuliani and Romney, and that is the question I would like to address.

MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Did he need it?

ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.

Yes, you read that correctly, before going to war, President Romney wouldn't consult with the Congress, but rather with his lawyers! Now that may not sound like a very good plan, but then again, you haven't seen Mitt Romney's lawyer.After that brief exchange, you may have thought Romney had the dumbest remark of the night sewn up. But no! In a stunning upset, Giuliani pulled in with a worse gaffe during that same question.

As a set up, this is how Congressman Ron Paul answered the same question:

MATTHEWS: The same question down the line, gentlemen. It's so important.

Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

I know what you are thinking..."Gee, the Constitution, that is something I haven't heard a Presidential candidate mention in a while." But now, the moment you've all been waiting for, the number one flub/downright stupid statement of the night, and here it is:

PAUL: Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.

The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way.

Only minutes later...

GIULIANI: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable, it's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.

If you're really dealing with an exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.

And the point of -- I think it was Congressman Paul made before -- that we've never had an eminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.

PAUL: That was no country.

That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.

GIULIANI: And since September -- well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe -- maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it.

Yes, of course, a preemptive strike on Afghanistan or Pakistan, that would have stopped it for sure! Never mind that the terrorists who hijacked the planes had been in the U.S. for months beforehand preparing for the attack and even living here. I'm sure an attack on a country where the group they belonged to was hiding would have stopped everything in its tracks. Not to mention this statement begs the question: where should we attack? Does Al-Qaeda have a big headquarters with gold trim and a giant sign? This is a decentralized, non-governmental terrorist organization. What do we gain from attacking a sovereign nation? Furthermore, we have had an almost constant military presence in the Middle-East for decades, which did nothing to prevent the attacks.

Unfortunately, Giuliani seems concerned only scaring the American people into a flawed foreign policy, unfortunately now he seems to even be willing to use dishonest arguments to do it.

In, conclusion, I think that Giuliani is blinded by his own propaganda. He seems to think of everything in terms of 9/11, and apparently seems to have historic amnesia that began at the beginning of the 21st century. The reason I say this is because I think that there may very well have been a legitimate objection to Dr. Paul's comment that we have never had an imminent attack posed against us, but it was not 9/11. The one that immediately comes to mind is Pearl Harbor, which drew us into the last legitimately declared war we fought, World War II.

I apologize for this being so long and not all that amusing, but this was a subject I hadn't seen covered in the news that much (with the exception of the Romney answer, which is why I was able to make a joke rather than actual commentary), and one that struck me as being important.

Idaho Lowers Standards!

Have you ever thought to yourself "Gee, I should really move to Idaho."? Me either. But if you were going to, now would certainly be the time. Never has being an Idahoan, or Idahoese, or whatever people there are called been so easy. Standards for good citizens are at their lowest levels in decades, and not to mention every new citizen gets a copy of the new book One Great Thing About Idaho.

All this comes on the heels of the news that Senator Larry Craig will still be inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame after being embroiled in one of the more bizarre scandals in recent history. The Hall of Fame committee stands by their decision to place Craig in the Hall, stating that he "has made a great contribution to Idaho over the period of 20-some years." Unfortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with what he is famous for.

But Craig has really earned this nomination. He has always been a strong advocate of ethics in politics, even serving on the House Ethics Committee. In fact, he is so opposed to unethical activity, that when Representative Barney Frank, who happens to be gay, was reprimanded for his activity with a gay prostitute, Craig pushed for a harsher punishment.

And, if you are still not convinced that Craig is a man of principle, just look at this. He voted against Habeus Corpus for detainees, and for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, and relieved states from respecting the full faith and credit clause when it comes to gay marriages. Hey, and who said hypocrisy wasn't popular?

But, if you can't select for the Hall of Fame a man embroiled in a gay sex scandal who has a history of voting to restrict gay rights, who can you pick?

Faux Pin?

For some reason that I am not aware of, the big story of the day has been Barack Obama stating that he will no longer wear the U.S. flag pin on his lapel. Obama has been questioned about the decision, and remarked that instead of wearing the pin he is going to try to "tell the American people what I believe will make this country great."

To me this is a just a huge travesty. That someone in our nation thinks they can be elected to a public office without wearing a pin of the flag that office represents is absolutely ludicrous. Sure, perhaps Obama can talk his way into seeming patriotic some of the time, but how are people going to realize his love for his country at times when he is silent? These are the times when a machine-painted, mass-produced piece of metal with a pointy thing and tiny inscription that reads "Made in China" can really come in handy.

Obama's comments also included the opinion that the pin may have become a "substitute for real patriotism" in the years after 9/11. I, on the other hand don't think it has been a substitute at all, rather a supplement. For instance, Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback used to have rather low levels of patriotism, but look at him now. Note: Photo has in no way been altered to be a comic exaggeration.

By now, you probably agree with my argument that low priced fashion accessories are the most important thing to look for in choosing a candidate, so I've decided to go one step further. I will be designing clothing that I hope to market to these Presidential candidates in the future. I've released an exclusive photo of what you may be seeing on the campaign trail.This is going to be great. Patriotism is awesome, and there is not better way to show you have it then by constantly shoving material representations of it into your constituent's faces. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm putting together a little pile of World Trade Center rubble for Rudy Giuliani to stand on every time he speaks.