Torture is never "legitimate"

I was reading some bloggers' accounts of how a homophobe was booed off the stage at CPAC, when I came across this:

“If you really want to find an example of bad behavior at CPAC, you should look into the fact that Bob Barr got booed during his remarks for the perceived sin of speaking out against torture. While it is fine and proper to shout down anyone who might engage in hate speech against any group, it’s another thing entirely to disrupt someone over a legitimate disagreement on policy points.”

Use of torture is NOT a legitimate disagreement! The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention against torture, ALL of which recognize torture as the crime against humanity that it is. Who are these crazy conservatives who think that torture is a viable tactic? And if they succeed, what will they suggest next? Rape?

Seriously, for the party of the "Christian Right," they're awfully far off from Christian teaching. Do they really think Jesus "turn the other cheek" Christ would condone torture?

Quote of the Day: Gay Republicans, WTF?

From a comment on a post about GOProud, the new-ish gay Republican group, on Queerty:

“I suppose it is good to have people who support equality in the GOP to TRY to counter those who would oppose that equality (and going back to the old adage that it is hard to hate those you know personally), but I can't get over the hump that ultimately these people care more about conservative issues on the economy than they do about their own personal relationships and rights. What kind of person cares more about their wallet and their property than they do their partner or children?”

Well said, Caleb.  Well said.

The kinda, sorta courage of her half-assed convictions

It's already everywhere that Sarah Palin — who now says she's open to running for president if it is “the right thing to do for our country and the Palin family” — has a serious hypocrisy problem.  When it was leaked to the Wall Street Journal that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had called some Democrats “f---ing retarded” in a closed-door meeting, Palin took to Facebook to criticize him and call for his resignation.  Yet when Rush Limbaugh used the phrase repeatedly — in his case to refer to advocates for the developmentally disabled who he said were having a “retard summit at the White House” — she defended him during an interview with Chris Matthews.

I've seen less written about how this is just par for the course for Palin, who seems to only care about anything for as long as it is politically expedient.  It's been well documented that she has consistently sought federal pork for Alaska, both before and after disingenuously claiming she had turned down money from earmarks, including the funds appropriated to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." She signed an executive order backing cap-and-trade emissions limits while governor of Alaska and told Gwen Ifill she supported this strategy for combating climate change during the vice-presidential debates, yet wrote a Washington Post op-ed opposing them when President Obama went to Copenhagen for an international environmental summit.  After very publicly announcing that she was going to reject nearly one-third of the federal economic stimulus money for Alaska on principle, she quietly vetoed only a token 3% of it.

Let's not forget her biggest abandonment: she wanted to be governor of Alaska, until it was no longer convenient and she resigned after serving just two-and-a-half years of her four year term.  I'm just completely baffled as to how anyone thinks that Sarah Palin has a chance of being elected President when she couldn't even stick it out for one term as governor.  It's clear from her actions that Sarah Palin doesn't really care about anything but Sarah Palin (and, to be fair, the members of her immediate family).  Is this kind of political opportunist really the person anyone — even teabaggers and birthers — really want running the country?

Anti-marriage activist tells gays to "get married"

Hypocritical idiot of the day award goes to Kerry Messer of the Missouri Family Network, who told same-sex couples in Missouri to "get married or live with the status quo." Did he somehow forget the fact that Missouri has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? And that his organization helped PASS IT?!?

The context of the quote is a heartbreaking story about Dennis Engelhard, a gay Missouri State Highway Patrolman who was struck by a car and killed in the line of duty on Christmas day, leaving behind his parnter of fifteen years, Kelly Glossip. since then, the state has denied Kelly's request for Dennis's survivor pension benefits, which would be readily given to any opposite-sex spouse. To add insult to injury, the BackStoppers Police and Firefighters Fund — an organization that raises money to help the families of officers killed in the line of duty — has refused to give Kelly any support even though they are USING DENNIS'S DEATH TO RAISE MONEY!!!

The whole situation is disgusting and illustrates just how desperately same-sex couples need laws that will include them in the protections that married opposite-sex couples take for granted. But in terms of sheer hypocrisy, disingenuousness and cold-hearted cruelty, this quote from Mr. Messer — which appeared in an AP story on Dennis and Kelly — just takes the cake.

Kerry Messer, founder and president of conservative Missouri Family Network, said that even in the case of unmarried heterosexual couples, rights defer to blood relatives first.

"Common law marriage doesn't exist in Missouri for a very good reason," he said. "It throws other laws into a tailspin and muddies every other policy. The state says 'get married or live with the status quo.' That's true for gays and heterosexuals."

Hear that, Kelly? If you wanted to be protected in case your partner died while serving the state, you and Dennis should have gotten married. Except you couldn't. Kerry Messer and the voters of Missouri — who Dennis spent his career protecting — made sure of that.

Okay People, President Obama Needs YOUR HELP!

Health care reform - possibly the most important legislation to come out of Congress this decade - is going to get torpedoed by a bunch of crazy, right-wing screamers, UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING! I MEAN YOU!

Over the weekend, I wrote about the Obama administration indicating that they're caving to pressure to drop a public option in the health care reform package that is being beaten to death in Congress. A public option is important because it will allow individuals and businesses to buy into a system that is more concerned with health care than making a profit, and let people get comfortable with public health care. It won't be a requirement for anyone, just ONE OPTION.

A friend pointed out that the President is under a lot of pressure to cave, because the town hall crazies are loud and getting a lot of media attention, while all the regular people who supported Obama during the election are nowhere to be found. He's right. If we don't want health care reform to fail, we have to GET LOUD!!!

Here's the plan:

1. E-mail (or via form), phone, fax (scroll down) or write the White House and let them know you want a public option in health care reform.

2. Do the same with both your Senators (choose your state) and your Representative.

3. Share this post on Facebook, Twitter and your other social networky sites (using the Share This link below) or write your own post.

If you don't fully understand health care reform, DO NOT LET THIS STOP YOU! The town hall crazies think Obama wants Nazi death panels and say things like "keep the government away from my Medicare" and that hasn't stopped them from flapping their ignorant lips. Trust me, you WANT the choice to be able to buy into a government plan, even if you never use it. It will force private insurance to lower costs and raise service to compete.

So do it. NOW! Before it's too late.

You Live in America, Miss Lindsey. Learn English!

From a Politico story on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings:

“From a neutral observer’s point of view, I thought she did good,” [Lindsey] Graham said of Sotomayor’s performance at her confirmation hearings last week. “I’m leaning towards making my mind up soon.”

You thought she did well, Miss Lindsey. And who is this "neutral observer" of which you speak?

Associated Press not so into this whole "journalism" thing

You heard it here first: Barack Obama's inauguration "could" cost $350 billion dollars. There. I just scooped the AP, at least by the shoddy standards of what they consider journalism lately.

Media Matters is reporting on the Obama inauguration cost "nontroversy" at their website. It seems outlets like Fox News, the New York Daily News and London's Daily Mail have been getting their neocon panties in a twist over the cost of Obama's inauguration, which they are reporting "could" cost as much as $160 million dollars, making it the "most expensive ever." They don't, naturally, give any sources, backup or reasoning for that number, but they do compare it to the $42.3 million the soon-to-be-thankfully-departed Dubster spent on his second inauguration. But, as Media Matters points out, the $42.3 million figure does not include security costs. Since no "news" outlet has given a rationale for the $160M figure, no one knows what's included in that, but Media Matters reports that, for the inauguration to cost anywhere near $160M, security costs must be included in that number. So if we compare apples to apples and add the security costs of the 2005 inauguration to the $42.3 million figure, the total for the Dub's second ceremony comes to $157 million. Awfully damn close to $160 million, no?

Now, I never trust anything I hear from outlets like Faux News, so I'm not particularly outraged by their latest right-wing-propaganda-disguised-as-news campaign. But what does make me mad is that the Associated Press has jumped in on this clusterfuck. In a schlock piece filed by Matt Apuzzo, the AP reports that the cost of "Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records" and goes on to quote "some estimates" at $150 million. The piece quotes no sources and gives no indication of how it verified that this was an accurate estimate, except to say that it included "massive" security costs. So not only is this shoddy reporting, the assertion is just plain wrong: if the inauguration costs $150 million, as they "report," it wouldn't even "break the record" of $157 million set by Dubya in 2005. The AP has taken a non-story fabricated by right-wing partisans and is reporting it without any effort to verify it or even get their facts straight. Death. Of. Journalism.

So I'll do the AP one better and tell you how I got to my number. Barack Obama has said that, once inaugurated, he'll move to immediately start using the $350 billion in bailout money. So his inauguration will end up costing the country $350 billion. Crazy logic, I know, but at least there is some logic behind my number, unlike the made up, fake controversy figure that the AP has been spreading far and wide. Liberal media, my ass.

John McCain: the real rich elitist

Just days after saying that he doesn't think people who make $4 million a year qualify as "rich," John McCain admitted in an interview yesterday that he doesn't even know how many houses he owns.

Yet the Republican attack machine slammed Obama for visiting his grandmother in Hawaii, a destination visited by 2.5 million Americans every year. Almost all of whom - I suspect - actually know how many houses they have.

Cindy McCain's sisters: dead to her

So far in this election cycle, Cindy McCain has been a bit of a mystery to most voters. In spite of her efforts to keep a low profile, the media is starting to pay attention to her and the picture that's emerging isn't pretty.

NPR reported on Monday that - despite her repeated claims to be an only child - Mrs. McCain actually has two half-sisters. When her father, Jim Hensley, divorced his first wife to marry her mother, Marguerite Smith, both already had a daughter each from previous marriages. Apparently the new couple didn't exactly fancy having a "Brady Bunch" style family, as Jim's daughter reported that she saw her father only "a few times a year" and Cindy was the sole inheritor of her parents's multi-millon dollar estate.

Talk about family values! It seems Cindy feels the same way about her sibilings as her parents did, choosing to ignore their very existence in an interview with CNN. You could argue that she's not an outright liar - perhaps she feels like an only child, given that she did not grow up with the siblings her parents ignored. But given that the only other things I know about her is that she used to steal prescription drugs from the charity that she founded, I'm less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me she's just another rich heiress liar.

I'd compare her to Paris Hilton, but Paris seems a bit more honest about who she is than that.

Ann Coulter: Evil Homophobic Bimbo

One of the events that made me most proud of Tucson, my adopted hometown, was when Ann Coulter, 45 (or is it 46 by now?), was speaking there and someone threw a pie at her. Brilliant! Sadly, it didn't get her to shut up, then or now...

Today brought a clip from thinkprogress.com wherein EvilAnn says that she'd talk about John Edwards but "you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot." It's pissed me off on so many different levels, I don't even know what to say. So I'll just let Raggedy Ann speak for herself:

Can I start a pie throwing campaign? Like, everywhere she ever appears in public?

UPDATE: I'm not able to get the video above to work, and don't really have hours to spend on trying, so go here if you want to see Ann Coulter's homophobic tirade.