Hannity Comedy Scetch

This is what I want to see: Hannity waterboarded hoax style ala Mancow with interrogator yelling, "Tell me your name". He says, "F you". Repeat. They let him go. Dry him off. Give him a cookie. "Oh, my name's Sean Hannity, how do you do"? Followed by one or more of the following memes: oh, hi; dramatic rodent; or keyboard cat.

Vinegar v Honey

So I hear N. Korea is posturing. Just an idea: strategic foreign exchange. If you want to improve relations with another country, let your teenagers to party together. They have one very common bond - disdain for their parents. Send some friendly kids from the US, S. Korea, and Japan over the wall. Invite their children into your home. If they kidnap a few of ours, meh, at least you don't have to pay tuition.

Oh, and Sotomayor sucks.

Maddow About to be "Becked"

Rachel Maddow has been one of the few voices that I have actually listened to on MSNBC. Initially I disagreed with her, but respected her for speaking her mind. I stopped watching her when I perceived that she had stopped being honest with herself, but instead was towing the MSNBC political line. With this entry on Obama's security speech, she may have started to be true to herself again.

I had hoped that she would return. I think, though, she's about to get Glenn Becked - if she doesn't get in line with NBC politics, she's gone. I think her viewpoints are actually libertarian, and unfortunately Fox is co-opting the libertarian movement and I don't see her getting welcomed into that fold. If we had a true libertarian party, or strong libertarian media outlet; one that welcomed both former Democrats and Republicans, then there might be a place for her.

define:irony

irony: A dramatic device that reveals a paradox or incongruence, usually in the form of a rebellion against the expression of a character flaw that the protagonist also possesses.

define:torture

Just gonna put my $0.02 on this. It's fairly clear that: torture lies on a continuum and that people have different sensitivities. Some people don't consider anything torture that doesn't involve genital electrocution, others draw the line at a poorly played piano concerto. For me, eating a peanut is enjoyable, but the movie Firewall built part of its plot over a child's allergy to the legume.

In my life, I was spanked with a belt and slammed into a wall (giving me a black eye) by my self-proclaimed pacifist father. I was beaten up by a gang at my high school. I've been handcuffed, placed in uncomfortable positions, been stripped and had my genitals stared at, by police officers and never found guilty in a court. I've had a gun pointed at my head. I've gone through economic hardship leaving me destitute. I've worked for awful people who've tried to undermine my self esteem. I've been threatened and ostracised for quietly speaking my truth.

Sorry for the big dose of negative, but what I'm trying to say is, "shit happens". It especially happens in war. I suggest that we prosecute every bully in every school in the US who has dished out a swirly before we go after the previous administration for performing the adult equivalent on terrorists. That will never happen because half of the Democratic thugs would be doing time.

I suggest we give the previous administration the benefit of the doubt: that they were acting with the best intentions, and may have erred on the side of being, "too rough on the bad guys". And I back Coulter on partial birth-aborting terrorists instead of American babies (I am pro-choice, but if I had to choose between them ...).

Now, that should end this post, but I want to add a couple tangents. First tangent is the hypocrisy with the Japanese after WWII. The winners make the rules. If the Japanese had won, they would have prosecuted US officials for dropping atom bombs or burning up their civilian's wooden houses. That's one reason why it's very important to win, and why the hate crime bill is in congress right now - if NAMBLA had donated to Barney Frank's re-election campaign like he'd asked, I think you would be seeing different groups protected. If you don't want to prosecuted for water boarding, don't lose an election. The republicans lost, they may be prosecuted - hopefully some day it will work differently.

Second tangent is that the rest of the world right now may believe that the US is/was acting as a world bully/Nazi/asshole. A trial that shows that we can hold ourselves up to our own standards (accountable) may restore some of our credit. The cost/benefit of doing this, the moral quicksand that it presents, and the raw fairness of it escapes me.

Finally, "would they do it to me"? I think this is a question going through the liberal mind right now. They know that conservatives don't like them. They know that the conservatives water boarded one enemy. If I am considered an enemy, will I be water-boarded? And I think this continues from the last, "world view" tangent. Bush once said something like (I'm being lazy), "you're either with us or against us", France was against us, the terrorists were against us, we water-boarded the terrorists, we will water-board the French. But the reality is that enemies also fall on a continuum.

update (5/16/2009):
I realize that the above statements sound "pro torture", but that was not my intent. My goal was to help with the definition of torture. I was suggesting that water boarding might fall in a grey area, where some consider it out of bounds, but others don't; and that I might give our officials a pass if they authorized it. The atrocities at Abu Graib, and the IRF-ing at Gitmo clearly cross that line and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

I also believe the administration must go after low hanging fruit first and both use and set precedence. Since there was a water boarding precedent set in WWII, it's easy to define, it doesn't play an obvious role in subduing immediate prisoner violence, and cannot be confused with a cavity check, it may be the best vector for cleaning up this mess.

I still think (depending on intensity) that I'd rather have my head dunked a few times rather than have chemical irritants shoved in my anus, my eyes poked out, my head slammed repeatedly against concrete (leaving permanent brain damage), etc (follow the link above).

Finally, a hypothetical question. There are two demons and a saint. The saint is not powerful enough to take on either demon, let alone both. Is it ethical to pit the two demons against each other, then destroy the weakened survivor? (two demons: torturers and terrorists; saint: American citizens)

Bi-Partisan Fed Destruction

So I've been peddling HR 1207, the resolution to audit the Fed (and you can push Pelosi to schedule debate on it here). But I was thinking about the nationalization of the banks and the stress tests, also. Now, I am no fan of the liberal agenda, but the way I see it right now, nationalization of the banks is just a different means to the same ends of returning the power of money creation to the people. I believe it is: if you're a Republican you can get behind Ron Paul, if you're a Democrat you can get behind Obama.

The next question becomes: Is money creation best left to the politicians in Washington? Should states be able to create money? Municipalities? The UN? Yourself? All of the above?