A few responses

I meant to get around to doing this a while back but between a very busy week and my internet going down, I had been unable to get to it.

The subject for this week are: The Correspondents Dinner and this whole Miss California nonsense. I may or may not start talking about the whole CIA VS Pelosi goofiness as well, depending on how much steam I have by the end.

I always look forward to the Press Corp dinner, ever since Stephen Colbert let former President Bush have it with both barrels. I don't know what they were thinking when they invited him, but he obviously had guts. So Miss Wanda Sykes had a lot to live up to. I considered her an intriguing choice for this year's dinner considering her race and sexuality, both undoubtedly taken into consideration and I was skeptical she would be able to perform at the same level, mostly because I'm not all that familiar with her work.

Before we get to that though, I'd like to say that I was quite impressed with President Obama. We already knew he was likable and the fact that he could also be funny by being self-deprecating and yet 'ballsy' enough to poke fun at those who those who criticize him made me that much more appreciative. When Bush did it last time I watched, he gave me the impression of a bully and while I still chuckled every now and again, it was not nearly as enjoyable. I won't go into details because I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I appreciated the President's humor.

I DID laugh at Wanda Sykes, so did the people with me. Sometimes just out of amused shock, sometimes because she was truly clever.
"Governor Palin was supposed to be here but she pulled out last second. Someone should really tell her that's not how abstinence works" was one of my favorite lines (and the aforementioned governor will come up later as well).

But of course, there was the great controversy: What she said about Rush Limbaugh.
First...like Keith Olbermann, I disagree with her and her use of those jokes. 9/11 is something that is never joked about, and I think she realized that right after she spoke. It doesn't matter who you're talking about, you simply do NOT joke about the Towers. I know people want to make this big deal about the President smiling but I don't think he agreed with it. He's in a public situation, the pressure is on, and I know *I* laughed the first time, mostly out of shock. I just don't think too much should be read into that.

I gotta admit, I thought it was really funny when she said: "I hope America fails, I hope his kidney's fail, how about that?"

Do I think that's an appropriate thing to say? No, and I feel kind of bad for acquiescing with it. Making personal attacks like that are just not good ideas.
Do I think he deserved it? HECK, yes. I cannot imagine how many Christians can listen to such a hateful man. He completely has attacks like these coming, considering how much he attacks others. This is the guy who called THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "Barack the Magic Negro".

This makes me so angry. I can understand disagreeing with those in power, in fact, I encourage it, I think it shows what a great country I live in that you are ALLOWED to do that. I can even understand going so far as to call someone stupid or immoral, that makes you sound like a moron, but it's okay.
But RACE comments? I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility with me. Attacking someone's character with real, valid proof, that's fine. But being racist and hateful to get ratings...makes apparently a well listened to monster.

So I think she definitely stepped out of line, but part of me is sympathetic because he's been out of line for awhile. I'm pretty sure he couldn't even see the line with a telescope at this point. His following still baffles me.

So that's the dinner. All in all, I think it was cool, but I agree with those who felt some of it was ruined by inappropriate comments.

Then there's this Miss California thing. /sigh I can't believe this is even news worthy.

Okay, first of all: I think Carrie's critics are not attacking her 'anti gay marriage' message. I'm sure there are those who disagree, but that is not what the issue is. I can't really speak for them though, so I will try to just say what I think.
Saying what she thought of gay marriage was not a big deal to me.
What IS aggravating is her going on and on about how she was punished for speaking her mind and how dare people step on her First Amendment right.

First of all...She broke the contest rules, she had surgery before the pageant and she joined a political organization after, all of which is against the rules. If she's punished, it would be for that. But she WASN'T. She gets to KEEP being Miss California, so nothing happened to her.
Second of all: The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. The First Amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT can't stop her from saying things. But the government didn't, her EMPLOYERS did...and they are well within their legal right to do so.
Which brings us back to...Miss Palin. Yes, I'm so glad she's sticking up for the blonde. But seriously...this is why I didn't want McCain to win. I did not want that woman within two hundred yards of executive power. Besides being just as corrupt as the 'far left' that she liked to lambaste...but she also likes to sound incredibly stupid. Again bringing in this non-existing First Amendment issue...

On the other side, we have...David Shuster. As most of you are aware...I do not like him. For all sorts of reasons, his voice is annoying, he is not good at hiding the 'reading off the teleprompter' issue and...well, he did not handle this story well in my opinion. He was incredibly emotional and just unprofessional. I wanted to tell him 'You know, I bet Fox is hiring, because you sound like one of them'.

But in the end what this all comes down to is: Who really cares what Miss California says? Yes, this is a shallow pageant, no it is not going to go away. Get over it.

~~

Now for this whole thing about Speaker Pelosi. I do not know a lot about this case, so I cannot speak definitely. But first they said she was debriefed...which she'd already said, and which they couldn't contradict.

Do I think Speaker Pelosi is lying? Probably to some extent, I have little faith in any politician. But do I think they said 'Hey, Nancy, we're waterboarding people, is that cool?' and she said 'Oh yeah, no problem'? No, I don't think so. I admit it's...disconcerting how she keeps saying 'Oh yeah...um...' and then changes her story so that it doesn't contradict but adds more details. I want to know why she didn't just say all this to begin with. On the other hand, there are some things she can't tell us and I don't think that says she's hiding something. It would be illegal for her to disclose all information, that's why you have to sign all these papers swearing you won't talk about it. So perhaps that played a part.
What aggravates me is that even if her story isn't lining up, the evidence against her is questionable at best because most of it is being given by the CIA....which is the organization she is accusing of lying. Yes, they should definitely defend themselves, but if it is just going to be a game of 'he said, she said'...I gotta admit, I'm not really convinced by either party.

Most of all, what bothers me is how partisan this all seems to be. The way the whole issue got brought up was the Reps saying 'But wait, SHE knew about it too, that makes it okay!'.
In Keith's words: "This is NOT about party. This is about the rape of our ideals. And if a Democrat is equally culpable...then they can go to hell, too."
I don't care what party those involved were in. Torture is NEVER okay. Just because someone in the Dems party MAY have known about it does not make the Reps who were in charge (IE, Bush, Cheney and them) any less responsible. This all seems like a way to divert attention and it aggravates me. But hopefully it all works out soon.

Any thoughts, fellow philosophers?

Simulated Death

Obviously, something that has been on the news so much we can't avoid thinking about it (try as we might) is the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and what should be done about it. There are obvious ramifications on all fronts, and I really appreciate how this issue transcends (for the most part) party politics. Unfortunately that taint is still there, but on the street, from what I've heard from people I've talked about, being a Republican or Democrat is pretty much irrelevant to where you stand on the issue. I don't have a legal degree, I am not a policy maker. I'm an United States citizen. So here is what I think.

1) Is Waterboarding torture?
The justification for this not being torture was that it didn't do any lasting harm and would not cause prolonged suffering. You're just simulating drowning. Only then another memo came out that said water MAY be inhaled. In the words of Aandail: At that point, you're not simulating drowning. You're actually drowning. You're simulating death.
Yes, there's a doctor present. You know, the Holocaust had doctors present, too. The logistics are pretty much irrelevant to me.

2) Should those at the top be prosecuted?
I agree with those who say that the people who had to actually perform these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' should not be punished because they were doing what they were told. I remember 'A Few Good Men', we basically program soldiers to not question, and they are already in extreme circumstances. I can't imagine that they send the fluffy bunny guards to Guantanamo and I'm sure the mental toll of being down there, with people who may be responsible for the deaths of Americans is easy on them. And it's comforting like I said that both sides are very supportive of the troops.

Well, except those people who try to blame them. Or who put them in prison for it, and then let them sit there for FIVE YEARS and only now are saying 'Oh, no, we shouldn't get mad at them'. But that's a totally different post.

So then the question is: What do we do with the people at the top? To be honest, though my populist rage rants that they should all be taken to court, 1) We simply do NOT have enough information to make any kind of legitimate judgment and 2)...it's never going to happen. We are never going to prosecute the former President of the United States for something like this, even if we wanted to. So I leave that sort of question to the policy makers.

3) Is it effective?

This then is the crux of my issue. The former Vice President, who had these files in his OFFICE, says that we were able to produce good information from using these techniques. He has provided (admittedly not much) evidence to say so. *Maybe* lives have been saved through this.

The other side says that you can't trust information obtained under extreme duress because the victim will be tempted to say something, ANYTHING to make it stop. Furthermore, if the victim IS a terrorist, they have probably been trained, much like our soldiers have, to withstand interrogation techniques such as these.

Perhaps most problematic is the fact that because WE, the United States, did this...terrorist organizations actually get MORE converts. This is a great recruitment tool because it makes US the badguys and THEM, that is, the terrorists, the victims. Apparently Torture=Door to Topsy Turvy Land.

...

But all of this is absolutely irrelevant. It does not MATTER if torture was effective, I don't know why we are even discussing it. There is never a single justifiable reason to put a human being through processes like this.
I don't CARE what they did, this is NEVER okay.

We forgive soldiers in warfare because war is a terrible terrible thing and people feel forced to do terrible things in war. And to me...this wasn't war. These were prisoners, captives, many of whom were not given a trial, we don't even know if they DID anything wrong.

I've been told by some people, that this attitude of mine makes me Un-American. And do you know why?

Because I am unpatriotic enough to consider ALL human life EQUALLY valuable, whether you are white, Arab, black, female, Muslim, poor or disabled. And I hate to say it, but here in the U.S. if you aren't a rich, White Protestant male, the odds are stacked a bit against you. This is changing, for sure, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. But for me, I consider all life important, and if it isn't okay to do to US, it isn't okay for us to do it to THEM.

So it doesn't matter to me if we were scared after 9/11, or how much evidence Dick Cheney, the most aptly named man ever, produces. Torture is morally WRONG. Always, under all circumstances.

I just hope people can get over the petty political squabbling and get this cleared away so we can move on to other issues.

Here, have a video.

http://www.rockcookiebottom.com/post/97815385/109-for-this-song-i-took-language-directly-from

~C

~EDIT: ALSO...I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity actually follow through on his word and get waterboarded for charity. I hope he doesn't disgrace the soldier's families by backing out after he talked so big. Can you think of many people who deserve it more?