Sarah Palin - Exit Stage Left

"We are not retreating, we are advancing in a different direction."

Quoting General MacArthur , Sarah Palin made her exit today from the world of politics.

In usual Palin fashion, she spoke in generalities and flowering rhetoric. She began in typical Palin fashion with a folksy "Hi Alaska" greeting, then followed with glowing testimonials on how great a state Alaska is, then started whining about the number of ethical complaints filed against her, and how badly the the media had treated her. She then stated, "I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully", while doing neither.

Not one of the 2550 words of Palin's resignation speech gave any explanation, or specific reason as to why she was leaving office, 17 months before her term expires, or why she chose to make the announcement during the July 4th weekend leaving the most important part of her declaration open for speculation and debate.

And speculate and debate they did! From the talking heads on the cable news networks, to every website, twitter and facebook site on the Internet, came the cries of "she couldn't take the heat", "she was over $500,000.00 in debt due to law suits", "it was a strategic plan to start early working on her 2012 to run for President", "She was getting jealous of all the media coverage Governor Sanford was getting', "She was getting tired of all the coverage of Michael Jackson's demise and wanted to bump him off the headlines." Ok, I admit, that last one was mine.

Did anyone check her travel records to see if she had made any unauthorized trips to Argentina?

And Jon Stewart thought he was going to get the weekend off.

No matter how the Republican National Committee dressed her up, or how much money they spent on the her wardrobe, they couldn't get past the one qualification that is essential for anyone to lead; intelligence. (I won't go into the debate about Dan Quayle).

In interview after interview both during the campaign and after, Palin was proven to be more of an anomaly than a serious contender. The "Hockey Mom" was fine for Governor of a State located far, far away from the U.S. Mainland, but except for the conservative base, no one ever truly believed she had the intellect, or the strength to be a true leader. Every time she opened her mouth, she proved this to be true.

I'll miss Sarah Palin, but I'll miss Tina Fey a great deal more.

Another quote by the illustrious General: "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away". In the case of Sarah Palin, one can only hope.

The Affairs of the Heart vs The Affairs of State

It doesn’t matter how apologetic Governor Sanford is, or how many tears he sheds. The American public has heard it all before. The “I’m so very sorry...” followed by the unspoken “I got caught” line is beginning to become an all too familiar mantra for politicians, especially Republicans, but should their personal weaknesses totally destroy years of public dedication and service? Absolutely not.

It’s the same old song sung by so many others who were cut to shreds by the almighty sword of infidelity; from John Edwards, to Elliot Spitzer, respected leaders in power fall so easily from grace when they’re caught, literally, with their pants down. Add to the list those we’ve elected to the highest office, our illustrious Presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Warren Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and of course Bill Clinton, and the new Jay and the Americans “Only in America”song lyric has been changed from the “land of opportunity” to the “land of infidelity. Yet, not one of these Presidents resigned.

So, why should a Governor be treated any differently?

Sanford didn’t break any laws, other than possibly using tax payer dollars to finance his trips, but so did Rudy Giuliani, and not only did he remain in office, but went on to become a major contender for the Republican Presidential primary.

The Governor made a mistake. From recent revelations, he has made several personal errors in judgement, but he’s a MAN for godsake!

The public has no real insight into the personal life of any politician. What goes on behind closed doors, and between married couples as ordinary human beings, has little to do with decisions made in their professional life. If we were to demand that every man in power resign from their job because of a personal indiscretion, then every major CEO who has had an affair, or has gone through a divorce should also resign.

A married man who has an affair is by definition a liar and a cheat by society’s definition. He lies to his wife about where he goes, even though in most cases, the wife knows exactly where he is going and what he’s doing. He cheats, not only his spouse out of full emotional commitment, but also the woman he’s having the affair with. However, if he is giving 100% of his time to his profession, then what exactly is the damage? A public official serves the public, but does that mean that they have to sacrifice their personal happiness in the process? We only elect representatives, we don’t appoint saints.

And as much as Sanford’s wife is put on stage as the victim, there is no doubt that she, herself, was as much to blame. Jenny knew about her husband’s affair and kept quiet. When the media asked her where he was, she covered for him when she could have just as easily said “Well, he might be in Argentina with his girlfriend.” She could have blown the whistle on her husband months ago, but said nothing. Sanford’s affair wasn’t the first, nor the last, to be destroyed by a fatal case of wife-read-his-email-ites. Men, it seems have the ability to use a computer to send and receive emails with ease, but for some reason have no comprehension of what the delete key is for, or how to set up an undisclosed, private email account.

So, now that all the skeletons are out of Sanford’s closet, what is the best choice for the State of South Carolina? Do they follow the quote “The evil men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones”, or do they take a long, hard look at all the good this man has done for their State, and as a Nation, what good he might do for the country in the future?

According to his bio, posted on the Sanford website: During his political career, Stanford accomplished much for South Carolina. He served six years in the U.S. Congress and was ranked #1 in the entire Congress by Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers’ Union, and Taxpayers for Common Sense inducted him into the Taxpayers Hall of Fame.

Sanford was elected as South Carolina’s 115th governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, becoming only the third two-term governor in modern state history.

He helped pass comprehensive tort reform and cut the marginal income tax rate – both firsts in state history. Today there are over 170,000 more people working than there were when Governor Sanford took office. The state passed first-of-its-kind charter school legislation to allow parents more choices in where their children attend school. He was dedicated, and he was faithful to his office and to those who elected him to serve.

Sanford made personal mistakes and severe errors in judgement, not as the Governor of South Carolina, but as a man. If we cannot understand a person’s heart, if we punish lovers with self-righteous indignation and condemn them to obscurity for not being “perfect”, then we all lose.

Mark Sanford may or may not become another divorce statistic. He may or may not find personal happiness with either his wife or his lover, that future will be left solely to him. However, destroying his political career, based on the public’s past history with elected officials in similar situations, would be hypocrisy at it’s very worse.

Affairs of the Heart are not, and should not, dictate Affairs of the State.

Sotomayor - Activist or Human Being?

What exactly is an "activist" judge?

---

by Raven West
(libertarian)
Monday, June 1, 2009

The current debate over the appointment of Judge Sonamayor and her comments regarding judicial duties has hit the news media like a tsunami. For those of us who have attended law school, the controversy is ridiculous. We all know that the legislature branch actually makes the laws and it is the attorneys who argue their cases based on prior rulings, or case precedent.

The Supreme court's job is to interpret civil and criminal cases as they apply to the U.S. Constitution. If a legislative branch elects to put a law into their own state's constitution, those who are against the new law have the ability to challenge the constitutionality of that law by suing the governing body in a court of law.

Areas of personal dispute, such as divorce actions or contested wills, are barred from Supreme Court rulings. These are delegated to the states because each state has it's own particular code of law. However, when there is a federal issue, such as discrimination or intellectual property rights, these decisions can, in a sense, make new law, but do not actually make any "law".

The Constitution was designed as a living document. It was written so that it could be amended, although not easily, by the people. And even when the popular feeling at that time amends the constitution towards the times, it can also be amended when those times change. Such was the case of the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment ban on alcohol.

In a perfect world, a judge is totally unbiased in their rulings. They would base their decisions solely on the merits of the case and the letter of the law and not bring into their ruling any personal bias. This would be very easy if judges were computers. One side puts in their argument, the other side puts in their argument, hit a button and out pops the verdict. Maybe someday we will have that impersonal judicial system, but one can only hope that will never be the case.

Judges are human beings. The reason our Supreme Court is made up of nine members is so that not one person alone can decide the fate of an individual, or class of people. Decisions have to be based on a majority on the court and both sides are heavily involved with writing their rulings. Pages and pages and pages with very detailed analysis of facts, issues, rule of law, are carefully drafted to support the judges point of view.

It is a very rare case that a Presidential Supreme Court appointment is not confirmed by the Senate. This confirmation process should only be based on the candidate's prior record, interpretation of the law, experience and competency. Just like any other employment interview, the "job" of Supreme Court Justice should never be decided on the candidate's sex, race, religion or ethnicity. As long as the U.S. Supreme Court is make up of human beings, and not robots, the rulings will always be influenced by individual human traits.

Being a Human Being is a necessary qualification for any job, especially a Supreme Court Justice.

Happily NEVER after?

If the proponents of “traditional marriage”  want to use the Bible to validate their resolve, then men should be allowed to have more than one wife. And, if we are to follow equal protection doctrine, then women should be allowed to have more than one husband as well. 

But it seems that those Bible thumpers use the “Great Book” like a Chinese menu; picking out the passages they agree with, while ignoring those which, in today’s modern civilized would never be tolerated. Incest and polygamy was a way of life in those days, not to mention the way women were treated. 

What exactly are those who are opposed to same sex marriage so afraid of? With the high rate of divorce, marital  affairs, infidelity on and off the Internet, just what is so great about “traditional” marriage that they think would be destroyed if more people were given equal rights to marry?

In this economic climate, imagine how much more business would be generated if there was an increase in marriage? From the cost of a marriage license, to thousands of dollars generated by the wedding industry, not to mention the enormous potential new clients for marriage counselors and divorce attorneys!

At the basis of the controversy has very little to do with an individual’s sexual preference as it has with dollars, specifically employer paid health insurance. What any of this has to do with two people who love each other is anyone’s guess.

The same lame arguments were used to prevent people of different races and religions from forming a legal contract in the past and being resurrected today.  In many states, “traditional” marriage was only legal between a “white” woman and a “white” man. It’s only been in recent years that couples were pronounced “husband and wife”, yet there are some, more “traditional” ceremonies, the Priest will pronounce the couple MAN and wife. Is this the “traditional marriage” they’re fighting so hard to maintain? 

Over and over again our government has failed miserably to legislate morality. The pleasure police are at our every door and window, from victimless vice laws to increases in prohibitions on smoking. But just how far are we going to allow conservative religious zealots to try and legislate LOVE?

Of course this entire argument would be moot if we could eliminate government intervention and control of marriage in the first place, but it will be many more generations before society reaches that ideal.

“Traditional marriage” ain’t that great in the first place. Perhaps the Gays will find a way to improve on the tradition and show the rest of us what the vows of marriage are truly about.

Maybe that’s why those who oppose these marriages are so afraid.

How to Resuscitate the Republican Party

Americans are youth orientate. We spend billions on hair dye, plastic surgery, hair implants... and that’s just the men.

So, it should come as no surprise that any organization that has the word OLD in its name is going to have a serious problem selling itself. Look what happened to the popularity of the merry OLD oldsmobile.

Never trust anyone over the age of 30 wasn’t so much as a slogan as it was a way of life in the mid-60's. The Pepsi Generation doesn’t drink Medamucil! Youth is rebellious, opinionated, argumentative, and very rarely do they follow the advice of their elders. Especially in politics.

The Grand Old party needs a face lift to bring it out of the dark ages of the past. In this century of blackberry and blue tooth, twitter and texting, the Republicans appear to be stuck in the past. They continue to adhere to old ideas and flawed logic, and continue on the same Republican road which brought us Nixon’s Watergate, Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal, and George W. Bush’s... everything. 

We can forgive the personal infidelities of our young presidents Kennedy and Clinton, but not the dishonesty we’ve only known with our Republican representatives; Nixon’s aides H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and more recently Tom Delay, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. 

Youthful inexperience is never a deterrent when put up against youthful enthusiasm and energy. Just ask any experienced unemployed 55 year old applying for a job against twenty-somethings just out of college.  The Republican Party will never be able to sell any new ideas with the likes of 66 -year- old Newt Gingrich, or 62- year- old slick-Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul’s campaign of revolution might have made a significant difference in the outcome of the Republican primary had he been a young man of 47. What the young voters of America wanted, rallied for, and elected was a YOUNG President they could trust, not simply follow. A leader who would communicate with them, and not dictate to them. A brother, not a father. 

Had the Republican establishment listened to, instead of dismissed, Ron Paul’s message of individual rights, personal liberty, limited government and strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution , which excited so many,  then found a young person to carry that message, that candidate would have led the Republican Party  all the way to the White House.

But the Grand Old Party wasn’t listening then, and it’s still not listening now. Seems you really can’t teach an old dog new tricks, emphasis on the old, when the dog continues to play the same old tricks in spite of the lessons of past failures. 

As long as the Republicans are more concerned with appeasing their ever- shrinking Christian and Conservative base with a platform of inequality under the law, total disregard of freedom, invading foreign countries, and continue to follow  old men with old ideas, they will go the way of the dinosaurs. 

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques - Coming To A Theater Near You!

As we continue to wrap our minds around the recent revelations of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques our military used to extract information from prisoners, the question which has never been asked, or answered, is what would ever motivate a rational human being to even contemplate any form of inflicting pain on another human being?

What mental process, if any, did any of those in command, from the President down, make to justify waterboarding, sleep depravation and the like inflicted on the victims? We all must ask ourselves, why isn’t every citizen of this supposedly rational, civilized country calling for prosecution for all who participated?

Have we become so obsessed with vengeance after the 9/11 attacks that we have lost the very humanity which we have accused the “enemy” of never possessing when they murdered 3,000 people? In our patriotic zeal to keep America safe, have we lost our way? 

We’ll take to the streets, armed with soggy tea bags, and protest tax increases, then go back to our nice little lives the next day. Where are the protestors for crimes against humanity? Why are we so convinced that “enhanced interrogation” techniques, are justified, at any level?

Torture isn’t a new concept. For as long as humans have walked this earth, we have found ways to inflict physical pain on others. Is there anyone who would argue that those who strapped helpless men to a plank and pored water into their mouths didn’t derive a tiny bit of pleasure during the process? Some tiny voice, deep inside that spoke “this if for 9/11 you bastard”, even if that person was totally innocent. They are the enemy, and they must suffer. As long as we can justify these atrocities by re-defining words, we can all sleep at night. Or can we?

Of course no one would ever admit this. We all aspire to a higher level of compassion and intelligence,  and most would deny having even a tiny bit of the Maquis De Sade in them. But how else can we explain justifying torture, which by definition is the infliction of pain, or watching pain inflicted by others, unless there is some level of pleasure involved.

Because if we admit this, publically or privately, then we are no better than those who we seek to destroy.  If this theory is to be disputed, then how can we explain the SAW

torture-porn  movie phenomenon which grossed 31.8 million dollars on its opening weekend? Millions purchase tickets for this so-called entertainment and enjoy watching people suffer. 

Of course, the audience knows the blood and pain are all a combination of special effects and gory acting, but is there that much of a leap between fiction and reality when it comes to something as mild as, say  waterboarding? If the American audience has become so desensitized to fictional torture, how can we expect Americans to protest the real deal? 

At what point do we measure the level of human pain and suffering and call it torture and not sugar-coat  physical and psychological abuse as simply a means to justify an end? Do a few choice words redefine reality so that we can all sleep better at night knowing that our government would never order our troops to actually torture someone. Instead of using a full battery of legal experts advising how to redefine the word torture, how about we simply do NOT inflict pain and suffering on any human being for any reason. Period. 

It is not a question of the definition of torture we should be concerned about. It’s the definition of who we are as Americans. It is our morals, high standards and unwavering principles which separates our commitment to freedom and liberty from those who wish to only destroy the same. It is our actions, not our words, which will be judged, long after the rhetoric is forgotten. 

If we are to regain our respect as a powerful nation, we cannot afford to alter the meaning of  words with cute phrases, false ignorance and lame excuses, which shows the world that we only have the power to do whatever it takes to get the results we want. 

Changing the word torture to a more palatable phrase is not the change we voted for. 

Want to Know How to Torture? Just Ask My Mother

If you want to extract information from a prisoner, forget waterboarding. The real expert on effective torture is a mother.

Those who thought waterboarding was an enhanced interrogation method which would be effective in producing information or confessions are just now realizing they were not only totally wrong, but possibly criminal. We are now hearing the frightening excuse of just following orders from those who were directly involved. Tell that one to your mother and she’ll counter with; if they told you to jump off a cliff would you do that, too?  

Making people confess is not the job of military personal and waterboarding cannot even come close to torture when compared to the time honored technique of a mother’s disappointment.

Take any one of those prisoners, put them in an enclosed room with my mother and I guarantee that within one hour, he’d be so wracked with guilt, he’d not only answer every question honestly, but probably confess to skipping class when he was twelve. She’d reduce him to tears and never lay one finger on him. Mother’s have enormous power and when used wisely will turn even the toughest macho man into a sniffling toddler.

Of course this method is also very effective on the other side as well. What better way to show your mother how much you love her than by strapping bombs to your chest, blowing yourself up, and taking as many of the enemy as possible along with you? Even in our own country we have the motto; for God, Mom and Apple Pie. Make mommy proud. My son the Doctor, Lawyer. My son the Martyr. Equal opportunity exists now with young women aspiring to these professions as well.

A mother’s influence is paramount in a child’s life. A baby feeds off their mother’s milk. A baby is warmed in their mother’s embrace. The first face a baby sees is that of their mother’s.  

No child is ever born suicidal. No infant comes into this world programmed to hate or to murder, but they are instinctually obligated to return the very gift of life which only mothers can provide.

The pain a mother can inflict upon a child of any age needs no physical contact. An intense glare will terrify the most stubborn. A tear streaming down a cheek will soften the hardest criminal. Guilt and disappointment, the psychological torment of what a mother can inflict upon their child, is the time honored weapon used for centuries. And it works.

So, who do we fault for what has transpired with our interrogation methods? Is it the movies and television shows that create a fantasy so real that those in high office actually believe them to be effective? Are our military men and women so brainwashed as to simply follow orders so that not one single person protested the treatment they were told to inflict? 

The question has already been asked numerous times by the media; what would our reaction be to any country who would treat our citizens the same way? We already know the answer.

Those responsible should be put into a room with my mother. Then, they would not have any doubt what the true meaning of torture is.