Ah, Tradition!

In 1959 Miss Oklahoma, Anita Bryant went on to be named second runner-up in the Miss America Contest.

In 1977, Anita Bryant launched the "Save Our Children" campaign in Dade County Florida after the local government extended legal protections against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation to include "sexual orientation," which gave queers of the time a modicum of security in a hostile homophobic environment.

In 2009, the reigning Miss California loses the top spot in the Miss America Contest and immediately launches a campaign to promote homophobia by joining forces with the contemporary movement to "Save Our Straight Marriages" even before she has a chance to enjoy life as a D-list celebrity and orange juice queen like Bryant did.

Carrie Prejean ought to talk to Anita Bryant before letting herself be used by the hateful forces trying to keep same-sex couples from marrying. But then she would have to find the rock of obscurity that Anita crawled under after her marriage was ruined and her lucrative contract with the Florida orange growers association was revoked for her being so obviously retarded.

Miss California: your 15 minutes of fame is up. Please join Ms Bryant and the other high-profile losers who chose to open their damn fool mouths instead of just doing your bimbo best to stand there, pose and give hard-ons to straight men.

What's all the fuss over a little Torture?

Some people I know - and who should certainly know better - still don't get it.

To this day I continue to hear the opinion that the real problem was the release of those photos from Abu Ghraib that broke the news story, exposing the American torturous treatment of Iraqi detainees. As if it would be better had no one ever found out about how we conduct our invasions of any foreign country because "they" deserve it because "they attacked us."

Do you think I do not want to scream?

That kind of attitude may have been excusable in some quarters in the first days after 9/11 and was bound to survive in those who are predisposed to blind reactionary patriotism that was stoked and exploited by the war-hungry, profiteering forces that had inhabited the Administration after the Bush coup of 2000. But after all we've learned about the rationale for going to war in Iraq - WMDs, ties to Al Queda, yellow cake uranium - all now exposed and accepted for being nothing but a pack of self-serving evil lies - how can anyone separate out the well-known acts of torture from all the other surreal and malicious lies we are still force-fed by the cynics and apologists for the deposed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice/Ascroft/Gonzales cabal?

With the recent release of those torture memos it has come to light that this too - TORTURE of human beings - was just another part of their PR campaign engineered to establish a reason for the invasion of Iraq AFTER it became clear that all their other reasons were nothing but bold face lies.

Surprised?

Apparently, most of America is not.

Since the memos came out all the TV talk still centers on whether waterboarding is torture or whether torture "works" or not. We have become so jaded - so inured to hearing of the depths to which the Bush Administration was willing to dive in order to justify their nefarious war-mongering intentions - that we just gloss over the revelations that torture of detainees in the Iraq War were NEVER ABOUT obtaining useful information that might keep us safe or help defeat our enemies who threaten America.

It was all about justifying the Bush-led invasion of a foreign country on false pretenses and manufactured intelligence that has consistently proven to have been invented in order to rationalize and cover up their high crimes and misdemeanors.

Torture of human beings was plainly carried out by our troops and mercenaries under orders straight from the top of this country's government.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice and the whole criminal cabal then lied - and continue to lie - to cover up and distract from the facts that are now indisputably evident from their own official words contained in the de-classified memos. Those memos detail how our troops were used to force detainees to say what the cabal wanted to hear -- what they wanted US to hear whether it contained any truth or not.

Cutting through all the shit, this is the bottom line and perfectly explains why the Bush Administration officially authorized torture in blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. So perfect that we are compelled to shrug it off with a great big, "duh."

Of course: after none of the other lies would hold any water for very long, torture was all they had left.

It was and is their only hope to find some salable justification of their criminal activities. Since no direct evidence could be found to substantiate their headstrong plunge into the huge Middle East catastrophe, they were "forced" to resort to sadistic torture of Iraqi detainees in order to force them to say something that would help make a case for the US having invaded their country and killed all those people including over 5,000 of our own troops!

Wasn't there once a time -- seems not so long ago -- that when the President and other Administration officials LIED about something an investigation was unquestionably warranted? No matter what the cost, how long it may take, or the eventually futile outcome of such an investigation and prosecution after such allegations were made was done almost by routine.

I seem to remember a few things called "Whitewater," "Filegate," "Travelgate" and "the Monica Lewinsky Affair" on which some $60 billion and up to eight years of hearings, house arrests, and impeachment proceedings were justified by the allegations against a SITTING President for things that never amounted to more than a squirt.

How the hell are we going to let the ex-officeholders get away with their devastating ruinous lies even while Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and their apologists are all over the TV circuit bragging about what they did and laughing in our stupid faces?

How now is there the slightest question about whether there should be an investigation and prosecution of those who authorized torture for purely partisan political reasons and, in the process, sold our entire nation out, ruined our reputation -- not to mention our economy -- and cost millions of human lives and trillions of dollars?

All the chatter about whether torture works, or whether it yielded any useful information (we would definitely know by now if it did) is utterly meaningless and wickedly distracting from this central element AND IT NEEDS TO STOP!

For humanity's sake doesn't this warrant more than a wussy "truth commission?" How can we not demand a very serious investigation of these very serious crimes followed by a serious prosecution of the criminals to the fullest extent of the law -- the International Laws against war crimes?

See the New York Times Op-ed piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1&em

You HAVE to wonder

All the media are falling in line with the self-imposed requisite focus on the first 100 days of the Obama Administration -- as though there is some kind of legal or superstitious relevance to that nice round number. Not one of them has the creative or business impulse even to make it a focus on the first 99 days and scoop on the competition.

This can be considered an illustration, if one is needed, of the effects of that media consolidation which happened under the Bush Administration during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion where Bush's billionaire friends in corporate media were rewarded with the profitable ownership of nearly all the news outlets across the country while keeping the voices of dissent to a minimum. But all that is just a digression...

What may be more interesting, as a counter-point to the saturated examination of what has been going on in the new Administration, would be an intelligent analysis of the psychology behind the extreme and irrational opposition to it, the proponents of which have sunk to the level of lame side-show silliness (tea-bagging?). It's a malevolent silliness, of course, which is the only thing that makes it newsworthy.

We can hope it is just the dregs of a 20-year-long charade that most people who once bought into have become fed up with. With people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove still pushing their delusional viewpoints on the gullible public rather than just shutting up and going away you have to wonder how the failed neo-conservative movement can rationally claim any credibility after their eight-year disastrous regime was - and continues to be - rejected soundly by people with half a brain.

Well, I wonder. I really do. I wonder why people en masse are compelled to glom onto prepackaged political mindsets that often cause them to take action against their own best interests? And I wonder if maybe that's just my point of view.

But, apparently, a lot of other people have been wondering about this too. Some who have the smarts and the luxury of thinking about such things for a living have been doing some structured wondering - otherwise known as research - about this very topic and have come up with some pretty interesting ideas and theories that try to make sense out of the circus going on around us.

Jonathan Haidt is one such person: an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Haidt has been studying politics and morality for a number of years and written several books and articles on the subject. I recently came across an online video of a lecture he gave to the TED conference several years ago that I feel offers the most gratifying, balanced analysis of the underlying psychology of what we are currently seeing and a starting point from which we may be able to move beyond it.

Haidt has identified five foundational moral impulses relevant to how we live our lives as social beings. They are:

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.

• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.

• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.

• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt's research reveals that self-identified liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions -- preventing harm and ensuring fairness -- but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.

Whatever point you find yourself on along the political spectrum you may be fed up with bewilderment over the irrational viewpoints to which you are opposed. It would be well worth 20 minutes of your time to watch the video below. If you are moved, as I was afterward, you may consider signing on to the pledge Haidt has posted at his website to commit yourself to acting on the principles that come out of his analysis: http://www.civilpolitics.org/civpol-pledge.php



I was led to this discovery by Tom Jacobs who has written a revealing article about Jonathan Haidt currently posted at Miller-McCune's website: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture_society/morals-authority-1099?article

Beware of Big Gay Weather Systems

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

What's In YOUR Pocketbook, er... Lady?

What are the chances you'll ever see a US Bank ad like this one from Argentina?