Polemic pontification

Here's a problem that's going to get more headlines in the coming months with the new Democratic administration - What do we do about all these Gitmo prisoners?

Sure, this has been discussed before, but it'll take on a new relevance with Obama in office. Bush wasn't going to shut Gitmo down, so it was easy to scream about abuses and constitutional rights.

Now that Obama's poised to take office, and has made noise about shutting the place down, opinions may very well change.

The linked story tells about a boy who was 14 when put inside Gitmo. At 21, he's finally getting out.

It seems pretty silly to think that a 14-year-old would be capable of everything our government accused him of, but fear is a strong emotion and it shook America like a doll after 9/11.

But what about the real terrorists being held in Gitmo who would try to damage our country if released? Bush used word play to get around conventions and hold people without good evidence. Many are still being held without a host of rights.

Oh, but I hear the right scream - they shouldn't have any rights! Why should they share guarantees that Americans have?

It's a dangerous slope. We put ourselves up as a paragon of freedom, yet we hold our enemies for years without good evidence. We torture, then change the name to remove the taint of doing something wrong.

I don't think Gitmo's going to close any time soon. People will argue over it, but Obama will likely change his opinion on the prison. It will stay open, despite the left whining over it.

And we'll just have to deal with our leaders saying one thing and doing another. We've done it before.

Joe the ... you know what? Just shut up.

Joe the Stooge has just about worn out my welcome in the various news stories I frequent. This guy was newsworthy when he asked Obama a question at a campaign rally, and was launched into the spotlight when John McCain wouldn't stop mentioning his name.

Fair enough. We need an Everyman at certain times to bring things into perspective. But now he's a war correspondent that doesn't think journalists should cover wars? Here's a quote:

"To be honest with you, I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war [sic]. . . . I liked back in World War I and World War II, when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for them," he said in an interview with the Associated Press.
"Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to down soldiers—our American soldiers, our Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from reporting," he said.

So, where do you start with ignorance like this? I could point out various atrocities committed under the veil of secrecy when a free press isn't allowed into war zones, but maybe Joe likes the idea of a monolithic government doing whatever it likes during war time.

Or I might mention the films Joe mentioned, which were propaganda and not true reporting. Of course, there's nothing better than an ill-informed populace that the government fills with false reports and can then twist to its own devices. Maybe Joe should work for the Ministry of Truth.

But then again, I'd rather point out that Joe is essentially arguing why he shouldn't even have his current job. Here he is, working as a war correspondent, saying that his job should be abolished.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has changed from an Everyman into a Lauren Conrad - someone who likely began their media blitz as a real person but has now been distorted into a caricature of themselves, an empty persona with nothing to add to the public discourse.

Read my lips - Joe the Plumber has no place on my TV or in my media. Neither does LC, for what that matters.

What's really important

You can tell Americans want more than just hard news out of their media. Just take a look at the tail end of this Yahoo! news story:

"The Obamas are deciding between a labradoodle or a Portuguese water hound puppy, in the search for an appropriate pet for their daughters, ages 7 and 10. Obama said they're ready to start visiting shelters."

Forget the spiraling deficit or the insanely large bailout for failing banks. This is the meat of what we want, and it turns out that it's dog meat. Yes, that's right, knowing exactly what breed of canine the Obamas will get for the White House is what this country needs right now.

Why do we care about this fluff? Good question. My guess is that it's somewhere in between news about celebrities and feel-good stories about people that have done good deeds all their lives. It's not necessarily what many might think of news, but we want to talk about famous pets and fuzzy, wuzzly things so this meets the mark.

And, of course, it beats the hell out of talking about how all our 401k's have blown up in the past year.

How things change

A few days ago, Roland Burris was a nonentity. He couldn't get on the Senate floor on Tuesday. On Wednesday, however, the Byzantine halls of the Capitol had changed their shape and its minions were using different words.

A hard stance against anyone appointed by Blago turned into Jello. Pictures of Harry Reid and Burris being all friendly and cordial abound. The 71-year-old politician appears poised to take Obama's former seat.

It's a strange game.

So why the shift? Could be because Blago called the Senate's bluff, as one source said. Could be the racial element. Could be there's been a deal worked out behind closed doors, and everyone feels much more comfortable now that it's made.

Like Reid said during one of the tense moments: "I'm an old trial lawyer. There's always room for negotiation."

In a few days, likely once Burris has taken his Senate seat, we'll find out exactly what those negotiations are.

News of the dumb

Here's a shocker - teens talk about stuff like sex and drinking.

You've got to be joking me. I thought the worst thing our teens were doing was chewing gum in school. Not so, says the linked story. A majority of them talk about dangerous behavior and post pictures of drinking, drug use or other unsavory activities.

Well, what can we do? The answer provided by some shrink wannabe:

"In some cases, parents should even have their children's passwords for these social networking sites, especially when the children are around age 13 or 14 ..."

BWAAHAHAHHHAHAH

Yeah, and they should also know where their precious snowflake keeps the 1970s Playboys his friend's dad once kept in the attic. Do professionals actually think a 13-year-old kid isn't wise enough to get around a snooping parent? They may not be that smart, but young teens have a scary level of cunning.

I think these shrinks are missing the point. Parents need to be involved in their child's upbringing, teaching them the lessons and values that should be instilled. They don't need to be spies.

There are always going to be bad apples, but that doesn't mean we need helicopter parents peeking into every kid's MySpace page. That's the equivalent of looking at their diary, though admittedly it is a diary the kid's opened up for everyone on the net.

How about talking to your kid, helping them with homework, taking them to ball games, reading to them, joining them in a hobby, walking the dog together - activities that build bonds between parent and child.

Or is it just easier to use their password to find out who your kid really is?

Two types of people

Most people have some type of cute phrase about what they claim to be the two types of people in the world. It could be good and bad, boxers or briefs, heaven or hell bound. Whatever.

I like to simplify things, so let's bring this down where the goats can get it. There are people with power, and there are those without it.
This article here is a nice little piece of reporting, IMO. Most news stories focus on the details of a specific event, such as Bill Clinton stating who he hasn't had sexual relations with.

The aforementioned story, however, takes more of a featurey look at the Senate, those who walk its halls and how power moves and shifts throughout it.

It's a club that has rules, but only uses them when it wants to. Usually, things get done because of agreement. For example, if senators wanted Blago's pick of Obama's replacement to join, they'd allow it and disregard any rule that said otherwise, and who would be able to stop them?
Since they don't, they take the time to find a phrase in a dusty book that lets them close the door to Roland Burris.

Orwell defined power as the ability to make someone else suffer. I think we'll see more of that in the coming weeks as senators decide who's going to be the next senator from Illinois, and whose political career will suffer.

omg ... jeb bush fer prez lolz

Yes, he really is serious. Former President George H.W. Bush declares that not only is the media being unfair toward his son who currently holds the office, but that another son - Jeb - is qualified to be president.

Ah, yes, Jeb Bush - the governor of Florida when there was that rather nasty issue of balloting in the sunshine state during 2000. Jeb Bush, the man who's been waiting in the wings for far too long. Doesn't he deserve a chance to lead this country?

It all just makes me want to pour some tea in the ocean. OK, let's say that Jeb Bush is this absolutely incredible leader. A top shelf kinda guy that this country just has to have in a position of power.

Even if that's true, and I'm reaching here, haven't we had enough of dynasties? Do we really need to continue this hereditary form of government? I understand that parents who are good actors often have children that act well. It's genetics.

When that happens in government, I call it feudalism. New York is likely going to hand Caroline Kennedy a Senate seat just because of her name. Can we stop the nepotism there and not have it extend to yet another offspring of the first Bush?

Or do you like having dukes and lords instead of presidents?