I’ve always liked his politics and his willingness to speak his mind. This is classic.

“I’ll put it to you this way: you give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.”

There’s more.

I would pay to see a Ventura-Cheney debate on torture. A good sum.

Why doesn’t this guy have more influence over conservative policy?

I sure wish he did. He seems to get it, and be a good solid sensible conservative at the same time.

I mistrust (to put it mildly) unchecked power. The Democrats almost have it now. Not good over the long run. Power can’t help it; it always abuses.

With respect to torture, the Overton Window needs to be moved (! Just typing it is a wrist-slasher), and I’m not seeing any effort to do that. I wish The Talking Heads would start asking torture apologists if it was OK to grab the detainees’ kids, and drag them behind trucks on ropes tied around the children’s necks, since that would presumably be “effective” at extracting information. Maybe grab the wives and force the hubby’s to watch them violated by horses and such. It isn’t hard to imagine techniques that would be “effective.” Sadly, I prefer sanity.

Because I think you WOULD find a line, eventually, were these questions posed.

We just don’t seem to want to deal with the one that has been established by both conservative and liberal Presidents since WWII. It’s all very disconcerting.

…as torture since there is such a simple solution to it: Waterboard anyone who claims it isn’t torture, until they say it is or never break. We could even have Dr.’s around for them, and tell them they only had to go through it 183 times, so they felt all safe and secure about it, a luxury I don’t think our prisoners have. If they make it through 183 and never break, their principled stand is good by me.

It would make the case pretty rock solid on either side of the fence. They either don’t break, agree that it was torture, or come out later and say they lied about it to make it stop.

Simple, clean, and decisive! We could even tally up the results!

It makes too much sense to actually happen, of course. I’m torn on the whole prosecution thing. I’m wildly morally supportive of it, because people should be held accountable for breaking the law, but the country is in such a mess I’m afraid it will kill us economically and politically.

Another fine Bush legacy, and another demonstration of Bush’s special skill at putting us in lose-lose situations. Bizarro-genius.

Update: Step up, Sean Hannity! Can I do the questioning? I’ll do it for free.

Update 2: Right on! Keith Olbermann issues the same challenge to Hannity! And puts some money where his mouth is! It’s early in the show, but it will be fun to see how this plays out.

Update 3: MSNBC makes it difficult (OK, I found it impossible) to e-mail Keith the suggested ground rules, which is too bad. It would make for better TV.

Anyone who doesn’t think this idea is a deficit-busting (just kidding, but seriously highly profitable) pay-per-view event, done under my direction, is crazy.

I’m a Republican, I dig torture but not in any way but the make us all safe kind, and you can all go fuck yourselves.


What a terrific wanker. He’s earned his honorary award.

Andrew, who is clearly pissed off, has more.

Andrew is righteously, truly, articulately one angry gay Catholic.

I left out some links. I encourage you to read the whole series.

Economic opinions aside, I think Andrew is a good solid Christian, and I respect him for that, even though I consider being a gay Catholic a bit, well, nutty.

The Human Condition is a complicated thing.

Yeah, sure. Conceptually and demographically, I suppose, but I can’t be the only one who doubts Jesus would have approved of this stuff. And I’m no Bible scholar, but I would pretty much bet the ranch and kids that Jesus wouldn’t have participated.


Yuck squared.

Your country, ’tis of thee.

And for the record, I am honestly not naive enough to believe we’re any different than any other The Man throughout all of history, and that individual circumstances may require some extraordinary methods. I just don’t think you should make it public policy, or especially make it public policy when you’re not telling your represented public what you’re doing.

Plus, just out of personal experience, I can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that if people like (or at least don’t think are palpably enjoying torturing) you, they’ll be more honest and forthright with you.

They (the policy authors) will all get off easy. I hope that my vision of life after death is closer to reality than their publicly pronounced one, all Jesusy, for the perpetrators’ sake, because if they’re right, they’re in for one long interview with St. Peter.

And I’m sure as hell not talking about the people who carried out their orders, either.

Just because Maddow and Olbermann so far are calling it as I see it, only for a million people instead of three.