All About the Grammar

"To be, or not to be: that is the gotcha question." — The Daily Dorkmonger.

I have to admit it was pretty funny last week when Sarah Palin assaulted the English language, but let's not forget that she was also assaulting religious tolerance:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yep, the latest conservative conniption is over the plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was also quick to give his puerile opinion: "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

The old windbag might want to pause for a second and examine the irony here. If needed, he might also want to brush up on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Then take another minute to review the politics of Saudi Arabia -- a theocratic monarchy which considers the Qur'an their constitution. And then tell me again why freedom-loving Americans should emulate the religious intolerance of such a backassward country?

If Newt can't admit that freedom of speech and religion are our greatest strengths, if he can't admit that Saudi Arabia should try to emulate us and not the other way around, then he can never again utter the old canard "they hate us for our freedom."

Now, back to the subject of Sarah Palin's utterances. While trying to cover for her fake words, she tweeted, "‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!"

At least she's not pretending to be god this time... but Shakespeare? Really? Who has the balls to compare themselves to Shakespeare?

The Big Partisan Smokescreen

The Republicans don't understand that torture is not a partisan issue. Take that old Newt Gingrich for example. Does he honestly believe that if he can prove that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about torture, then everybody will forget about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, David Addington, John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and William Haynes?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is engaging in a "despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort" to withhold what she knew about the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday.

Gingrich said Pelosi "lied to the House" when she earlier claimed that the CIA had never briefed her about the Bush administration's use of interrogation methods like waterboarding, which is considered torture by the current administration.

"I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters," the Republican leader said in an interview with ABC Radio.

Pelosi has been under fire from critics who say she was fully briefed on the techniques in 2002 and 2003. On Thursday, the California Democrat accused CIA officials of misleading her, reiterating a claim that she was briefed on such techniques only once -- in September 2002 -- and that she was told at the time that the techniques were not being used.

I know torture is abhorrent and illegal, and this is not about politics. You can't fool me, persuade me, calm me, or dazzle me with your smokescreens or a million "provocative" editorials. Even if Pelosi did know about torture (and I doubt she did), then we, the torture opponents, do not lose the argument! This is not like Clinton and blow jobs. This is not about getting even with the Republicans. This is about pursuing justice even if it's our highest officials who are guilty.

So yes, Mr. Gingrich. Let's gather up everybody who has lied to the House and the American public about torture and war and weapons of mass destruction. Let's investigate all of them.

4/20 Dude

Ok, I'm a day late. I guess I just didn't get around to finishing this post...

Rep. Barney Frank has introduced a bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul, to decriminalize the possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana and the not-for-profit transfer of up to 1 ounce. The bill, dubbed the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, marks the first time in decades that Congress has considered removing criminal penalties for marijuana.

Last month Frank issued a statement about marijuana legislation:

To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these things and enforcement of the age restrictions should be firm. But criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.

Are politicians finally catching up with the public opinion on this issue? I think it's rather silly to put marijuana users in jail considering the fact that many leading politicians including Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, George Pataki, and Barack Obama have admitted using the drug. If any of those politicians think people should go to jail for smoking pot, well, then they should turn themselves in first.

You can use this handy online form to contact your member of Congress and ask him or her to support the personal use of marijuana.