Politics are depressing

The Republican Debate on Fox News, sure to be a true meeting of the minds. Who will come out on top, will Guiliani keep his lead, will Romney catch up, will Mccain make a comback? All of this excitement and then the Debate aired, and I think I lost IQ points listening to these intelligent grown men spew inane babble that didnt pertain to the issues what so ever.
The entire debate was a "Who is more conservative" challenge, in fact the first 3 or 4 questions were "Who is more conservative you or the other rich white guy at a podium?"
I am obviously liberal but I respect the positions of the conservatives, when Huckabee argued for pro-life his argument was well thought out, passionate, and persuasive to some extent. I have no problem with political candidates of either side when they talk about their thoughts on the issues.
But this debate contained 15% issue and 85% nonsense.
Guiliani mentioned his ability to reduce crime in New York about 10 times in the first 3 questions he was asked (and September 11 got thrown in there too).
Romney name dropped Reagan, the hero of the conservatives, so many times you would have thought Reagan was a Candidate.
Fred Thompson made jokes about the other candidates and avoided having to take a stand on anything.
Huckabee and Paul actually talked about the issues of importance but they have absolutely no chance of winning.
And the other 2, Tancredo and Hunter, barely spoke. (Romney and Guiliani spoke about 2000+ words while they spoke under 1000).
And all of them tried to make Hilary Clinton out to be the anti-christ.
My point is not to bash the Republicans because they aren't the only ones at fault, the Democrats avoid the issues as well, when they have a debate I will most likely bash them too.
If I was going to be of voting age by the next election I would have absolutely not idea who to vote for. The candidates seem fake, inexperienced, or just ridiculous.
Well I guess I'll just have to wait for the 2012 elections, god that sounds pathetic.

Colbert for President??

Stephen Colbert announced on his show the other night that he is running for president,......in South Carolina. Well, I'm not really a Hilary Clinton fan (the upside is that at least if she did get elected Bill would be there to help), Obama seems too inexperienced to have a chance, Edwards is too far behind in the polls, and the republican candidates are, at least to me, pretty much laughable. I would love to have a President Colbert, or a President Stewart. I know this is not ever going to happen, but these two comedians are in my eyes more honest, less tainted by politics, and more willing to confront problems than any of the current candidates. Perhaps the front runners should take a leaf out of the Colbert/Stewart play book and stop side stepping tough issues, stop playing on 9/11 (Rudy Giuliani), stop trying to keep the presidential records out of the public's reach ( Hilary Clinton), and start being more honest, in the end I think it would do us all some good.

National Secrets?...What National Secrets?

A man is taken off a plane, held in a secret prison for months, kept away from his family who are not even told what he did wrong....what will happen next??? This scenario may sound like its from the new movie "Rendition" with Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal, but its not. This is the real life story of Khaled el-Masri a German citizen who was allegedly taken to Afghanistan by members of the C.I.A. and kept there for 5 months in a secret prison, where he was tortured because his name is similar to that of a suspected terrorist.
Mr. Masri was eventually released but when he tried to file charges against the C.I.A. his case and subsequent appeals were turned down because of "state secret privilege." Now you may be asking yourself..."What is a state secret privilege?" Well it was first ruled by the supreme court in U.S. vs. Reynolds when if documents relating to a plane crash were given as evidence in trial it would put into jeopardy certain aspects of the military. The idea is to stop evidence in a trial from harming military or national (legitimate and legal) secrets. However in the case of Mr. Masri the "state secret privilege" was not used to rule out some evidence in the extremely controversial and possibly bad for the government case, it actually caused the case to be thrown out all together.
"Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that this decision, which the court has occasionally invoked but has not revisited, did not justify dismissing a case before any evidence was requested. Ben Wizner, Mr. Masri’s lawyer at the civil liberties union, said in an interview that the courts have permitted the doctrine to evolve from an evidentiary privilege to a broad grant of immunity, a way for the executive branch to shield itself from judicial scrutiny." (the new york times)
Hmm... shielding the executive branch from judicial procedure where have i heard that before....oh yeah "executive privilege" called upon when ever President Bush doesn't want to give up his many secrets...and didn't Dick Cheney try to claim he was neither part of the Executive or the Legislative Branch, and so he could not be subject to the protocol of either? Yes, if my memory serves me, I think he did.
Well Mr. Masri may never get justice but at least we can all sleep soundly knowing our government is oh so awesome at keeping its secrets (prisons, torture, wire tapping) safe from any prying journalistic or judicial eyes. Ahhh Im so relieved.

sources: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin