Often times when a superstar, whether it is an athlete, actor or musical act takes a political or moral stance, people tell them to just go back to what they are famous for, and leave the politics for the politicians.

I don’t have a problem with a person expressing his/her views even on such a large stage.

Next, I am glad Mrs. Tebow chose not to have an abortion. It is her right to make that decision, not the governments.

It is wrong for the government to be making the decision in either direction.

Please note: Planned Parenthood also supports Mrs. Tebow’s decision.

Enjoy the game.

Yesterday President Obama went to Norway to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.  He spent 26 hours there, long line I guess, these days they seem giving them out to everybody.  He get’s to Norway and prepares to deliver his acceptance speech.

What will he talk about? Well it is the Nobel Peace Prize, so I am sure it will be about holding hands, ending all wars, getting rid of all nukes, and the like.  It turns out his speech is partly about the necessity of war, how wars can be justified.

This type of speech should be a State of the Union address in which he outlines the reasons to invade Canada.  This is not exactly the typical “peace speech” that you would expect from a person who just won The Nobel Peace Prize.

Here is the already infamous cover (you may need to avert your eyes)(click the “more” button):

(from here)

Wait, is that it? A picture of her posing as a runner?  To me, this image is by all means conservative.  For Newsweek this may be a little better than normal.  What is wrong with looking pretty good in a photo?  Why is she holding a BlackBerry?  Would you have prefered that they chose a tabloid photo?

I get the feeling that the only real problems Palin and her followers have is the subtitle underneath. I have not read the article yet, but my guess is that it is also fairly mundane.  Newsweek has a habit of using provocative title to get you to read an article where they often say almost the opposite of the title.

This brings me to my next magazine cover (from here):

Using similar logic this magazine cover would definitely fall into the “sexist” category.  It even calls our President “hot.” I don’t particularly have a problem with either cover, and Palin should know that starting this issue is only going to sell more Newsweek magazines.

Because everyone everywhere apparently speaks with a liberal bias, someone had to create a website called “Conservapedia.” This differs from Wikipedia by twisting all conventional wisdom toward conservative opinion.

Fine, whatever. If you want your kids to think the earth is 6000 years old (and they DO), then this is the website for you.

And if you think Conservapedia might have a biblical bent, you are right. BUT, as I said before, everyone everywhere speaks with a liberal bias, and now that includes the Bible.

The brain trust at Conservapedia has finally noticed the Bible’s distinct liberalism.  I do not even disagree with their judgment, what with all the ‘caring for the poor and the sick.’  Or such liberal ideas as ‘turn the other cheek,’ which in the case of current liberalism is: when you take a beating, you should join the other side (in a if you can’t beat them, join them mentality).

Here is what I have a problem with, Conservapedia wishes to change the Bible to rid it of all liberal bias.  I consider this sacrilege.  Conservatives (at Conservapedia, I realize that they are not the voice of all conservatives),  you cannot change the Bible’s words. If you already twist the meaning of passages, why would you need to change the words themselves?

One guideline is to avoid “dumbing” down the bible, and another is to avoid “liberal wordiness.”  I will be surprised if they can manage to avoid using the “big” words in the Bible currently, without dumbing it down.

I can’t wait for the changes though…..

To quote Stephen Colbert:  While the bible quote is “The meek shall inherit the earth” what Jesus meant was… “The meek shall inherit the earth if we can repeal the federal estate tax. Seriously. 45 percent for estates over 3.5 million? Spareth me.”

The state legislature of Massachusetts is working on a bill to allow the Governor to appoint an interim Senator so that their state is fully represented in congress until the special election takes place on January 19, 2010.  This bill was one of Ted Kennedy’s final wishes.

It seems logical that the state legislature should pass this law to allow their state to be fully represented, and to grant Ted Kennedy his wish.

Here is where the problem lies…

Massachusetts used to have a law allowing an interim appointment to a vacant Senate seat. In fact, it wasn’t all that long ago that this was the norm in Massachusetts.  You only have to look back to 2004 and two familiar names. John Kerry was running for President,  Mitt Romney was the Governor. The vacancy created by John Kerry would have allowed Republican Mitt Romney to choose the temporary replacement.

So the state legislature took those powers away from Romney, preventing him from seating a presumably Republican interim replacement.  This was highly partisan and should never have been done. It was stupid then, and makes them look a lot worse now.

It seems logical to want your state to be fully represented, but you can’t keep changing the laws based on your partisan “wants.” The people elected Mitt Romney and that showed they trusted him enough to pick some guy to sit in the Senate for a few months.  You are elected for the people, not for yourselves.  Make up your mind and stick with it, even if it isn’t convenient in your partisan little world.

To few surprises, the national debate has moved past Obama’a birth certificate, and the Gates incident. To where it probably belongs, health care. Since our politicians spend all of their time arguing debating, they might as well do it on something worth while.

My problem with the debate is that it is not fair.  Many, many politicians (on both sides) receive substantial contributions from the health care industry.  Let’s take Ben Nelson (D-NE), a former health insurance exec, has received over $2 million dollars for his three campaigns. On which side is his bread buttered?

If I were to pay you $10,000 every year, as an insurance company, and told you that if you supported health care reform I would stop paying you.  Would you ever support health care reform? The answer is no. You like making money, you like being in office, so you’ve got to stay on their good side by opposing any meaningful bills.

This debate would be better represented if you took 535 citizens without pre-identified conclusions (about the debate), and then let each side tell all of them their story. Then let these citizens debate from the arguments they heard, and reach a conclusion.

I have changed the banner to better reflect the site and its purposes.  It is a picture from a recent trip to D.C. and is of (obviously) the Washington Monument taken from the WWII Memorial.

EDIT: If you cant view the new picture, you must delete your cache/temporary internet files.  (Which may take more effort than it is worth).

As you have probably heard by now, Arlen Specter, the longtime Pennsylvania Republican has switched to the Democratic Party.  He states that the switch is due to the shift of the Republican party to be more conservative.  This is entirely true, and probably the ultimate reason of him switching.

Once Al Franken is seated this will give Democrats the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. He is not doing this to give the Democrats the advantage though.  He is doing this for political survival.

Due to his very moderate stances, Specter was a prime target for a Republican challenge in the 2010 primaries.  In fact, he would likely have lost lost that primary to a more conservative challenger.  He would have been safe after making it past the primaries, but you have to make it to the general election to have a chance.

New polling shows that Arlen has a much better chance as a Democrat.  This move will probably save his political career.  I’m sure that if he wouldn’t face a major competitor in the primaries he would have remained in the Republican column.  The Republicans did it to themselves.

That polling shows a 71% approval/16% disapproval rating from Democrats, compared to 36% approval/52% disapproval from Republicans.  That is an insane approval rating for the opposite (now same) party.  After this switch I wouldn’t be surprised if the approval rating lowers for the Democrats.  When he was from the other party Democrats liked his moderateness and his willing to cross the aisle.  I think Democrats will be more disappointed when he sides with the Republicans.  Though, I think he will retain a positive approval rating.  His approval rating from Republicans may even go up in the long run (but probably down in the short).

The peace conference was meant to showcase South Africa’s leading human-rights efforts. Talk about irony.