Water Torture, Not Water Boarding

I want to thank Devilstower (Mark Sumner) from DailyKos, for pointing something out to me today.

In 2004 the CIA first used the term "water boarding" as a joke on surf boarding. Before that it was called simply "water torture. "

And it is true, not sure about the joke on surf boarding, but the timing is accurate. Wikipedia has a somewhat extensive description of the etymology of the term "water boarding."

While the techniques involved in waterboarding have been used for centuries, the use of the phrase "waterboarding" to describe such techniques is a relatively recent phenomenon.

The first use of the term "water boarding" in the media was in a New York Times article of May 13, 2004:

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding', in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.

The American attorney Alan Dershowitz is reported to have been responsible, two days later, for shortening the term to a single word – "waterboarding" – in a Boston Globe article where he stated: "After all, the administration did approve rough interrogation methods for some high valued detainees. These included waterboarding...

So, I have an idea. From now on, we refer to this technique as what it is, "Water Torture." This is not to make it sound worse, rather, we should make it sound exactly as bad as it is. Next time you hear someone use the term "water boarding," please be sure to to enlighten them.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights? You Are Kidding, Right?

Like most of you, probably, I have become increasingly sick of the commercials being aired by the CPR talking, almost exclusively, about waiting lines in Canada. What this group has done, is highlighted some cases of people who were let down by a "Government run" health care system. I am not going to argue whether or not those people were let down, let us assume they were. Not a single, that is right, not a single universal health care advocate claims that a universal system would be perfect. We know, that occasionally, people will be let down by their health care system, regardless of what system that is.

So where this conversation should really be held, is on the basis of which system lets down fewer people, and which system does so fairly. For instance, conservatives love to bring up the waiting lines in Canada as a major reason not to switch to a single-payer system. First off, it is a myth that waiting lines in Canada are worse than in the US. If your procedure is urgently needed, it is provided. Only elective surgeries are put on hold in order to take care of the urgent needs first. And you know what? Waiting lines in the US do not include all the people that never get in line because they have no insurance and know they will not get care. Simply put, waiting lines in the US, if you include those people, are probably far worse than in Canada. The only difference is that someone went around our waiting line and said, "All those with lots of money, please come to the front." Our lines are based on who can afford the procedure, Canada's are based on who needs it most.

For every person the CPR finds who is unhappy with a "Government run" health care system, we can find 50, or 100, who are unhappy with ours. And there is one thing that is more telling than any personal story whatsoever, and that is the numbers. So please, go do some research. Check out how much money per capita we spend on health care compared to Canada, or the UK, or, gasp, France. Check out how many people we have uninsured compared to them (hint: they're number is infinitely closer to zero than ours is). Check out what percentage of our uninsured are working full time. Check out where our nation, the most prosperous in the world, stands on life expectancy. Check out where we stand on infant mortality rates. I am not going to give you these statistics because I want you to google them. It is that easy. Literally search "Where does the US stand on life expectancy compared to other nations?" You'll get plenty of results.

UPDATE: Thanks go out to pkdu over at democraticunderground.com for pointing out this tidbit of information about the CPR spokesman and the health care company he created:

which company did he create ? Columbia/HCA

and what fine did Columbia/HCA pay in Dec 2000 " pleaded guilty to criminal conduct and paid out $840m in criminal fines, civil penalties and damages for alleged unlawful billing practices in what the US government described as 'the largest government fraud settlement ever reached by the Justice Department'."
http://www.againstcorruption.org/briberycase.asp?id=841

This astroturf frontman should be thanking his lucky stars every day he's not in prison.

That makes perfect sense. If you are planning on convincing American's of the "horrors" of universal health care, you need someone that knows a thing or two about defrauding the general public. Also, if you read the link, this guys hatred for the British health care system might have something to do with the fact that his company was one of the bidders to be a part of it, they just lost the bid.

Abstinence Works 100% of the Time... Almost

100% of the time. That's the claim made by one of those beloved freepers, and backed up by several posters. And they are right, abstinence works 100% of the time, if you do not count all those that were taught abstinence only and ignored it. I should cough here, and under my breath mutter, "Bristol Palin."

This poster goes on to quote the World Health Organization (I should note that he/she failed to provide a link to the source so readers can see for themselves). The WHO says that, with perfect use of a condom, the pregnancy rate is "is 3 percent at 12 months." The WHO does not clarify, but my interpretation of that statistic is that after 12 months of sexual activity (which is not defined) there is a 3% chance that your condom has failed. The poster left out the 12 months part. Mostly because he/she was trying to say that every 30 times you have sex, based on that 3%, your condom has failed once. If fact, this poster went even further:

That means by the 30th time, the couple that uses condoms “perfectly” have already conceived or will do so very soon!

That is false. In fact, it is a complete and utter lie. Not only does it completely ignore the 12 months phrasing, but a condom failing does not mean you have conceived. Ask any couple having trouble conceiving.

However, we can leave that alone. We progressives never, ever, ever, ever, ever claimed condoms to be 100% effective. And we have never argued that abstinence is not the most effective step you can take to ensure you will not get, or get someone else, pregnant, or transmit an STD. Nor have we ever argued that abstinence should not be a part of any sexual education plan. What we progressives really want is a comprehensive sexual education plan that states abstinence as the most effective method of preventing pregnancy and STD's, but informs our youths of the steps one can take to minimize the risk if partaking in sexual activity. Notice my specific phrasing, "minimize the risk." We are not anti-abstinence, we are just not stupid enough to believe abstinence only is enough.

Rather, it is the conservatives, really just the neoconservatives and the religious right, that want factual and relevant information denied to our young.

I Should Be Getting Laid More

Cross-posted at DailyKos

By now, we have all heard about Miss California's remarks on gay marriage. While I completely disagree with her belief on this issue, this is an opportunity to engage the nation, and many people that might not otherwise be engaged, in a serious discussion about the suffering, and the hopes, of American homosexuals.

I find this topic hinges on one major point: is homosexuality a choice?

They, as in the homophobic movement, tell us it is. That is why, they say, you cannot compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement in the 60's and 70's. They say, "It's different. You are born black, or brown, or white, or whatever, but you choose to be gay."

This, of course, begs the immediate question of, "When did you choose to be straight?" Think about yourself, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If you are straight, you're not attracted to everyone of the opposite sex right? And at least once, in your lifetime, you thought someone was pretty fucking hot and your best friend thought your were nuts, right? Or maybe your friend thought someone was hot who you would not ever touch? But that's just physical attraction.

When we get into personal attraction the divide grows larger. You and your friend will likely disagree more often on who is personally attractive. And you definitely do not choose. You do not decide, out of nowhere, "Well, I really hate this person, and I find him/her ugly, but I think we'll get married." Okay, okay, gold diggers. Sure, but that's considered immoral isn't it? Are we not taught by our parents, our teachers, our role models, that we should marry the person we love? Not the person with money, or power, or fame. Not the person that will make your life easier.

What we are asking homosexuals to do, if they wish to get married, is to choose who they are attracted to both physically and personally. This is asking an unfair burden. This is asking a burden that is not asked of heterosexuals, any longer. It is segregation. And the truly disgusting side effects of this government sanctioned segregation are; the people who feel their hatred affirmed, the beatings, the murders, the rapes, the barrage of insults and humiliation, that often lead to suicide.

All this, because some people think that homosexuals choose to be that way, because they believe it is acceptable to hate something they deem a choice.

So, I will end with this. If it truly is a choice who you are attracted to, I should be getting laid way more than I do. If only I could choose to be attracted to anyone, I would never have to go without. Sadly, that is not the way the world works. I do not get to choose who I am attracted to.