Doug Jones, chairman of the board of the Colorado State University system, is a perfect example of why we do not want a "Christian" or any other religious influence in our political and governmental affairs.

Sound recording of CSU closed-door meeting

The board has agreed to pay legal fees for the Pueblo Chieftain, the Fort Collins Coloradan, and the Colorado Independent, three organizations that filed suit against the board for repeated violations of the Colorado Open Meetings law.

In a recording of the closed door meeting during which the board finally selected then vice-chairman Joe Blake to be university chancellor, board member Doug Jones went on about how efforts by the General Assembly to open the meetings was "un-Christian".

His logic escapes me, but apparently the rest of the board agreed, as they continued to fight to keep their shenanigans out of the public eye.

I would really like for Jones to explain to me the theological foundation for his reasoning. Meanwhile, Jones and his cronies continue to run the university system. We may not have that "Christian" nation the fundies go on about, but we apparently do have a "Christian" board of directors for the state university. I can only wonder if they will bring back burning at the stake those they deem to be heretics.

Here is an interesting commentary from Bill Jacobson over on Legal Insurrection:

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Is Back

It's based on an article in the current issue of Newsweek:

Polyamory: the next sexual revolution

If you thought the Fundies could come unhinged over gay marriage, what do you think they will do over this?

Even more interesting are some of the economic 'issues'. Many people don't really think of it, but one of the big arguments against gay marriage has nothing to do with either religion or morality - note that the two are not mutually inclusive.

Nope. It has to do with economics, with finances.

Benefits. Spousal benefits paid by employers. Health insurance, for example. Life insurance. It has to do with taxes. Lots of money in the game here.

Now, if we are going to recognized gay marriage, what possible argument can be presented against legitimizing - particularly for the purposes of collecting said benefits - these polyamoric relationships?

Gay rights activists are already distancing themselves from polyamoric relationships:

Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause—lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, "I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with." In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not. It's these dynamics that have made polyamory, as longtime poly advocate Anita Wagner puts it, "the political football in the culture war as it relates to same-sex marriage."

If that ain't a hoot, I don't know what is. Is the Gay Rights marriage thing about interpersonal love? Or is it simply about sexual orientation? Gay rights activists are fine with dumping the traditional vision of marriage, going on about gay couples who 'love' each other should be able to express this by way of the marriage union ... but they are not going to cut anyone else with ... 'non-traditional' ... views of human relationships any slack at all. Because if they do, it will cloud their own battle, and there's a lot of money at stake in that.

Amateur hour in the Orchid Office

It's amateur hour in the Orchid Office.

The Obamessiah is expressing 'surprise' at the controversy over his asinine remarks about Cambridge PD:

Obama surprised

Obama just doesn't get it.

It isn't the president's place to be up there, on prime-time TV, taking shots at the cops when he is basically clueless as to what went on. He assumed that because the 'victim' was black, and a pal of his, and cops were involved, that it was another one of those examples of racism on the part of the Po-Po.

We all know what 'assume' does.

It did.

Who's the racist here?

Further exacerbating his monumental presidential stupidity, Obama continues to stick his foot in his pie hole:

"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement," Obama said in an interview with ABC News, "because I think it was a pretty straightforward comment that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home."

Obama remains unconfused by fact. Gates was not 'in his own home' when he was arrested. He was outside, and he was highly agitated, and he was unresponsive to the officers. Any cop who has been on the streets more than a couple of months will tell you this is a recipe for disaster. The cane becomes a weapon. The agitation escalates to violence. It happens every day in this country, and cops get hurt over it. The fact that the escalatee is a Pillar of the Community is beside the point. Social position is no exemption to erratic or irrational or violent behavior. I could write a book about members of the Great, the Near-great, and the merely self-important of La Juntan society who had and who have the same attitude as Gates. No manners, no class, and showing their *sses all over the place. Leece saw that as Clerk of the Court, and that's where the title of her book comes from: "Who You Are is What You Get".

Obama needs to stick to his teleprompter.

Ensign's parents gave mistress nearly $100,000

The plot thickens, and gets increasingly bizarre, in the case of Sen. John Ensign's affair.

The Nevada Republican, through a written statement by his attorney, admitted Thursday that his parents paid the family of his mistress nearly $100,000 last year.

Here's a good observation:

"It just makes John Ensign look all the worse," [Sloan]said. "He's a senator, not a 12-year-old. Now he needs his parents to come in and clean up his mess?"

Republican senator Tom Coburn, from the Okie Bible Belt, has had his fingers in the Ensign pie from the beginning. He's the one that Hampton - husband and p*mp, or p*mp and husband, take your pick - alleges was talking money. Coburn refuses to discuss what advice he took, since Coburn is - naturally - a deacon. An ordained deacon. Well sure. Figuring out a fair settlement for clearing out one of those pesky "Family Values" things certainly comes under 'religious counselling'. Not only that, but Coburn is claiming doctor/patient confidentiality, since he is a physician, too.

Problem is ... Coburn is an obstetrician. Since Ensign is such a wussy, I wonder if his vagina was hurting. 

Roll Call reported Thursday that Coburn is claiming that because he gave the advice as a "physician and as an ordained deacon," he doesn't have to testify. Roll Call reported that Coburn cited constitutional protections for religious counseling as well as for patient confidentiality.

Coburn, though, is an obstetrician, making it unlikely that Ensign was a patient in the traditional sense.

Republicans. The party of Family Values. What a joke.

More embarrassment for John Ensign the senator that was boffing one of his staffers:

Ensign paid mistress severance, husband says
An excerpt:

Hampton told the newspaper that he learned of the affair between his friend the senator and his wife when he discovered an incriminating text message. He also detailed a February 2008 meeting in which he, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and others encouraged Ensign to end the affair, as well as the working relationship with the Hamptons. Hampton said Coburn and others tried to encourage Ensign to compensate the couple and help them relocate.

"These men were the ones that said, 'What we need to do is get Doug Hampton's home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money. We need to get his family to Colorado,"' Hampton said in the interview, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.