Miss California may lose her crown over nude pictures---but she's still against Gay Marriage.

You'd think that after repeated displays of hypocrisy throughout time, that those positioning themselves as "moral" paragons, taking a stand on some controversial issue would realize what idiots their actions bespeak.

What am I blathering about?

Miss California and her stupid public statement against Gay Marriage.

Why is it hypocritical?

Because she is positioning herself as an upstanding Christian, but has posed nude.

If you'll recall, Vanessa Williams lost her crown for posing nude back in the '80's.

Now we have this Prejean woman claiming to be an upstanding Christian, and asserting (much to Perez Hilton's chagrin...) that Gay Marriage is wrong.

I don't get it. If you plan to take a moral stand, shouldn't you have the brains to make sure you've not done something stupid in your past? When the Moral police complain that the "liberals" call them stupid, maybe it's because they do stupid things like Miss Prejean.

Irony---it's what makes life worth living sometimes.

Murtha's nephew may have gotten $4 million in no-bid contract---Drop in the bucket compared to Halliburton.

Graft on the federal level--hell, on any level--is serious business.

When John Murtha's nephew gets a no-bid, defense contract worth $4 million, then it must be investigated. If anything wrong occurred, then the offending parties should pay the price.

But before we start jumping on $4 million, we must first investigate and prosecute the billions of dollars spent on no-bid contracts that went to Halliburton. We all know that Halliburton was the former employer of Dick Cheney and that Rumsfeld's defense department awarded those no-bid contracts.

Making matters worse is that Halliburton allegedly over-charged after short-circuiting the contract process.

I suspect that Republicans are doing everything they can to neutralize Murtha since he has a distinguished military career.

Let's do investigations all around.

Supreme Court wants to review the Janet Jackson breast video...again. Guess Justice Thomas' porn subscription ran out....

Apparently, the Supreme court wants another look at the Janet Jackson Superbowl wardrobe malfunction.

My suspicion is that Justice Clarence Thomas was behind the need for the male-dominated Supreme Court "needing to review the case again."

In the real world, I suppose it's hard (no pun intended) for the Justices to get their porn fix, so they gotta do what they gotta do.

Too bad this issue is really stupid. It highlights the inane things the Court finds itself being asked to resolve.

RNC attempting to set Steele up for failure because they're devoid of ideas.

After the election of Michael Steele to the chairmanship of the RNC, I thought that maybe, the Republicans were beginning to turn a corner.

Apparently I was mistaken.

The RNC is attempting to hamstring Mr. Steele by limiting his ability to spend RNC cash without a permission slip.

Even Newt Gingrich calls the RNC a bunch "ego maniacs."

Here's my two cents: Many of the RNC want a fall guy. Mr. Steele is the guy out front, he's also African-American. Limiting his ability to spend money is the quickest route to setting him up for failure. The RNC will have someone to blame (Steele) and it will further their pretext racism by having the stool pigeon (Steele) be African-American too.

Let's watch and see if I'm right.

White Collar criminals should go to the same prisons as the hard cases.

I don't know how I feel about this.

I have a serious problem with dividing the prison system into two camps--one for the hard criminals and one for the soft criminals.

Personally, I think all criminals should go to the same jail.

It doesn't matter to me that someone has an education and committed embezzlement of $50 million dollars as opposed to knocking over a liquor store for $200.

Crime is still a crime. Criminals should all pay the same penalty at the same venue.