Sit down and shut up - Tricky Dick Cheney

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it," was how Lord John Acton worded his rejection of the idea that popes and kings could do no wrong.

That quote was stuck in my head as I watched our former v.p., Dick Cheney, trying in vain to defend his administration's legacy of military aggression, torture, and secrecy in the name of national security. The speech wasn't half-bad as revisionist history, and it may have worked if it hadn't immediately followed President Obama speaking on the same subject. For six or seven years, Cheney has been telling us that based on the intelligence he's seen, the extraordinary lengths his administration went to were necessary. For the past six or seven months, Barack Obama has seen the exact same intelligence — and he's saying Cheney is wrong. The time has come for the former vice president to do what the former president has done since leaving office: sit down and shut up.

It's tough for Cheney to ride off into the Wyoming sunset because he's been around Washington for decades, served every Republican president since Richard Nixon, and has never been more than an election cycle or two away from a job in the White House. He's been minority whip in Congress, White House chief of staff for Gerald Ford, secretary of defense for George H. W. Bush, and after heading up the committee to select George W. Bush's running mate in 2000, had the power to pick himself. So he did.

I don't believe he ever took young George Bush seriously as an authority figure, and that led to what Cheney described to former Vice President Dan Quayle as a "different understanding with the president" about what his role would be. Instead of fundraising and funerals, Cheney would essentially run the White House (and the Executive Branch) as a "surrogate chief of staff," and would always be the last person in the room with The Decider. That special relationship — plus Congressional authorization to use force in response to the hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001 and a letter from some hack lawyers saying the president is infallible during wartime — basically left Cheney free to break the law.

And break the law he did. His office leaked classified information about an undercover CIA agent named Valerie Plame to discredit her husband, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy. On their watch, the NSA tapped domestic phone calls in a massive data-collection effort and the CIA disappeared people off the street, stuck them in Guantanamo and secret prisons in eastern Europe, interrogated them using "enhanced techniques" that were, in fact, torture, then exported those torture techniques to places like Abu Ghraib. They even held American citizens in custody without charging them with any crimes. They tainted the White House, polluted the press, compromised the intelligence community, and dishonored the military — all in the name of our security.

So there was the most powerful vice president in American history standing in the Hall of Evil that is the American Enterprise Institute trying to claim the bottom line is that his administration has kept us safe since their wake-up call on Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, that assumes I give them a pass for not keeping us safe on that day — and I don't. I was there, so I can't. Not when the president's daily brief warned them about what was coming in no uncertain terms on Aug. 6, 2001 — and was ignored. Not when counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke was running around with his "hair on fire" trying to warn them something big was coming — and was demoted. Not when they took office with the official military response to the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole on their to-do list — and did nothing. Sorry, Dick, but there is no way to prove why something didn't happen; though the ignored PDB, the demoted counter-terrorism expert, and the impotent response to the Cole bombing go a long way toward demonstrating why the hijackings of that September morning did happen. They happened because you failed to keep us safe.

With its casual relationship with the rule of law, its disastrous war policies, and the belief in a strong unitary executive, I thought the Nixon administration would go down as the most corrupt in history. Then came George W. Bush and the Nixon holdover Cheney — one tricky Dick picking up right where the other left off. He still loves Nixon's idea of the wartime president as a tyrant American king with the power to rule the courts and the Congress, and he played that role for most of their first term. But after losing three Supreme Court cases, two national elections, and the confidence of his boss, he was marginalized to the point where he couldn't even get a pardon for his convicted felon former chief of staff. And all Dick Cheney will be remembered for is basically being fired by the worst president ever.

Faking the funk - Advice for Spencer Pratt aka "Great White"

Rap music has been officially dead to me for about six months. If we played a game of Clue to figure out who killed it, the answer would be, "Kanye West, in studio 8H at Rockefeller Center, with a lipstick-red microphone." Instead of crying about it, I turned to "The Low End Theory" by A Tribe Called Quest for validation of "industry rule No. 4,080: record company people are shady," and De La Soul's "Buhloone Mind State" for reassurance that their music "might blow up, but it won't go pop." Since December, when Kanye killed the music of my life, I've gone back to a time before rap went platinum to await its rebirth.

I'm confident that artists like Lupe Fiasco and Charles Hamilton will eventually be the lyrical defibrillators who bring the music back from the dead, but I'm concerned about the post-"808's & Heartbreak" landscape that allows somebody like reality-TV personality and aspiring rap vulture, Spencer Pratt, to think he can pick over the body. I'm not worried about what he might do to the music (nothing could be worse than Kanye's "Love Lockdown" on SNL) as much as I'm worried about what some other wannabe-rapper might do to him. It's hard out here for a pimp — and there is something Spencer needs to know before he books any studio time.

If you don't know who Spencer Pratt is, consider yourself lucky. As the All-American-frat-boy-you-love-to-hate on MTV's faux-reality show, "The Hills," he's the guy Andy Warhol had in mind when he said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes.

Spencer is at about minute 10 — and apparently has decided the best way to extend those last five minutes is to release a rap album under the name "Great White." I'm not sure if he's referring to the boxer or the shark, but it doesn't really matter because either way, it ends badly.

Judging by his interview in Complex magazine, it seems as though his plan for breaking into rap music is to pick fights with people. His first target was Asher Roth of "I Love College" fame. "I'm so paid, and he's broke," Spencer said, "simple as that. That's my whole point, being that I'm fly with tons of money, and he doesn't have that yet." Then he compared himself and his wife, Heidi, to Shawn Carter (aka Jay-Z, of whom Spencer claims to be the white version) and Beyonce Knowles, saying Mrs. Pratt is "a little bit more than the white Beyoncé. Beyoncé had to be built by a group like Destiny's Child, but Heidi shines solo." He goes on to say, "I'll actually give you an exclusive: I could guarantee you Speidi's [Spencer and Heidi's] 'Bonnie & Clyde' version is going to stunt on Jay and B's version."

Of course, there is no danger to Spencer in making either of those statements. While a lot of records have been sold thanks to drama with Jay-Z (see: Cent, 50 and Wayne, Lil), I'm pretty sure his reaction to the interview would be, "What the @$#% is a Spencer Pratt?" And Asher Roth doesn't want beef with anyone unless it's his mom's brisket.

Being public enemy No. 1 on "The Hills" is one thing, but being an enemy of the state in hip-hop nation is much riskier. In Spike Lee's incredible "Bamboozled," Damon Wayans learns that lesson the hard way. I'm not saying a group of black-nationalist rap revolutionaries are going to kidnap him, tie him to a chair, and give him the full Guantanamo. But I wouldn't be surprised if Great White found himself in the middle of a good old-fashioned Public Enemy-style bum-rush (Google it) if he ever tried to get on a stage and grab a microphone. And I promise you that afterward, neither the scene nor our little Spencie-poo would be pretty.

The problem with embarking on a career in rap music as a tongue-in-cheek, joking way to possibly make money off ring tones (Spencer's stated ambition with this project, should it ever actually happen) is that there are a lot of rappers out there who take their music and their job title very seriously.

They believe in living their lives like they've got nothing to lose — also known as "keeping it real" — and they won't tolerate a "phony rapper" or "sucker MC." Young Mr. Pratt is both and he knows it. It will be interesting to see what happens when a guy who made his name on "reality TV" gets an unexpected dose of reality served up to him at one of his own shows without a producer telling him what to do next or a director who can stop the action by yelling, "cut!"

Keep your beliefs to yourself - Marriage equality and California law

The response to last week's column calling out conservative Christian talk show host Matt Barber for defending Miss California from the gossip blogger known as Perez Hilton was so one-sided that I am writing this week's column as a public service. To all of you who don't believe that two people of the same sex should have the same right to marry that two people of opposite sexes have, I understand if your beliefs (religious or otherwise) compel you to live your life a certain way. You need to understand America is a pluralistic country where groups of people are free to develop and maintain their own culture as a part of our larger society. As long as your rights and freedoms aren't violated, you have to be tolerant of those groups — even if you don't like it. The sooner you accept that, the better off we'll all be.

Historically speaking, minorities, women, seniors, the disabled, and gay people haven't always enjoyed the equal protection guaranteed to us in the Constitution. It got to be so bad that each of those groups had to eventually become a "protected class" of people under the law. That means it became illegal to treat us any differently because we're not physically able, straight, white men below the retirement age — and it means anyone who does could be guilty of a crime. However you dress it up and whatever belief system you use to justify it, discriminating against other people is wrong — even if a strange quirk in California's Constitution allows a ballot measure like Proposition 8 to make it "legal."

A lot of the current arguments for defending "traditional" marriage (between a man and a woman) from same-sex couples wanting their union to be recognized by the state were used to defend "traditional" marriage (between a white man and a white woman) from interracial couples wanting their union to be recognized by the state. Lawyers for the state of California successfully advocated for anti-miscegenation laws, saying they wanted to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior ... (and entered into by) the dregs of society." And for almost a century, the Golden State was tarnished by allowing racism to be codified into law.

Just as we eventually agreed that the law banning interracial marriage was wrong, we will agree that a law banning same-sex marriage is wrong. If you don't think so, try explaining to a 12-year-old that two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together can't get married because they have the same junk. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that kid will say "so what?"

Anyone who would take the right to marry each other away from same-sex couples should rent the movie "Philadelphia" starring Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, and Antonio Banderas. It was "inspired" by the story of an HIV-positive lawyer who was fired from his firm (despite excellent job performance) and files a discrimination suit. Hanks and Banderas are a couple and — as tough as this is for a straight man to say — they are absolutely adorable. They share a home, they share family members, they share their lives, they take care of each other, and they are obviously madly in love. But without being able to have their union recognized, they wouldn't necessarily be able to visit each other in the hospital, be covered by each others' health insurance, or see to each others' last wishes. There is a great scene where Denzel, a homophobic attorney who initially declined to take Hanks' case (but eventually does), bumps into him at a law library. A librarian approaches Hanks announcing that he has found a book on AIDS discrimination and Denzel notices people staring, then moving away. The librarian says to Hanks, "Sir, wouldn't you be more comfortable in a study room?" Tom looks up, sees people watching him, and responds, "No. Would it make you more comfortable?"

That's the question all you people who e-mailed me have to answer: Should gay and lesbian people have to be relegated to another room because seeing two men or two women proclaim their love for each other makes you uncomfortable? If your answer is "yes," please consider this column as your wake-up call. You don't realize yet that those are your family members, friends, and neighbors you're discriminating against. History isn't on your side, neither is the Book of Luke ("as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them") or the Book of Matthew ("whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"). You can still believe whatever you want to believe and live your life the way you want to live it, just don't stand in the way of other people who want to do the same. It costs you nothing to pay them no mind.

Speak for yourself - Miss California vs. Perez Hilton

As your friendly neighborhood columnist, it occasionally falls to me to call people out when they've done wrong. I don't always like it, but I have to do it. I took no pleasure in reminding Tina Fey that identity politics is not feminism (when she tried to revive Hillary Clinton's campaign last year with her "bitch is the new black" endorsement) right before the Ohio and Texas primaries, but I did it because it had to be done. I don't have the same problem with the person I'm putting on blast this week because while I've got a lot of love for Tina, I can't say the same for J. Matt Barber, the lawyer and conservative Christian radio talk show host who wrote the "Perez Hilton: The foul face of gay activism" piece published in this paper last Thursday. That guy is as wrong as two left feet.

If you missed it, Barber didn't like the way pageant judge Perez Hilton responded to the answer Miss California, the "openly Christian" Carrie Prejean, gave to a question about same-sex marriage in the Miss USA pageant. Barber attempts to cast Carrie as the "Beauty" and Perez as the "Beast" in a battle to see which side of the same-sex marriage issue has more "class."

Putting aside the fact that Perez' whole existence is an off-shoot of the unfortunate Paris Hilton phenomenon (so the clock is ticking on his 15 minutes of fame), very few people would regard a celebrity gossip blogger as a spokesman for equal rights for gay couples.

And I think Perez would agree that you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would think of him, a man who routinely draws poop on pictures of people, when they think of "class."

Barber wanted us all to believe he was writing because he felt compelled to defend Prejean, who he claimed was being attacked (and didn't win the title of Miss USA) because her answer reflected her religious beliefs. If anything, she didn't win because she expanded on her answer to include her religious beliefs and offended a lot of people in the process.

She could have just said, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.

We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," and left people thinking she's a little dim. But she went on to say, "and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," and left people thinking she's a bigot.

What I don't understand is why Barber picked this particular horse to ride. He's a self-styled champion for family values who rushed to the defense of a young woman who is supposed to be a religious conservative, but struts her surgically-augmented stuff around on stage in a bikini and high heels so people like Perez and Donald Trump can "judge" her on her physical beauty. I don't get why she became his cause celebre when morally speaking, she's only a step above a Web cam girl.

The blogger vs. the beauty queen is a totally ridiculous fight for Matt Barber to pick, and the fact that he tried to set it up that way shows what a fraud he really is. He says that Carrie "has given liberals a clinic in class," while Perez "has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism" because that's what this is all about for this associate dean at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University Law School: defeating the "liberal activism" which would grant the same rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples.

As director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, his stated goal is to make religion (his religion, not necessarily yours or mine) a bigger part of public life and public policy — so that he and people like him can dictate morality to the rest of us. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, Matt, but in America there is this document called the Constitution containing a little thing called the Establishment Clause which officially separates any church from the state.

In this country, you have the right to consider two men in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship to be "immoral" if your church says so — and those two men have the right to enter into a legally-binding marriage contract with each other, no matter what your church says.

Those men, like the rest of us, don't need you or your church to dictate what's right and what's wrong — though Carrie Prejean might ask for forgiveness now that the inevitable topless photos of your religious conservative beauty queen have surfaced.

Some say if you don't like abortion, don't have an abortion. To you, Matt Barber, I say if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry a man.