Gratuitous Common Sense

By now, it’s no secret that I have been curiously intrigued by Ron Paul. He is running for President, and hasn’t a Jesus’s chance in Hell™ of getting the Republican Neocon party nomination. I continue to follow his thoughts and comments on all of the issues, and I must say that one commenter on my first Ron Paul post was right; the more I learn, the more I like him as a candidate for President.

The video below is an inspirational (at least for me) compilation of Ron Paul moments and quotes. He sincerely understands what so many people ignore in these elections, the role of a President: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The completely irrational part of my brain holds onto a small hope that current polling frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain, are 2008’s Howard Deans, while Ron Paul is come-from-behind-Kerry in the primaries. But current polls still put Ron Paul at nothing above 2%, which is behind, at least, a mormon, an actor that hasn’t done any campaigning or debating, and a son of a preacher - living in the 21st century - who thinks evolution is a bunch of crap.

There have been numerous slights against Ron Paul by the media. Comments on message boards deleted, entire pages removed, polls changed after the fact, etc. In explanations of these actions, most of it is blamed on so-called Ron Paul spammers, who allegedly bombard message boards and online polls, and skew the results and the conversation. I mean, these would have to be some highly organized groups of individuals operating with military precision and an empire’s reach. There’s a virtual plethora of conspiracy theories coming from both sides - Ron Paul supporters claiming a conspiracy among Mainstream Media (MSM), political parties/groups, and corporate America, and Neocons and Media claiming a conspiracy among a small group of Ron Paul supporters and campaign lackeys…

One thing is for sure: Ron Paul supporters are effective at coordinating and mobilizing online quickly. For the three GOP debates so far, Paul has won or placed high in most of the unscientific online surveys including ABC’s, MSNBC’s, FOX’s, and unscientific polls conducted on a number of blogs.

Of course!! This is the only explanation. It can’t be that the people who are actually paying more than a fruit fly’s amount of attention to what’s being said are finding Ron Paul to be the clear winner. Scientific polls that survey the willfully ignorant and party faithful (a truly significant statistical sample) will tell us who really articulates the best message in the debates.

While all this is going on, everyone is failing to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room, in the form of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nobody really knew about (or remembered, depending on your age) Ron Paul until his explosive and thought-provoking comments in the first Republican Primary debate. In a field of 10 candidates, he is afforded unequal and minimal time to express those comments by moderators (read: MSM). Why? Well, the scientific polling that is done by organized pollsters shows Ron Paul consistently around 1 or 2 percent. So the MSM debate moderators use this as an excuse to devote more time to those with higher poll numbers. Are you seeing the circle developing?

In an effort to break into mainstream American consciousness and get higher in the polls, candidates need high poll numbers to begin with. You see, in order to get higher poll numbers they need to be covered by the MSM, but in order to be covered more by the MSM, they need higher poll numbers.

So the self-fulfilling prophecy is the idea that they don’t need to cover someone like Ron Paul, because he is not getting very high poll numbers, and when they don’t cover him, less people become aware of him and his message, and his poll numbers stay low. Failing to acknowledge their own role in affecting knowledge, awareness, and ultimately, poll numbers, the MSM simply perpetuates their image as a mouthpiece for the establishment, powerful, and elite.

Barring a catastrophic event, on the order of 9/11, that thrusts Ron Paul into the national consciousness, the MSM can simply wash their hands of him (how dare I suggest that Saint Rudy benefits from “the attacks” more than anyone else). Unless they are forced to cover him, they won’t.

Is Exposure Good for Ron Paul?

That being said, perhaps the scrutiny that comes with more exposure is not what Ron Paul needs or wants. For someone like me, who only started paying real attention to politics shortly before he/she was able to vote, Ron Paul’s run for presidency in 1988 is a virtual non-event. And the relative isolation he has endured (or enjoyed) in a small district in Texas since then is working in his favor, in a way.

He is being attacked from the right, by the likes of hate-monger Michelle Malkin. He is being attacked from the left, by phenry on Daily Kos.

Both sides are misconstruing or misunderstanding Ron Paul’s libertarian bent. And both authors fault Ron Paul for the people that come out in support of his candidacy or ideals, or otherwise find him appealing. Malkin for the “9/11 conspiracy theorists” and phenry on Daily Kos for the likes of Larry Pratt, “secessionists“, and being on the same radio program as Prussian Blue once was.

I say that they are misconstruing his position because they repeatedly equate giving an interview or a speech to questionable or fringe groups as reason to question Ron Paul himself. And yet, people at Daily Kos aren’t at all bashful about attacking BushCo when they do the exact opposite - refuse to allow certain people (read: anyone who might disagree with them) access to them, their speeches, or their interviews. After at least 7 years of that nonsense, pontificating your message in front of any free person willing to listen is, apparently, a wholly unfamiliar concept.

As another example, phenry at Daily Kos, willfully ignores Ron Paul’s reasoning on the Defense of Marriage Act, and unnecessarily simplifies the issue to a fault, by attacking him for supporting it. Phenry doesn’t care that his priority, limiting the power of (federal) government, is a more appropriate concern with regard to that act than changing the definition of marriage as currently recognized by the states. Phenry also uses this as a reason to attack Ron Paul on the issue of gay rights, but oddly, does not applaud Paul for his apparent defense of gay rights when he refused to support the constitutional amendment that would have abolished same-sex marriage. I mean, as long as you’re oversimplifying the issue, it seems that applauding him for this would be the only logical reaction. No?

One thing that is unavoidable is that people will buy the oversimplified crap that these guys are selling. Just like Iraq “had ties” with Al-Qeada, Ron Paul has or had “ties” with some questionable organizations, publications, and people. And when it comes to your image in front of the American people, as we have seen in the past, the frailty of these ties does not seem to matter. The order of magnitude or degree is unimportant, it is a yes or no question, black or white.

And if that’s the case, will Ron Paul be able to hold up under that scrutiny should he become a central figure in the race for President?

It is worth mentioning that some have accused Ron Paul of making some highly questionable racist comments in the past. They cite mostly second or third-hand sources. And the comments seem diametrically opposed to even some comments that appear in the video above. But Ron Paul’s explanation, as given by the people attacking him, doesn’t seem to answer the questions that would undoubtedly grow in number and ferocity should he break through as a candidate to be reckoned with. But it is my suspicion that this may fall into the same category as the other fallacious arguments put forth by those on the attack.

Here’s hoping he reaches a level where the MSM and the people feel it worthwhile to ask him those questions, make him answer, and feel it worthwhile to really listen when he does. We’ll see.

Share This

To ban or not to ban, that is the question… that is being asked about rolling sneakers.

I was browsing around the news sites yesterday when I came across the following bit on the front page of msnbc.com:

What caught my eye was the second headline, “Rolling sneakers blamed for injuries hike”. But not so much for the headline itself, as what immediately followed, “Ban ‘em?” As if that should be our first reaction when we find that the kids who wear these sneakers with hidden wheels, called “Heelys”, are getting injured because of their inability to heed the warnings that are issued with every purchase.

You can read the actual story here.

The link to for the “Ban ‘em?” question leads to a survey that asks, “Should rolling sneakers be banned?” And what I always hate about these questions is that they fail to specify who, exactly, is doing the banning.

Are we talking about schools, or malls, or other high traffic establishments banning their use to protect fellow pedestrians? Or are we talking about a complete outright ban of the shoes, in the form of a law or an ordinance, in order to protect the would-be roller?

In the case of the former, it’s relatively easy to understand why making rules against their use would be beneficial, and welcomed in most cases. For schools, it’s akin to outlawing running in the hall. A time honored tradition that has set the speed limit in school hallways at around 4mph. For places like malls, it’s been likened to roller-blading or skateboarding, which can present numerous risks where groups of people gather.

However, in the case of the latter, to ban their use would be a blatant restriction of freedom in the name of safety. Or creating a Nanny-state, as some would call it. It takes responsibility away from the parents and the kids who wear these things. And I can only assume that this is what the question is actually asking, because it already notes in the article that many malls and schools have banned them.

After complaining about the injuries that her son sustained while using these rolling sneakers, Nancy Woelfel of Davidsonville, Maryland, said that other parents should know about the risks. As in, other parents should read the warnings that come with the shoe. Certainly that’s what she meant. I would just be plain cynical to assume that she was talking about anything else.

One of the shoe’s manufacturers, and the product’s adopted namesake, Heelys, has the safety gear warnings posted all over their website. They encourage the practice of ALWAYS using protective gear in statements similar to this one:

Important:
We always recommend that anyone who attempts to use HEELYS in any capacity should ALWAYS wear full protective gear, including: helmets, wrist, elbow, and knee pads. The video you are about to watch contains footage of highly skilled, trained, professional, adult skate team members, some of whom may not be wearing full gear. These should only be attempted by professionals. NEVER use HEELYS in an unsafe manner, and NEVER WITHOUT full protective gear. By clicking on the videos to view them, you understand and accept our warning.

But leave it to the mainstream media to play on the fear of injury and the penchant to shirk responsibility. I especially like how they added the note that, “some walkers find heelers who zip in and out of crowds a nuisance.” As if mere annoyance is enough to justify regulating the behavior of others.

Whatever is going on, it’s apparent that the warnings are not enough. Kids are getting injured for chrissakes!! Something has to be done! I know… let’s ban ‘em!

Share This

…a little. But that’s more than I can say for most of the current republican candidates for president.

In the wake of the first republican presidential debate, there are a number of self-proclaimed “true” conservatives decrying the mainstream media’s outright shunning of Ron Paul. Some of them even going so far as to declare that there’s an organized conspiracy by the media against Ron Paul to 1) assure that Hillary Clinton wins the White House or 2) assure that democrat-in-sheep’s-clothing John McCain wins the White House or 3) assure that [take your pick from the a la carte menu offered by the damned liberal media machine].

As someone who didn’t even watch the debate, I hadn’t even heard of Ron Paul until I came across a few people whining about the lack of coverage. Personally, I don’t buy their assumptions about why it’s being done. I’m much more apt to attribute the failure to general incompetence as a news organization. But given some of the polling statistics released after the debate, it’s hard to argue that there isn’t a failure on their part.

According to a rating window on the MSNBC.com website at 8:10 ET on May 4th, Ron Paul was carrying the highest positive rating (with 72,419 votes in at the time)…

32% - Paul
30% - Romney
26% - Giuliani
21% - McCain
14% - Huckabee
9% - Brownback
9% - Tancredo
8% - Hunter
8% - Thompson
6% - Gilmore

Not only that, he also had the lowest negative rating…

29% - Paul
35% - Romney
37% - Huckabee
40% - Giuliani
42% - McCain
43% - Gilmore
43% - Hunter
45% - Thompson
45% - Tancredo
46% - Brownback

Furthermore, on another MSNBC poll Ron Paul is as far from the rest of the pack as one can get.

Here is the top three for each of the other pertinent questions…

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

The truth is that my favorite movie, currently, is V for Vendetta. In the movie there is a quote that says, “Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.” And I’ve always thought that this is displayed no more prominently than on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.

The show isn’t necessarily full of lies, per se, but it does use clever editing and trite sarcasm to get its point across. By its own admission the show is full of “fake” news. And yet, somehow, viewers are able to get a clearer picture of the truth than they do on some major cable news networks.

This was the subject of an interview that Bill Moyers did with Jon Stewart on his April 27, 2007 edition of Bill Moyers Journal.

The truth is that we need to stop treating this country like it’s merely a colorful top in a game of who can spin it the fastest. Jon Stewart does an excellent job of cutting through the spin and talking points with some of his answers during the interview.

On the Administration:

JON STEWART: …They would rather us believe them to be wildly incompetent and inarticulate than to let us know anything about how they operate. And so, they do Constitutionally-mandated things most of the time, but they don’t — they fulfill the letter of their obligation to checks and balances, but not the intent.

For instance, Alberto Gonzales, and you’ve been watching the hearings. He is either a perjurer, or a low-functioning pinhead. And he allowed himself to be portrayed in those hearings as a low-functioning pinhead, rather than give the Congressional Committee charged with oversight, any information as to his decision-making process at the Department of Justice.

And I used to think, “They’re doing this based on a certain arrogance.” And now, I realize that it’s because they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you’re done.

BILL MOYERS: They’re right, are they not?

JON STEWART: They’re completely not right. The election moment is merely the American public saying, “We’d rather you be President than that guy.” That’s it. The next four years, though, you still have to abide by the oversight process that is there to prevent this kind of bizarre sort of cult-like atmosphere that falls along. I mean, I accept that kind of veil of secrecy around Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, but I don’t accept that around our government.

More specifically on Alberto Gonzales and his hearings in the Senate:

JON STEWART: And by the way, that was all just — that was a game, and he knew it, and the guys on the committee knew it. And for the President to come out after that and say, “Everything I saw there gave me more confidence in him,” that solidified my notion that, “Oh, it’s because what he expected of Gonzalez was” it’s sort of like, do you remember in GOODFELLAS? When Henry Hill got arrested for the first time and Robert DeNiro met him at the courthouse and Henry Hill was really upset, ’cause he thought Robert DeNiro would be really mad at him. And DeNiro comes up to him and he gives him a $100 and he goes, “You got pinched. We all get pinched, but you did it right, you didn’t say nothing.”

BILL MOYERS: Gonzales said nothing.

JON STEWART: Right. And “you went up there and said nothing. You gave them no legal recourse against you, and you made yourself a smart man, a self-made man look like an utter pinhead on national television, and you did it for me.”

And I cannot, for the life of me, remember a more truthful statement from anyone on Iraq and the current Administration:

JON STEWART: You know, one of the things that I do think government counts on is that people are busy. And it’s very difficult to mobilize a busy and relatively affluent country, unless it’s over really crucial– you know, foundational issues. That come sort of to sort of a tipping point.

BILL MOYERS: War? War?

JON STEWART: But war that hasn’t affected us here, in the way that you would imagine a five-year war would affect a country. I think that’s why they’re so really — here’s the disconnect. It’s sort of this odd and I’ve always had this problem with the rationality of it. That the President says, “We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. “And, so what I’m going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children’s children all suffer. So, what I’m gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad.”

So, there’s a disconnect there between — you’re telling me this is fight of our generation, and you’re going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that’s gonna do it. I’m sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can’t, because he doesn’t have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that, suddenly the country’s not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart. So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we’re doing and really examine how it is that they’ve been waging this.

There are also some very good moments that refer back to Stewart’s interview with Jon McCain the week before, where he challenged McCain to also address the conversation we should be having, instead of repeating talking points and avoiding the issue as he did.

The video is worth the watch.

Share This

This is absolutely unbelievable to me, but Paula Zahn has managed to do it again - allowing a gratuitously unchecked forum where Christians bash Atheists on CNN. The absolute unabashed bigotry is appalling. The hypocrisy seems to escape these folks.

Note: This video is from the January 31, 2007 edition of Paula Zahn Now, but I felt compelled, however belated, to comment on it anyway.

Notice how the video starts off? Paula Zahn says:

We’re talking about whether there is widespread discrimination against Atheists, folks who don’t believe in God.

She then proceeds to introduce her panel for this “discussion” which includes (wait for it…) three theists! Only one of whom, manages to mildly defend freedom of speech and civil liberties, but makes sure to profess his loyalty to his all-powerful authority figure before doing so.

Karen Hunter begins the discussion by questioning what more atheists could want:

Are we gonna take “In God We Trust” off of our dollars? Are we not gonna say “One nation under God”? When does it end? You know, We took prayer out of schools, what more do they want?

Now, normally, you would expect and unbiased journalist like Paula Zahn ( ) to correct her panel with the facts. She doesn’t have to present the Atheist point of view, only the facts. You know, like the fact that prayer has not been removed from schools, but forced state-sanctioned prayer has been declared unconstitutional. Karen seems to want to pose the question as if the apparent ridiculousness in her tone is enough to dismiss the entire subject. Not only that, but she acts like Christians did someone a favor by taking “prayer out of schools”. Nevermind the Constitution, the Atheists should be happy that we went along on that one.

Then Debbie Schlussel chimes in with her turn at the misinformation machine:

I think that, um, the real discrimination is Atheists against Americans who are religious. Listen, we are a Christian Nation.

Apparently this “attorney” is not familiar with Article 11 of the unanimously approved Treaty of Tripoli. Instead, she notes that she’s Jewish, as if to attempt to point out her objectivity on the subject, and goes on to posit that we are a Christian nation because there are a lot of Christians here.

She also manages to point out that:

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion

Well, I’ll be. Perhaps if she weren’t adhering to a inadequate and incomplete conventional wisdom interpretation of the establishment clause in the Constitution she might understand why her comment is flat out wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Notice that it doesn’t say “a religion”, it says “establishment of religion”. For it is inherent in the idea of freedom of religion that freedom from it must also be required. Otherwise you must choose which religion it’s going to be that gets to inhibit that freedom. Schlussel, obviously, thinks Christianity should be the religion that gets to restrict that freedom.

Moreover, forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. In other words, to put it so bluntly so someone as dim as Schlussel can understand it, freedom of religion, by definition, means freedom from Christianity. And the same goes for every single other religion present in the world. See? I’m not just picking on (or discriminating against) the Christians.

Stephen A. Smith, a sports analyst for ESPN (why is he there?), manages to interject a thin slice of rationality into the discussion, immediately after professing his love for his lord, by pointing out that you’re entitled to believe what you want as long as you’re not imposing those beliefs on other people.

But not to be outdone, Karen points out that the Atheists’ problem is marketing, and perhaps Atheists should adopt the Christian strategy of feeding off American consumerism to get their “message” out:
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

This is the basic summation of some new findings from the Pew Research Center for People & The Press, which is, honestly, not all that surprising. Maybe it’s because we’ve heard of similar findings from other sources regarding Daily Show viewers in the past:

During the May 23 [2006] edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly asserted that “[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what’s going on,” stating that they “get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.” In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are considerably better educated than viewers of The O’Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.

“Daily Show” viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O’Reilly’s audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.

I know, I know, statistics can be made out to say just about anything. But, if that’s really true, then someone has to ask where the surveys are that say the exact opposite. Where are the people fumbling with the numbers to make Fox “News” viewers seem intelligible and informed? I know we’ve heard Bill O’Reilly make up statements to that effect, but he didn’t really back it up with any survey results or anything. He was just being an ignorant blow-hard pontificating on his own intuitions, which turned out to be unequivocally false (go figure).

So, that being said, let’s heap another one onto the pile for good measure:

A new survey of 1,502 adults released Sunday by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that despite the mass appeal of the Internet and cable news since a previous poll in 1989, Americans’ knowledge of national affairs has slipped a little. For example, only 69% know that Dick Cheney is vice president, while 74% could identify Dan Quayle in that post in 1989.

Other details are equally eye-opening. Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot — with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct. Watchers of the Lehrer News Hour on PBS followed just behind.

Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. Fox topped only network morning show viewers.

Told that Shia was one group of Muslims struggling in Iraq, only 32% of the total sample could name “Sunni” as the other key group.

The percentage of those who knew their state’s governor dropped to 2 in 3. Almost half know that Rep. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and 2 in 3 know that Condi Rice is secretary of state. But just 29% can identify Scooter Libby, 21% know Robert Gates and 15% can name Sen. Harry Reid.

But nearly 9 in 10 knew about President Bush’s troop escalation in Iraq.

Men scored higher than women, and older Americans did better than younger, on average. Democrats and Republicans were about equally represented in the most knowledgeable group but there were more Republicans in the least aware group.

- via Editor & Publisher

Share This

Despite the signal the firing of Don Imus might have sent, it is perfectly acceptable to broadcast bigotry and ignorance… as long as you’re consistent. If you do it regularly, and wrap yourself up in the flag or shield it within the confines of religious belief, then it won’t get you fired. What it will get you is a nationally syndicated show, perhaps even under the guise of “news”. And it will get you viewers because controversy and inflammatory commentary is bound to appeal to a certain demographic, and really, ratings is what “news” is all about, right?

Perhaps Imus’ greatest crime was that he doesn’t use the sort of off-the-cuff insidious remarks that got him fired every day like, say…

Glenn Beck

On Muslims…

“OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. … With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, ‘Let’s cut and run.’ And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’ ”

- On the November 14, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim ever elected to Congress

On the blind…
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

It really is shame what some “News” organizations will pass off as news these days. I mean, really a shame. And the real problem lies, not in the fact that they do it, but that it isn’t a surprise when they do. It’s expected behavior now, for CNN, MSNBC, and FOX (faux) News to report on Britney Spears’ haircut, and Paris Hilton’s < insert alcohol related misstep here >, and the up-to-the-second whereabouts of Anna Nicole’s corpse. Thanks in no small part to the Associated Press.

It’s insane.

And it gets even worse when you throw in the grand-daddy of insane topics - politics. It is amazing that politicians can get away with e-molesting minors for years when we know about the drugs that their brother-in-law’s mother’s cousin did, including which nostril they ingested it through. Somehow, and through some fault of my own… I know about bush’s college parties, I know his daughters’ criminal records, I know the occupations of countless parents of politicians and I know how their parents came to the United States, what obstacles those long-dead people had to overcome, and probably how they died. Why do I know all of this, because someone, somewhere, thought the information was news-worthy, and decided to spend part of their short life on this planet writing about it.

All of this has led to a well prepared media that is ripe and ready for the circus that is Democratic Presidential Hopeful Barack Obama. I swear, I now know more about Obama’s family genealogy than I do about my own. This morning, both CNN and Fox had a story posted on their front page with this headline: Obama’s White Ancestors May Have Owned Slaves 1 2

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This